BU7001 Management Research Project Assessment Brief 2024-25 | UoC

Criteria

90-100%

80-90%

70-79%

60-69%

50-59%

40-49%

30-39%

20-29%

10-19%

0-9%

Introduction

(15%)

Appropriate and concise research background

Refined the main research question, Aims and objectives.

Outline methodology,

outline chapters and key definition

Crisp, succinct introduction and research background and focus. 

Excellent and refined research question, aim and objectives.

Crystal clear outline methodology, outline chapters and key terms explained.

Concise, clear and focused introduction and research background. 

Excellent and focused research question, aim and objectives.

Neat outline methodology, outline chapters and key terms defined.

Convincing, clear and focused introduction and research background. 

Well-framed and focused research question, aim and objectives.

Well-written outline methodology, outline chapters and key terms defined.

Very clear and focused introduction and research background that could be more succinct. 

Very clear and focused research question, aim and objectives.

Very clear outline methodology, outline chapters and key terms defined.

Reasonably clear and focused introduction and research background.  

Reasonably clear and focused research question, aim and objectives.

Reasonably clear outline methodology, outline chapters and key terms defined.

Inadequate and vague introduction and research background.  

Inadequate and vague research question, aim and objectives.

Inadequate outline methodology, outline chapters and key terms not appropriately defined.

Lack of clarity and focus in the introduction and research background.  

Lack of clarity and focus in research question, aim and objectives.

Lack of clarity in methodology, outline chapters and key terms.

Complete lack of clarity and focus in   introduction and research background.  

Complete lack of clarity and focus in  research question, aim and objectives.

Complete lack of clarity in methodology, outline chapters and key terms.

Absence of clarity and focus in   introduction and research background.  

Absence of clarity and focus in  research question, aim and objectives.

Absence of clarity in methodology, outline chapters and key terms.

No    introduction and research background.  

No research question, aim and objectives.

No methodology, outline chapters and key terms.

Literature Review (25%)

Depth, breadth & relevance of reading and related analysis

Quality of the structure of the analysis and critical review of relevant sources in determining the research problem

Identification of a clear research gap

Clarity of conceptual model or framework

Exceptional critical analysis of relevant literature showing substantial insight.

Authoritative argument with a clear logical progression leading to a highly original & valid research idea.

An extremely complex conceptual model or framework developed

Comprehensive critical analysis of relevant literature.

Authoritative argument with a clear logical progression leading to a highly original & valid research idea.

A detailed conceptual model or framework developed

Very good critical analysis of relevant literature. Some material may be dated.

Very good organisation of ideas; cogent development of argument. Research will contribute to filling an identifiable research gap.

A useful and clear conceptual model or framework developed.

Good analysis of relevant literature overall; but may lack criticism or comprehensiveness.

Good and logically structured; well-reasoned discussion. Research will contribute to filling an identifiable research gap.

A good conceptual model or framework developed.

Reasonable analysis of relevant literature; but weaknesses and/or gaps.

Reasonable structure; logical flow. Research gap identified but may be too general or  inconsequential.

A reasonable conceptual model or framework developed.

Basic analysis of some relevant literature but without underlying logic and structure. 

Research gap identified but may be too general or too inconsequential.

Paraphrasing weak and inaccurate.

Lack of detail and clarity in conceptual model development.

Inadequate analysis. Largely descriptive and provides little insight into the context for the research focus.

Poorly structured.

Little or no paraphrasing with excessive reliance on direct quotations. 

Research problem may not be identified.

An incomplete conceptual model.

Very poor, and key elements missing and no proper structure to discussion.

Structure confused or incomplete. Research problem not identified.

Paraphrasing non-existent. No attempt to use or apply APA7

No knowledge of conceptual model.

Isolated, disconnected statements indicating lack of thought.

Lack of evidence of reasoning. Little discernible organisation of material relative to subject. Research problem not identified.

No conceptual model development.

Isolated, disconnected statements indicating lack of thought.

Lack of evidence of reasoning. No discernible organisation of material relative to subject. Research problem not identified.

No conceptual model development.

Criteria

90-100%

80-90%

70-79%

60-69%

50-59%

40-49%

30-39%

20-29%

10-19%

0-9%

Methodology (15%)

Rationale and research paradigm.

Research population and sampling method.

Research specific methods and justification. i.e. Reserch Onion

Methods of data analysis.

Ethical issues and research standards

Exceptional understanding and clear expression of research philosophy.

An erudite and, succinct justification of chosen methods that are entirely apt. Rationale for rejected methods clearly explained.

Means of data analysis will maximise insight into research topic.

Clear, mature and deep insight into ethical considerations and research standards.

Advanced understanding of research paradigm. Rationale for selecting it & implications of it clearly conveyed.

A well-argued justification of chosen methods that are entirely apt. Rejected methods identified.

