Module Code: MGT682
Coursework Code: MGT682-1
Module Title: Research Methods
Date Available: Monday 7 Feb 2022
Submission details:
Electronic submission only through Blackboard.
You are now allowed to utilise the Turnitin Check before the assignment deadline which can be accessed via the information room. This allows you to generate an originality report and use this to improve your referencing and citation skills.
Please note: Turnitin Check is NOT the final submission – you still need to submit your work to the Assignment Link on the module Blackboard site, otherwise it will be marked as Not Submitted.
You should note that the time of submission is taken from once the document has been successfully uploaded and confirmed – this may take more than five minutes during busy periods. Late penalties will be applied to any work submitted from 12.01pm on 20 May onwards. Details of how to calculate a late penalty can be found in your programme Handbook. It is your responsibility to ensure the correct document/file has uploaded successfully.
When submitting you must:
Include a completed cover sheet (available from Blackboard)
Use ‘Student Number, MGT682-1’ (e.g.190011001 MGT682-1) as the document’s file name and also as the Assignment Title in Turnitin.
A penalty of 5 marks will be applied to any work submitted that does not comply with this format.
Contribution to Final Mark for Module: (100%)
Maximum Word Length: 2000 words
Unless otherwise specified, the word count is for the main body of the text and ignores the reference list and appendices. If you exceed the word length you will be penalised. For details see the Management School Handbooks.
Please note that SUMS does not have a word count tolerance – it is a stated maximum as outlined above.
Requirements:
The aim of this assignment is to test your ability to apply the knowledge about data collection, analysis, and ethical issues, which you acquired in the lectures, tutorials, and the required reading for MGT 682.
Your research proposal needs to be structured in 5 different sections: 1) introduction and context, 2) short literature review 3) research approach, 4) data collection and analysis, and 5) ethical considerations. For each of these sections you will find below a variety of questions you need to answer.
To be able to answer these questions, you need to contextualise your assignment – you need to choose a research project. This can be the research you plan to undertake for your dissertation or another realistic research project of equal scope. It is expected that this assignment will serve as an extremely useful basis for planning the data collection, analysis and writing your ethics proposal for your actual dissertation research, but it does not need to be the actual focus of your dissertation.
In developing your research proposal, please consider the following three key points:
1. You must choose a realistic research project, which is related to your discipline.
2. This empirical project serves as the context for this assignment and for answering all the questions outlined below.
3. You can choose to do either a quantitative study, or a qualitative study or a secondary data analysis for this assignment (qualitative or quantitative). Sometimes, a study contains more than just one type of data collection (a ‘mixed methods’ study); however, for this assignment please choose only one type and do NOT choose a mixed-methods approach.
Structure your assignment according to the following five sections and make sure you address all the questions/issues detailed below.
Introduction and context (approximately 200 words)
This section provides an overview and rationale for your research, including a clear research question, aim and objectives. The purpose is to clarify the general problem/gap in knowledge that you are trying to address, and to explain the contribution and significance of your research.
a) Briefly describe your research topic.
b) State your research question.
c) State your research aim and objectives.
d) Provide an argument as to why it is important to investigate this question.
Short literature review (approximately 550 words)
This section involves searching for, summarising and evaluating literature relevant to your chosen research topic and question. The purpose is to identify gaps in the existing literature and think about the ways in which your research could help fill those gaps. This, in turn, will provide a clear justification for your research question.
a) Search for academic literature related to your research topic and question (e.g., journal articles, books). Identify three sources (three pieces of academic literature) that are most relevant and state what these are (i.e., cite your sources).
b) Describe specifically the search strategies you used to find your three key sources (e.g., databases used, search terms, etc).
c) For each of your three sources, summarise the information that is most important for your research question. Make it clear how each of your sources relates to your research question.
d) Evaluate each of your three sources to identify gaps in the existing research literature and/or limitations to be addressed.
e) Clarify how your research will contribute to the existing body of knowledge in your chosen research topic
Research approach (approximately 550 words)
This section provides an overview of the research approach you could use to investigate your research question. The purpose is to distinguish between inductive and deductive approaches to research, recognise how these approaches are underpinned by different philosophies, and identify which approach is more appropriate to answer your research question.
a) Explain which research philosophy is most appropriate to underpin your chosen research approach.
b) State the appropriate ontology and epistemology for your chosen research philosophy.
c) State which research approach (either inductive or deductive) you would choose to investigate your research question. Make clear the reasons for your choice.
d) Describe in detail how you would investigate your research question using your chosen research approach (either inductive or deductive).
e) Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using your chosen research approach (either inductive or deductive) to investigate your research question.
