Looking for Plagiarism-Free Answers for Your US, UK, Singapore, New Zealand, and Ireland College/University Assignments?
Talk to an Expert| Category | Dissertation | Subject | Eduation |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | University of Wolverhampton | Module Title | 7MG001 – The Research Project |
|
Topic |
Detail |
|
Academic year / semester |
2025/26 – Semester’s 1, 2 and 3 |
|
Module code and title |
7MG001 – The Research Project |
|
Module Leader |
Alistair Sale |
|
Assignment name |
Independently researched dissertation |
|
Assignment type |
Dissertation (research-based) |
|
Assignment weighting and size |
100%, 15,000 +/- 10% excluding references and appendices |
|
Assessment unpacking video location |
Assessment Information & Support Topic, on the Assessment Information and Support Page |
|
‘What’s my assignment?’ unpacking date (if applicable) |
In-class on a weekly basis, additionally assessment unpacking document in the module section on module Canvas page. Examples of previously completed student work available on Canvas. |
|
Formative submission date (if applicable) |
In-class weekly discussions and relevant research-based case studies on potential research scenarios. Discussions relevant to research-based assessment learning outcomes. Completion of a research intent form (week 3) and research proposal (week 11). |
|
Formative submission method (if applicable) |
The submission of a research intent form (300 to 500 words on the initial research topic/idea) by week 3. In week 11 a submission of a research proposal (3,500-word submission containing detailed and comprehensive research plan that will form the basis for the dissertation) and a completed ethics form (this will be attached to the research proposal). |
|
Formative feedback date (if applicable) |
Regular, weekly feedback on in-class case study research-based activities. Peer and tutor led discussions on the research intent and research proposal submissions. |
|
Summative (i.e., final) submission date |
Across year’s (September to September; January to January and May to May) |
|
Summative submission method |
Uploading a single dissertation submission into the assignment portal on Canvas |
|
Assignment requirements |
An independently researched dissertation |
|
You are asked to produce a piece of original work; based on your own independent research, which will consist of a pure academic research approach. For the award of a master’s degree, candidates must present the Independent Report within their specific field of study. It should demonstrate a range of advanced intellectual and practical skills in carrying out an “evidence-based research project” as highlighted in the learning outcomes of the module (See below). The report must be within a business and management context (linked to a specific subject area) and will, as a minimum, include a clear rationale for the research, reference to and critical evaluation of academic literature from peer reviewed journals, a critique of research methodology, analysis of the data and findings and overall concluding commentary. The research format and content will typically consist of a master’s level research submission (please see below for indicative content). Your supervisor will advise you regarding this and there are some format examples for dissertations in the Canvas materials section, which you are advised to follow. The word count/content for each section will vary depending upon the research approach and topic studied/researched. Candidates will receive further guidance from their supervisor as to the specific content/approach. The dissertation will be 15,000 words in length and should include the normal sections of a dissertation using the following indicative content:
N.B. Candidates will receive further guidance from their supervisor as to the specific content/approach as this may vary depending upon the subject/topic area investigated. |
|
| Learning outcomes |
LO1 Evidence of master’s level study/research skills in the planning and design of an academic research project with justifications for the initial research area including background, scope, objectives and specific research questions. LO2 Critical analysis, evaluation and discussion on literature relevant to a specific research area. LO3 Demonstrate an advanced level of analytical, numerical and linguistic skills associated with the evaluation of primary and secondary data at master’s level. LO4 Critically evaluate and apply the core principles of research methodology, philosophy and methods for business management research (empirical or non-empirical). LO5 Provide evidence of an advanced level of competence in the design, execution and reporting of an independent research submission to the master’s award. Evaluate and reflect on learning through the submission of the research-based work. |
| Assessment criteria (see rubric below for performance criteria) |
Introduction (Theoretical background, Conceptual analysis and Rationale): 15% Research Methodologies and Methods: 20% Results, Analysis and Discussion: 20% Conclusions, Implications, Recommendations and Reflections: 10% Presentation, Structure and References: 5% |
| Characteristics of a good submission |
