| Category | Assignment | Subject | Management |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | University of Chester | Module Title | BU7002 Management Research Methods |
| Word Count | 3000 words, 10% (+, -) |
|---|---|
| Assessment Type | Research Proposal |
| Assessment Title | Management Research Project |
| Academic Year | 2024-25 |
Assessment: (3,000 words with 10% + (3300), 10% -(2700); 100% weighting) a research proposal for the management research project. [L.O. 1-4]
Firstly, you are to identify a research area and then generate a specific research topic in that area or field. Secondly, develop a concise and focused research title. Thirdly, you are required to develop clear and focused objectives following a SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Timebound) approach. Prepare a 3,000-word research proposal document containing a brief introduction including background to the research, specific research question, aim, and objectives to the research, vital preliminary sources of literature review, a methodology section outlining a good understanding of the research approaches (e.g., research onion) and justification for the selected data collection techniques, ethical evaluation, and a Gantt Chart. A reference list following the APA 7 Citethemright referencing style is available at the end of this document.
Any relevant appendices should also be provided. A coherent structure must be provided throughout the research proposal.
Your research topic must be selected from within your MSc pathway.
Research Proposal
The proposal requires you to identify your main research question, aim and objectives. You are also required to demonstrate initial engagement with the relevant existing literature and introduce your proposed methodology and plan of work.
Your research question/aim and objectives should be well-focused and well-scoped.
The preliminary literature review is not a list of article summaries but should be structured under themes and headings. It serves several purposes, including:
The methodology should be described and justified, including a discussion of whether to use primary, secondary, or mixed methods. A reflection on your understanding of research terminologies such as qualitative, quantitative, inductive and deductive, positivist and interpretivist, and others, as well as a rationale for the methodology used for your research project.
The work plan should be presented as a Gantt Chart or Spreadsheet with accompanying notes if necessary.
Ethical Approval
For secondary research, the ethics form must be completed and submitted online; for primary research, it must be submitted to the allocated supervisor by 30th May 2025 (follow the links below). A One-Day Dissertation Workshop will be held on June 24, 2025 (SET01 and SET02), marking the formal start of the BU7001 Module (Management Research project) and its completion on October 7, 2025. Ethics Approval must be obtained before this date. The list of allocated supervisors will be available in April 2025. Students enrolled in a two-year master's program must consult with their supervisor, as they will not be undertaking BU7001; instead, they will be engaged in a project placement.
Obtaining ethical approval requires you to demonstrate that you have considered and assessed the ethical risks associated with your project and have a plan in place to negate these or reduce them to an acceptable level.
Once your ethics form is fully completed and signed by you and your allocated supervisor, your supervisor will submit it to the ethics committee for approval (Primary research only). For secondary research, you must complete the ethics form online and request that your allocated supervisor provide you with the Peer Reviewer Email Address, which you can then add to the online form. Follow the links below for both Ethics Forms. Please DO NOT collect any data until you have full ethical approval.
Core Text:
Additional Texts
|
Criteria |
90-100% |
80-90% |
70-79% |
60-69% |
50-59% |
40-49% |
30-39% |
20-29% |
10-19%
|
0-9% |
|
Introduction (25%)
Appropriate and concise title
Main research question and aim
Importance feasibility of research, background and clear objectives |
Crisp succinct title accurately summarises the essence of the research focus.
Excellent aim that provides a very clear and logical framework for delivery of the main project.
Topic feasible & original and objectives clearly stated
|
Crisp succinct title accurately summarises the essence of the research focus.
Convincing aim that provides a very clear and logical framework for delivery of the main project.
Entirely feasible topic |
A well expressed title that incorporates all key dimensions.
Convincing aim.
Feasible topic. Overall clarity |
A good working title that could be more succinct
Thorough aims that effectively break the topic / question into its component parts.
Largely feasible topic with some minor clarifications required.
|
Title largely captures the focus of the project.
Appreciation shown of the use of aims to break the topic into component parts. However, there may be gaps or ambiguities.
Areas of plan need revision for feasibility.
|
Title may not adequately articulate the proposed research; language may be clumsy.
