PBS6000 – Honours project, 2022/23
Assignment Brief – Proposal
For this 20% weighted assignment, you will write a proposal for your research project that will
explain what research you plan to undertake and how you will undertake it.
Word Count : 1,500 (+/- 10%)
Due date : Tuesday 1st November 2022
Below is the suggested structure for your proposal alongside content that would typically be
included within each section.
Title Page
•
•
•
Introduction
•
•
•
Review of key literature
•
•
Methodology
•
•
•
•
Title is understandable and clear.
Title is realistic in scope and reflects
appropriately the chosen topic area
as explained throughout the
proposal.
Includes name, student number
programme of study and pathway (if
the latter is relevant).
Includes word count.
Provides a rationale for the
proposed project supported by
relevant literature and/or statistics.
Outlines clearly the research aim
and provides 3-5 realistic research
objectives.
Provides an overview of the main
theoretical and empirical literature
relevant to the project.
Utilises a good range of appropriate
and relevant sources.
Outlines the methodological
approach proposed.
Considers what information is
needed and who/what the
researcher will need to access to
undertake the research, including
whether access has been arranged.
Outlines the ethical considerations
of undertaking a research project.
Lays out a reasonable schedule for
the research taking into
consideration all phases of the
research and final submission.
(Suggested inclusion of a chart e.g.
Gantt Chart)
References
•
•
Appropriate range of references
included.
All references included in the body of
the proposal are listed in a full final
list
of
references,
accurately
presented in Harvard style. (This is
not included in the word count)
The proposal must be Arial font size 12, 1.5 spacing, and with consecutive page numbers.
Referencing must be according to the Harvard system. Please ensure your work is thoroughly
proofread, has accurate spelling and grammar, and professional formatting.
Please note that the; title page, table of contents and reference list are not included in your
word count.
For students who are taking a programme pathway, please indicate on the front cover of your
work what pathway so your markers are aware. For Human Resources Management students
ONLY: Your project must be related to HR.
Marking Criteria
Marking Criteria
First Class 70-100%
Introduction
The proposed research is
fully justified, with concisely
specified reasons given.
10 marks
Upper second class 6069%
The proposed research is
well justified, with concisely
specified reasons given.
(approx. 250 words)
Review of key
literature
30 marks
(approx. 550 words)
Outlines clearly the research
aim and provides 3-5 realistic
research objectives.
Outlines clearly the
research aim and provides
3-5 realistic research
objectives.
The literature review has an
excellent and logical
structure, with all sections
and subsections involving a
clearly articulated critical
analysis of the literature
which may involve discussion
of contradictions between
leading experts.
The literature review is
structured very well, with
strong evidence that the
literature has been critically
analysed.
The literature review mostly
evaluates relevant and
appropriate academic
literature from leading
experts in the research area,
with emphasis on evaluating
The literature review
evaluates up-to-date
academic literature from
leading experts in the
research area.
Lower Second
class 50-59%
Provides a
satisfactory rationale
for the proposed
project with
supporting reasons.
A satisfactory
research aim and
set of research
objectives has been
provided.
The literature
review is
appropriately
structured with some
evidence of critical
analysis, but mostly
descriptive.
The literature review
may fail to evaluate
literature from
leading experts in
the research area.
The literature review
may place emphasis
Third class 40-49%
Fail 0-39%
Only a limited
rationale has been
provided for the
proposed project.
No rationale has
been provided for
the proposed
project.
The research aim
and objectives are
poorly constructed
or incomplete.
No research aim or
objectives are
provided,
The literature review
is poorly structured
with minimal
evidence of critical
analysis.
No review of the
literature has been
provided.
The literature review
may primarily
contain discussion
of non-academic
literature sources, in
a descriptive and
Review of the
literature may be
incomplete with too
few academic
references and
overall poor
structure which
peer reviewed academic
sources.
Methodology
40 marks
(approx. 700 words)
on discussion of
non-academic
sources.
non-analytical
manner.
lacks focus and
relevance.
The literature review critically
analyses literature within the
context of the research
question that has been set.