Data collection and analysis (approximately 500 words)
Note: You only need to answer 4a (for a quantitative study) OR 4b (for a qualitative study). You should NOT attempt to answer both.
4a. If you plan a quantitative study (or quantitative secondary data analysis), please explain the data collection method(s), state a hypothesis of your study and name its variables.
a. How will you measure your variables? [Which information in the secondary data relates to these variables?] Be as specific as you can!
b. Which type of scale level do these data/measures possess?
c. Which statistical test do you choose to test this hypothesis and why?
d. How will you gain access to collect your data?
e. Please discuss how can you ensure reliability and validity of your measurements
4b. If you plan a qualitative study (or qualitative secondary data analysis), please describe in detail:
a. How is the data in your study collected? How will you gain access to collect data, who would your participants be, what kind of sampling strategy would you use and what are the strengths/weaknesses of this?
b. Describe step-by-step: how will you analyse the data you will collect?
c. Which information will you report in your results section?
d. How will you ensure credibility, transferability, dependability, and reflexivity in your study?
Ethical issues (approximately 200 words)
Please discuss in detail:
a. What is the potential harm for the participants? How will this be managed to ensure appropriate protection and well-being of the participants?
b. How is data confidentiality handled and how is the data of this research stored?
c. Which ethical issues will not be /hardly be affected by this research and why?
d. Is consent needed from the participants?
A very good research proposal reflects your understanding of research methods, your awareness of the wider impact and risks of your research, your ability to make informed decisions, and your skill to express this in a coherent, reflective proposal. In a very good research proposal, the data collection and analysis follow logically from the hypotheses/research questions and the research approaches. For more information, please refer to the marking grid below.
Students are expected to make full of use the textbook, module readings, lecture slides and tutorial exercises in their answers and cite these sources appropriately in the assignment.
Assessment criteria
Hard Fail
(0-39)
Soft Fail
(40-49)
Pass
(50-59)
Merit
(60-69)
Distinction
(70-79)
Distinction
(80+)
1. Introduction (10%)
Ability to argue for the importance of a research subject.
Fails to define a specific research question, aims and objectives, and/or to argue practically or theoretically its importance.
Very simple statements about the importance of the subject; insufficiently specific research question, aims and objectives.
Gives some empirical and/or theoretical argument as to why research is important; provides a sufficiently clear research question, and appropriate research aims and objectives.
Provides a clear, well-argued reason why the research is important and connects it to a clear research question, with relevant aims and objectives.
Provides a very clear empirical and theoretical argument that explains why the very clear research question needs to be posed; provides very clear and highly relevant research aims and objectives.
Provides an exceptional empirical and theoretical argument that explains why the clear research question needs to be posed; provides exceptionally clear and relevant research aims and objectives.
2. Literature review (25%)
Ability to select appropriate literature and summarise in relation to research question; knowledge of and ability to employ different search strategies; ability to identify gaps in existing knowledge and clarify how own research will contribute to field.
Fails to identify relevant literature; no connection made to research question; no understanding of appropriate search strategies; fails to identify gaps in existing knowledge; fails to clarify how own research will contribute to field.
Insufficient literature selected and/or relevance for research question is unclear; fails to summarise in relation to research question; poor search strategies; poor identification of gaps in existing knowledge and/or poor clarification of how own research will contribute to field.
Summarises sources in relation to research question; relevance to topic area made clear; mostly appropriate search strategies sufficiently explained; sufficient identification of gaps in existing knowledge; sufficient clarification of how own research will contribute to field.
Summarises literature that provides different perspectives on research question; relevance to topic area very clear; uses a variety of appropriate search strategies; clear identification of gaps in existing knowledge; good clarification of how own research will contribute to field.
Provides critical and mutually supplementing perspectives on research question, which illustrate a deep understanding of the literature; uses extensive and iterative search strategies; excellent identification of gaps in existing knowledge; excellent clarification of how own research will contribute to field.