Excellent approach to data analysis that aligns with research topic.

Excellent consideration and discussion of ethical issues & research standards.

Confident understanding of research paradigm. Rationale for selecting it & implications of it clearly conveyed.

Appropriate methods explained. Justification includes rejected methods.

Competent approach to data analysis.

Competent analysis of ethical issues & research standards.

Very good understanding of research paradigm and rationale for selecting it.

Very good and appropriate methods explained & justified.

Generally competent approach to data analysis but may not be fully aligned with research topic.

Generally good consideration of ethical issues & research standards but may lack depth in places.

A reasonable and apparent understanding of research paradigm but reasonable justification.

Research methods explained but limited justification.

A reasonable approach to data analysis but somewhat lacking in depth and crispness.

A reasonable analysis of ethical issues & research standards. Little depth of evaluation.

Explanation of research paradigm attempted but little evidence of understanding.

Expression and style are clear but lack sophistication. 

Research methods described but not justified. Some additional methods would have been appropriate.

Data analysis superficial.

Superficial consideration of ethical issues & research standards.

Research paradigm barely addressed.

Expression of ideas insufficient to convey clear meaning. 

Research methods listed but hardly or ineptly described.

Data analysis unlikely to provide useful insight into the research topic

Ethics procedures not acceptably completed.

Research paradigm not addressed.

Inappropriate, terminology; inadequate and inappropriate vocabulary

No attempt to describe, let alone justify, selected method.

Data analysis inappropriate.

Ethics procedures inadequately covered.

Research paradigm not addressed.

Inaccuracies of expression and vocabulary render meaning of written work extremely unclear.

Two of research method, means of data analysis, ethics section incomplete.

Research paradigm not addressed.

Inaccuracies of expression and vocabulary render meaning of written work completely unclear.

Research method missing

Means of data analysis missing.

Ethics section missing

Data Analysis and Findings  (20%)

Critical analysis, interpretation and evaluation of the empirical data

Synthesising findings with relevant theory and literature

Critical evaluation of findings in the light of existing theory and knowledge

Drawing appropriate and justified Finding from the data

An exceptional and critical analysis, interpretation and evaluation of data.

An exceptional synthesis of findings and linking it with the relevant theory and literature

An exceptional evaluation of finding to the existence  in the light of existing theory and knowledge

Exceptional presentation of finding from the data.

An excellent and critical analysis, interpretation and evaluation of data.

An excellent synthesis of findings and linking it with the relevant theory and literature

An excellent evaluation of finding to the existence  in the light of existing theory and knowledge

Excellent presentation of finding from the data.

Very good and critical analysis, interpretation and evaluation of data.

Very good synthesis of findings and linking it with the relevant theory and literature

Very good evaluation of finding to the existence  in the light of existing theory and knowledge

Very good presentation of finding from the data.

Good and critical analysis, interpretation and evaluation of data.

Good synthesis of findings and linking it with the relevant theory and literature

Good evaluation of finding to the existence  in the light of existing theory and knowledge

Good presentation of finding from the data.

Reasonable analysis, interpretation and evaluation of data.

Reasonable findings and linking it with the relevant theory and literature

Reasonable evaluation of finding to the existence  in the light of existing theory and knowledge

Reasonable presentation of finding from the data.

Inadequate analysis, interpretation and evaluation of data.

Inadequate findings and linking with the relevant theory and literature

Inadequate evaluation of finding to the existence  in the light of existing theory and knowledge

Inadequate presentation of finding from the data.

Poor analysis, interpretation and evaluation of data.

Poor findings and linking with the relevant theory and literature

Poor evaluation of finding to the existence  in the light of existing theory and knowledge

Poor presentation of finding from the data.

Very poor analysis, interpretation and evaluation of data.

Very poor findings and linking with the relevant theory and literature

Very poor evaluation of finding to the existence  in the light of existing theory and knowledge

Very poor presentation of finding from the data.

Extremely poor analysis, interpretation and evaluation of data.

Extremely poor findings and linking with the relevant theory and literature

Extremely poor evaluation of finding to the existence  in the light of existing theory and knowledge

Extremely poor presentation of finding from the data.

No analysis, interpretation and evaluation of data.

No findings and linking with the relevant theory and literature

No evaluation of finding to the existence  in the light of existing theory and knowledge

No presentation of finding from the data

Conclusion (10%)

Adopted methodology

Achievement of research objectives

Meet research questions,

Limitations of the study

Further areas of research

Conclusions and recommendations

Exceptionally well-written and well-presented final concluding chapter.

Exceptionally well-written justification provided for the adopted methodology.

Exceptionally well-written reflection on each objective and research question.

Overall, exceptionally well-written conclusions, recommendations, limitations and further areas for research are identified.

