| Category | Dissertation | Subject | Education |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | University of Lincoln | Module Title | BUS9720M Professional Inquiry Project |
| Word Count | 15000 Words |
|---|---|
| Assessment Title | Module Handbook |
| Academic Year | 2025-26 |
Contact Details
Module Synopsis
Module Learning Outcomes
AACSB
Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME)
Teaching and Learning Approach
Module Delivery
Lecture and Seminar Sessions
Returning Home
Formative Feedback Strategy
Key Dates & Activities
Academic Support
Facilitator Responsibilities
Your Responsibilities
Responsibilities of the School
Assessment
Learning Resources
Reading
Recorded Webinars
Research Ethics
Schedule of Activity
Assessment Brief: Project Proposal
Assessment Brief: Final Project
Assessment Criteria Grid: Project Proposal
Assessment Criteria Grid: Final Project
The Professional Inquiry Project allows students to demonstrate their mastery of management within the field of their degree. It is an individual and independent project in which students can bring together and apply their learning from the programme to help to solve a chosen business problem or challenge, a real-world issue or a research topic. Through bringing together learning from across their degree programme, students will demonstrate their accumulated knowledge and understanding of management within their field and its application to organisations, through synoptic assessment.
This module seeks to enable and facilitate innovation and creativity in terms of project foci, form and output. Rather than being prescriptive, students are required to not only undertake an in-depth study of a topic related to the title of the degree but also to take responsibility for their own learning and negotiate the form and output of the final project. The choice of topic and format of the final assessment will be negotiated with the tutor, which will ensure mutuality of intent, process, practice and format of assessment. Although the foci and form of the final project are to be negotiated, the following are indicative of the potential formats students may choose;
i. Work based project,
ii. Client based project, or
iii. Other negotiated projects.
The module provides a framework for business research methods and requires the in-depth development of a proposal for the project. Students will be responsible for finding an organisation and negotiating access where necessary with regard to client-based projects.
Completing the Professional Inquiry Project gives students a unique opportunity to undertake an extended piece of personal research on a topic of their own choosing. By undertaking the project students will be demonstrating their ability to research and critically analyse and integrate complex information necessary in the world of contemporary management.
On completion of the module you should be able to:
LO1 Communicate the aims, objectives and relevance of their chosen research project.
LO2 Assess ethical issues and determine ways in which resources can be managed in a socially responsible manner.
LO3 Develop achievable and logical plans to guide the implementation of their chosen research project.
LO4 Select, collect, analyse and interpret evidence from multiple sources in accordance with sound principles of research and investigation.
LO5 Synthesise and critically evaluate different sources of knowledge to articulate logical and cogent argumentation.
LO6 Critically evaluate and apply theoretical and methodological approaches in ways that augment understanding of the topic.
LO7 Reflect critically on their own research practice and intellectual argument, particularly in the context of contemporary debates in management.
LO8 Propose practical resolutions via conclusions and recommendations when appropriate.
LO9 Apply a critical understanding of sustainability to the chosen area of study.
In addition to module learning outcomes, selected modules within Lincoln International Business School are required to deliver and assess particular core competencies associated with our mission as an AACSB Accrediting Business School, and as such reflect core skills and knowledge sets associated with being a graduate in business management. There are twelve core competencies, and these are distributed across modules associated with each programme. Each core competency is assessed through the assessment(s) for a module and is identified on the relevant Assessment Rubric.
The assessment of these core competencies is not weighted (they don’t contribute to your grade) but is assessed based on proficiency/non-proficiency. If you find yourself not achieving proficiency, then this will not directly affect the outcome for a module, but it is an opportunity for you to reflect on your own development and how you can work towards proficiency at a later opportunity. We will also reflect on the overall outcomes for modules and programmes and seek to enhance our teaching, learning and assessment as a result.
The Core Competencies assessed in this module are as follows:
AoL CC1: Sustainability Commitment
Combine frameworks associated with sustainability to formulate innovative strategies and policies
AoL CC2: Social Responsibility & Citizenship
Evaluate the barriers to and drivers of sustainable value creation
AoL CC3: Ethical Commitment
Assess ethical issues and determine ways in which resources can be managed in a socially responsible manner
AoL CC4: Creativity
Create and plan innovative solutions to real-world problems
AoL CC5: Problem Solving
Apply data analytics to tackle and solve demanding problems in original ways
AoL CC6: Technological Agility
Select and apply appropriate technologies to support reasoned, responsible decision-making
AOL CC8: Synthesis
Synthesise information to contribute original insight to contemporary challenges and domains
AoL CC9: Communication
Compose high-level professional communications in a range of complex contexts
AoL CC10: Critical Thinking
Critically reflect on contemporary policy or practice
AoL CC11: Reflection
Reflect on own knowledge and understanding, prioritising self-development in new high-level skills
AoL CC12: Adaptability
Appraise trends and their potential impacts on the agency and its effectiveness in the context of sustainability
Lincoln International Business School is a member of PRME (Principles of Responsible Management Education) and seeks to engage its students in critical debate about the implications of sustainability for the global business community and management practice.
