Cardiff Metropolitan University
MODULE TITLE:
Research Methodologies
PROGRAMME:
MBA
SEMESTER:
3
TERM:
July – September 2014
LECTURER SETTING ASSESSMENT:
Roger Telfer
DATE ASSESSMENT TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTTED:
August 20th. 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Assessment Type: Assignment

Question 1 (50%) Research Design Proposal

Question 2 (50%) Literature/ Evidence Review
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Indicative Assessment Requirements for the Module:
Maximum Word Limit and Assessment weighting for each aspect within the assessment:
The overall limit for the assignment is 4,000 words
The marking scheme/weighting is included later in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Assessment Requirements
You are required to create a proposal for a research project aimed at a business related problem or
opportunity.
In addition, you must prepare a literature review and evidence review, fully referenced, on your
research proposal.
Guidelines for undertaking the Assignment / Marking criteria and marking allocation
The research proposal must include a background which describes the basic situation underlying your
project.
It must include a statement of the problem or opportunity that is the aim of your project. It must
describe the rationale for your project, why you wish to carry out this research and the benefits that will
accrue from its successful conclusion.
You must create research objectives that, when you successfully complete them, will have the
information that enables you to solve the problem or capitalise on the opportunity that is the aim of
your research.
It must also include a literature review which evaluates the context for your research and sources
academic research and models that are relevant to the project. It should include a critical evaluation of
relevant theoretical and practical references and include breadth of understanding and depth of critical
evaluation. Reviews will require analysis and evaluation of evidence and sources and be informed by
theory and appropriate practice.
You must evaluate and fully describe the research methods that will be necessary to successfully
complete the research. Data collection methods must be selected and described which are consistent
with the research philosophy necessary for its completion: these will include secondary and primary
data sources. The methods by which the data you collect will be analyzed need to be justified.
Finally, ethical, validity and reliability issues relevant to the research must be discussed and a time plan
for its completion must be calculated and displayed as a Gantt chart.




A Case Study, Business Development Plan or Dissertation topics can be used if desired but it is not
mandatory
Discussion and debate on the above mentioned topics should be seen.
There must be sufficient linkage between theory and practice.
Harvard style of referencing should be used
Some guidance to the contents and recommended structure of the Proposal is shown below:
Section 1: Background (400 words)
Is the overall context for the research well established?
Is the research topic interesting from an academic and practical perspective?
Is there a statement of the problem?
Is there a rationale for the topic?
Is it clear what aspects of the chosen topic will be researched?
Do the boundaries of the research make sense?
Is there a clear statement of the aim of the research?
Are research objectives included and are they specific?
Are the research objectives matched to the research question(s)?
Section 2: Literature Review (2000 words)
2.1 Introduction
Is the domain explained?
Is there a rationale for the chosen topic?
Is there a wider point of reference?
2.2 The Main Body
Is there a clear structure?
Does the review flow into a logical progression?
Does the review convey the thinking of the writer?
Use of secondary sources, citation, references, synthesis, critique, chronology, seminal works,
models?
Is the current position conveyed?
Is there a set of emergent conclusions?
2. 3 Conclusion
Is there a clear concluding statement?
Is there a clear implication for further research?
Are research questions specified?
Are there emergent themes?
Is the literature review conclusive?
Is a conceptual framework established?
Section 3: Research Methodology (1200 words)
Is there a logical and cohesive structure to the proposal?
Are all the relevant sections included?
Is the approach adequately explained?
Is the scope of Literature outlined relevant to the research objectives to address the research questions?
Is the relevance of the literature, models, theories and frameworks for thinking justified?
Are the proposed research methods appropriate to the research task?
Have the data types been defined and classified?
Have target populations and samples been defined and justified?
Section 4: Data Analysis (200 words)
Is the proposal for analysis linked back to the literature and the research questions?
Have analysis methods been specified?
Section 5 Ethics, Validity and Reliability issues + time plan (200 words)
Are validity and reliability issues discussed?
Is there an adequate time plan for the research?
Have academic protocols for referencing been met?
Are the intended outcomes for the research made known, so there is a clear understanding of the value
added?
Note that the suggested number of words should only be an approximate guide. The quality of the
work, not the quantity, is the factor which needs to guide the writing of the proposal.
Learning Outcomes:
Upon successful completion of this module students will be able to:










Formulate research questions and describe and critically evaluate differing research methods,
including the formation of hypotheses, or other research models, or paradigms and justify the
selection and use of specific research methodologies;
Integrate and plan key research activities and schedules including the setting of timetables and
research objectives, and the acceptance of accountability for all aspects of the conduct of a
research project
Understand the importance of, and be able to effectively demonstrate skills in, the conventions
which are required for the carrying out of a major research project including the design of
experimental and non-experimental research projects; the preparation of an integrated research
proposal and effectively manage the design and delivery of this.
Comprehend and critically evaluate the differentiation between qualitative and quantitative
methods as they are used in research design and evaluate the appropriateness of their
application, use, and value in differing aspects of business functions and requirements.
Critically appraise the importance of, and the definitions and nature of, primary and secondary
data, and be able to plan for (a) the selection, collection, or creation of data for interpretation
and data analysis; and (b) critically analyse, interpret and manipulate data, and (c) synthesis
results and interpretation of data and form conclusions.
Assimilate and review an appropriate range of literature sources and other appropriate
sources/evidential materials.
Identify the underlying principles of various analytical methods commonly applied in business and
management research;
Select appropriate analytical techniques according to the nature of the research;
Compute descriptive and inferential statistics using SPSS;
Be able to communicate effectively in, numeric, verbal and literary form to a variety of
audiences using appropriate business language, terminology, and concepts including Construct
questionnaires, evaluate their reliability, and analyse and evaluate the data produced
(quantitative/qualitative or other)
ASSIGNMENT MARKING CRITERIA
MARK
29 or less
30 - 39
40 - 49
50 - 59
60 – 69
70 +
CONTENT:
Has the question been
answered?
Vague, random,
unrelated
material
Some mention
of the issue,
but a collection
of disparate
points
Barely
answers the
question –
just
reproduces
what knows
about the
topic
Some looseness/
digressions
Well focused
Highly focused
TOPIC KNOWLEDGE
Is there evidence of having
read widely and use of
appropriate and up to date
material to make a case?
No evidence of
reading.
No use of theory
– not even hinted
at implicitly.
No evidence of
reading.
An implicit hint
at some
knowledge of
theory, etc.
No evidence
of reading.
Very basic
theories
mentioned
but not
developed or
well used.
Some reading
evident, but
confined to core
texts.
Good reading.
Good range of
theories included.
Excellent reading.
Well chosen
theories.
UNDERSTANDING &
SYNTHESIS
Are ideas summarized rather
than being reproduced, and
are they inter-related with
other ideas?
No theory
included.
Vague
assertions/
Poor
explanations.
Long winded
descriptions
of theory.
Some long
winded sections.
Some quotations,
but stand alone.
Some interconnections.
Good summary of
theory.
Good use of
quotations that
flow with
narrative.
Good interconnections.
Succinct, effective
summaries of
theory. Excellent
choice and
threading of
quotations into
argument. Good
counterpoising of a
range of
perspectives.
APPLICATION
Does it show appropriate use
of theory in a practical
situation?
No examples
No/limited/
inappropriate
examples
Few examples
Uneven examples
Good examples
Excellent range of
examples.
ANALYSIS
Does it identify the key issues,
etc in a given scenario,
proposal or argument?
Vague assertions
about issues.
Largely
descriptive
with no
identification
and analysis of
central issues.
Limited
insight into
issues.
Some good
observations.
Good, detailed
analysis.
Comprehensive
range of issues
identified and
discussed fully.
EVALUATION & RECS.
Does it critically assess
material?
Are there workable and
imaginative solutions?
No evaluation.
Uncritical
acceptance of
material.
Some
evaluation but
weak. Little
insight.
Good
interpretation.
Some but limited
sophistication in
argument.
Good critical
assessment.
Independent
thought
displayed.
Full critical
assessment and
substantial
individual insight.
REFERENCING
Thorough and accurate
citation and referencing
No referencing
No referencing
Limited/poor
referencing
Some
inconsistencies in
referencing
Appropriate
referencing
Appropriate
referencing
PRESENTATION
Logical and coherent structure
to argument and effective
presentation
No structure
apparent.
Poor
presentation.
Poor structure.
Poor
presentation.
Acceptable,
but uneven
structure.
Reasonable
presentation.
Reasonable
structure.
Good
presentation.
Good argument.
Well presented
material.
Excellent argument.
Very effective
presentation
format.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES ASSESSMENT
Assessment Form
Student Name:
Topic
Q1
Part 1
Introduction
Part 2
The Research
Design
Proposal
Q1. Research Design Proposal
Q2. Literature Review
.
Is the overall context for the research well
established?
.
Is the purpose adequately explained?
.
Is the research topic interesting from an academic
and practical perspective?
.
Is it clear what aspects of the chosen topic will be
researched?
.
Do the boundaries of the research make sense?
Marks
.
.
Are the research questions well conceived?
Is there a logical and cohesive structure to the
proposal?
Are all the relevant sections included?
Is the approach adequately explained?
Is the scope of Literature outlined relevant to the
research objectives to address the research
questions?
Is the relevance of the literature, models, theories
and frameworks for thinking justified?
Are the proposed research methods appropriate to
the research task?
Have the data types been defined and classified?
Have target populations and samples been defined
and justified?
/25
Is the proposal for analysis linked back to the
literature and the research questions?
Have analysis methods been specified?
Are ethical issues considered?
Is there an adequate time plan for the research?
Have academic protocols for referencing been
met?
Are the intended outcomes for the research made
known, so there is a clear understanding of the
value added?
/13
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Part 3
Plan of
analysis, etc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Q2
Part 1
The LR
Introduction
Introduction (500 words)
.
Is the domain explained?
.
Is there a rationale for the chosen topic?
.
Is there a wider point of reference?
/12
/12
Part 2
The Main
Body of the
LR
.
.
.
.
.
.
Part 3
Conclusion
.
.
.
.
.
.
Is there a clear structure
Does the review flow into a logical progression?
Does the review convey the thinking of the writer?
Use of secondary sources, citation, references,
synthesis, critique, chronology, seminal works,
models?
Is the current position conveyed?
Is there a set of emergent conclusions?
Is there a clear concluding statement?
Is there a clear implication for further research?
Are research questions specified?
Are there emergent themes?
Is the literature review conclusive?
Is a conceptual framework established?
Total
General comments + strengths/weaknesses/areas for improvement:
1st Marker:
Date:
/25
/13
/100