The literature review is
focussed on evaluating
academic sources,
including peer-reviewed
journal articles, textbooks
and academic conference
articles.
An analysis of the proposed
methodology has been
provided which fully justifies
the choice of research
approach by referring to
appropriate academic
sources.
A very good analysis of the
proposed methodology has
been provided which
justifies the choice of
research approach with
reference to academic
sources.
A good attempt to
discuss and justify
the research
methodology has
been provided with
references to some
academic sources.
An incomplete
attempt to discuss
and justify the
proposed
methodology.
No attempt to
explain the
methodology
proposed.
Excellent evaluation of what
information is needed and
who/what the researcher will
need to access to undertake
the research, including
whether access has been
arranged.
Very good evaluation of
what information is needed
and who/what the
researcher will need to
access to undertake the
research, including whether
access has been arranged.
Good consideration
of what information
is needed and
who/what the
researcher will need
to access to
undertake the
research, including
whether access has
been arranged.
An incomplete
consideration of
what information is
needed and
who/what the
researcher will need
to access to
undertake the
research, including
whether access has
been arranged.
No consideration of
what information is
needed and
who/what the
researcher will
need to access to
undertake the
research, including
whether access has
been arranged.
Clearly outlines appropriate
ethical considerations of the
proposed research.
A good attempt to outline
appropriate ethical
considerations of the
proposed research.
A satisfactory
attempt to outline
appropriate ethical
considerations of the
proposed research.
An incomplete
attempt to outline
appropriate ethical
considerations of the
proposed research.
No attempt to
outline appropriate
ethical
considerations of
References
10 marks
Professionalism of
proposal
10 marks
The schedule provides
comprehensive details and
complete coverage of the
proposed research activities
throughout the whole of
PBS6000. Events contained
are shown in a logical
sequence with realistic time
allocated to different
activities. Clearly and
professionally presented with
no errors or omissions of key
activities.
All sources are correctly and
fully referenced within text
and in the final reference list.
The schedule is detailed
and provides realistic
coverage of the proposed
research activities
throughout the whole of
PBS6000. Events contained
are shown in a logical
sequence. Clear and wellpresented.
Sources are mostly
correctly and fully
referenced within text and
in the final reference list.
The proposed project is
realistic in scope and
coherent in its explanation.
The proposed project is
mostly realistic in scope
and coherent in its
explanation.
The proposal is
professionally presented and
formatted.
The proposal is
professionally presented
and formatted.
Accurate spelling and
grammar.
Good spelling and
grammar.
the proposed
research.
The schedule
provides realistic
consideration of the
proposed activities,
but may lack detail
specific to the
proposed research.
The schedule may
be incomplete or
show planned
activities in vague
terms.
A satisfactory
standard of
referencing is
provided within text
and references list.
The proposed
project is mostly
realistic in scope
and mostly coherent
in its explanation.
References may be
missing or
incomplete within
the text and
references list.
There are issues
with how realistic the
scope of the project
is and explanation is
incoherent in places.
Very poor
referencing with
numerous errors
and omissions.
The proposal is
mostly
professionally
presented and
formatted.
Satisfactory spelling
and grammar.
The proposal is
mostly
unprofessional in its
presentation and
formatting.
Poor spelling and
grammar.
The proposal is
unprofessional in its
presentation and
formatting.
No schedule
provided or mostly
incomplete.
The proposed
project is unrealistic
in scope and the
explanation is
incoherent.
Very poor spelling
and grammar.
Within the stipulated word
count.
Within the stipulated word
count
Within the stipulated
word count.
Falls just outside the
stipulated word
count.
Not within the
stipulated word
count.
Grades and degree classifications
Each assessment will have its own set of assessment criteria. The following briefly describe what is required to for work to be awarded a grade
within each degree classification.
•
First class (70%+). Work considered excellent. The submission will be critical and analytical throughout. Any question will be answered
directly, using a coherent set of arguments that are informed by an appropriate range of literature. The presentation will be highly fluent and
articulate throughout.
