Research Methods and International Project

160 views 10:00 am 0 Comments May 12, 2023

Academic Year: 2022/23
MODULE CODE: UOR 313
MODULE TITLE: Research Methods and International Project – part 1 and part 2
MODULE LEADER & TUTOR: Dr Anna Danielewicz-Betz
Email: [email protected]

Brief introduction to module
This module aims to provide you with the knowledge and skills that are required to undertake
independent research on a topic that you will be chosen for your final dissertation where you determine
the methodology and approach. In so doing you will take significant strides on the path to becoming an
independent learner, and feel able to undertake other research tasks, with the help of your supervisor.
The module will provide you with an understanding of research philosophies; introduce you to a range
of qualitative and quantitative methodologies and methods of analysis. You will develop your
intellectual reasoning ability as well as your ability to write critically. During the lecture and seminar
classes you will be given opportunities to discuss and evaluate a range of research methods and
approaches.
Overall assessment (part 1 and 2)
Course work
• Research Project Proposal (35% of module marks)
Your RP must be submitted by 21 April 2023 at 2:00pm (14:00 CET)
Word count: 2,000 words++
• International Business Project (65% of module marks)
This is an individual research project on an international business topic chosen by the student, with the
word length of 5,000++ words. Your Bachelor thesis/International Project must be submitted by 21 July
2023at 2:00 pm (14:00 CET).
Students are not to be penalised for exceeding the word count. They are encouraged to collect and
analyse data, as well as discuss the findings and put forward recommendations, which requires a
lengthier contribution.
Module learning outcomes:
• Be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of research method process, including
identifying the research area, topic and question, critical literature review, research philosophy

Research Project Proposal (35% of module marks)
The research methods proposal will enable students to build up a collection of material providing evidence
of developing research skills. The core content of the proposal will consist of an exercise in each of the
following five areas, corresponding to the Specific Learning Outcomes above (and will include both
individual and group work).
Preliminary literature review should include 10+ references to relevant business/academic studies
Research design and its feasibility should be demonstrated
All potential ethical issues/concerns at each stage of the research project
addressed
The outline of planned empirical investigation (time frame and resources) spans from the beginning of the
project (brainstorming stage) till the thesis submission deadline.
The mandatory structure of the research proposal is as follows:
Cover page (including the working TITLE, student name, student
ID, word count)
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Research problem and rationale
1.2 Aim and objectives
1.3 Research questions/hypotheses
2. Preliminary literature review
3. Tentative methodological approach
3.1 Research design and purpose
3.2 Target population and sampling procedure
3.3 Indication of data collection sources and instruments
3.4 Indication of data analysis methods/instruments/tests
3.5 Reliability and validity
3.6 Scope and limitations
4. Ethical concerns
5. Project time scale and resources
References
Appendix
and design, sampling and sampling techniques, data collection and analysis, synthesis and
research dissemination
• Demonstrate and understand the ethical consideration and issue as well as value of ethical
procedures when conducting research in business
• Be able to work collaboratively within a learning community, time management and selfmanagement as well as the ability to use research skills in a wider context
• Be able to develop an appropriate and feasible research proposal to a specific context
Note: No data have to be analysed at this stage. Appendix should be included only if you have preliminary
survey (interview or questionnaire) questions or other part of the research design to show.
Required number of relevant academic articles and business reports and other credible sources to be
referenced in the research proposal (including Introduction): 15+
Marking Grid for Research Proposal