Provides an exceptionally insightful perspective on the research question; uses exceptionally extensive search strategies; exceptional identification of gaps in existing knowledge; exceptional clarification of how own research will contribute to field.
3. Research approach (20%)
Knowledge about different research approaches; ability to apply them to the research question; ability to critically evaluate their respective appropriateness; recognition of own research philosophy..
No understanding of inductive or deductive research approach; is not able to apply chosen approach to the research question; decision for research approach unclearly motivated; no awareness that research philosophies and research approach are connected.
Poor understanding of inductive or deductive research approach; fails largely in applying chosen approach to the research question; poorly motivated decision for chosen approach; unclear/incorrect inference of philosophical background.
Demonstrates knowledge of inductive or deductive research approach; is mostly able to apply chosen approach appropriately to the research question; argues for the use of a specific research approach in relation to research question; infers own philosophical framework largely correctly
Demonstrates good understanding of inductive or deductive research approach; is able to apply chosen approach appropriately to the research question; well- argued decision for the research approach in relation to research question; well-presented arguments for philosophical framework, mostly in line with research approach.
Shows a very deep understanding of inductive or deductive research approach; is able to apply chosen approach to the research question in a way that presents a viable and realistic design; critical, weighted and well-argued decision for the research approach in relation to research question; very clear explanation of own philosophical background, relating to research question and approach.
Exceptional understanding of inductive or deductive research approach; is very able to apply chosen approach to the research question leading to an exceptional and realistic design; critical, weighted and well-argued decision for the research approach in relation to question; exceptionally clear explanation of own philosophical background, relating to research question and approach.
4. Data collection & analysis (25%)
Quantitative: Ability to set an appropriate hypothesis, identify variables and select valid and reliable measurement instruments; knowledge on how hypotheses, measurement and statistical tests are related
Qualitative: Ability to identify appropriate methods of data collection; understanding of quality criteria in qualitative research and how they are ensured; understanding of appropriate qualitative analysis in light of collected data
Quantitative: Insufficient ability to set up an appropriate hypothesis and/or identification of relevant variables; very limited understanding of reliability and validity issues; no understanding of the connection of hypothesis, measurement, and analysis.
Qualitative: No understanding of qualitative research data collection. Lack of clarity/specification on the quality criteria or on how to ensure them in own research; no understanding of the qualitative analysis.
Quantitative: Limited understanding of hypotheses and variables; insufficient and or unrealistic measurements; only general/limited statements of reliability and validity; limited understanding of the connection between hypothesis, measurement, and analysis.
Qualitative: Unclear data collection, limited understanding of qualitative research criteria; largely unable to relate them to own research; limited understanding of qualitative analysis, unjustified choice of analysis, limited detail of procedures.
Quantitative: Sufficient understanding of hypotheses and variables with minor mistakes/omissions; knowledge of suitable measurements; some understanding of reliability and validity; correct selection of analysis depending on measures and hypotheses. Some mistakes but understanding of the central processes.
Qualitative: Largely correct understanding of data collection and of qualitative research criteria; mostly correct application to own research; some understanding of qualitative analysis, recognises that choice of analysis and research question need to be aligned. Results part described sufficiently. Some minor mistakes
Quantitative: Good understanding of hypotheses and variables; carefully selected measures illustrating an awareness of validity and reliability; correct selection of analysis, depending on hypotheses and measurements. Largely correctly argued.
Qualitative: Good understanding of qualitative research data collection and criteria; able to apply them to own research; good understanding of qualitative analysis, great detail about analysis; detailed description of the analysis (including examples of codes e.g.). Very minor errors.
Quantitative: Very good understanding of complex hypotheses and variables: carefully selected measures illustrating an awareness of validity and reliability; correct selection of analysis, depending on hypotheses and measurements. Very concisely and correctly explained.
Qualitative: Very good understanding of qualitative research process, data collection and criteria; correct application to own research; very good understanding of qualitative analysis, makes it clear that choice of analysis and research question need to be aligned. Very detailed description of the analysis and awareness of elements required for results part.
Quantitative: Exceptionally good understanding of complex hypotheses and variables: very carefully selected measures; illustrating a very deep understanding awareness of validity and reliability; correct selection of analysis, depending on hypotheses and measurements. Very concisely, correctly, and well explained.