A good postgraduate research submission possesses several key characteristics that demonstrate the quality, rigor, and significance of the research conducted. Here are some essential qualities that contribute to an excellent postgraduate research submission: Originality: A strong research submission showcases originality in its approach, ideas, or methodology. It should address a gap in existing knowledge and offer new insights or perspectives to the field of study. Clear research objectives: A good research submission clearly defines the research objectives and research questions it aims to address. These objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART), guiding the research process effectively. Methodological soundness: The research submission should demonstrate a robust and appropriate research methodology. This includes clearly outlining the research design, data collection methods, and analysis techniques used. The methodology should be reliable, valid, and ethically sound. Critical analysis: A strong research submission demonstrates critical thinking skills by analysing and interpreting the findings in a thoughtful and objective manner. The author should evaluate the strengths and limitations of their research, address potential biases, and consider alternative explanations. Academic writing quality: Clarity, coherence, and conciseness are crucial aspects of a well-written research submission. The work should adhere to the appropriate academic writing style, with a logical structure, coherent arguments, and a professional tone. Proper referencing and citation of sources are also essential. Contribution to knowledge: An outstanding research submission should make a significant contribution to the existing body of knowledge in the field. It should offer new insights, challenge existing theories, or propose innovative approaches that advance the understanding of the research topic. Data integrity: Research submissions should adhere to rigorous standards of data collection, ensuring accuracy, reliability, and transparency. Clear documentation of data sources, sample selection, and any necessary ethical considerations enhances the credibility of the research. Results and conclusions: A good research submission presents the findings of the study clearly and concisely, using tables, figures, and graphs where appropriate. The conclusions should be based on the evidence presented and should answer the research questions or objectives effectively. Potential for further research: A strong research submission often identifies avenues for further research, acknowledging the limitations of the study and suggesting areas that warrant future investigation. This demonstrates the author's understanding of the broader research context and the potential impact of their work. Overall coherence and organisation: The research submission should exhibit a high level of coherence, with a clear logical flow and organisation of ideas. The introduction, literature review, methodology, results, and conclusion sections should be well-linked, providing a comprehensive and coherent narrative of the research. In summary, a good postgraduate research submission embodies originality, clarity, methodological rigor, critical analysis, contribution to knowledge, and adherence to academic writing standards. By encompassing these characteristics, a research submission stands a greater chance of making a valuable contribution to the academic community and advancing the field of study. |
| Additional instructions |
Reference list and appendices are NOT included in the word count. Always keep a copy of your work and a file of working papers (planning documentations, completed questionnaires, interview transcripts, evidence of quantitative and qualitative data analysis methods/calculations/analysis etc…) as there may be circumstances where it is difficult to arrive at a mark for your work. If this is the case, you may be asked to submit your file and quite possibly meet with a panel of academics for a viva (oral examination) to answer questions on your submission. |
| Professional Body requirements | N/A |
| University regulations |
University’s Academic Regulations Academic Integrity Policy Level and Mark Descriptors |
| Support |
Student Support and Wellbeing Study Guides Skills for Learning – Introduction to Academic Study Skills Academic English Language Skills You should also refer to your Course and Module Guides |
| Date by which feedback will be provided | Within the University of Wolverhampton current guidelines |
| Feedback format | Written feedback on Canvas |
| Resit details |
The re-sit requirement for this assignment is to provide a rework of the original submission, with additions and amendments highlighted, to indicate where you have applied the feedback received. The re-sit will take place in the following resit period and the actual date will be available on Canvas approximately 6 weeks after the submission of the first assessment submission. |
| Criteria | 0 - 49% Fail |
50 -59% Pass |
60 – 69% Merit |
70 - 79% Distinction |
80 - 100% Distinction |
|
1. Purpose & objectives
|
Poorly defined and presented, some confusion in Rationale. Introduction & background wholly descriptive; synopsis of relevant literature absent; research problem, research aims, objectives and primary questions misaligned. Methods and research approach inappropriate. |
