Subject Code: BUS606
Subject Name: Business Research Proposal and Literature Review
Assessment Title: Assessment 3 – Research Proposal
Weighting: 40 %
Total Marks: Length: 40
3000 (not including reference list)
Due Date: Submission due Week 12 – Sunday at 11.59 pm
COURSE: Master of Business (Research)
Unit: Business Research Proposal and Literature Review
Unit Code: BUS606
Assessment: Assessment 3 – Research Proposal
Unit Learning Outcomes addressed: (a) Demonstrate an advanced ability to initiate and prepare an original research proposal.
(b) Demonstrate an advanced ability to prepare a literature review based on the support of an original research proposal.
(c) Demonstrate a critical appreciation of the ethical issues associated with an original research proposal and their implications for the research and for the acceptability of the research by an ethics review committee.
(d) Critically evaluate the coherence, relevance and methodological merits of a given body of literature.
(e) Demonstrate a critical understanding of the theoretical, practical and professional contexts and significance of the research.
(f) Prepare a literature review that identifies and discriminates between concepts, issues, key findings and relevant theories most pertinent to the research proposal which the review supports.
Criteria for Assessment: • Knowledge and Understanding
• Content and exploration of theories and ideas
• Analysis, synthesis and critical engagement
• Technical skills and referencing
Assessment Task: In this task, you will develop a research proposal for a businesscentered research project. Drawing on your synthesis of the existing research literature in business and allied fields, you will identify a research question based on the theoretical, professional, or organizational 'gap' for a business problem that your proposed research will address. You will analyze the implications of two or more theoretical approaches in order to choose and develop an appropriate theoretical framework for your research. You will analyze the strengths and weaknesses of two or more methodological approaches before choosing a preferred methodology for your research.
You may follow the outline below;
Research topic/title: An initial working title should be provided and should describe the content and direction of your project.
Introduction/Background: Put your project in conversation with other projects on similar topics. You must situate your study within a context (education/social/ industry, etc.).
Statement of the Problem: Clearly define your research problem This section must address the following questions: “What is the gap that needs to be filled?” and/or “What is the problem that needs to be solved
Rationale for the study: Provide justifications for your project, ie.
is the need for the study/ why your study is important
Purpose and objectives: State the general purpose of the project and outline the specific objectives you want to achieve
Research Questions: Specify the key research questions you want to address in your study. These questions should be consistent with your objectives
Review of Literature: Provide a literature review that addresses the research questions
Methodology: In this section, provide your research paradigm, research design, research strategy, sampling design, data collection method, and data analysis method. You must provide justifications for all your methodological decisions
Ethical considerations: Identify the ethical concerns you anticipate and demonstrate how you will address them
Submission Date: Week 12 (online submission).
Total Mark & Weighting: 40 marks | 40%
Students are advised that any submissions past the due date without an approved extension or approved extenuating circumstances incur a 5% penalty per calendar day,
calculated from the total mark e.g. a task marked out of 15 will incur a 1.75 mark penalty per calendar day.
Criteria HD (High Distinction) 85%-100% DN (Distinction)
75%-84% CR (Credit) 74%-65% P (Pass)
50%-64% F (Fail)
Knowledge and understanding
5 marks Command of the topic, unusual creativity, perception and insight, all suggesting that work should be published in an academic forum. Demonstrates command of the topic by showing creativity, perception and insight — a serious contribution to the academic debate. Demonstrates a well- informed understanding of the topic by showing
creativity and insight — a serious contribution to the academic debate. Understanding of contemporary academic debate, with some
creative input and insight, with a tendency toward description. Limited/poor understanding demonstrated. Any creative input is somewhat off the point.
Content and exploration of theories and ideas 15 marks Outstanding selection that makes a substantial contribution to academic debate. Outstanding selection from a wide relevant and innovative range of perspectives and sources. Selection from a wide and relevant range of perspectives and sources that draws upon contemporary academic debate. Relevant selection from a range of perspectives and sources. Sources are mostly integrated into the overall argument. Narrow selection, minimal use of sources, to support the argument.
Analysis, synthesis and critical engagement
15 marks Outstanding use of source material.
Excellent argument that is of the highest academic quality. Critical distance and outstanding Sources very well integrated into the overall argument. Clear well structured argument that is well crafted and cogent. Critical Sources wellintegrated into the overall argument. Clear, cogent and wellstructured argument.
distance and sound Mostly clear, cogent and wellstructured argument. Demonstrates criticality and generally good analysis. Sources are not properly integrated into the argument. Absence of clear and cogent argument.
Incomplete analysis with a tendency to accept the source
analysis of the question, to a high degree of excellence. distance and outstanding analysis of the question. analysis of the question. material at face value.
Technical skills and referencing
5marks Referencing impeccable using appropriate conventions.
No errors in grammar or spelling. Referencing clear and accurate using appropriate conventions.
Virtually no errors in grammar or spelling. Referencing clear and accurate using appropriate conventions. Good grammar and spelling. Referencing sufficiently clear and using an appropriate convention. Adequate grammar and spelling. References limited/inappropriate. Many errors in grammar and
spelling, making it difficult or impossible to read.