IMA7006 Dissertation Assessment Brief 2026 | RCL

Looking for Plagiarism-Free Answers for Your US, UK, Singapore, New Zealand, and Ireland College/University Assignments?

Talk to an Expert
Published: 21 Sep, 2026
Category Assignment Subject Education
University Regent College London Module Title IMA7006 Dissertation

 

Assessment Title

Dissertation

Assessment Number

AS1

Assessment Type (Weighting)

14000 - 15000 words Report, 100%

Level

HE7 (Master`s Level)

Module leader

Dr Palto Datta

Submission Deadline

11 DECEMBER 2026

Learning Outcomes Assessed

LO1

Demonstrate a masterly grasp of the topic area researched

LO2

Demonstrate skills of analysis, evaluation, critical reflection, synthesis and conceptualisation

LO3

Critically assess the results of the research against the objectives

AI STATUS: CATEGORY A: NO GAI TOOL IS PERMITTED

AI Status Application Notes
Category A No GAI tool is permitted. While grammar and/or spell checkers may be used to correct individual words and sentences, the use of GAI is not allowed. This is because the learning outcomes require you to produce original assessment work without any GAI assistance. Any GAI generated content which is presented as your own original work and is not acknowledged will be assessed for academic misconduct.

Brief

The dissertation is a research project based investigation of a topic approved in term 2. The outcome is likely to comprise answers to a set of research questions. The dissertation represents the culmination of your postgraduate study and is expected to demonstrate independent, critical, and original research capability at Level 7. 

The dissertation is the final stage of the master’s degree and provides you with the opportunity to demonstrate that you have developed the advanced knowledge, critical understanding, and intellectual independence required to design and conduct a substantial research project. It should demonstrate a systematic and holistic understanding of your chosen topic area, together with a comprehensive awareness of current issues and developments in the field of study. 

The dissertation will enable you to further develop your Research Methods topic from semester 2. It is expected that you will streamline and update introductory content in Chapter 1, expand the Literature Review in Chapter 2 and amplify Research Methodology (with justification of choices) in Chapter 3. You will improve these chapters in conjunction with your supervisor’s guidance. You will then combine primary data gathering and desk research to generate findings. You will evaluate and synthesise these results and must present them clearly. You will also produce a set of conclusions drawn from the findings. At the end you will write a reflective chapter on your overall journey as a researcher. 
Task
Your task is to devise and conduct an independent research project on an approved topic and write a 14,000 - 15,000-word dissertation, +/-10%, on the chosen subject. Primary data collection is compulsory. You must demonstrate

  • Clear alignment between research questions, aim(s) and objectives, methodology and findings.
  • Engagement with the most recent, high-quality academic literature.
  • Adequate justification of methodological choices.
  • Ethical compliance.
  • A capacity for cohesive, critical writing.
  • Expert scholarly practice, including handling of results and citation.

The dissertation must include the following elements.

Cover Page
Abstract 
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
Glossary
List of Tables
List of Figures

1.    Introduction 

  • Background to the study context.
  • Statement of the research problem.
  • Key research questions.
  • A clear and succinct statement of the aim(s)  and research objectives the dissertation will address.
  • A rationale for conducting the research, e.g., motivation for the project, who could benefit from it and how, the business significance of the study.
  • Outline of the dissertation chapter structure.

The following chapters should start with a short introduction and end with a brief conclusion.

2.    Literature Review

  • Critical review of key areas of literature.
  • Discussion of relevant theoretical perspectives.
  • Development of a conceptual framework.
  • Identification of a literature gap.

3.    Methodology

  • Research paradigm/philosophy.
  • Research approach, strategy and design.
  • Methods used, with supporting rationales.
  • Sampling framework (for quantitative research).
  • Sampling and participant selection criteria (for qualitative research). 
  • Data collection processes.
  • Data analysis.
  • Ethical considerations (ethical issues you have identified and means of addressing them).
  • Validity and reliability (for quantitative research).
  • Credibility and reflexive analysis (for qualitative research).

4.    Findings and Analysis

  • Summary and analyses of quantitative data (graphs, charts, results of statistical analysis, i.e. frequency distributions, descriptive and inferential calculations).
  • illustration of theming and coding plus tabulation of main results  with commentary. (qualitative research).

5.    Discussion of findings

  • Interpretation and triangulation of results, focusing on trends and patterns.
  • Synthesis with literature including research gap outcomes.
  • Relationship between findings and theory/theories applied.

6.    Conclusions

  • Summary of main findings.
  • Fulfilment of research objectives.
  • Summary of contributions (e.g. theoretical, practical).
  • Recommendations.
  • Limitations and future research directions.

Personal Reflections Using a reflective model if possible e.g., Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle, you are required discuss the following:

  • Key challenges during the dissertation process.
  • Development of research and professional skills.
  • Growth of ethical and inter-personal professional awareness.

