London School of Commerce

MODULE TITLE: BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
Subject to University Approval

PROGRAMME: BABS/CMET
SEMESTER: Semester Three/ Four
ACADEMIC YEAR PERIOD: February-May 2014 Semester

LECTURER SETTING ASSESSMENT: Roger Telfer

DATE ASSESSMENT SET AND LOADED ON TO STUDENT PORTAL:

DATE ASSESSMENT TO BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED: 18 April 2014

SUBMISSION METHOD/MODE: Online via turnitin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Type: [Assignment]

“Research Proposal”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicative Assessment Requirements for the Module;-

Individual Assignment and supporting documentation (Equivalent to an overall maximum of 3000 words in total).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maximum Word Limit and Assessment weighting for each aspect within the assessment:

* Individual Research Proposal (3000 words); Assessment Weighting 40%.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assignment BRM
Select a research topic of your choice based on a business issue and design a research proposal for this topic. This proposal should not exceed 3000 words.

Task Based on the selected topic, you are required to:

* Develop two to three research questions and two to three research objectives * Justify the choice of research topic including the background and context of the research * Develop a critical literature review of the research topic. * Design a research methodology based on the topic above. This would require you to develop a research design and justify your choice as appropriate. Your research design should include the following: Research Philosophy (e.g., positivist, interpretivist, realist and pragmatist?) Research Approach (inductive or deductive?) Research strategy * Data collection methods – type of data, sampling method and target group * Data analysis procedure to be adopted * Discuss the possible ethical issues that need to be considered in this research and * Discuss any possible limitations to this research * Support with relevant references (Harvard format) * Provide a research plan (timescale)

In your data collection and data analysis section, discuss how you would collect primary data through the use of one or a combination of methods of data collection methods e.g. questionnaire, interview, focus groups, observation, etc., and how you would analyse this data.

The above requirements are indicated as the required areas of focus for you to articulate your individual responses. The submission of your work for assessment should be organised and clearly structured in the order outlined above.

Module Learning Outcomes to be assessed:

* Understand the scientific process, its application in economics and business, and its utilisation in the problem-solving approach to social work practice. * Demonstrate the skills necessary to assess and interpret existing research as a prelude to carrying out further investigation. * Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of a range of research designs and their appropriate utilisation by social workers. * Conceptualise a problem; formulate hypotheses and objectives; design a research strategy, collecting, analysing, and interpreting both quantitative and qualitative data, including commonly encountered statistical procedures. * Understand the theoretical principles underlying inferential and descriptive statistics. * Analyse datasets appropriately using SPSS. * Engage in critical thinking when reading and comprehending research articles. * Choose the most appropriate statistical analyses, interpret the results, and write up the results accurately and completely.

ASSIGNMENT MARKING CRITERIA MARK | 29 or less | 30 - 39 | 40 - 49 | 50 – 59 | 60 - 69 | 70 + | CONTENT: Has the question been answered? The Topic Literature review and methodology are appropriate. | Vague, random, unrelated material | Some mention of the issue, but a collection of disparate points | Barely answers the question – just reproduces what knows about the topic | Some looseness/Digressions | Well focused | Highly focused | TOPICKNOWLEDGEIs there evidence of having read widely and use of appropriate and up to date material to make a case? | No evidence of reading.No use of theory – not even hinted at implicitly. | No evidence of reading.An implicit hint at some knowledge of theory, etc. | No evidence of reading. Very basic theories mentioned but not developed or well used. | Some reading evident, but confined to core texts. | Good reading.Good range of theories included. | Excellent reading.Well chosen theories. | UNDERSTANDING & SYNTHESISAre ideas summarized rather than being reproduced, and are they inter-related with other ideas? | No theory included. | Vague assertions/poor explanations. | Long winded descriptions of theory. | Some long winded sections.Some quotations, but stand alone.Some inter- connections. | Good summary of theory.Good use of quotations that flow with narrative.Good inter-connections. | Succinct, effective summaries of theory. Excellent choice and threading of quotations into argument. Good counterpoising of a range of perspectives. | APPLICATIONDoes it show appropriate use of theory in a practical situation? | No examples | No/limited/inappropriate examples | Few examples | Uneven examples | Good examples | Excellent range of examples. | ANALYSISDoes it identify the key issues, etc in a given scenario, proposal or argument? | Vague assertions about issues. | Largely descriptive with no identification and analysis of central issues. | Limited insight into issues. | Some good observations. | Good, detailed analysis. | Comprehensive range of issues identified and discussed fully. | EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATIONSDoes it critically assess material?Are there workable and imaginative solutions? | No evaluation. | Uncritical acceptance of material. | Some evaluation but weak. Little insight. | Good interpretation. Some but limited sophistication in argument. | Good critical assessment. Independent thought displayed. | Full critical assessment and substantial individual insight. | REFERENCINGThorough and accurate citation and referencing | No referencing | No referencing | Limited/poor referencing | Some inconsistencies in referencing | Appropriate referencing | Appropriate referencing | PRESENTATIONLogical and coherent structure to argument and effective presentation | No structure apparent.Poor presentation. | Poor structure.Poor presentation. | Acceptable, but uneven structure.Reasonable presentation. | Reasonable structure.Good presentation. | Good argument.Well presented material. | Excellent argument.Very effective presentation format. |