Clearly stated, some relevance, straightforward. Good introduction & background; synopsis of relevant literature has gaps; research problem unclear, research aims, objectives and primary questions mostly show some misaligned. Methods and research approach appropriately stated. | Well stated purpose, appropriate and realistic explanation of the context /problem/case. Clear Introduction & background; synopsis of relevant literature delineated; research problem stated, research aims, objectives and primary questions mostly appropriate and aligned. Methods and research approach appropriately stated. | Very clearly stated, feasible, innovative. Excellent Introduction & background; synopsis of relevant literature clearly delineated; research problem stated, research aims, objectives and primary questions clearly stated, appropriate and aligned. Methods and research approach appropriately stated. | Exceptionally well stated, interesting, sophisticated, original, full and convincing justification. Exceptional Introduction & background; synopsis of relevant literature clearly delineated; research problem stated, research aims, objectives and primary questions clearly stated, appropriate and aligned. Methods and research approach appropriately stated. |
|
2. Literature Review
|
Lacks structure with clear gaps, no discussion of selection criteria, unsystematic referencing. Limited evidence of understanding and evaluation of the selected literature. Obvious omissions of relevant sources; some misunderstanding; argument not following a particularly clear thread, or not particularly convincing; narrative is wholly descriptive; little awareness of linkage between literature and aims | A basic coverage of relevant literature. Inconsistent referencing, the literature offers some additional understanding the problem/ project / development of project /case study. Limitations in variety and depth of sources; reasonable grasp of those consulted and with relevance to the argument; no particular originality; some unevenness in presentation; narrative is mostly descriptive; modest awareness of linkage between literature and aims | Good coverage, awareness of relevant prior research, clear structure, stated selection criteria, consistent referencing, clarity of understanding, the literature, informs and adds to the development of the project /case study. Substantial range of apposite sources consulted; attention to both scholarly and practitioner dimensions, with small omissions with respect to the argument; generally systematic and persuasive narrative; shows evidence of critical awareness of linkage between literature and aims. |
Comprehensive and inclusive use of highly relevant literature, good structure, clearly articulated discussion that relates to the topic of research. Authoritative selection of material from comprehensive array of relevant sources; attention to both scholarly and practitioner dimensions, with excellent evidence of originality; argument is logical, systematic and persuasive; shows high degree of critical awareness of linkage between literature and aims | Exceptional section that fully demonstrates a discerning, creative and critical engagement with what has been read. Exceptional selection of material from comprehensive array of relevant sources; attention to both scholarly and practitioner dimensions, with excellent evidence of originality; argument is logical, systematic and persuasive; shows high degree of critical awareness of linkage between literature and aims |
|
3. Research Methodology
|
Irrelevant theoretical basis poorly explained approach. Methodology confused with description of methods and techniques; unaware of or confused about research design; methods and techniques taken for granted; errors in sampling, which may be incomplete | Some evidence of a theoretical basis reasonably explained. Methodology discussed though with incomplete awareness of several aspects and/or omissions. Methods described but key areas hazy and lacking in justification and complete information. | Clear and relevant theoretical basis, appropriate approach, useful and appropriate information. An awareness of strengths and weaknesses of approach. Methodology generally sound, articulates and justifies the methodological approach to be adopted e.g. deductive/inductive; provides a rationale that fits the approach chosen; describes the relation between the research aims/objectives and the approach chosen; states the research hypothesis(es) and link to selection of approach; describes clearly the method and explanation (rationale) of observation/data collection – qualitative and/or quantitative; primary and secondary data collection; methods for analysing research material; identifies and critically comments on the sampling, piloting and ethic aspects; shows understanding of and demonstrates validity and reliability of data instruments | Very clear and relevant theoretical basis, persuasive rational for research approach, or methods used for the development of a project/ case study, evidence of critical evaluation. Clearly articulates and justifies the methodological approach to be adopted e.g. deductive/inductive; provides a rationale that fits the approach chosen; describes the relation between the research aims/objectives and the approach chosen; states the research hypothesis(es) and link to selection of approach; describes clearly the method and explanation (rationale) of observation/data collection – qualitative and/or quantitative; primary and secondary data collection; methods for analysing research material; identifies and critically comments on the sampling, piloting and ethic aspects; shows understanding of and demonstrates validity and reliability of data instruments |
