BMO0112 Research Methods Individual Report Assessment Brief 2024-25 Term 3 | UoH

BMO0112 Assessment Task

Research Proposal

You are required to write a research proposal in the format of a report
You must select ONE of the two IRP routes listed below and write your report following the recommended structure and content.
Your choice of IRP route must be clearly expressed in your report title and introduction.
Your report should develop your research idea and demonstrate your knowledge of research methods as this relates to your selected IRP route.
Word limit: 1,500 words
60% of your grade for this module

Task-specific guidance:

Title: The title should reflect the general research aim

Systematic literature review route

Research with secondary data route

1.0 Background to the research (context): In this section, you should introduce your research topic and explain its relevance and importance. The section should also provide a rationale for the chosen research topic. You should provide some secondary information about the theoretical context, industry, or subject you are researching, which provides rationale for the study. This section should lead the reader logically to the research aim and research objectives. (approx. 300 words)

Research Aim: You should develop an overarching aim for your research. This statement will form the clear theme throughout your research paper and will follow logically from your background section. Your research aim should be written to suit the research approach you have decided to take. (approx. 40 words)

Research Objectives: Your research aim should be supported by logical and coherent research objectives. These objectives should contribute to you

addressing your overall research aim and should be numbered. (80 words)

Research Objectives: Your research aim should be supported by logical and coherent research objectives. These objectives should contribute to you

addressing your overall research aim and should be numbered. (80 words)

2.0 Literature Summary:

You must identify the main theoretical underpinnings of your work and the key authors in your field and provide a succinct summary of key areas of literature. You should refer to key authors and themes from academic literature relevant to your proposal. The purpose of the literature summary is to explain what we already know in your chosen area of research. This will show your understanding of the key concepts in your research question and the relationships between them. Indicate

any models that you may wish to apply, test or review. (540 words)

2.0 Literature Summary:

any models that you may wish to apply, test or review. (480 words)

		Present a conceptual framework which reflects your literature summary. This sets out formally the concepts you intend to include in your data collection and the proposed relationship between them. The conceptual framework becomes a guide for your data analysis. This should normally be presented in a diagram with some narrative explanation. (approx. 60 words)
	3.0 Methodology: This section must detail the approach you have decided to take for your research and provide appropriate justification for and details of that approach. This section needs to provide specific explanation of how you are planning to search and analyse literature	3.0 Methodology: This section must detail the approach you have decided to take for your research and provide appropriate justification for and details of that approach. This section needs to provide specific explanation of how you are planning to identify secondary data and analyse data to answer your research aim/objectives and explain why you think
	to answer your research aim/objectives and explain why you think the methods you choose are appropriate for answering your research question. You should structure this section as follows: a. Research approach. Specify the research approach you intend to adopt. Justify why you have chosen this and link to your research question/objectives. (approx. 120 words) b. Literature search strategy. How do you intend to search your papers for review? Describe the process and justify why it is appropriate for your research question/objectives (approx. 240 words) c. Analysis and synthesis. How do you propose to analyse your collected papers? Describe how you would analyse the literature. Think about any search criteria you might use when sorted and organising your literature sample. What methods or techniques of analysis might you apply? (approx. 180 words)
		the methods you choose are appropriate for answering your research question. You should structure this section as follows: a. Research approach. Specify the research approach you intend to adopt. This will normally be quantitative. Justify why you have chosen this and link to your research question/objectives. (approx. 120 words) b. Data identification. How do you find your secondary data? Describe the data sources and justify why it is appropriate for your research question/objectives (approx. 180 words) c. Sample. Explain why this is an appropriate and representative sample to enable you to address your research aim and objectives. (approx. 180 words) d. Data analysis. How do you propose to analyse the secondary data? Describe how you would analyse your data. (approx. 60 words)

Please ensure there is a direct link between the research aim/ objectives and the methods you choose.

4.0 References

Please provide a full list of references used in your proposal using APA 7th formatting.

4.0 References

Please provide a full list of references used in your proposal using APA 7th formatting.

General Study Guidance:

Cite all information used in your work which is clearly from a source. Try to ensure that all sources in your reference list are seen as citations in your work, and all names cited in the work appear in your reference list.

Reference and cite your work by the APA 7th system – the University’s chosen referencing style. For specific advice, you can talk to your business librarians or go to the library help desk, or you can access library guidance via the following link:

APA 7th referencing:

The University has regulations relating to academic misconduct, including plagiarism. The Learning Innovation and Development Centre can advise and help you with how to avoid ‘poor scholarship’ and potential academic misconduct. You can contact them at busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk.

If you have any concerns about your writing, referencing, research or presentation skills, you are welcome to consult the Learning Innovation Development Centre team at busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk. It is possible to arrange a 1:1 consultation with a LIDC tutor once you have planned or written a section of your work, so that they can advise you on areas to develop.

Do not exceed the word limit.