7.    Word Count – to be confirmed at the end of the text. See advice below.

Additional requirements

  • Minimum of 50 high-quality sources. A total of 80-100 is strongly encouraged. All sources cited the dissertation text should be included in the reference list.
  • Strong preference for peer-reviewed journals, supported by relevant trade/business/industry sources, especially to tailor content to your context.
  • Harvard referencing (strict, full adherence is required). Harvard Referencing
  • Evidence of independent, critical thinking and cohesive academic writing.
  • AI use must comply with the stated category (currently restricted).

Appendices. You are required to include the first three items AND quantitative/qualitative evidence as advised below.

  • A completed supervisory meeting form.
  • RE1 (Research Ethics) form.
  • Ethics checklist accompanied by relevant supporting documents such as the participant information sheet and participant consent form.

Quantitative evidence

  • A blank questionnaire (if used). Compulsory.
  • A sample of a completed survey response including qualitative answers to open-ended questions. Compulsory. Well-selected, legible screen shots are acceptable.Selected results tables for quantitative research. Optional.
    Qualitative evidence
  • Full interview transcriptions and links to recordings (for qualitative or mixed methods research). Compulsory.
  • Evidence of full, systematic data coding, manual or through NVIVO. Compulsory.  
  • Data analysis outcomes, showing alignment of codes, themes and categories. Compulsory. May take the form of evidence from NVIVO and/or manually-crafted tables. Some of this content will be included in Chapter 4 for illustrative purposes (with commentary) as advised by your supervisor.
  • Additional interview notes for qualitative research, with analysis (only if used). Such notes may not replace interview recordings/transcriptions.

Formatting and style Guidance on formatting and presentation requirements, including font sizes, line spacing, etc., can be found here:

Word Count. You are expected to revise and edit your written dissertation to remain within +/- 10% of the allocated word limit for that piece of work. The bibliography/reference list and all tables, figures and appendices are EXCLUDED from the overall word count.

Minimum References – HE Level 7 Requirements. It is expected that the Reference List/Bibliography will contain sufficient sources to meet the expectations of a project output/portfolio at MBA level (minimum of 50).  For best practice, aim for 80-100 or higher.

The Reference List/Bibliography should mainly comprise good quality refereed academic journals/papers. They will be supported by credible/authoritative reports, Level HE7 academic books/book chapters, credible websites (e.g., company websites, government websites), established trade journals/magazines. 

AI Declaration: At the end of the assessment, you should include a declaration of any software tools including Generative AI (GAI) applications that you used in developing and completing the assessment. The assessment brief will specify if and how GAI applications may be used in the assessment (see p.1).
Late Work:

Late work will be penalised as outlined in the Programme Handbook.

Mitigating Circumstances:

If submission of your work is delayed because of extenuating/mitigating circumstances, please look at the Student Handbook for advice on how to proceed and discuss the matter with your SSO and tutor. All mitigating circumstance claims should be accompanied by evidence.

Fit to Submit:  Assignment Checklist

Please use the provided checklist below to make sure you are ‘fit to submit’ your work.
We recommend you use this checklist as soon as you get this assignment brief to help you plan your work. The purpose of the checklist is to help you avoid prevalent mistakes/oversights that students often make in their assignments. Students frequently lose marks because they forget some of the more basic assignment expectations.

CHECKLIST BEFORE FINAL SUBMISSION

No Checklist
1 I have read and understood the assessment brief and the assessment criteria.
2 I have understood and met the Learning Outcomes.
3 My assignment covers the key areas of the assessment criteria.
4 I have used relevant academic sources to support various arguments and discussion points.
5 My list of references is well aligned with in-text citation.
6 The assignment maintains an academic tone and is fully edited and proofread.
7 Harvard referencing style is fully accurate and used throughout.
8 The assignment is within the stipulated word count.
9 I have read and understood the assignment submission guidelines.
10 I have included all required appendices including a completed supervisory form.
11 The work submitted is my own and not plagiarised.
12 I  have not used AI-generated content and have included the AI declaration form.

Marking Scheme 

  70%+ 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 0-39%

Introduction

10%

Feasible and clear research objectives.

Nature of context is outlined with exceptional clarity

Feasible and clear research objectives.

Nature of context is clearly defined.

Feasible and clear objectives and research question.

Nature of context needs improvement

Poorly phrased objectives or research question.

Under developed research context.

Unfeasible objectives; poorly phrased or omitted research question. Little

explanation of the nature of the research or its context.

Literature Review & Conceptual Framework 20% All work incorporated is recent and/or relevant and is correctly interpreted. Critique is exceptional and clearly informs the synthesis of materials to form the C/F. Very strong supporting references. Almost all work incorporated is recent and/or relevant, relevant and the majority is correctly interpreted. Very clear synthesis to produce valid C/F. Strong supporting references. Includes relevant and recent critically evaluated material clearly synthesised into the C/F. Good supporting references.