To that end, students are encouraged to integrate these principles into their research practice and reflect on the implications of PRME for their own work. All human activity impacts our environment (natural, social, and political) and should be a consideration in your work.
This module represents 600 hours of student learning activity and will typically last around fourteen weeks for a full-time student. The timescale for a part-time student will be adjusted accordingly. This module comprises the final 60 credits of the programme and will normally be the final module studied.
This module combines a class-based lecture programme, drop-in academic support at intermittent intervals, and regular student-managed learner sets. The module begins with structured research methods lecture input and tutor-led guidance to support idea generation, proposal writing and ethical clearance. Students will attend weekly, timetabled classes during this time. Between each taught class, students are expected to meet in their student learner set. These should run until the final writing-up period.
Learner sets are designed to support students’ individual learning and progress on this module. Students’ assessments are all individual submissions. Students are encouraged to log their learning and progress in these sets and bring their discoveries and questions to the taught classes.
On completion of the class-based sessions, students may continue to work in their learner set or individually as they prefer. During this time, they will have access to intermittent workshop drop-in sessions for general advice on their progress. Subject specialists will also be available during these sessions.
Receiving formative feedback during your learning is essential to ensure you are prepared for your final assessments. To support your learning throughout the module, the following formative feedback strategies are used:
Feedback on draft work, directions and themes – one piece of work can be submitted for feedback. This is not a full dissertation (more details of this will be given in your seminars). You need to decide the balance between early feedback and later feedback on more developed work. Note there is a cutoff point for requesting this feedback on Friday, 29 August 2025.
|
Date |
Activity |
What do I need to do? |
Who does this? |
|
June to August 2025 |
From w/c 2nd June 2025
Attend drop-in sessions as required. |
Work with your seminar tutor to develop your research plan, complete your LEAS application (if planning to do any primary data collection) and understand the final project requirements. |
All |
|
19 June 2025 |
Submit the Coursework/Project Proposal |
A submission point will be availed on Turnitin. |
All |
|
8 July 2025
|
Submit your Lincoln Ethical Approval System (LEAS) online ethical approval application (and its supporting materials) if you plan to collect any primary data. |
This submission is made via the separate University LEAS system (not through Blackboard).
Please note: No data can be collected without university permission. |
Anyone conducting primary research |
|
August and September |
Attend support Q & A sessions as required. |
More information on these will be provided later in the module. |
All |
|
8 August 2025 |
Cut-off for securing LEAS approval. |
LEAS will not be considered after this date. Anyone who has not secured approval by this date will need to undertake SECONDARY RESEARCH ONLY. |
Anyone conducting primary research |
|
29 August 2025 |
Submission of dissertation outline for feedback. |
Submit 700-word draft via Turnitin submission point by 12 noon |
All |
|
12 noon on 19 September 2025 |
Final project submission (via Turnitin). |
Submit your final project. |
All |
The assessment for this module consists of two parts, which will be equivalent to a word count of 15,000 words.
Part 1: A project proposal (20%) 3,000 words
Part 2: Project (80%) 12,000 words
Students will be required to produce a formal proposal shortly after the commencement of the project. This counts towards 20% of the student’s final mark. Feedback on this work will support the completion of the student’s final submission, worth 80%.
Students are required to attain ethical approval for primary research, which must be evidenced within the final project submission.
Full assessment details are available in the Assessment Briefing(s) at the end of the module handbook. This module uses Assessment Criteria Grids to provide feedback via Turnitin.
The key text(s) for this module are:
Bigamy, J. (2018). Succeeding with your Master's Dissertation, 4th Edition. London: Sage.
Chatfield, T. (2018). Critical Thinking: Your Guide to Effective Argument, Successful Analysis & Independent Study. London: Sage.
Cottrell, S. (2017). Critical Thinking Skills: Effective Analysis, Argument and Reflection. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., Jackson, P.R. and Jaspersen, L.J. (2018) Management and Business Research, London: Sage.
Grey, D.E. (2020). Doing Research in the Business World. London: Sage.
Moore, S., Neville, C., Murphy, M. and Connolly, C. (2010). The Ultimate Study Skills Handbook. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
Saunders, M.N.K., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2019) Research Methods, 8th edition. Harlow: Pearson.
Other, more specific references will be signposted in class. You are also expected to read independently for this module. This module requires that you follow the Harvard System of referencing.
The University requires that all those carrying out research engage with the University’s commitment to conduct research to high ethical standards; understand the reasons for, and participate fully in, the ethical review process; and fulfil their moral and legal responsibilities in respect of the rights and welfare of participants.
The conduct of students must always be overseen by their facilitator, who takes responsibility for ensuring that the Code of Practice for Research and all relevant policies and procedures are followed.
Please read the research code of practice.
The University of Lincoln is committed to ensuring that its research activities involving human participants and personal data are conducted in a way that:
Research is broadly viewed as ‘that involving humans’ and ‘that not involving humans.
