| Word Count |
8000 Words |
| Academic Year |
2025-26 |
M31740 Learning Outcomes Assessed
As this is the only summative assessment, all module learning outcomes are tested:
1. Identify and evaluate the ethical and methodological issues that can arise in carrying out research.
2. To undertake and present research in a clear and consistent format at master’s level whilst adhering to ethical principles and drawing realistic and appropriate conclusions and recommendations.
3. To analyse and critically review aspects of international business management.
M31740 The Assessment
This unit is designed to help you undertake independent research and draft a subsequent research report (dissertation). You are required to independently research an academic topic that is related to International Business and Management. The coursework artefact is a submitted dissertation (research report) that reports on the conducted research. Your dissertation submitted will account for 100% of your marks for this 30-credit module.
|
Due date:
|
Monday, 25 March 2024, by 23:54 (BEFORE 23:55)
|
|
Submit to:
|
Your research project dissertation including a completed signed ethics form (as Appendix A in your dissertation) should be uploaded as a single Word file to the Research Project Dissertation Turnitin submission drop box on the MIBM Research project Moodle website (Jan 2023 - Feb 2024). The title of your document must be your student number.
|
|
Return (mark and feedback) date:
|
Thursday, 25 April 2024, by 17:00
|
|
Weighting:
|
100%
|
|
Word Limit:
|
The dissertation MUST NOT exceed 8000 words. The 8000 words do not include the title page, acknowledgements, tables, figures, footnotes, numerical tables, direct quotes, references, citations, and appendices.
|
|
Marks element breakdown:
|
Introduction/context and research questions (20) Literature Review (20)
Research Design (methods/sampling) (20) Results and Analysis (20)
Conclusions and Recommendations (10) Overall (style/structure/presentation) (10)
|
Project Structure
The structure of your project may be specific to your chosen approach or what the literature on your chosen topic tells you to use.
Below is a generic structure that you could consider. Please note that this is not set in stone, and your structure/headings might differ- make sure to consult your supervisor regarding this before submitting your dissertation.
Research Orientation (Chapter 1)
Include items like – introduction; background and motivation (including research context); research problem/question; research aim/purpose; research objectives (if needed); reason for choosing the topic; and the structure (chapters) of the research.
Literature review (Chapter 2)
Include items like – introduction/scope of the review, critical review of different sources of literature, conclusions-synthesis of material/ main findings.
Methodology/Research design (Chapter 3)
State the research question/aims of research first, then describe aspects like – research approach (paradigm/worldview; quantitative/qualitative); data collection (sampling strategy; research methods; validity and reliability (quantitative research)/ trustworthiness(qualitative research)measurement; data measurement; data analysis; ethical implications/approval.
It is usual to complete the literature review first to serve as a theoretical framework in guiding the empirical part of your research. Sometimes the methodology is discussed first if the literature review is part of the method (like with systematic literature reviews) or if the research is purely inductive (qualitative) in nature, where the researcher needs to be unfettered by pre-conceived
ideas/theory.
Results (use this heading for quantitative studies)/ Findings (use this heading for qualitative studies) (Chapter 4)
Include items like – presentation of the results/findings of the research (tables/figures could be
used here), validity and reliability of the results (quantitative)/ trustworthiness of the findings (qualitative), including testing the research hypotheses.
Discussion of results/findings (Chapter 5)
Describe aspects like - interpretation of results/findings; integration of results/findings; comparison with
extant literature; and conclusion on the main findings. You can also choose to combine Chapters 4 and 5 into one chapter with a heading like “Findings and discussion or Results and discussion”.
Conclusion (Chapter 6)
Describe aspects like – the main findings; listing and explicitly answering of each research question
question/objective; research limitations; research contribution (theoretical and practical); recommendations (future research and for organisations/management), reflections.
It is necessary to think about the structure of the project at all levels:
The Project
The proposal that you submitted in your M31739 module, should help you define your research project and its purpose for this module (M31740). With the proposal, you proposed to do the research (Module M31739). The dissertation (submitted in this module: M31740) entails a report on the research project that you have now completed as proposed in the research proposal- you are reporting to the reader what you did and what you found. You must not submit the proposal again.
The Chapters
Plan what each chapter is doing and what its purpose is.
The Sections
Plan the sections of each chapter to support the overall purpose of the chapter.
The Paragraphs
Keep paragraphs short and critical rather than descriptive. Include references (in-text citations) or evidence to support your work and avoid unsupported opinions and generalisations.
The Sentences
Keep sentences concise. If English is your second language, say one thing per sentence to avoid complicated sentences that might be misunderstood.
TIP
The better the structure, the easier the work will be to follow – remember that the second marker will read your work without having met or spoken to you. It is sensible to keep the markers on your side by making their lives slightly easier with a clear, well-structured project. The dissertation (research report) should follow a logical order and should be clear and concise (to the point). It should clearly answer the research questions.
Chapters
There is an adage used when making presentations or teaching students, it’s called the Sergeant Major Rule, which is – tell them what you are going to tell them – tell them – then tell them what you’ve told them. This is exactly what you should do in your dissertation:
|
Tell them what you are going to tell them
|
Each chapter should have a brief introduction to outline key aspects and themes to be explored and developed i.e., say what the chapter is about.
|
|
Tell them
|
Guide the reader through the ideas, arguments, debates, and key writers.
|
|
Tell them what you’ve told them
|
Conclude and summarise the chapter bringing together the ideas in it and linking it to the next chapter.
|
The social constructivist writer, Kenneth Gergen, in the descriptive-analytical tradition, develops the idea of the narrative, suggesting that there are four key elements to a well-formed narrative approach likely to create the illusion of truth, they are:
1. A valued endpoint: a desirable or undesirable end to be achieved or avoided.
2. Events relevant to the endpoint: events that are likely to make the endpoint more probable, accessible, or vivid.
3. Ordering of events: events are usually ordered in a linear time frame.
4. Causal linkages: if one event can be described as causing a second event, then narrative develops into explanation as well as description. (Gergen, 1999, p. 69)
Examples of these four points might be:
|
Point
|
Poor Example
|
Better Example
|
|
1
|
This work is about IBM
|
This work analyses IBM’s strategic success over the last 15 years
|
|
2
|
The work will discuss IBM’s new management team
|
The work will evaluate the effect of IBM’s new management team of 2014
|
|
3
|
Costs were reduced, and new production techniques were introduced
|
New production techniques were introduced, and so costs reduced
|
|
4
|
The new CEO is likely to turn the company's fortunes around
|
The new CEO is likely to turn the company's fortunes around, as she has done so in both of her previous companies
|
There is a requirement that you write in third person, which is accepted practice, but it also creates a reflective space between yourself and the marker and the work, for example:
|
Avoid
|
Try
|
|
I will …
|
The project will …
|
|
I think …
|
The evidence suggests …
|
|
In my opinion …
|
The arguments outlined in the project support …
|
|
I have …
|
The project has …
|
|
As I said earlier …
|
The arguments above …
|
Avoid too many personal (especially unsupported) opinions. Your opinions are absolutely to be respected but they are not to be accepted without good cause.
When doing qualitative research, you should, however, consider writing in the first person.
Focussed on a current issue, the project will usually comprise the following chapters:
Introduction, Background or Context,
This is the first chapter and needs to set the scene for the reader. It must make it clear to the
reader what the project is about and why they should read it.
If the project is company-based, it should give a clear outline and understanding of the organisation and its environment – stakeholders – competitors – markets, etc., and what you intend to do in your analysis to answer a question, perhaps – “Why does strategy fail?”
If it is a more traditional empirical study, then it should explore the reasons for being interested; what do you think is missing from previous research that your project could answer? What has changed in the “competitive” landscape that would make your idea pertinent or your questions valid?
Introductions whilst setting the scene for your ideas they are not opportunities for you to share your own personal theories that you have not really researched or thought through. Introductions are not meant to be unsupported narratives; a reader would expect to see references and or evidence to anchor your work in reality, such that you have a reasonable foundation to build on.
Read your Introduction from time to time to remind you what you are doing or remind you that you need to re-write the Introduction if your project has changed direction a little or the emphasis has changed a little.
Similarly, put your research question(s) on post-it notes, on the top of the monitor of your computer, and when you are 400 words into a paragraph that you can’t remember the purpose of – look at the question(s) and ask yourself, “Is this really helping to answer that question?” It might help you stay on track.
