|Module Title:||Business Research Methods||Module Code:||7BUS2002 0901-2020|
|Assignment Format & Maximum Word count||Case Study Reflection (500 words + 10%)||Assignment Weighting:||20%|
Date: 18th December 2020
Method: StudyNet e-Submission
|Coursework return Date returned to students:||12th February 2021
(Due to the Christmas and New Year Period)
|Module leader||Dr Xiangping Du & Maarten Pontier||First marker|
|Internal Moderator||Approved ☐
|Module Board name|
|External Examiner||Approved ☐
|Module Board date|
|Learning Outcomes: Knowledge and Understanding tested in this assignment:|
|understand relevant methodological concepts and challenges associated with business research critically evaluate a range of approaches to research and assess their potential relevance to the chosen research topic. Appropriate application of learning theory.|
|Learning Outcomes: Skills and Attributes tested in this assignment:|
|effective development of reflective thinking and writing skills Ability to evaluate and make distinguishing choices to establish best practice for the type of research to be conducted.|
|Feedback /Marking criteria for this Assignment|
|Performance will be assessed using HBS Grading Criteria and Mark scheme.
Guidance for improvement will be given in writing on the Assessment Feedback Form or on the StudyNet Feedback Form within 4 weeks of submission. For each day or part day up to five days after the published deadline, coursework relating to modules submitted late will have the numeric grade reduced by 10 grade points until or unless the numeric grade reaches 40 for levels 4, 5 and 6 or 50 for level 7 (PG). If a submission is more than 5 days after the published deadline, a grade of zero will be awarded. Where the numeric grade awarded for the assessment is less than 40, no lateness penalty will be applied;
|Detailed Brief for Individual/Group Assessment|
| Assignment Title: Case Study Reflection PLEASE DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ANYWHERE IN THE ASSIGNMENT – ID NUMBER ONLY Description of the assignment: In order to assist in understanding approaches to research, the 500-word reflection on the weekly case studies discussed allows for insights into the approaches and methods used in conducting research. The Case Study Reflection assignment is based on the 10 case studies discussed during the Module covering the different aspects of research and sequentially building a complete overview of approaching a research project. Instructions: Read each of the 10 case studies and make a note on each of 10 case studies on the following areas: The technical aspects of the types of research and research approaches being identified. Such as the nature of reviewing literature; the research philosophy considered; the research design, such as the case study method used. What skills have each person in the case study used or developed, such as research skill; making notes; interviewing skills What dilemmas, problems and issues have the persons in the case studies been facing, having to think about and resolve problems about. Apply the above to yourself and your own research The suggested structure of this reflection assignment to be as follows (with NO Headings/Subheadings included): Short introduction This is a short description as to the nature of the assignment and what you have been asked to do, as well as what issues and skills that are going to be considered. Main body of the reflection Outlining what has been learned from the approaches and issues discussed in the case study scenarios, and how this learning is going to be applied in your own research in the future. This may include: a discussion of aspects, e.g. opportunities and challenges of conducting a research learnt from the case studies; how the adopted approach to the research has been arrived at; what have been some of the key aspects that have influenced the design of the research, identifying any skills and skill development for carrying out research as identified in the case studies, referring to relevant additional sources/literature (beyond the case studies) to make sense of your learning, how you would apply what has been learnt from the case studies to the future approach of your own research (action plan) Short conclusion This should be a short description, based on the discussions and analysis developed in the main body of the assignment and identifying the key issues that have been identified in the main body. It should not include new material or references Reference List (Not included in the wordcount) You can use the first person (i.e. I, my) in this reflective account. The reflection needs to be written in an essay format with NO Headings or Subheadings. Detailed guidance on reflective writing can be found from: https://www.studynet1.herts.ac.uk/ptl/common/asu.nsf/Teaching+Documents?OpenView&count=9999&restricttocategory=Academic+Writing/Academic+Writing:+Essays,+Reports,+Reflective+Writing+and+Posters The overall reflective account takes 20% of the overall module assessment weight. The submission date for the Case Study Reflection is Friday 18th December 2020 at 6pm.
Marking scheme – see attached PG Marking Grid for HBS Reflections This work is going to be marked holistically based on the grading criteria outlined below.