Includes some relevant and recent theory, but without critical interpretation. C/F is unfeasible or under developed.

Weak referencing.

Insufficient theoretical content. C/F omitted.

Poor referencing.

Research Methods/ Approach

20%

Exceptionally clear justification of philosophy and strategy.

Robust application of methods to generate abundant relevant data that are rigorously evaluated.

Very clear justification of research philosophy and strategy. Triangulation is clearly incorporated. Robust/ critical evaluation of methods. Philosophy is understood and the choice is clearly justified. Strategy is appropriate. Triangulation is clearly incorporated into the research design with sample details. Methods are critiqued.

Research philosophy, strategy, methods, validity and triangulation is understood but weakly developed.

Sample details (where appropriate) are missing. Weak evaluation of methods

Weak understanding of research philosophy, strategy, methods, validity and triangulation. Sample details (where appropriate) are missing. Weak evaluation of methods.

Findings, Analysis and Discussion

25%

Exceptionally complete data are clearly rigorously/critically interrogated by the conceptual frame. Very well presented. Results are clearly triangulated and exceptionally well presented.

Discussion features rich synthesis. Treatment of literature is critical, imaginative and produces new insights.

Significant theoretical and/or practical contribution identified.

Data address the objectives and have a strong connection to the conceptual frame. Data are critically evaluated, triangulated and very well presented.

Discussion shows good criticality and development. Literature is applied purposefully to findings. Tone is authentic.

Clear contribution identified

Data address the objectives but lack a strong connection to the conceptual frame. Some critical interpretation of data. Presentation of data weak in places.

Discussion is adequate. It is supported by relevant literature but largely descriptive.

Limited contribution identified.

Data only partially address the objectives. Weak incorporation of concepts and theory.  Partial or lack of triangulation. No critical evaluation of data. Unclear presentation.

Discussion lacks substance. Literature contribution is underdeveloped.

Very weak contribution.

Data presented do not address the objectives with rigour.

Weak incorporation of concepts and theory. Partial or lack of triangulation. No critical evaluation of data. Presentation is poor.

Discussion is very limited. Some literature does not align with the text.

No meaningful contribution

Conclusions, limitations and Recommendations

10%

Exceptional in their clarity and support from the evidence.

Rigorous consideration of areas for further research. Recommendations very clearly relate to the conclusions.

Very clearly stated and emergent from the evidence presented. Areas for further research are also clearly indicated. Recommendations clearly relate to the conclusions.

Clearly stated and emergent from the evidence presented. Some consideration of areas for further research.

Recommendations relate to the conclusions.

Weak and superficial conclusion and/or recommendations or implementation plan Poor/underdeveloped  conclusion and/or recommendations or implementation plan

Personal Reflection

10%

Exceptional in critically reflecting one’s personal development during the professional project and experience of the research or enquiry process Very clear critical reflection of one’s personal development during the professional project and experience of the research or enquiry process Clear in critically reflecting one’s personal development during the professional project and experience of the research or enquiry process. Includes some weak and superficial critical reflection of one’s personal development during the professional project and experience of the research or enquiry process Poor/underdeveloped   reflection of one’s personal development during the professional project and experience of the research or enquiry process 
Organisation and academic practice (5%)

Excellent structure and academic writing

Referencing clear, relevant, and consistently accurate. A very large number of relevant/recent references to the literature.

Very good structure and academic writing

Referencing clear, relevant, and consistently accurate. Appropriate number, all relevant.

Acceptable level of structure and academic writing

Referencing relevant and mostly accurate. Appropriate number, most relevant

Weak structure or referencing

Minor inconsistencies and inaccuracies in referencing. Some shortfalls in number, most relevant

Poor academic practice and organisation of the work

Referencing inconsistent and inaccurate or absent.

Get Answer IMA7006 Dissertation Assignment before the deadline

Get Dissertation Assignment Help on WhatsApp

Working on your IMA7006 Dissertation at Regent College London? Workingment provides reliable Dissertation Assignment Help for postgraduate students working on independent research projects. Get guidance with research questions, literature reviews and conceptual frameworks based on your dissertation requirements. Our Dissertation Writing Help can also assist with research methodology, analysing findings, developing discussions and presenting clear conclusions. For help with specific sections, you can also get Research Methodology Assignment Help or Literature Review Assignment Help, with academic writing guidance aligned with your research objectives.

60-Second Quote

Get Your Free Academic Quote

No hidden fees · Instant response · 100% confidential

Workingment Unique Features

Latest Free Samples for University Students

FLAT 15% OFF

AVAIL FLAT 10% OFF

+ Extra 5% OFF

FREE PLAGIARISM REPORT
Applicable on all orders
ORDER NOW →
★★★★★ 4.9/5 | 5118+ Reviews
WhatsApp
Online Assignment Help in UK