Looking for Plagiarism-Free Answers for Your US, UK, Singapore, New Zealand, and Ireland College/University Assignments?
Talk to an Expert| Category | Assignment | Subject | Business |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | University of Westminster | Module Title | 7BUSS002W Business Research Methods |
| Word Count | 3000-3500 Words |
|---|---|
| Assessment Type | Written Assignment |
| Assessment Title | Project Proposal |
| Academic Year | 2025-26 |
The assessment for this module is the Summative proposal, with a weighting of 100%. However, you must meet the requirements of the following:
This module supports students to enhance their research knowledge and practical skills, where the emphasis is on the development of a focused project proposal. The proposal aims to test students’ ability in designing and planning research whilst, at the same time, providing an opportunity for students to learn and develop the requirements to undertake an authentic project. Writing a research proposal is a critical stage in the preparation of a project. Therefore, whilst there is a need here to focus assessment on students' understanding of academic research development, it is important to make sure that they:
There is a need to focus on and provide formal feedback on the academic standard and viability of the student’s project proposal at an early stage in the project development.
Therefore, the totality of assessment in this module is through the student research project proposal, which must address the entire module learning outcomes.
Based on the topic students submit, they are assigned a project supervisor who provides guidance in the development of the project proposal and in the further development of the Master’s student project itself. The latter is not part of this module, but part of the Project module.
Formative feedback: Before submission of the summative proposal, students have an opportunity to have a meeting with their allocated supervisor and also to submit their draft proposal via Blackboard for feedback.
The following graph illustrates the steps:
1. Submission of Project Topic Form (PTF)
As part of your Project Module, you will be assigned a Project Supervisor who will support you in the process of your project submission, which is an independent piece of research. To be able to allocate you a project supervisor broadly relevant to your project topic, we ask you to submit a Project Topic Form by following the link on Blackboard.
Please note: think seriously about the feasibility and suitability of your suggested research topic before submission of this form. Your research question/area can still slightly evolve after submission of this form, but cannot change drastically, and must remain within the capabilities/knowledge of your supervisor. It is not possible to change supervisors once they have been allocated.
Whilst not assessed, submission of the topic form is compulsory and essential for the allocation of your supervisor. Any delay in submission will result in an automatic delay of your supervisor allocation. The contact details of your project supervisor will be published on Blackboard.
2. Submission of Formative (Draft) Proposal
The purpose of the formative assessment is to support you with writing the summative proposal. After you submit this formative element of the assessment, your project supervisor will give feedback that you can build on when writing your summative proposal. While this assessment is formative and not assessed, we encourage you to engage in it as it allows you to get valuable feedback from your supervisor before submission of your summative proposal.
Topic/Title of your Project proposal:
The Project Proposal is based on the research topic you submitted on the Project Topic Form (PTF).
Structure and Contents of your Project Proposal:
The Project Proposal is an outline of your intended Project, providing information on what, why, how conceptually and how practically your research idea is. It will effectively be an introduction, a literature review and will include an outline of your research method/methodology.
The purpose is to show the reader you have managed to arrange your broad Project research ideas into a logical account of research intention, and that these plans are justifiable and achievable. It requires you to think clearly about your research objectives, research methods and relevant literature.
Proposals should comprise the following areas:
i. Title of your Project Proposal: Reflect as accurately as possible the content of your proposal
ii. Introduction to the research: context-background
This section should describe the area you will be investigating and explain the rationale and the context for your research plans. Explain why you are interested in the research topic, and why it is worthwhile. You should provide sufficient background information on the issues you want to research for the reader to be able to understand the rest of your Project as well as its value. If you focus on an organisation, you should provide enough organisational information to put your research plans into context.
iii. Review of the literature
This should be presented under a separate heading. Through this review, you show that you have acquired knowledge about the literature that relates to your research area and identify the research/gaps, which your research relates to. It is not intended as a near-finished comprehensive critical analysis of the literature at this stage. In the Project Proposal, provide an identification of themes from academic and other relevant recent and/or historically important literature, which acts as the basis for your intended study and, most importantly, clarify where your intended study fits into this debate.
You must include key relevant literature, with references to key texts and especially refereed journal articles (RJA). Normally, we would expect 10-12 references of RJAs.
iv. Specific research questions
Here, or at the end of the literature review section, clarify the link between the previous research done in your field of interest and your research focus.
Specific research questions: this may be one overall question or several key questions that the research will address. If suitable, you could add research objectives which make it clear to the reader exactly what is being planned by the proposed research: identifying what is to be analysed, and to what purpose. Your questions and objectives should provide sufficient scope for a project of this size, but also be achievable within the resources available to you. They should not be vague or too general and should lead to observable outcomes.
The research questions and objectives will be used by the reader to judge the rest of your proposal, so make sure that your proposed research design, data collection and analysis fit with these.
If relevant and suitable, the research questions could be formulated as hypotheses.
Please refer to:
Chapter 12 in Saunders, N.K., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2023). Research Methods for Business Students, 9th edition, Pearson. for more guidance on hypotheses.
- Bloom’s taxonomy of verbs to identify more ‘master’ level active verbs you could use as part of your research questions.
v. Research design, methodology, and method
This refers to an overall view of the methodology, design and methods chosen to answer your research questions and achieve your research objectives, as well as a justification of these choices.
Provide information and justification for the methodology and research design you propose. Methodology refers to the broad approach you plan to take – issues such as positivism or interpretivism; inductive or deductive; qualitative or quantitative or mixed methods; etc. You also need to outline and justify your research design: for instance, case study, cross-sectional survey, action research, ethnographic study, etc. If relevant, it should also detail particular areas your research will focus on, such as sectors of industry, regions, organizations and the characteristics of your research population.
Data/information requirements: Identify from your research questions, objectives or hypothesis, what main data or information you will need to acquire to be able to answer these. If no empirical data is needed, make this clear.
vi. Data collection and analysis
Provide details of the way in which you intend to collect the data: for instance, interviews, focus groups, surveys, questionnaires, observation, document analysis, or a combination, investigation of secondary data and the way you intend to analyse the data. It is expected that primary data will be collected as your main source of data. Any requests for only secondary data collection will need to be approved by your supervisor and module leader.
It is essential to explain why you have chosen this approach and reflect upon whether this is the most ‘effective’ way to answer your research questions.
Be as precise as possible. For instance, for questionnaires specify the distribution, population, sample size, likely response rate; for interviews specify interview population, intended interview duration and way of analysis. Regarding secondary data, specify the exact data sources you intend to use. Refer to ethical good practice, such as referring to the use of consent forms and participant info sheets when relevant.
vii. Reflecting on resources
Reflect on data availability and provide clear information on access to the data collected/used. Have you made sure all necessary data is available to you? If relevant, do you have the agreement of essential people to use certain data or conduct interviews? Is your project in agreement with the organisation you focus on, if this is necessary? Is your survey response rate likely to be satisfactory?
Reflect on time resources: a rough schedule of the tasks to complete between the submission of the Project Proposal and the submission of the Project, through a GANTT chart.
Other resources you may want to reflect on may include skills or software necessary to collect or analyse data.
viii. Conclusion, limitations, including an identification of contingency plans, where relevant.
The conclusion includes a brief overview of expected outcomes.
If access to (parts of) the data is still uncertain, reflect on possible alternative ways to collect data to answer the research question.
ix. WBS student research ethics consideration form
Your Ethics Form will only be submitted AFTER you pass this module, i.e., your proposal. Online arrangements for the ethics consideration process for PG students, via the Virtual Research Environment (VRE, part of Intranet). To submit an ethics application, you should go to:
Westminster Virtual Research Environment: Westminster VRE
You will be asked to enter the name of your supervisor when submitting an ethics application. Upon submission, the application is sent to your supervisor. The Module Leader cannot approve your form. You will find further information on Blackboard, under “Learning Resources”, Week 11 folder.
x. List of references
All references should be in Cite Them Right Harvard style, both in text and in the final referencing list.
By the end of the module, a successful student will be able to:
The assessment criteria and weightings show you what is important in the assessment and how marks are shared across each criterion. When you are completing your assessment, remember you need to fulfil the brief and the assessment criteria below:
University Grade Descriptors are a benchmark point of reference; they are contextualised using specific subject specialist criteria specific to a particular assessment. Please refer to the Rubric On Pages 14\15 of this document for specific criteria for this module.
University Grade Descriptors:
Generic Grade Descriptors at Level 7
80-100 - An outstanding piece of work: all assessment criteria have been met at an exceptionally high standard.
70-79 - An excellent piece of work: all assessment criteria have been met at a high standard.
60-69 - A good piece of work: all assessment criteria have been met at a good standard.
50-59 - A sound piece of work: all assessment criteria have clearly been met.
40-49 - FAIL: An inadequate piece of work: one or more relevant assessment criteria are not met.
39-0 - FAIL: A poor piece of work: Most of the relevant assessment criteria have not been met.
The student's project proposal assesses students on the extent to which they are
In the table below, there are descriptions of both the expectation for each criterion and how marks would be awarded based upon performance.
| Criterion | Weighting |
|---|---|
|
Introduction / Context Outline of what the project is about. Outline of organisation/sector being researched (as relevant). Setting out of Research questions/objectives.
|
15% |
|
Literature Review Core themes and writers. Relevant academic or practitioner models, techniques, or frameworks to be used in the analysis.
|
30% |
|
Research Design Overall approach to the Project, Research methods & techniques to be used, with justification, acknowledgment of weaknesses/strengths. Analytical frameworks & tools (as appropriate), with justification, acknowledgement of weaknesses/strengths & the way they will be applied. Data collection and analysis.
|
30% |
|
Conclusion, limitations and miscellaneous Resource requirements, Timeline/Gantt chart, Limitations, Contingency Plan (where relevant; i.e. where primary data or interviewees or organisation is unavailable). |
15% |
|
References All sources are referenced appropriately in the body of the proposal and the final list of references
|
10% |
| Criterion | Fail <50% | Pass 50 -59% | Merit 60-69% | Distinction 70-79% | Distinction 80%+ | Perfect 100% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Introduction / Context: Outline of what the project is about. Outline of organisation/sector being researched (as relevant). Setting out of Research questions/objectives.