Qualitative: Extraordinary understanding of qualitative research process, data collection and criteria; correct application to own research; exceptionally good understanding of qualitative analysis, clear that choice of analysis and research question need to be aligned. Very detailed description of the analysis
5. Ethical Issues (10%)
Knowledge of the ethical issues of relevance in a study with humans and ability to recognise them in own research; knowledge about remedies and strategies to deal with ethical issues.
No understanding of ethical issues and/or inability to relate them to the own research; insufficient knowledge how to ensure the own research is ethical
Very limited understanding of ethical issues and/or only limited ability to connect them to own research; largely insufficient knowledge of remedies to ensure ethical procedures.
Largely sufficient knowledge of different ethical issues and their relevance for the own research; largely correct procedures to ensure ethical conduct. Some minor misunderstandings.
Good knowledge of the ethical issues of the own research, ability to recognise which will be more and which will be less of an issue in the presented research; correct procedures in place to ensure ethical conduct. Very minor errors.
Very good knowledge of the ethical issues of the own research, and very good ability to recognise which will be more/less of an issue in the presented research and why; correct procedures in place to ensure ethical conduct.
Exceptionally good knowledge of the ethical risks in relation to own study; exceptional ability to recognise and assess specific issues them in the presented research; correct and exceptionally careful procedures in place to ensure ethical conduct.
6. Language, coherence and referencing (10%)
Clarity of the overall structure and of the text. Appropriate referencing (Harvard style)
Very hard to understand, poor spelling and grammar. The proposal does not follow the four sections structure/answer the questions: inappropriate or non-existent referencing
The assignment can be understood by a reader but has major structural, spelling, grammar, or academic style limitations. No clear structure, not all four sections are sufficiently developed. Poor referencing.
Some errors and/or omissions in the English and referencing and/or a structure that does not help in establishing the answers. However most questions are answered, and the assignment can be understood
Generally sound in spelling, grammar and academic style with a structure that facilitates understanding of the arguments presented. Some scattered errors or omissions.
Very clearly written with appropriate referencing throughout and a structure that allows sufficient coverage of all relevant matters.
Exceptionally clearly written with appropriate referencing throughout and a structure that allows an exceptionally well-balanced coverage of all relevant matters.
Referencing: you must reference your work correctly using the Harvard method. Failure to do so will result in the deduction of marks and possible proceedings under the University’s Regulations as to the Use of Unfair Means
Independence of working:
You are reminded of the University’s Regulations on the Use of Unfair Means and academic integrity which are outlined in the School’s Handbooks. If there is a suspicion that your work is not your own and that you have used unfair means or there is suspicion of a breach of academic integrity in writing this assessment then you may be referred to our unfair means officers to consider your work. Therefore, you are advised to ensure that you undertake the relevant guidance on the module site or programme level sites that you have access too. If you cannot access these, please contact the Student Experience Office.
Other Submission Details:
Assignments must;
Be structured according to the five sections outlined above in the “Requirements” section, using headings to separate the individual parts.
Use the standard Management School cover sheet
Have the word count given on the cover sheet
Be presented with 2.5cm margins all round
Use Times New Roman or Arial, 11 or 12 point for the main body text
Use 1.5 line spacing
Have all pages numbered except the first
Be properly spell checked
Be made attractive with suitable use of headings, paragraphs and sections
Be properly referenced to the Management School version of Harvard referencing
Resit:
The resit will take the same form as the initial assignment, and the resit specification will look almost identical to this coursework specification.
You should pay very careful attention to feedback on your first assignment before deciding whether/how far to change your proposal in your resit – it may be that your basic proposal was sound but lacking in key details, or it may be that it was fundamentally flawed and needs to be rethought entirely. This will be made clear in your assignment feedback.
Other matters:
Try to get started on this assignment as early as possible in semester two, by which time you should probably have a good idea of what your dissertation project could be. This will help you answering Section 1 “Introduction and Context” of the Specific Requirements.
You may start the writing process on Sections 2 and 3 early in semester 2 as you will have covered reviewing literature and quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research in semester 1. Continue with Section 4 when we have covered data analysis, and Section 5 when we have covered research ethics in class, both in semester 2.
You should continually revisit and refine each of these sections once your writing is finished – so give yourself enough time for this!