Research not involving humans
No ethical clearance is required for any research that is:
|
Week |
Lecture Topic |
Supporting Reading (Available via Talis reading list) |
|
1 w/c 2nd June 2025 |
Module introduction |
Saunders et al., (2019) Chapters 1-2 Biggam (2018) Chapter 4 |
|
2 |
Finding a focus and LEAS |
Saunders et al., (2019) Chapter 2 Biggam (2018) Chapter 4 |
|
3 |
Structure, reflection and coherency |
Saunders et al., (2019) Chapters 3-4 Biggam (2018) Chapter 5 |
|
4 |
Literature and reading |
Saunders et al., (2019) Chapter 8 |
|
5 |
Methodology and criticality |
Saunders et al., (2019) Chapters 5, 9-13 |
|
6 |
Assessment briefing and support |
|
Module Code & Title: BUS9720M Professional Inquiry Project
Contribution to Final Module Mark: 20%
Description of Assessment Task and Purpose:
The first assessment on this module is a 3,000-word project proposal, presented using the template provided on Blackboard.
The purpose of this assessment is to assess the relevance and feasibility of your proposed project. The introduction and literature review sections should demonstrate your understanding of the existing knowledge base, and the methodology section should be as detailed as possible at this stage.
Knowledge and Understanding: topical issues in business and management informed by contemporary organisation (PO5)
Subject-Specific Intellectual Skills: assess and solve complex and unpredictable problems and make decisions based on identifying and evaluating appropriate alternatives (PO11)
Subject-Specific Practical Skills: effectively use information and communication technologies relevant to the Management discipline (PO15); ability to evaluate, integrate and apply theory, practice and reflection ethically and responsibly (PO16); acquire, evaluate and synthesise a range of information for diverse organisational purposes including new situations (PO17)
Transferable Skills and Attributes: plan and implement projects autonomously and independently, and take responsibility for acquiring new knowledge and skills (PO23).
You are required to submit your assessment before 12 noon on Thursday, 19 June 2025, using the Turnitin submission point on the Blackboard module site. Pay careful attention to the instructions provided at the time of submission.
Late submissions, whether measured against an original or formally extended deadline, shall be penalised. The penalty shall consist of a reduction in the mark of 10 percentage points for each whole or partial day late (even a few minutes), including weekends. For example, where an assignment warranting a merit mark of 58% is submitted late within the first 24 hours, a mark of 48% shall be recorded.
Please note that the total word limit of 3,000 words for this assignment is an absolute maximum. Misrepresentation of word counts in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage in an assessment may be referred to as an academic offence. The word count should be clearly stated on the first page of the assignment.
Students should be aware that the marker will not include any work after the maximum word limit has been reached within the allocation of marks. Students may therefore be penalised for a failure to be concise and for failing to conclude their work within the word limit specified. Likewise, a failure to meet the maximum word limit may result in lower marks based on the quality of the work because they may not have included the necessary information required for the assessment and met the intended learning outcomes.
The word count includes everything in the main body of the text (including headings, tables, citations, quotes, etc.). It does not include your cover sheet, reference list or Gantt chart.
Where students experience unexpected and exceptional difficulties in preparing for or completing coursework, and have evidence for this, they may request an extension for coursework submission. Further advice about making an extension request can be found on your OneUni homepage.
The proposal should be submitted as one document using Microsoft Word (not a PDF). As a University of Lincoln student, you will have access to Microsoft 365.
You must use the template provided on the Blackboard module site.
Please comply with the following formatting guidelines:
Do You Need BUS9720M Dissertation of This Question
Order Non-Plagiarized DissertationModule Code & Title: BUS9720M Professional Inquiry Project
Contribution to Final Module Mark: 80%
Description of Assessment Task and Purpose:
You should undertake an extended piece of personal research on a topic of your own choosing. The length of this work should be a maximum of 12,000 words.
The choice of topic and format of the final assessment will be negotiated with your facilitator. Example formats include dissertation, work-based project, client-based project; or other negotiated project such as the design of a new enterprise.
This is an individual and independent project that requires you to demonstrate your ability to research and critically analyse, and integrate complex information necessary in the world of contemporary management. You will be supervised by a member of staff who will provide support and guidance, make useful suggestions and offer reassurance, but not give instructions on what to do. You are responsible for effectively managing your individual project to meet the learning outcomes of the module.
You should indicate in the relevant section of the cover sheet whether your project was based on primary or secondary data. Where the project was based on primary data, you should include your favourable ethical opinion letter as Appendix 1 to your project.
LO1 Communicate the aims, objectives and relevance of their chosen research project.
LO4 Select, collect, analyse and interpret evidence from multiple sources in accordance with sound principles of research and investigation.
LO5 Synthesise and critically evaluate different sources of knowledge to articulate logical and cogent argumentation.
LO6 Critically evaluate and apply theoretical and methodological approaches in ways that augment understanding of the topic.
LO7 Reflect critically on their own research practice and intellectual argument, particularly in the context of contemporary debates in management.