•
Upper second-class (60%-69%). Work considered very good. The submission will contain a full understanding of the issues and be well
reasoned. Any answer will have a good appreciation of the required tasks, and demonstrate a highly competent set of arguments that are built
on a good selection of appropriate literature. The presentation will be fluent and articulate.
•
Lower second-class (50%-59%). Work considered good. The submission will understand the required task and address it with
competence. However, some aspects of the way material is used will be lacking. For example, explanations of relevance or application may be
partly unclear or ineffective. The presentation of material may lack fluency and clarity in places.
•
Third class (40%-49%). Work considered satisfactory. The submission will address the required task in a basic manner. The submission
will understand the required task and show some appreciation of what is required. The submission may be flawed and not address all aspects
fully or clearly. The presentation of material may have problems with fluency and clarity.
•
Fail (<40%). Work that does not pass the assessment. The submission may not have addressed the required task or addressed it in an
inadequate manner. It will fail to demonstrate an understanding of the relevant theory and / or principles underpinning a satisfactory submission.
The presentation may contain serious problems.
Once provisional assessment marks are released they will have gone through the University’s moderation process. This process ensures that
the marks are fair, reliable and consistent with marking criteria. At this point marks can only be changed for two reasons (1) there has been a
procedural error (e.g. there has been an error in data entry) (2) an external examiner chooses to systematically adjust marks at the subject
examination board.
Extenuating Circumstances
Module staff are unable to give you extensions to deadlines. If you have a valid reason for late submission, you must complete an extenuating
circumstances form.
The University operates a ‘fit-to-sit’ policy. If you think that your ability to attend or complete an assessment is being affected by extenuating
circumstances, you must not sit or complete a time-specific assessment and must submit a valid Extenuating Circumstances form. If you attempt
a time-specific assessment, then this is normally taken as your declaration that you consider yourself fit to do so.
Extenuating circumstances are circumstances which:
•
•
•
•
have a significant impact on your ability to attend or complete assessment(s), and
are exceptional, and
are outside your control, and
occurred during or shortly before the assessment in question.
If you have a long-term health condition, you are advised to complete a ‘long-term health condition notification’ form and submit it with evidence
to ArtsHumAdmin@plymouth.ac.uk. You should also consider contacting Disability Services who may be able to provide further support for your
learning.
If you wish to claim for extenuating circumstances or to find out more on our policies in this area, then please consult this university
webpage where you will find a downloadable form, together with information on circumstances that might be considered valid and requirements
for the submission of corroborating evidence.
In the case of assessed coursework, or equivalent, your extenuating circumstances claim should be submitted as soon as possible, and normally
no later than ten working days after the deadline for the submission of your work.
If you submit a claim for an extension to your coursework deadline for a taught module you should not wait for a decision on your claim
before submitting your work. You should submit the final version of your work within:
• five working days of the original published deadline for self-certified claims, or
• ten working days of the original published deadline for all other claims
Where extenuating circumstances are deemed invalid, any coursework which is percentage marked and submitted after the deadline date and
time will be capped at the minimum pass mark within the first 24 hours of the deadline or will be awarded a mark of zero if submitted more than
24 hours late.
Academic Offences
Academic offences, including plagiarism, are treated very seriously in the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Business. A student who is proven to
have committed an academic offence may be placing his or her degree in jeopardy. It is your responsibility as a student to make sure that you
understand what constitutes an academic offence.
Your work must be your own and your chosen sources must be acknowledged both in your text and in your reference list. To copy another
person’s work is viewed as plagiarism and will result in you receiving a zero for your assignment and possibly expulsion from the university
altogether. If you are unsure about what constitutes plagiarism, please click here
You can self-review coursework prior to submission using the University’s Turnitin software. This tool assesses the originality of pieces of
academic writing and detects potential academic offences such as plagiarism. The use of Turnitin is becoming standard practice at most UK
universities as a way of ensuring academic standards. If you have any concerns about use of Turnitin please contact your Programme
Manager and/or personal tutor. Further information can be found here (log-in required).