BMO0112 Assessment Criteria

The Assessment Criteria are shown at the end of this document. Your tutor will discuss how your work will be assessed/marked and will explain how the assessment criteria apply to this piece of work. These criteria have been designed for your level of study.
These criteria will be used to mark your work and will be used to support the electronic feedback you receive on your marked assignment. Before submission, check that you have tried to meet the requirements of the higher-grade bands to the best of your ability. Please note that the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.
The Learning Innovation Development Centre can help you to understand and use the assessment criteria. To book an appointment, either visit them on The Street in the Charles Sikes Building or email them at busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk

BMO0112 Learning Outcomes

This section is for information only.

The assessment task outlined above has been designed to address specific validated learning outcomes for this module. It is useful to keep in mind that these are the things you need to show in this piece of work.

On completion of this module, students will need to demonstrate:

MLO3. Act autonomously in the conceptualisation and design of research relating to their area of study.

MLO4. Propose a piece of relevant subject research.

Please note that these learning outcomes are not additional questions.

Appendix 1: PGT Assessment Criteria

These criteria are intended to help you understand how your work will be assessed. They describe different levels of performance of a given criterion.

Criteria are not weighted equally, and the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.

The grades between Pass and Merit should be considered as different levels of performance within the normal bounds of the module. The higher-level categories allow for students who, in addition to fulfilling the basic requirement, perform at a superior level beyond the normal boundaries of the module and demonstrate intellectual creativity, originality and innovation.

PGT Generic Assessment Criteria

	Unacceptable			Unsatisfactory	Pass	Merit	Distinction
	0 – 9	10-19	20-34	35-49	50-59	60-69	70-79	80-89
Fulfilment of relevant learning outcomes	Not met or minimal	Not met or minimal	Not met or partially met	Not met or partially met	Pass	Pass	Pass	Pass
Response to the question /task	No response	Little response	Insufficient response	Adequate response, but with limitations	Adequate response	Secure response to assessment task	Very good response to topic; elements of sophistication	Clear command of assessment task; sophisticated approach

	Unacceptable A superficial answer with only peripheral knowledge of core material and very little critical ability			Unsatisfactory Some knowledge of core material but limited.	Pass A coherent and logical answer which shows understanding of the basic principles	Merit A coherent answer that demonstrate s critical evaluation	Distinction An exceptional answer that reflects outstanding knowledge of material and critical ability
	0-9	10-19	20-34	35-49	50-59	60-69	70-79	80-89	90-100
Conceptual and critical understanding of contemporary / seminal knowledge in the subject (30%)	Entirely lacking in evidence of knowledge and understanding	Typically, only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts	Knowledge of concepts falls short of prescribed range Typically only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts	Marginally insufficient. Adequate knowledge of concepts within prescribed range but fails to adequately solve problems posed by assessment	A systematic understanding of knowledge; critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights; can evaluate critically current research and can evaluate methodologies	Approachin g excellence in some areas with evidence of the potential to undertake Research. Well- developed relevant argument, good degree of accuracy and technical competence	Excellent. Displays (for example): high levels of accuracy; evidence of the potential to undertake research; the ability to analyse primary sources critically.	Insightful. Displays (for example): excellent research potential; flexibility of thought; possibly of publishable quality.	Striking and insightful. Displays (for example): publishable quality; outstanding research potential; originality and independent thought; ability to make informed judgements.
Presentation (10%)	Length requirements may not be observed; does not follow academic conventions; language errors impact on intelligibility	Length requirements may not be observed; does not follow academic conventions; language errors impact on intelligibility	Length requirements may not be observed; does not follow academic conventions; language errors impact on intelligibility	Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Minor errors in language	Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Possibly very minor errors in language	Good standard of presentation ; length requirement met, and academic conventions followed	Very good standards of presentation	Professional standards of presentation	Highest professional standards of presentation
Understanding (20%)	Limited insight into the problem or topic	Limited insight into the problem or topic	Limited insight into the problem or topic	Some insight into the problem or topic	Practical understanding of how established techniques of	Independent , critical evaluation of	Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with	Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with	Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with

					research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline	full range of theories with some evidence of originality	originality in analysis	originality in analysis	originality in analysis
Use of evidence and sources to support task (20%)	Some irrelevant and/or out of date Sources	Some irrelevant and/or out of date Sources	Some irrelevant and/or out of date Sources	Limited sources	Comprehensiv e understanding of techniques applicable to own research or advanced scholarship	Complex work and concepts presented, key texts used effectively	Full range of sources used selectively to support argument	Full range of sources used selectively to support argument	Full range of sources used selectively to support argument
Development of ideas (10%)	Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent	Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent	Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent	Argument not fully developed and may lack structure	The argument is developed but may lack fluency	Argument concise and explicit	Coherent and compelling argument well presented	Coherent and compelling argument well presented	Coherent and compelling argument well presented
Ethics, sustainability & Responsibility (subject area) (10%)	Not considered or no relevance	Consideration at a superficial level with minimal relevance to subject.	Considered with relevant solutions identified but no detail relevant to the subject.	Considered with relevant solutions identified but little detail relevant to the subject.	Considered with relevant solutions identified and adequate detail relevant to the subject.	Wide consideratio n relevant solutions identified and appropriate detail relevant to the subject.	Full consideration of implications for subject with range of solutions discussed in detail.

You must select ONE of the two IRP routes listed below and write your report following the recommended structure and content. Your choice of IRP route must be clearly expressed in your report title and introduction.