Very clear and relevant theoretical basis, persuasive rational for research approach, or methods used for the development of a project/ case study, evidence of critical evaluation. Clearly articulates and justifies the methodological approach to be adopted e.g. deductive/inductive; provides a rationale that fits the approach chosen; describes the relation between the research aims/objectives and the approach chosen; states the research hypothesis(es) and link to selection of approach; describes clearly the method and explanation (rationale) of observation/data collection – qualitative and/or quantitative; primary and secondary data collection; methods for analysing research material; identifies and critically comments on the sampling, piloting and ethic aspects; shows understanding of and demonstrates validity and reliability of data instruments |
|
4. Discussion & Findings
|
Discussion shows a very limited awareness of theory and attempt to link this to the findings. There is a very limited discussion of the implications, and limitations of the research or development. Some doubts about data reliability. Results do not substantiate the argument, no triangulation attempted, no contrary findings to illuminate or extend the argument. Use of secondary data for library-based projects is narrow and not justified. Some signposting the findings to appendices (if primary / secondary data). Insufficient attempt to link literature in the discussion; analysis techniques inappropriate to data or not explained. Use of appropriate tables, graphs, and other illustrations is lacking thought. No synopsis of findings ends the chapter | Adequate level of critical analysis and reflection on personal learning. Adequate discussion of implications of the findings and reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the research or development. Mostly reliable data. Results substantiate the argument, some triangulation attempted, contrary findings to illuminate or extend the argument are weak. Library-based projects provide some rationale using published sources to support the argument. Has signposted the findings to appendices (if primary / secondary data). Some attempt to link literature in the discussion; analysis uses techniques appropriate to data. Use is made of appropriate tables, graphs, and other illustrations. Synopsis of findings ends the chapter | Some links with theory, discussion justified with appropriate evidence, good critical analysis of the implications of the findings, and reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the research or development. Reliable data. Results substantiate the argument, some triangulation attempted, contrary findings highlighted to illuminate or extend the argument. Library-based projects provide clear rationale using published sources to support the argument. Has signposted the findings to appendices (if primary / secondary data). Clear links to literature in the discussion; analysis uses techniques appropriate to data. Use is made of appropriate tables, graphs, and other illustrations. A strong synopsis of findings ends the chapter | Comprehensive links with theory, complete justification with appropriate evidence, very good critical analysis of the implications of the findings, and reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the research or development. Very reliable data. Triangulated results drive the argument onwards, completely and fairly; contrary findings used to illuminate or extend the argument. Library-based projects provide crystal clear rationale using published sources to support the argument seamlessly. Has explained and linked (signposted) the findings to appendices (if primary / secondary data). Clear links to literature in the discussion; analysis uses techniques appropriate to data. Use is made of appropriate tables, graphs, and other illustrations. A strong synopsis of findings ends the chapter |
Sophisticated and critical discussion of the issues involved, outstanding reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the research, offers fresh/new insights on the problem or development. Exceptionally reliable data. Triangulated results drive the argument onwards, completely and fairly; contrary findings used to illuminate or extend the argument. Library-based projects provide crystal clear rationale using published sources to support the argument seamlessly. Has explained and linked (signposted) the findings to appendices (if primary / secondary data). Clear links to literature in the discussion; analysis uses techniques appropriate to data. Use is made of appropriate tables, graphs, and other illustrations. A strong synopsis of findings ends the chapter |
|
5. Presentation, Structure
|
Basic layout, inconsistent flow, few spelling and grammatical errors, poor citation and reference list, poor structure, confused. Some incompleteness of documentation and styled according to the brief; no evidence of participant/organisation approval. Written language fails to meet postgraduate standard; text not wholly free from spelling and grammatical solecisms; vocabulary appropriate; specialist terms defined; tables and illustrations well prepared; good allocation of material to main body of text, and appendices. Mostly conforms to Harvard Referencing style. Wordage, binding and related appearance meets requirements. | Adequate use of graphics and charts, good command of spelling and grammar, some typos, some omissions or inconsistencies in reference list, most sections have a logical flow and structure. Reasonably well documented and styled according to the brief; written in engaging language; ; text not wholly free from spelling and grammatical solecisms; vocabulary appropriate; specialist terms defined; tables and illustrations well prepared; good allocation of material to main body of text, and appendices. Evidence of ethical issues addressed including documentation Mostly conforms to Harvard Referencing style. Wordage, binding and related appearance meets requirements. |