|Student Support and Guidance For further help, contact your module leader in their drop-in hours or by email. Use the Grading Criteria and Mark Scheme to help improve your work. Go to CASE workshops, use the CASE website and drop-in hours www.studynet.herts.ac.uk/go/CASE/ For reflection: https://www.studynet1.herts.ac.uk/ptl/common/asu.nsf/Teaching+Documents?OpenView&count=9999&restricttocategory=Academic+Writing/Academic+Writing:+Essays,+Reports,+Reflective+Writing+and+Posters Academic English for Business support is available through daily drop-ins from the CASE office. See the CASE workshop timetable on the CASE main website page for details. Make full use of Library search to identify relevant academic material and the ‘Subject Toolkit for Business’ which contains links to other Information Databases and the Information Management contact details. (http://www.studynet1.herts.ac.uk/ptl/common/LIS.nsf/lis/4DAF5390094771C2802575ED004212BF) Some tutors allow students to test their work using Turnitin. Guidance on submission to Turnitin via StudyNet can be found by using the following link. http://www.studynet1.herts.ac.uk/ptl/common/asu.nsf/resource+library/TURNITIN+FOR+STUDENTS+2016+USER+GUIDE.pdf/$FILE/TURNITIN+FOR+STUDENTS+2016+USER+GUIDE.pdf|
Total Mark Awarded: PG Marking Grid for HBS Reflections Module Code: 7BUS2002-0901 Lecturer: Student ID number:_________________________
|REFLECTIONS||Presentation & structure||Intellectual Curiosity||Content/ Terms/ Findings/ Definitions/ Calculations||Application & Integration||Discussion /Analysis /Critical evaluation & Reflection|
|Task details lecturer to amend to suit||Follows prescribed structure & keeps to word limit of 500||Follows Harvard style for in-text citation & Reference List Use a minimum of 5 sources, including 5 case study sources||Content included – specify task requirements as in module site & coursework guidance||Integration & application of information – from coursework guidance /module site||Line of argument, development of discussion and instructional verbs to suit the task & level|
|Outstanding presentation & structure. Articulate & fluent academic writing style with ideas cross referenced. No grammatical / spelling errors.||Outstanding selection of quality sources, well beyond core & recommended resources. Outstandingstandard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list.||Outstanding exploration of topic showing outstanding knowledge & understanding through thorough & appropriate research. Impressive choice and range of appropriate content.||Outstanding business insight & application. Outstanding integration of literature/data into work. Very impressive breadth and depth.||Outstanding level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation & reflection. Highly developed/ focused work, with thorough consideration of all possibilities and aspects of the topic.|
|Excellent presentation & structure. Articulate & fluent academic writing style with ideas cross referenced. Only minor errors.||Excellent selection ofquality sources. Evidence of independent searching beyond core & recommended resources. Excellentstandard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list.||Excellent level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated. Evidence of appropriate reading. Covers all relevant points & issues.||Excellent business insight & application. Excellent integration of literature/data into work. Impressive breadth and depth.||Excellent level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation & reflection. Clearly developed points all of which are relevant to the topic.|
|Very good presentation & structure. Fluent academic writing style with ideas cross referenced. Very few grammatical errors & spelling mistakes.||Very good selection of quality sources beyond the recommended resources. Few irrelevant/poor quality sources used. Very goodstandard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list.||Very good level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated. Covers most relevant points & issues. Few errors / omissions in content/calculations.||Very good business insight & application. Very good integration of literature/data into work. Very good use of literature/data with breadth and depth.||Very good level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation & reflection. A few less relevant ideas/points or would benefit from further development &/or evaluation/comparison.|
|Good presentation & structure. Writing is mainly good with some flow and spelling &/ or grammatical errors seldom impede understanding.||Good selection of mostly quality sources but some irrelevant/poor quality sources used beyond the recommended reading. Goodstandard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list.||Good grasp of the topic & some of its implications presented. Good knowledge & understanding is demonstrated. Minor errors / omissions in content/ calculations.||Good business insight & application. Good integration of literature/data into work. Good use of literature/data with adequate breadth and depth.||Good level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation & reflection but more ideas/points could be addressed or developed further.|
| 50 – 59
|Satisfactory basic structure. Not always written clearly & has grammatical & / or spelling errors which impede understanding. See CASE with feedback||Satisfactory: Some quality sources used. Research did not go beyond the recommended sources. Satisfactory referencing within text & some inconsistent use of Harvard referencing system. See CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback||Satisfactory content / level of knowledge of the topic. Addresses most of the task. Some errors / omissions in content/ calculations. May benefit from further research.||Satisfactory business insight & application. Limited integration with literature/ data. Use of literature/data but limited in breadth or depth.||Satisfactory basic evidence of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation & reflection but some points irrelevant or superficially made so need further development. See CASE with feedback|
| Weak format. Limited or poor structure. Muddled work with many spelling & / or grammatical errors.
Must see CASE with feedback
|Weak: Limited evidence of appropriate research. Some use made of recommended reading, but the majority of sources are irrelevant/of poor quality. Weakuse of Harvard referencing system with errors & inconsistently applied. Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback||Weak: Limited content / knowledge/ calculations. Limited or muddled understanding of the topic/question. Does not meet all the learning outcomes.||Weak: Unsatisfactory evidence of business application & insight Work needs to show better links between practical application and theory.||Weak: Limited evidence of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation & reflection. More development & comment needed. May need to do more than describe. Must see CASE with feedback|
| 20 – 39
|Inadequate format and poor paragraphing / signposting. Inappropriate writing style. Poorly written &/or poor spelling & grammar. Must see CASE with feedback||Inadequate: Little evidence of appropriate research. Few quality sources used from recommended reading. Inadequateuse of Harvard referencing with many errors &/or inconsistencies. Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback||Inadequate: Lacking in relevant content/ knowledge/calculations. Content irrelevant / inaccurate. Does not meet all the learning outcomes.||Inadequate: Lacks evidence of business application & insight. Some literature irrelevant to topic.||Inadequate:Lacking / inadequate level of discussion/ analysis/critical evaluation & reflection. Descriptive. Must see CASE with feedback|
| 0 – 19
Little or Nothing of merit
|Nothing of merit: Poorly written work, lacking structure, paragraphing / signposting. Many inaccuracies in spelling & grammar. Must see CASE with feedback|| Nothing of merit: No evidence of research. No use made of recommended reading. Sources are irrelevant & of poor quality. No or little attempt to use the Harvard referencing system.
Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback
|Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory level of knowledge demonstrated. Content used irrelevant / not appropriate/ to the topic. Does not meet the learning outcomes.||Nothing of merit: No evidence of appropriate business application & insight.|| Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory level of discussion/analysis/critical evaluation & reflection
Must see CASE with feedback
|KEY ACTIONS To achieve a higher grade, next time you need to… (Where to go?) Who can help?)||1.