LO8 Propose practical resolutions via conclusions and recommendations when appropriate.
LO9 Apply a critical understanding of sustainability to the chosen area of study.
Knowledge and Understanding: topical issues in business and management informed by contemporary organisation (PO5)
Subject-Specific Intellectual Skills: assess and solve complex and unpredictable problems and make decisions based on identifying and evaluating appropriate alternatives (PO11)
Subject-Specific Practical Skills: effectively use information and communication technologies relevant to the Management discipline (PO15); ability to evaluate, integrate and apply theory, practice and reflection ethically and responsibly (PO16); acquire, evaluate and synthesise a range of information for diverse organisational purposes, including new situations (PO17)
Transferable Skills and Attributes: plan and implement projects autonomously and independently, and take responsibility for acquiring new knowledge and skills (PO23).
You are required to submit your Final Project before 12 noon on Friday, 19 September 2025, using the Turnitin submission point on the Blackboard module site. Pay careful attention to the instructions provided at the time of submission.
Late submissions, whether measured against an original or formally extended deadline, shall be penalised. The penalty shall consist of a reduction in the mark of 10 percentage points for each whole or partial day late (even a few minutes), including weekends. For example, where an assignment warranting a merit mark of 58% is submitted late within the first 24 hours, a mark of 48% shall be recorded.
Please note that the total word limit of 12,000 words for this assignment is an absolute maximum. Misrepresentation of word counts in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage in an assessment may be referred to as an academic offence. The word count should be clearly stated on the first page of the assignment.
Students should be aware that the marker will not include any work after the maximum word limit has been reached within the allocation of marks. Students may therefore be penalised for a failure to be concise and for failing to conclude their work within the word limit specified. Likewise, a failure to meet the maximum word limit may result in lower marks based on the quality of the work because they may not have included the necessary information required for the assessment and met the intended learning outcomes.
The word count includes everything in the main body of the text (including headings, tables, citations, quotes, etc.). It does not include: your cover sheet, title page, abstract, acknowledgements, abstract, table of contents, list of figures, list of abbreviations, reference list, or appendices.
Where students experience unexpected and exceptional difficulties in preparing for, or completing coursework and have evidence for this, they may request an extension for coursework submission. Further advice about making an extension request can be found on your OneUni homepage.
|
Clarity 15% |
Excellent (5) |
Good (4) |
Satisfactory (3) |
Fair - with risk of failure (2) |
Poor - needs significant improvement (1) |
Not Evidenced (0) |
|
Is the focus of the project clear and suitable? Is there a central aim and related objectives? Is the focus suitable for the degree title? |
Excellent clarity |
Aims and objectives clearly expressed but would benefit from further improvement/tightening |
Aims and objectives apparent and workable, but some further clarification required |
General aim apparent but are insufficient to provide the guidance or structure required |
General aims weekly identified but need further refinement and objectives need to be articulated appropriately |
Not evidenced |
|
Rationale 20% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the justification for and relevance of the topic in terms of academic literature or contemporary business practice? Is there scope for critical thinking and originality/creativity? |
Excellent rationale - clear and concise |
Rationale fundamentally sound, but would benefit from further thought/stronger argument in some areas |
Rationale as outlined is generally relevant but lacks originality and/or scope for creativity/criticality. The rationale needs to be clearer/stronger in some respects; to enable the work to make appropriate recommendations/develop stronger conclusions |
Rationale is weak and arguments need strengthening in several important respects if the work is to meet a pass standard |
Rationale unclear/inconsistent. The argument insufficiently supported and lacks clarity/relevancy |
Not evidenced |
|
Suitability 20% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the approach to the problem or project sound? Are the potential sources of evidence identified and to what extent can this material be assembled? Have sources of evidence been evaluated? Are the sources/subject accessible?