Clear and effective use of graphics and charts, no spelling or grammatical errors, appropriate and consistent referencing, logical, clear and coherent structure. Well documented and styled according to the brief; written in attractive, engaging, and compelling language; ; apart from a few instances, text free from spelling and grammatical solecisms; vocabulary appropriate; specialist terms defined; tables and illustrations well prepared; very good allocation of material to main body of text, and appendices. Evidence of ethical issues addressed including documentation Fully conforms to Harvard Referencing style. Wordage, binding and related appearance meets requirements |
Very good logical flow and cohesion, Discerning use of graphics, charts and tables, no spelling of grammatical errors, appropriate and consistent referencing, well developed and appropriate structure. Fully documented and styled according to the brief; written in attractive, engaging, and compelling language; text free from spelling and grammatical solecisms; vocabulary appropriate; specialist terms defined; tables and illustrations beautifully prepared; excellent allocation of material to main body of text, and appendices. Fully conforms to Harvard Referencing style. Wordage, binding and related appearance meets requirements. Evidence of ethical issues addressed including relevant documentation in appendices |
Outstanding logical flow, excellent use of language, appealing and effective use of graphics, charts and tables, appropriate and consistent referencing, very skilfully developed structure, outstanding logical flow, most effective use of conventions appropriate for purpose. Fully documented and styled according to the brief; written in attractive, engaging, and compelling language;; text free from spelling and grammatical solecisms; vocabulary appropriate; specialist terms defined; tables and illustrations beautifully prepared; excellent allocation of material to main body of text, and appendices. Fully conforms to Harvard Referencing style. Wordage, binding and related appearance meets requirements. Evidence of ethical issues addressed including relevant documentation in appendices |
|
6. Conclusion
|
Conclusions have limited justification in the evidence, there is limited relationship to existing theory and the topic of the dissertation, very limited recommendations / opportunities for further development. Poor organisation; gaps in reasoning; some obvious conclusions omitted for the list; other conclusions not especially driven by the findings but from ‘common sense’. No real implications and recommendation considered for stakeholders | Adequate attempt to use evidence to reach appropriate conclusions that relate to the topic of the dissertation, conclusions may be general and uncritical, adequate recommendations / opportunities for further development. Reasonably well-organised, logical, generally supported by evidence, conclusions fairly clear and arise from results & discussion; implications considered for all stakeholders but criticality weak; practical and feasible, with unclear or weak consideration of budget issues (if appropriate). Recommendations not always driven by conclusions and not for all stakeholders |
Clear conclusions relating to the topic of the dissertation and justified by the evidence. Identifies clear recommendation/ opportunities for further development. Well-organised, logical, supported by evidence, conclusions fairly clear and arise from results & discussion; implications critically considered for all stakeholders; practical and feasible, with clear consideration of budget issues (if appropriate) Recommendations driven by conclusions and again explicit for stakeholders |
Clear conclusions with a very good relationship to the topic of the dissertation and justified well by the evidence. Identifies clear and practical recommendation / opportunities for further development. Well-organised, logical, fully supported by evidence, conclusions clear and arise from results/discussion; implications critically considered for all stakeholders; practical and feasible, with clear consideration of budget issues (if appropriate). Recommendations driven by conclusions and again explicit for stakeholders |
Exceptional conclusions that relate strongly to the topic of the dissertation with excellent justification in the evidence. Conclusions add new insight to the topic of the dissertation and identify clear and practical. recommendations/ opportunities for further development. Exceptionally organised, logical, fully supported by evidence, conclusions clear and arise from results/discussion; implications critically considered for all stakeholders; practical and feasible, with clear consideration of budget issues (if appropriate). Recommendations driven by conclusions and again explicit for stakeholders |
Get Your Free Academic Quote
No hidden fees · Instant response · 100% confidential
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
asdad