Research Proposal | My Assignment Tutor

MBA7018 Research Methods Assessment 2 Assessment Type: Essay (80%) Assessment Title: Research Proposal (2 of 2) Assessment Length: 4,000 words Submission Date: 11/01/20 Learning Outcomes: LO2: 2 Produce a critical appraisal of relevant literature synthesised into an appropriate conceptual frameworkLO3: Demonstrate a firm grasp of differences between research philosophies and the justification of that selected.LO4: Produce a critically informed research design with the appropriate combination of methods; sample sizes and selection criteria Assessment Brief: You are expected to produce a research proposal for your Masters dissertation of no more than 4,000 words. This proposal will build on your first assessment in which you forwarded the research context, question and objectives and together they form the first three chapters of your Masters dissertation. Therefore, the standard of work must consistently represent Masters level standard. Assessment 2 consists of the following: The research aim and question(s). An outline critical discussion of the literature and, a conceptual framework drawn from the literature and an explanatory rationale. A critical discussion of research methods and approaches as the justification of the research design framework. This should include the underpinning research philosophy, research strategy, a critical review of appropriate methods to include an explanation of how triangulation will be achieved. An explanation of how aspects of validity and reliability should be included to justify your research design. A critical evaluation of the overall research design including any limitations in the approaches chosen and the possible impact these may have on the research objectives. This should reflect any particular constraints in the specific context of your research. Issues of sample criteria, sizes and representativeness should be clearly dealt with.A bibliography in the Harvard referencing style, further details are available from http://www.bolton.ac.uk/bissto/Finding-Information/Referencing/Harvard-Referencing.aspx Minimum Secondary Research Source Requirements: Level HE7 – It is expected that the Reference List will contain between fifteen to twenty sources. As a MINIMUM the Reference List should include four refereed academic journals and five academic books. Assessment Submission Guidelines: Upload assessment 2 document to the allocated Turnitin link.Entitle your file: MBA7016 followed by your student number.Include your student ID number and not your name on your coursework draft.Remember to save your coursework electronic copy. Assessment Criteria DEFINITIONWork of Exceptional Quality 85%+Work of Excellent Quality above 70%Work of Very Good Quality 60-69%Work of Good Quality 50-59%Work of unsatisfactory Quality 40-49%FailWeighting (Sources of assessment criteria)In all cases appropriate within the limits appropriate to M level.Literature Review 15%Work incorporates all recent and/or relevant content and is correctly interpreted and can be considered of near/publishable qualityWork incorporates all recent and/or relevant content and is correctly interpreted.Work incorporates almost all recent and/or relevant content; the majority is correctly interpretedWork includes some areas of recent/relevance most of which is correctly interpreted.Includes some areas of recent/relevance, but some marginal/incorrectly interpretedInsufficient relevant theoretical content.Conceptual Framework (C/F) 15%Suitable C/F is presented with an exceptionally clear rationaleSuitable C/F is presented with an exceptionally clear rationaleSuitable C/F is presented with a clear rationaleSuitable but basic C/F is presented with some explanationC/F is provided but is too unwieldy; or unexplainedC/F is absent or unexplained or unsuitableReferencing 5%Referencing clear, relevant and consistently accurate. A very large number of relevant/recent references to the literatureReferencing clear, relevant and consistently accurate. Appropriate number, all relevant.Referencing relevant and mostly accurate. Appropriate number, most relevantMinor inconsistencies and inaccuracies in referencing. Some shortfall in number, most relevantVery limited referencing including some inconsistencies and inaccuracies.Referencing inconsistent and inaccurate or absent.Communication and Presentation 15%Exceptionally clear communication of near/publishable standard.Clarity of expression excellent, consistently accurate use of grammar and spelling with fluent professional/academic writing /speaking style.Thoughts and ideas clearly expressed. Grammar and spelling accurate and language fluent.Language mainly fluent. Grammar and spelling mainly accurate. Communication of thoughts and ideas beginning to be affectedMeaning apparent in most instances, but language not always fluent, grammar and spelling poor/moderate.Often poor or ambiguous, leading to meaning being barely apparent. Language, grammar and spelling poor.Research Methods 30%Exceptionally clear understanding of axiology, epistemology and ontology and how these relate to the paradigm debate are included here. Individual methods eruditely evaluated, considerations relevant to sample sizes/selection, triangulation, validity, etc. Exceptionally clear.Research philosophy clearly applied to research objectives in full, individual methods eruditely evaluated, considerations relevant to sample sizes/selection, triangulation, validity, etc. Explicit and clear.Research philosophy is applied to the research objectives in part, individual methods well evaluated and other relevant considerations are considered In the majority.Research philosophy is clearly explained but applied to research objectives unevenly. Other relevant considerations are partially/ unevenly explainedResearch philosophy is explained but lacks clear integration with research objectives. Other relevant considerations are partial /unevenly explainedResearch philosophy is not understood/not related to objectives. Other relevant considerations are omitted or superficial.Critical evaluation 20%Exceptional critical insight into both methods and literature/concepts.Critical thought, evaluation and/or analysis within assignment rigorous and appropriate.Good clear evidence of critical thought, evaluation and/or analysis carried out.Critical thought, evaluation and/or analysis reasonably well carried out.Some attempt at critical thought, evaluation and/or analysis within assignment.Very limited or no attempt at critical thought, evaluation and/or analysis within assignment. The Pass mark is 50%

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *