MMN230181 Postgraduate Research Methods Module Handbook 2024-25 Tri B

Contents

1 General Information
2 Module Information
3 Module Team
3. 1External Examiner
4 Module Schedule
4.1 Preparation
5 Assessment
5.1 Assessment Schedule
5.2 Marking Criteria
5.3 Fit to Sit
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E

1 MMN230181 General Information

The main purpose of this module handbook is to provide you with a comprehensive guide for the module. Within this document you will find details specific to the module including: assigned teaching staff; module schedule; and assessment information.

This handbook should be read in conjunction with your Module Descriptor which you can access from the online Module Catalogue1 on the GCU website, and also with the General Information applicable to all GCU Modules and Programmes which contains information on University Policies and Procedures, Assessment Regulations and the support you can access as a GCU student.
You can access the General Information from the Institution Page2 on GCU Learn and also the GCU Student Webpages3.

2 Module Information

In this handbook you will find information and advice that should prove helpful as you progress through the module. The module will introduce students to the theoretical and methodological issues relevant to their field of study. This will cover research design; collection, analysis and presentation of data; research ethics.

Students will develop a research project proposal outlining their plans to carry out an investigation of a business/management issue or problem relating to professional practice in their programme specialism. In developing this proposal, students will be required to demonstrate critical awareness of business/professional practice as well as relevant research paradigms, approaches and techniques.

The module is delivered through weekly pre-recorded lectures, campus based weekly subject-specific seminars, and labs (weeks 5 and 6, workbooks for these sessions will be made available through GCU Learn).

Through the use of student led class discussion groups and lab-based tutorials, the module prepares students for applying their investigative skills and knowledge in context.

The development of the research proposal in this module allows students to prepare for their research by adopting a disciplined, logical and systematic approach to investigating a research or consultancy problem. The research proposal will normally be enacted in the Masters Research Project module which can take one of the 4 formats below:

• Dissertation

The Dissertation involves primary data capture and analysis or analysis of secondary data.

• Research Project

The Research Project is normally secondary data based and draws on the relevant business/management/professional practice literature appropriate to the student's programme of study.

• Systematic Review

The review would normally use and approved method e.g. Cochrane Collaboration.

• Consultancy Project

The Consultancy Project is normally primary data based and requires the student to adopt the role of a consultant. Students intending to take this option are required to secure an agreement in principle from the client organisation.

PG REM Module Learning Outcomes:

On successful completion of this module, the student should be able to:

1. Critically evaluate and synthesise a range of concepts related to methodological choices (research philosophies, approaches, strategies, design, methods, ethics).
2. Demonstrate skills to critically analyse, evaluate and present primary and secondary data for the context of business.
3. Formulate a research problem relevant to the student’s individual programme context.
4. Design a research proposal in a scholarly style to address the research problem for the intended project (Dissertation/Research Report/Systematic Review/Consultancy Project).
5. Identify the ethical and practical issues and implications of undertaking research.

Further information is contained within the Module Descriptor. Please read this document carefully and if you have any questions, contact the module leader.

3 MMN230181 Module Team

The University is committed to ensuring that you are supported to achieve a successful outcome on your chosen programme and associated modules.

If you have a particular problem with the academic content of the module, please contact the module leader in the first instance. Further module contacts are detailed below.

Module & Deputy Module Leaders – please e-mail if you wish to arrange a meeting

3.1 External Examiner

The University attaches great importance to the role of External Examiners as a key means of assuring that academic standards are at an appropriate level, comparable to those of other higher education institutions and that assessment processes are rigorous and fair. External examiners also make a valuable contribution to the enhancement of programmes and their associated modules.

The External Examiner(s) for your module is Dr Susanne Ross and holds the position of Senior Lecturer with Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh.

Please note that External Examiners have a specified term of office which means they may be subject to change within the duration of your studies.

If you would like to view past External Examiner Reports for your Module or Programme, please email externalexaminers@gcu.ac.uk stating the name of the Module/Programme, and academic year you would like this for.

Please note: The details of the External Examiner are provided for information only. It is inappropriate for students to make direct contact with External Examiners.

4 Module Schedule – the weekly materials are on GCU Learn

4.1 Preparation

A single lecture or seminar on a topic cannot cover everything you ought to know, you are expected to undertake reading both before and after lectures and seminars etc to deepen your understanding of the topic. In seminar groups prior reading and preparation will allow you to contribute fully to discussions and take full advantage of the learning process.

5 Assessment

In accordance with the University’s Digital Assessment Policy and Online Similarity Checking Policy all standard academic summative submissions of written assessment, i.e. those that are primarily text-based, will be submitted through similarity-checking software, such as Turnitin. This is applicable to written assessment submissions at all SCQF levels. You may be asked to submit your written assessment online through similarity-checking software, such as Turnitin.

Support and guidance in understanding and interpreting a Turnitin originality report from induction onwards, can be accessed through the Learning Development Centre in your school. More information about referencing and plagiarism can also be found at Cite Them Right.

Where plagiarism is detected this will be dealt with under the Code of Student Conduct.

5.1 Assessment Schedule

For this module the schedule of submission of formative and summative assessment is detailed below.

Assessment 2: Research Proposal

5.2 Marking Criteria

The specific criteria for each element are on GCU Learn. These will be discussed within seminars to ensure you understand the purpose of the assessments and also how they will be assessed.

Assessment 1: Quantitative Data Analysis worth 40%

This first assessment invites you to evidence your understanding of the role of quantitative and qualitative data to your own research. Therefore, the final summative assessment allows you to evidence your ability to bring these two elements of the module together – theory of quantitative and qualitative research and applied research design - whilst applying the principles to your own research area.

Overall, your written assessment will confirm your ability to reflect on if and how quantitative data could be applied to your own academic area.

Specifically, your assessment should:

1.Evidence you understanding of the quantitative data distributed during week 4. The relevant issues will be discussed during the labs and seminars.

• This allows you to evidence your understanding of the research design and quantitative data.

2.Identify a research question/aim within your own area of interest. It is expected that this will normally be the topic you intend to research within the Masters Research Project.
3.Evaluate and reflect how the distributed quantitative data and analysis technique
could or could not apply to your own research question/aim.

• This includes a critique of why it would add depth to your work or, alternatively, why the quantitative data would not be applicable.

4.Draw conclusions from your evaluation, critical discussion and reflection about your own proposed research design, tool(s) and analysis technique(s).

Assessment 2: Research Proposal worth 60%

The research proposal is a summary of your own research design for a topic of your choice. It is normally the basis for your work in the subsequent Masters Research Project module. You will have the opportunity to discuss your topic ideas and research design during the seminars throughout the trimester. This will include peer review and feedback to ensure you can effectively articulate your research idea. The specific marking criteria are on GCU Learn however, consider that a research proposal will ultimately be judged on the likelihood that it could be undertaken as a piece of research and is relevant to your programme of study. Therefore, it should be realistic in design and scope and relevant to your area of study. Research proposals sections and the relevant marks for each are:

• Introduction to the topic, context and Research Aim and Objectives (20% of marks)
• Literature Review (35% of marks)
• Methodology/Theoretical Framework (40% of marks)
• Structure, presentation and writing style (5% of marks)

See Appendix A for The Research Proposal Marking Criteria and Content, and the Research Proposal Marking Rubric is located in Appendix B. The Guide to Presentation is in Appendix C; Appendix D, is for the Guide to the Layout of the Research Proposal; Appendix E, is for the Template of the Research Proposal Front Cover.