|
Excellent - clear relationship between aims/objectives and chosen approach. If followed through competently the work should address all aims and objectives |
The approach is generally suitable and, if carried out competently, should enable the general aims and most of the objectives to be met. There are some minor concerns/potential improvements required |
Approach being taken is broadly appropriate. However, there are some doubts about some aspects and further work is needed in several important respects. However, there is confidence that the approach should enable the work to succeed
|
There are significant doubts about the suitability of the approach being taken/proposed. Unless the issues are addressed then the work is unlikely to meet the standard expected |
Methods/Sources are either inappropriate or ill defined. Unless the approach is changed/further developed, the work is likely to fail |
Not evidenced |
References 20% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the scope and extent of the literature understood? Have the key sources been identified and accessed? Are the citations correct? |
Excellent - precise and appropriate with no obvious limitation |
The references/sources are broadly and specifically appropriate to the purpose of the research. If used well, they should enable the work to reach a high standard. Some minor additions/adjustments are needed to improve the potential |
The evidence presented confirms that the sources are broadly sufficient and accessible. Further work is needed to either identify more focused material/sources and/or broaden the evidence base. If used appropriately, the evidence base is sufficient to enable the work to reach a pass standard |
Basic sources identified but further sources are needed to scope the study. Unless the sources are developed, the work is unlikely to pass |
References inappropriate/insufficient, further literature search needed. As it stands the evidence base is insufficient to enable the work to pass |
Not evidenced |
|
Schedule 10% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the schedule of work fully outlined, clear and achievable? |
Excellent - the schedule has built in contingency and is highly likely to succeed |
The schedule is clear and logical. However, there are some minor concerns and/or limited evidence of contingency planning |
The workflow is generally clear and milestones appropriate. The schedule may be ambiguous in part and have limited contingency; or be inconsistent with expectations. However, if all goes according to plan, the work has a high probability of being completed on time |
More work needed to clarify workflow and milestones, and more importantly, the work is at risk of failing to meet the deadline |
Schedule flawed in several respects and the work is highly unlikely to be completed satisfactorily unless these are resolved |
Not evidenced |
|
Ethics 15% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the proposal ethically responsible and consistent with the values of LIBS? |
Fully articulated and all dilemmas appropriately resolved |
Generally well-articulated and no significant issues unresolved. There may be some minor issues associated with presentation and argumentation, but fundamental ethical issues have been dealt with |
Generally sufficient to enable the work to proceed, but some minor matters may still need resolving |
Some ethical dilemmas either need further articulation or resolutions needed before the research can proceed |
Limited awareness of ethical principles and/or principles of responsible management education. The research cannot proceed further until these issues are addressed |
Not evidenced |
|
Assessment Criteria |
Exceptional 80+ |
Excellent 70-79 |
Good 60-69 |
Satisfactory 50-59
|
Fair with significant weaknesses 40-49 |
Poor with fundamental weakness Less than 40 |
|
Communication Communicates effectively the aims, objectives and relevance of the research project. (LO1) |
The work is exceptionally well communicated and goes well beyond the expectations of this level |
Excellent with few significant errors |
Aims and Objectives well communicated with only minor issues. The relevance of the work is clear, but some aspects may require some further elaboration |
Aims and objectives are stated and sufficiently clear but may require further refinement. The general relevance of the work is understood but not necessarily fully articulated in the context of the study |
Aims and objectives are apparent but may not be sufficiently coherent or logical. The broader relevance of the work may not be understood or weakly articulated |
The aims and objectives remain vague, and the work suffers from a lack of focus or clear sense of direction. The broader relevance is not considered or articulated |
|
Method Selected, collected, analysed and interpreted evidence from multiple sources in accordance with sound principles of research and investigation. (LO4) |
The execution is virtually flawless and demonstrates competence beyond the level of study |
The work draws upon an extensive range of sources and uses these effectively following sound principles of research and investigation |
The work draws upon a wide range of sources and uses these appropriately following the main principles of research and investigation. There will be minor omissions or insufficient triangulation or cross-referencing |
The work draws upon sufficient source material to substantiate arguments. However, further data could have been collected and/or analysed to provide a fuller and more balanced investigation. The work has followed the basic principles of investigation |
Although the work has collected and analysed evidence the sources need enhancing and the interpretation is deficient in some ways. The work has not consistently followed the key principles of research design |
There is insufficient evidence and the analysis lacks sophistication with virtually no interpretation. Key principles of investigation have not been followed |
|
Synthesis Synthesised and critically evaluated different sources of knowledge in order to articulate logical and cogent argumentation (LO5) |
The work is exceptional, and the powers of criticality and synthesis go well beyond the standards expected at this level |
The work demonstrates criticality and powers of syntheses. The argumentation is logical and coherent. There are strong arguments of advocacy as well as discovery |
The work does synthesise to a large extent and critically evaluate key sources of knowledge. This is robust but not fully developed. The argument is coherent and evidenced, but with a stronger emphasis on discovery than advocacy |
The work tends to summarise quite extensively what is known about the topic rather than integrating the various sources into a more coherent and logical argument. The evidence base is sufficient but needs to be better deployed. Argumentation is emergent rather than developed |
The work tends to present a summary of a somewhat constrained knowledge set. There may be some critical comments, but these are not evaluative. Arguments are under-developed |