15% of total mark |
Poor focus, no / minimal clear arguments, unclear rationale, poorly conceived objectives, little clarity re significance, little cohesive structure, sub- standard writing style. | Good focus, minimal clear arguments, some rationale, good objectives, some clarity re significance, reasonable structure, good clarity and writing style. | Very good focus, clear and well- constructed arguments, rationale and context clearly explained, very good objectives and clarity re significance, clear structure, very good expression and academic writing style. | Excellent focus, very clear arguments and rationale, SMART objectives, clearly explained significance, excellent structure, clarity of expression and academic writing style. | Exemplary paper with well- constructed focus, covering all the requirements in a clear, cohesive manner utilising academic writing style. | Publishable quality paper that is constructed in a manner befitting academic research quality. |
|
Literature Review: Core themes and writers. Relevant academic or practitioner models, techniques, or frameworks to be used in the analysis.
|
Little evidence of research, no / unreliable sources, no integration and no linkage between the literature and the own project. | Some evidence of research and good use of materials, generally reliable sources, some integration and linkage between the literature and the own project. | Very good evidence of research and very good use of materials, reliable and wide range of sources, clear integration and linkage between literature and own project. | Excellent evidence of research and use of materials. Extensively researched and reliable sources, very clear integration and linkage between literature and own project. | Exemplary research and use of materials. Extensively researched and reliable sources, a high level of integration and linkage between literature and the own project. | Perfect. The review is of a standard expected by peer-reviewed publications. |
|
Research Design Overall approach to the Project, Research methods & techniques to be used, with justification, acknowledgment of weaknesses/strengths. Analytical frameworks & tools (as appropriate), with justification, acknowledgement of weaknesses/strengths & the way they will be applied. Data collection and analysis.
|
Poor justification of research design, little / no mention of philosophy, approach and methods. Poor data collection and analysis procedures. Poor / no ethical considerations. | Good justification of research design with some mention of philosophy, approach and methods. Data collection and analysis procedures detailed but require improvement. Some ethical considerations. | Very good justification of research design that articulates philosophy, approach and methods. Very good data collection and analysis procedures. Ethical considerations explicitly addressed. | Excellent justification of research design, that fully integrates philosophy, approach and methods. Excellent data collection and analysis procedures. Ethical considerations fully integrated. | Exemplary justification of research design, that fully details philosophy, approach and methods to a very high standard. Data collection and analysis procedures are of extremely high quality. Ethical considerations are articulated extremely well. | Perfect. The assessment is ready to be submitted for a peer-reviewed journal publication. |
|
Conclusion, limitations and miscellaneous Resource requirements, Timeline/Gantt chart, Limitations, Contingency Plan (where relevant; i.e. where primary data or interviewees or organisation is unavailable). 15% of the total mark |
Poor conclusion with little or no consideration given to resourcing, timelines, contingencies or limitations. | Good conclusion that considers all the factors but should be developed further. | Very good conclusion that clearly incorporates resource requirements, timelines, contingencies and limitations. | Excellent conclusion the incorporates a detailed analysis of resourcing, timelines, limitations and contingencies. | Exemplary conclusion that brings all factors together in a cohesive and clear manner. | Perfect. The conclusion is of publishable quality. |
|
References All sources are referenced appropriately in the body of the proposal and the final list of references
|
Poor – referencing of sub-standard quality, Harvard referencing conventions not followed and may be incomplete. Several errors are present. | Good referencing that generally follows Harvard referencing conventions however quality may be improved as there are some errors. | Very good referencing with a high level of accuracy. Harvard referencing conventions are almost always followed with minimal errors. | Excellent referencing that is complete and almost completely accurate, with Harvard referencing conventions almost always followed with very minimal errors. | Exemplary referencing that clearly identifies all sources and is in line with Harvard referencing conventions. | Perfect referencing of publishable quality. |
| Total – 100% |
Achieve Higher Grades of 7BUSS002W Business Research Methods Assignment & Raise Your Grades
Order Non-Plagiarised AssignmentStruggling with your 7BUSS002W Business Research Methods Assignment at University of Westminster? Get expert Business Plan Assignment Help designed to support your academic success. Our specialists understand the practical and theoretical aspects of work-based learning and provide well-researched, structured guidance. With reliable Online Assignment Help, you can manage tight deadlines while maintaining high academic standards. We also offer high-quality Assignment Samples Solutions to help you understand the expected format and analysis techniques. Improve your learning outcomes, strengthen your concepts, and submit confidently with professional support tailored to the requirements of University of Westminster students. Achieve better grades with confidence.
Hire Assignment Helper Today!
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content