5.3 Fit to Sit

GCU operates a Fit to Sit approach to student assessment. The default assumption is: when you undertake an assessment, you are declaring that you are fit to do so. This means that any mark and/or attempt at assessment will stand, unless you have indicated that you were not ‘Fit to Sit/Submit’. If you declare yourself unfit after you have already submitted or sat, your work will not be marked. You will receive no feedback, and a non-submission (NS) will be recorded.

Appendix A: Research Proposal Marking Criteria and Content.

The following sections provide further guidelines concerning the structure and content of individual elements of the Proposal.

• Introduction to the topic, context and Research Aim and Objectives (20% of marks).

The purpose of the proposal and outline of its structure should be succinctly set out. In this opening section you should detail the underlying rationale for the project. Think about this as the reasons that explain your choice of topic and its importance. Provide background to the subject area and the focus of the Project. The discussion should lead to the development of one clear, overall aim.

Include a list of objectives which you are proposing to achieve with the research. There should be between three and five objectives, although more or less is acceptable depending on the nature of the Research Project. Remember this is the plan for the rest of the work you will do towards producing your Project. The objectives should relate to what you are going to do.

The reader should have no doubt or uncertainty about the boundaries of the final Project. If the scope is restricted to a particular country, region, industry, time period then this should be made explicit. If you need to carry out further analysis to establish the scope of the research, then this should be highlighted here.

• Literature Review (35% of marks).

The literature review demonstrates the main theories which are relevant to the topic of research. This is done by identifying the main texts and authors in the area (in books and journals) and discussing the key issues. The review of the existing literature should compare and contrast the relevant writers in the field of interest and link these to your proposed area of research. You should be able to show that you have undertaken sufficient reading on the respective topic to be able to justify the choice of topic and to demonstrate where the contribution will be located within the main body of theory and current knowledge, incorporating relevant core concepts, frameworks and theory. This section should reflect:

• Expertise    of the body of theory including the implications of    recent developments.
• Engagement with and critical exploration of core concepts.
• Progressive argument/idea development.

Although textbooks are a valuable resource when doing research, contemporary issues are more likely to be discussed in the academic journals relating to the field. It is expected that recent developments, theories, or studies will be contained in journal articles and you should evidence that you have accessed these.

• Methodology/Theoretical Framework (40% of marks).

Ensure theoretically underpinned presentation, discussion and justification of the proposed methodological framework to be adopted in the study. Each design choice must be identified, discussed and defended regarding suitability for study. Overall, the methodological framework should demonstrate appropriateness to the study aim and objectives and be capable of practical implementation.

This section presents, discusses and justifies the proposed methodological framework and the design choices made (e.g. research philosophy; approach; strategy; time horizon; data collection tools, sampling and data analysis, ethical considerations). Robust theoretical underpinning is essential.

Finally, a discussion of any anticipated challenges in the conduct of the study and potential limitations of the study is required to show that the researcher is aware and informed and thus better able to manage the research process. A good proposal will not only show awareness but also highlight potential options to overcome challenges and minimise limitations.

• Structure, presentation and writing style (5% of marks).

Formal, academic and mature style with good grammar which is free from spelling errors and carelessness. Use of academic sources should be evident throughout with careful use of Harvard referencing conventions.

The Proposal word count is (+/-) 1,500 words. Submitting a Proposal that is below the word count is considered to be self-limiting. Submitting a Proposal that is way above the word count runs the risk that markers will only read to the upper word limit of the submission. Therefore, the penalty for too many words is that the later parts of your Proposal (e.g. limitations) may not be included in the mark.

Your Research Proposal should include a Gantt chart (or similar) detailing a timetabled research plan scheduling of all aspects of the research. This should include time anticipated to conduct background research, data gathering tool design,

data collection, data analysis and Project writing. This is best achieved by working backwards from the final submission of the Project. Remember the proposal provides the plan for the research you will conduct so the Gantt chart should provide details of the activities you will conduct during the course of the research. See GCU Learn for suggested deadlines of submission.

Appendix B: Masters Research Project Proposal Rubric.