Research Aims and Objectives/Questions
The aims and objectives of the research should be clearly specified, should relate to a Strategic Management, Consultancy, Sustainability, Knowledge Management, or International Management issue, and be at an appropriate level. Sometimes these appear at the end of the Introduction, other times in the Literature Review, depending on the project. This part of the project must be very clear and may have to be the result of some discussions with your supervisor. A reader must not be allowed to read this section and say, ‘what is this all about?’ You need to be very clear about what you are doing. There is a Chinese proverb which states that ‘if you don’t know where you are going, you will probably end up there.’ Don’t let this be true of your project.
Don’t settle on trivial questions. ‘Does corporate culture affect strategic success?’ – of course it can – there are many studies on it, and even if you find a link, there will be a secondary question – ‘which aspects of culture?’ or ‘why does Company A’s culture have a greater impact than Company B’s culture?’. Many projects (some well delivered) have done research into a company, uncovered lots of interesting data, only to discover that what they needed was data regarding (usually) a competitor to do a comparison to test their ideas or answer their questions.
Methodology
There should be clear logic and explanation of an appropriate research methodology and design leading to the collection of quality evidence that will address the primary research questions.
Methodology is the logos of method, i.e., methodology is the study of method. You are not using a methodology; you are using a method because, once you actually do something, it becomes a method in practice.
Kaplan (1973) posits that the major aim of the methodology section of a research project is to:
“...describe and analyse methods, throwing light on their limitations and resources, clarifying their suppositions and consequences, relating their potentialities to the twilight zone at the frontiers of knowledge.” (Kaplan, 1973:93, cited in Clough and Nutbrown 2002:29)
In the methodology section, you will discuss (study) methods to think about and decide which approach you need to take, given the question you wish to answer and the context you will be working in. Say what method you have chosen and why, its strengths and weaknesses, and briefly indicate why you didn’t choose other approaches, and say why this method might get you results where other methods won't.
If doing a PhD or even an MPhil, your methodology chapter would be huge, possibly citing the history of different approaches with successes and failures, and exploring contexts, but
you are not so be sensible and narrow your approach down. Think carefully about the most probable approaches, then justify your chosen method because it best fits your situation and question.
Literature Review
The work should be grounded in an existing body of academic knowledge and should review and assess relevant theory and published research.
The word “Literature” is not the key to a Literature Review; the word “Review” is. By “Review,” we do not mean repeat or paraphrase, or report what authors have written. A Literature Review has or can have many purposes; it is an opportunity for you to show your expertise in your focused area of study. It can be where you outline what the key writers have said about the area you are concerned about, and if they disagree it is where you consider the arguments and possibly add your own interpretation. It can be where you find a gap in the literature that you might use your research to fill – if only in a modest way. It is where you might reflect on the main theories that your project will be based on or reflect on.
Don’t overly use descriptive writing, and avoid over-quoting. Try to discuss and argue theories and ideas through.
Your purpose in this chapter is to critique and show critical understanding of the key concepts, theories, and ideas that are most germane to your project. You need to show the relevance of the literature you are reviewing to your work. Your review should summarise the issues that arose from your literature search and how they relate to your data collection, i.e., what you have learned about your research area. How has the review added to or modified your research questions? How has it caused you to think about addressing your questions, your research method? This last question may make you consider carrying out your literature review before your methodology chapter, as the method, the way you go about answering your research questions, may become clear from what has gone before in the literature.
Data Collection and Analysis
This is where you present your data – the results of your questionnaire, the analysis of your interviews, the distillation of your secondary research. However, it is not enough to present the data; you must go beyond description to conclude the findings, themes, and trends in the data, generalisations, etc.
The data collected should be reduced, presented, and analysed to be able to be understood by a non-specialist.
Discussion
The findings should be discussed in the light of the literature reviewed earlier.
This chapter may take a number of forms, but the use of theory to interpret data and the use of data to question theory is a useful starting point for your discussion. The key thrust is your reflection on whether or not you have answered your research questions.
Consider:
- What has the data told you?
- What are the ‘answers’ to your research questions?
Conclusions/Recommendations
The conclusions drawn should relate to the objectives of the investigation and flow from the discussion.