Limited use of aims to break the topic into component parts.
Plan needs substantial revision. |
Title fails adequately to capture the essence of the proposed research; may contain ambiguities.
Little use of aims to break the topic into component parts.
Plan needs substantial revision. |
Title reveals lack of clarity about the focus of the proposed research.
Aims missing or poorly articulated with little or no relevance to title.
Little or no prospect of overall topic feasibility. |
Title bears little relation to the research idea.
Aims missing or have no relevance to the title.
Topic is unfeasible with zero prospect of delivery. |
Title bears no relation to the research idea.
Aims missing.
Topic is unfeasible with zero prospect of delivery. |
|
Literature Review (30%)
Depth, breadth & relevance of reading and related analysis
Quality of the structure of the analysis in determining the research problem
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 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 developed |
Good critical analysis of relevant literature. Some material may be dated.
Excellent organisation of ideas; cogent development of argument. Research will contribute to filling an identifiable research gap.
A useful and clear conceptual model developed
|
Good analysis of relevant literature overall; but may lack criticism or comprehensive-ness.
Logically structured; well-reasoned discussion. Research will contribute to filling an identifiable research gap.
A good conceptual model developed
|
Some good analysis of relevant literature; but weaknesses and/or gaps.
Reasonable structure; logical flow. Research gap identified but may be too general or too inconsequential.
A reasonable conceptual model 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
|
Descriptive, not analytical. 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 APA system. 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 (20%)
Rationale and research paradigm.
Research population and sampling method.
Research specific methods and justification.
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. |
Understanding of research paradigm and rationale for selecting it.
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. |
Limited apparent understanding of research paradigm but reasonable justification.
Research methods explained but limited justification
Basically sound approach to data analysis but somewhat lacking in depth and crispness.
Basic analysis of ethical issues & research standards. Little depth of evaluation. |
Explanation of research paradigm attempted but little evidence of understanding.
Expression and style reasonably 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 form 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 form only submitted – 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 form missing. |
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 form missing. |
|
Plan of Work (10%)
Understanding of key deliverables and elements.
Quality of plan structure and organisation.
Practicality of plan.
|
Sharp focused understanding.
Outstanding, structure with effective use of written & graphic components.
Entirely deliverable. Provides a detailed ‘route map’ to final submission. |
A very clear summary of all key elements that is well structured and fit for purpose.
Deliverable with a clear sequencing of the key stages of the project |
A complete & appropriate structure that will facilitate implementation
A deliverable plan that covers all the key practicalities, though some detail could be amplified. |
A competent summary of key elements, though one or two may be overlooked.
A good structure overall. There may be elements that are somewhat vague or undeveloped.
|
A basic identification of important key elements, though several may be overlooked.
A basic structure that would benefit from additional components. Not particularly logical in terms of layout and sequencing. |
Some key elements identified. Many overlooked,
Basic structure lacking. Sequencing of components not logical. Key components may be missing.
|
Insufficient key elements identified to enable plan to be adequately implemented. Confused understanding of these.
No discernible structure. Just a list of ‘to do’ items that is probably not complete. |
Confusion regarding what constitutes key elements
An inadequate ‘to do’ list that is far from being complete or comprehensive
Insufficient detail provided to enable implementation of the project.
|
Insufficient detail provided to assess deliverability.
No structure. May be a vague and unfocused sentence or paragraph.
|
Plan missing
.
|
|
Criteria |
90-100% |
80-90% |
70-79% |
60-69% |
50-59% |
40-49% |
30-39% |
20-29% |
10-19%
|
0-9% |
|
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.
|
Struggle With assignments and feeling stressed?
Order Non-Plagiarized AssignmentStuck on your BU7002 Management Research Methods? Don't worry! Our Management Assignment Help service is the best for you. If you need help with assignments, our expert PhD writers will provide you with original content. And yes, you will also get free assignment samples, which will give you a perfect idea of ​​how to write a top-quality assignment. Don't worry about the deadline, as we guarantee on-time delivery. Contact us now for high-quality and plagiarism-free work and boost your grades!
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