Extremely well-written and well-presented final concluding chapter.

Extremely well-written justification provided for the adopted methodology.

Extremely well-written reflection on each objective and research question.

Overall, Extremely well-written conclusions, recommendations, limitations and further areas for research are identified.

Very well-written and well-presented final concluding chapter.

Very well-written justification provided for the adopted methodology.

Very well-written reflection on each objective and research question.

Overall, Very well-written conclusions, recommendation, limitations and further areas for research are identified.

Good final concluding chapter.

Good justification provided for the adopted methodology.

Good reflection on each objective and research question.

Overall, good conclusions, recommendation, limitations and further areas for research are identified.

Reasonable final concluding chapter.

Reasonable justification provided for the adopted methodology.

Reasonable reflection on each objective and research question.

Overall, reasonable conclusions, recommendation, limitations and further areas for research are identified.

Inadequate final concluding chapter.

Inadequate justification provided for the adopted methodology.

Inadequate reflection on each objective and research question.

Overall, inadequate conclusions, recommendation, limitations and further areas for research are identified.

Poor final concluding chapter.

Poor justification provided for the adopted methodology.

Poor reflection on each objective and research question.

Overall, poor conclusions, recommendation, limitations and further areas for research are identified.

Very poor final concluding chapter.

Very poor justification provided for the adopted methodology.

Very poor reflection on each objective and research question.

Overall, very poor conclusions, recommendation, limitations and further areas for research are identified.

Extremely poor final concluding chapter.

Extremely poor justification provided for the adopted methodology.

Extremely poor reflection on each objective and research question.

Overall, extremely poor conclusions, recommendation, limitations and further areas for research are identified.

Exceptionally poor final concluding chapter.

No justification provided for the adopted methodology.

No reflection on each objective and research question.

Overall, Exceptionally poor conclusions, recommendation, limitations and further areas for research are identified.

Written Expression (10%)

Written expression, vocabulary and style

Grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax

Exceptional clarity and coherence; highly sophisticated expression.

Near perfect spelling, punctuation and elegant syntax.

Very well-written, with accuracy, flair and persuasive expression of ideas

Near perfect spelling, punctuation and flowing syntax

Well expressed, fluent, sophisticated and confident expression; highly effective vocabulary and clear style

Near perfect spelling, punctuation and syntax

Clear, fluent, confident expression; appropriate vocabulary and style

High standard of accuracy in spelling, punctuation and syntax

Clearly written, coherent expression;

reasonable range of vocabulary and adequate style

Overall competence in spelling, punctuation and syntax, although there may be some errors

Expression and style reasonably clear but lack sophistication. Limited vocabulary. Limited or no proof reading

Inaccuracies in spelling, punctuation and syntax are too frequent and indicative of a careless approach and poor proof-reading.

Expression of ideas insufficient to convey clear meaning; inaccurate or unprofessional terminology. No evidence of proof reading

Many errors in spelling, punctuation and syntax – often repeated. No evidence of proof-reading.

Lack of clarity, very poor expression; style inappropriate, terminology; inadequate and inappropriate vocabulary

Many serious errors of spelling, punctuation and syntax that interfere with meaning and clarity of expression

Inaccuracies of expression and vocabulary render meaning of written work extremely unclear

Many serious errors of even basic spelling, punctuation and syntax that undermine or block clarity of meaning and discussion

Inaccuracies of expression and vocabulary render meaning of written work completely unclear

Many serious errors of even basic spelling, punctuation and syntax that undermine or block clarity of meaning and discussion

Referencing (5%)

Accurate and appropriate application of the APA 7 referencing system for listing and citing sources

All sources acknowledged. Consistently, appropriately, authoritatively and meticulously listed/cited. An outstanding list of references that is authoritative, current and original.

All sources acknowledged & meticulously listed/cited. A comprehensive list of references.

All sources acknowledged and correctly listed/cited.

Sources mainly acknowledged and mostly accurately listed/cited. 

Sources usually, but not always, acknowledged; referencing generally accurate, but with too many inaccuracies and errors

Reference list lacks source balance.

Inclined to rely too much on direct quotations. 

Tendency to over-use web sources

Sources not always acknowledged; references too often incorrectly cited/listed. Over-reliance on using direct quotations and website URLs. 

A shallow list of items (<10), which may lack source balance 

Referencing incomplete, inappropriate or inaccurate. 

<10 listed items, which may lack relevance.

Little attempt to apply APA system. Almost complete reliance on web sources.

.

Referencing highly inaccurate or absent.

<5 items listed most of which are not directly relevant. Likely to be all web sites

Incompetent in knowledge and application of APA system

No meaningful attempt at referencing. 

<5 items listed. None relevant or vaguely so.

Incompetent in knowledge and application of APA system

No references.

Not using APA referencing.