The conclusion should summarise the whole project with a discussion of limitations and the scope of any future work. You need to re-read your introduction and reconcile what you started out trying to do with what you actually did. You must assess whether or not you have addressed your research objectives. This may seem a little odd, but often research can take you slightly off course, or you may uncover unexpected findings that change your research ideas – so you need to ensure that the document reflects what your research did, not what it might have done.
Assessment and feedback
The mark and feedback per section will be provided by means of a rubric within the Turnitin Dropbox-submitted dissertation. The sections ' weighting and marking criteria include:
Introduction/Context/Research Questions: 20% weighting
- Does the abstract summarize the main points (background, methods, and main findings) of the dissertation?
- Does the introduction set the background of the topic/ the phenomenon explored?
- Does the introduction motivate the study? Explain why the topic is interesting and new, and why we need to research this topic.
- Does the introduction refer to the theoretical background that will be used to explain the phenomenon?
- Does the researcher present their main research question(s) and explain how it is broken into a set of specific research questions, aims, and objectives?
- Are these questions/aims/objectives relevant, achievable, and exploring relationships between concepts?
Literature Review: 20% weighting
- Are the main concepts defined and a theoretical background adopted?
- Is the LR covering the main areas of the research sufficiently?
- Does it provide a critical evaluation of the existing knowledge on each RQ?
- Are the gaps in the literature described?
Methodology / Methods / Sampling: 20% weighting
- Are the research philosophy, approach, strategy, choice, and time-horizon described and justified?
- Does the researcher:
- Explain how your research instrument was developed (questionnaire/ interview questionnaire, etc). How do the questions emerge?
- Explain the sampling criteria (how did they choose the companies/ people they “researched”)?
- Briefly present their sample (this part can go to the Analysis and Results part too)?
- Briefly describe and justify their research techniques and procedures (Data Collection and Data Analysis)?
- Discuss ethical issues/ considerations related to their research (anonymity, confidentiality, ethics, etc)?
Presentation and Analysis of Results/Findings: 20% weighting
- Are the analyses conducted sound?
- Has the student provided answers to the research questions according to the results of their analyses?
- Has the researcher compared their results with existing knowledge?
Conclusion/Recommendations: 10% weighting
- Implications: Has the researcher briefly explained the main lessons that a manager can learn from their dissertation (guidelines for practice)?
- Limitations: Has the researcher briefly described the main limitations of their research?
- Directions for Future Research: Has the researcher provided ideas on how this work can be expanded.
- Has the researcher provided a brief conclusion of the research?
Overall Comments-Academic Style, Structure and Presentation: 10% weighting
- Quality of sources used and referencing style (Harvard APA 7th edition)
- Labelling, use of headings.
- Writing style and overall presentation of the dissertation.
General grading criteria
|
70%+
|
Independent thought. ‘Flair’, originality in style, a personal response. Original insights and/or synthesis of theory and practice. ‘Surprise’ for others. Lateral, creative, and sophisticated connections with other ideas and disciplines. Wide and original reading. Criticism of opinions and arguments found in literature. Ability to generalise and hypothesise.
Style and credibility - clarity and conciseness. Ability to plan, carry out and evaluate own work without guidance.
|
|
60-
69%
|
Ability to inter-relate concepts and ideas. Able to relate theory to practice. Able to make connections with wider issues. Ability to exercise research techniques. New, unusual, or imaginative texts/sources. Sense of controversy or disagreement. Appreciation of moral and ethical considerations. Accurate comprehensive coverage. Flow, style,
presentation, consistency, and credibility. Independence in planning and carrying out work.
|
|
40-
59%
|
Technically competent in academic conventions with some but limited reading of mainstream texts and lecture notes citations used, and some evidence of clear arguments being developed alongside personal and/or general opinions/assertions not always fully supported. Main aspects covered with some uncritical acceptance of popular or current ideas or rhetoric. Generally accurate in research methods and content, attempts to relate and balance theory and practice with some limitations.
Generally coherent with some style and presentation issues that restrict
the audience. Some evidence of independence in planning and carrying out work with some guidance and help needed.
|
|
0-39%
|
FAIL – Some knowledge of relevant concepts and literature but significant gaps in understanding or knowledge. Little attempt at evaluation and/or conclusions vague, ambiguous, or not based on researched material. Limited or inappropriate research. Deficits in length, structure, presentation and/or prose.
|