The work is a summary of a limited knowledge base. There is a limited basis from which to develop either synthesis or evaluation. No argumentation is evidenced |
|
Evaluation Critically evaluated and applied appropriate theoretical and methodological approaches in ways which augmented understanding of the topic (LO6) |
The work is exceptional and extends our knowledge in a manner which goes well beyond expectation at this level |
The work is appropriately situated, critically evaluates and applies existing frameworks and knowledge domains in a manner that demonstrates a sophisticated understanding and capacity to augment current knowledge |
The key conceptual, theoretical and methodological frameworks are reviewed and applied to the specific topic/project There is some critical evaluation of these frameworks |
The work identifies and outlines appropriate approaches but, does not assess their relative merits nor build an evaluation of their utility to the aims of the project |
Although the work identifies and reviews key approaches, there are significant gaps. The focus is on accessible material rather than that which challenges convention |
There is limited engagement with conceptual, methodological or theoretical approaches that could inform the work. There is insufficient engagement with contemporary approaches, controversy or debate |
|
Reflection Critically reflected on the research practice and intellectual arguments underpinning the work, particularly in the context of contemporary debates in management or business. (LO7) |
The work is exceptional and exceeds the level of reflexivity normally expected at this level |
The work is reflective and evaluates its contribution within the context of wider debates, whether academic or in terms of entrepreneurial, business and management praxis. The work demonstrates justifiable self- confidence |
The work is confident and demonstrates a sound understanding of the limitations of the research conducted and can position the findings within the contexts of wider debates. Positionality may not be fully analysed |
The work focuses on outlining strengths and limitations without necessarily engaging in critical self-reflection. Some reflection is applied to the work undertaken; there may be a lack of confidence or overconfidence in the project. The work doesn't explore all the lessons learnt |
There is no critical self-reflection, rather there is a focus on some strengths and limitations. The reflection tends to be broad rather than applied to the specificities of the individual project |
The work identifies some issues, but these represent a partial reflection on research practice. There is very little engagement with wider debates around business and management practice |
|
Conclusions Proposed practical and appropriate resolutions via conclusions and recommendation, to demonstrate the benefit of the work undertaken. (LO8) |
The work is exceptionally insightful in terms of how the implications and relevancy of the work are understood and articulated |
The work proposes fully appropriate and practical resolutions via conclusions and recommendations, to demonstrate the benefit of the work undertaken |
The work reaches valid conclusions and makes relevant recommendations. The full implications of the work may not be articulated completely but what is proposed is evidence based |
The work reaches an overall conclusion but lacks specific and/or considered recommendations or practical resolutions. Not all recommendations follow from the evidence |
The conclusions are weakly articulated and limited. Where recommendations are made, they may not reflect evidence or be practical. The work does provide sufficient basis for more robust conclusions |
The conclusion tends to be summative rather than integrative. The nature of the findings is not fully appreciated or understood in the context of existing debates or business and management practice |
|
Ethics and Sustainability Critically applied ethical and sustainability principles to the chosen area of study (LO9)
|
The work demonstrates exceptional knowledge and critical understanding of ethical and sustainability principles such that it goes well beyond the standards expected at this level |
The work demonstrates in-depth knowledge and critical understanding of ethical and sustainability principles. The work identifies in detail and critically evaluates differing interests and viewpoints of various stakeholders with exemplary clarity and ethical insight |
The work demonstrates a sound knowledge and understanding of ethical and sustainability principles. The work critically evaluates differing interests and viewpoints, but this could be further developed |
The work demonstrates a sufficient knowledge and understanding of ethical and sustainability principles. The work evaluates differing interests and viewpoints of various stakeholders but lacks critical insight |
The level of knowledge and understanding of ethical and sustainability principles is not quite at the level expected. There is limited or no attempt to evaluate differing interests and viewpoints of various stakeholders |
There is evidence that some knowledge of ethical and sustainability principles has been accumulated but this is very limited and there are significant gaps and fundamental weaknesses or misunderstandings. |
|
Presentation Presentation and organisation of the project. |
The work is exceptionally well presented, and the organisation exceeds that expected at this level |
The work fully complies with presentation guidelines and conventions |
Overall, the presentation is of a high standard but with a few minor amendments required to bring it up to full compliance |
The presentation meets the pass standard but contains several errors and deviation from the guidelines and conventions |
The work is not quite up to the standard expected. There are numerous errors- whilst these detract from the text they could have been easily rectified by re-working or editing the work |
There are significant weaknesses in presentation and the work does not really meet expectations and falls short of convention in several important respects. These errors would require significant reworking of the text
|
|
|
Levels of Achievement |
|||||
|
AoL Core Competency (Non-Weighted) |
Proficient exceptional |
Proficient distinction |
Proficient merit |
Proficient pass |
Not yet proficient |
Not proficient |
|
AoL CC1 Sustainability Application Combine frameworks associated with sustainability to formulate innovative strategies and policies |
Selects well-chosen frameworks with strong justification. Combines frameworks effectively and with originality in the formulation of strategies and polices. Strategies and policies are original, innovative, likely to be effective and are well justified |
Selects well-chosen frameworks with strong justification. Combines frameworks effectively and with originality in the formulation of strategies and polices. Strategies and policies are original, innovative, likely to be effective and are well justified |
Selects well-chosen frameworks with strong justification. Combines frameworks effectively and with originality in the formulation of strategies and polices. Strategies and policies are original, innovative, likely to be effective and are well justified |
Selects appropriate frameworks with justification. Combines frameworks effectively in the formulation of strategies and policies. Strategies and policies are innovative and likely to be effective; appropriate justification |
Frameworks are recognised but not combined or used appropriately to formulate appropriate strategies or policies. Formulated strategies lack originality or are not based on critical evaluation |
Selects inappropriate or irrelevant frameworks; weak or no justification of framework selection. Frameworks are not combined/incorrectly applied in the formulation of strategies and polices. Strategies and policies are inappropriate or likely to be ineffective; weak or no justification |
|
AoL CC2 Sustainability Analysis Evaluate the barriers to and drivers of sustainable value creation |
Evaluation is critical and considers perspectives of different stakeholders. Concept of value creation problematised and debated |
Evaluation is critical and considers perspectives of different stakeholders. Concept of value creation problematised and debated |
Evaluation is critical and considers perspectives of different stakeholders. Concept of value creation problematised and debated |
Evaluation balanced and comprehensive. Application related to context and value creation |
Evaluation incomplete or unbalanced with little consideration beyond generic or broad contexts; lacks specificity in relation to value creation |
Identifies some barriers and/or drivers but does not evaluate these in context |
|
AoL CC3 Critical Assessment of Ethical Issues Assess ethical issues and determine ways in which resources can be managed in a socially responsible manner |
Ethical issues are assessed in depth. Findings are used to determine creative, practical, and well justified suggestions in which resources can be managed in a socially responsible manner |
Ethical issues are assessed in depth. Findings are used to determine creative, practical, and well justified suggestions in which resources can be managed in a socially responsible manner |
Ethical issues are assessed in depth. Findings are used to determine creative, practical, and well justified suggestions in which resources can be managed in a socially responsible manner |
Ethical issues are assessed adequately. Findings are used to determine appropriate and well justified suggestions in which resources can be managed in a socially responsible manner |
Identifies some relevant ethical issues but does not assess these sufficiently. Some suggestions are made but not justified sufficiently or framed in socially responsible management |
Ethical issues are not assessed or assessed with little depth. Findings are not used. Suggestions provided for ways in which resources can be managed in a socially responsible manner are inappropriate or poorly justified.
|
|
AoL CC4 Creativity Create and plan innovative solutions to real world problems |
Uses idea-generating techniques to create innovative solutions. Carefully evaluates the quality of ideas and selects the best one. Uses ingenuity and imagination, going outside conventional boundaries, when creating solutions |
Uses idea-generating techniques to create innovative solutions. Carefully evaluates the quality of ideas and selects the best one. Uses ingenuity and imagination, going outside conventional boundaries, when creating solutions |
Uses idea-generating techniques to create innovative solutions. Carefully evaluates the quality of ideas and selects the best one. Uses ingenuity and imagination, going outside conventional boundaries, when creating solutions |
Develops some original solutions but could develop more with better use of idea-generating techniques. Evaluates ideas but may make only minor changes to the selected one. Shows some imagination when creating and planning solutions, but may stay within conventional boundaries |
Stays within existing frameworks; does not use idea-generating techniques to develop solutions. Selects one idea without evaluating the quality of ideas. Reproduces existing ideas; does not create new solutions |
Does not recognise or articulate solutions to the problems posed |
|
AoL CC5 Data Analytics Apply data analytics to tackle and solve demanding problems in original ways |
Sophisticated and critical application and interpretation of data analytics to the specific problem(s). Solutions are evidence based and accompanied by clear caveats |
Sophisticated and critical application and interpretation of data analytics to the specific problem(s). Solutions are evidence based and accompanied by clear caveats |
Sophisticated and critical application and interpretation of data analytics to the specific problem(s). Solutions are evidence based and accompanied by clear caveats |
Appropriate analysis of complexity which provides a sufficiently robust evidence base to support decision-making. Solutions reflect evidence and are original/context specific |
Engagement with problem incomplete or overly simplistic. The decisions/solutions not fully connected to data analysis or insufficiently evidenced based. Some errors in interpretation. Proposed solutions lack originality |
Application of data analytics limited or erroneous, complexity of problem unrecognised with no analytically informed solutions. |
|
AoL CC6 Technological Agility Select and apply appropriate technologies to support reasoned, responsible decision-making |
Application of technology is sophisticated and critical; limits of technology are understood in the context of the broader and specific considerations of responsible decision-making |
Application of technology is sophisticated and critical; limits of technology are understood in the context of the broader and specific considerations of responsible decision-making |
Application of technology is sophisticated and critical; limits of technology are understood in the context of the broader and specific considerations of responsible decision-making |
Technologies and application appropriate to the context/task. The application informs or has the potential to enhance decision-making. Decisions are informed by consideration of responsibility to stakeholders |
Appropriate technologies selected but application does not extend sufficiently to support reasoned and/or responsible decision-making |
Inappropriate technology selected or application limited. Not used to inform responsible decision making |
|
AoL CC8 Synthesis Synthesise information to contribute original insight to contemporary challenges and domains |
Integrates relevant and sufficient information to address the challenge or domain, gathered from multiple and varied sources. In addition to typical sources, finds unusual ways or places to get information. Promotes divergent or creative perspectives |
Integrates relevant and sufficient information to address the challenge or domain, gathered from multiple and varied sources. In addition to typical sources, finds unusual ways or places to get information. Promotes divergent or creative perspectives |
Integrates relevant and sufficient information to address the challenge or domain, gathered from multiple and varied sources. In addition to typical sources, finds unusual ways or places to get information. Promotes divergent or creative perspectives |
Integrates relevant and sufficient information to address the challenge or domain Finds one or two sources that are not typical Offers new ideas but stays within narrow perspectives |
Does not integrate information to address the challenge or domain Gathers too little, too much, or irrelevant information, or from too few sources. Does not offer any new ideas |
Insufficient information, weakly organised and descriptive |
|
AoL CC9 Communication Compose high-level professional communications in a range of complex contexts |
High levels of clarity and precision, communication and language appropriate to complex contexts. Demonstrates various forms of reflexivity |
High levels of clarity and precision, communication and language appropriate to complex contexts. Demonstrates various forms of reflexivity |
High levels of clarity and precision, communication and language appropriate to complex contexts. Demonstrates various forms of reflexivity |
Generally clear and consistently expressed, appropriate to purpose, context and diverse audiences. Accurate use of language, including (where appropriate) technical and contextual vocabulary. Logical and adequately structured. The reasoning is clear, and the central ideas are logically sequenced. The communication is effective but could be more cohesive and consistent, recognising the complexities of positionality and different ways of 'knowing' |
Generally clear, but not necessarily consistent expression. Format not quite appropriate to purpose, context and audience. Occasional lack of clarity with some terminology and vocabulary not used accurately. The work is not sufficiently coherent or logical. The reasoning is not sufficiently clear, there is some relevant material, but ideas are not sufficiently clear or developed logically |
Generally unclear and imprecise use of language/terminology. Inaccurate or vague expression makes meaning unclear. The work is poorly organised and sequencing weak or illogical. The format is not appropriate to the purpose and the use of the medium is not sufficiently competent |
|
AoL CC10 Critical Thinking Critically reflect on contemporary policy or practice |
There is clear evidence of critical judgement in selecting, ordering and analysing content. Source material is evaluated to considered. Conclusions, implications and consequences are both identified and assessed |
There is clear evidence of critical judgement in selecting, ordering and analysing content. Source material is evaluated to considered. Conclusions, implications and consequences are both identified and assessed |
There is clear evidence of critical judgement in selecting, ordering and analysing content. Source material is evaluated to considered. Conclusions, implications and consequences are both identified and assessed |
Identifies the key issues and problems and demonstrates some limited criticality. Provides some limited or offers partially reasoned conclusions. Evidence may be used superficially to support viewpoint. There may be some attempt to question common assumptions |
Acknowledges more than one potential viewpoint but does not acknowledge own assumptions or biases. Whilst a few critical comments may be made, these are not supported by evaluation or by reference to wider arguments |
Largely descriptive in response rather than evaluative. Limited use of material and this may be used to support own conclusions. Very little evidence of critical thinking |
|
AoL CC11 Self Reflection Reflect on own knowledge and understanding, prioritising self-development in new high-level skills |
Strong analysis and critical reflection on current personal skill set and professional development. Evidences experiential learning and mindfulness |
Strong analysis and critical reflection on current personal skill set and professional development. Evidences experiential learning and mindfulness |
Strong analysis and critical reflection on current personal skill set and professional development. Evidences experiential learning and mindfulness |
Good self-analysis of recent experience, reflection of current personal skill set and established priorities for professional development. Draws conclusions and makes connections to future plans for developing higher order skills |
Limited analysis and reflection on current personal skill set and requirements of professional development. Does not make a connection to future plans |
Unable to identify own capabilities or prioritise areas for development |
|
AoL CC12 Adaptability Appraise trends and their potential impacts on own agency and effectiveness in the context of sustainability |
Trends are clearly identified and have been analysed. These are related to the impacts on agency and effectiveness. Sustainability is embedded within the analysis |
Trends are clearly identified and have been analysed. These are related to the impacts on agency and effectiveness. Sustainability is embedded within the analysis |
Trends are clearly identified and have been analysed. These are related to the impacts on agency and effectiveness. Sustainability is embedded within the analysis |
Have identified and discussed the trends. May not have fully engaged with all elements and potential impacts. Has analysed own agency and effectiveness although this may be limited. Sustainability context is reflected in the content however may not be completely embedded |
Unable to identify own capabilities or prioritise areas for development |
Trends are not analysed but only identified. Have not engaged with the potential impacts and effectiveness. May not relate to sustainability |
Hire Experts to solve this dissertation Before your Deadline
Buy Today Contact UsAre you looking for help with your BUS9720M Professional Inquiry Project? Don’t stress anymore! We offer expert Project Management assignment help at affordable prices. Our team of PhD writers provides well-researched, AI-free, and plagiarism-free work. We deliver before deadlines and are available 24/7 to support you. Whether it’s Business Management or any other topic, we’re here for you. You can also get free dissertation samples to check our quality. Improve your grades and reduce your stress—contact us today for reliable and professional assignment help that you can trust! We also provide University of Lincoln Assignment Samples that have been written by the phd expert writers. Contact us now!
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