100-80% 79-70% 69-60% 59-50% 49-40% 39-20% 19-0%
20
%		 KNOWLEDGE
AND
UNDERSTAND
ING
Has a
comprehensive/
detailed
knowledge of
the area to be
investigated and
provides a good
rationale for a
feasible research
project, as well
as use of
appropriate
references to
support the
arguments.		 Extensive
range,
depth and
complexity
of relevant
material.		 Clearly
defined
range
and
depth of
relevant
material
inall
areas.		 Clearly
defined
range and
depth of
relevant
material in
most areas.		 Comprehens
ive and
relevant
detail but
lacking
depth in
some areas		 Has good
working
knowledge
and
relevant
detail but
lacking
depth in
most
areas.		 Moderate
range
withsome
relevant
material,
little
depth.		 Poor
understan
ding of
topic,
significant
irrelevant
material
included,
did not
answer
the
question.
30
%		 APPLICATION
OF
KNOWLEDGE
Demonstration of
knowledge
through the use
of relevant
examples,
explanation of
key concepts and
terms		 Shows
detailed
applicatio n
of relevant
concepts
and theories
toissues of
study.		 All
relevant
concepts
are
covered
and
applied
and are
relevant
to the
area of
study.		 Most
relevant
concepts are
covered and
applied and
are relevant
to the area
of study.		 Understands
most
concepts
which are
related to
study.		 Understan
ds some
concepts
which are
related to
study.		 Understa
nds
concepts
but
applicati
on is
incomple
te or
inapprop
riate.		 Very
limited
use of
concepts
and
theories.
Applicatio
n is not
given or
considere
d.
Always
uses
extremely
detailed
and
relevant
examples to
support
argument.		 Significan
tly uses
detailed
and
relevant
examples
tosupport
argument.		 Mostly uses
many
relevant
examples to
support
argument.		 Sometimes
uses mostly
relevant
examples,
some
examples
provided out
of context of
argument.		 Not many
relevant
examples
used to
support
argument.		 Limited
and
irreleva
nt
example
sused.		 No use of
examples
to support
argument.
40
% 		EVALUATION
of applicable
research design,
assessment of
ethical issues
Can select
appropriate
research
approach, and
instruments of
data collection &		 Well
integrated
study with
in- depth,
original and
critical
analysis
In depth
and
critical		 Well
integrated
study
with
original
and
critical
analysis.
Critical
evaluatio
n of data.
All
conclusio
ns		 Largely
integrated
study with a
good level
of original
and critical
analysis.
Critical
evaluation
of most
data. Most		 Mostly
integrated
study with
some
original and
critical
analysis.
Evaluates
using a
selection of
techniques		 Shows an
acceptable
level of
original
and
critical
analysis.
Evaluates
using a
limited
selection		 Predomin
ately
descriptiv
e
, without
originalit
yor
critical
analysis.
Unable to
make
judgeme
nts about		 Wholly
descriptiv
e.
Unable to
judge the
value of
informatio
n.

 

analysis, using a
wide range of
techniques
appropriate to the
subject.
Originality/Criti
cality
Create new
knowledge and
going beyond
what is expected
(i.e. extra
papers/further
readings). Can
critically review
evidence
supporting
research/literatur
e gap, as well as
its reliability,
validity and
significance and
can investigate
contradictory
information and
identify reasons
for
contradictions.		 evaluation
of
material.
Draws
detailed
conclusion
s relevant
to study.		 relevant to
study.		 conclusions
relevant to
study.		 to judge
information.
Some
conclusions
are not
drawn from
the
information.		 of
technique
s to judge
the value
of
informati
on.
Conclusio
ns are not
drawn
from the
informati
on.		 relevance
and
significanc
e of
informatio
n.
10
%		 COMMUNICA
TION AND
PRESENTATI
ON
Can write
effectively and
coherently,
using academic
style, observes
the structure,
provides good
quality visuals
REFERENCIN
G STYLE
Referencing
according to
Harvard style,
including
in-text citations
and
full list of
references		 Always
communic
ates
effectively
and
excellentl
y in an
appropriat
e format/
language
in a clear
and
concise
manner.
No
spelling,
grammatic
al or
referencin
g errors.		 Always
communicat
es
effectively
in an
appropriate
format/lang
uage in a
clear and
concise
manner.
Few
spelling,
grammatica
l or
referencing
errors.		 Communica
tes
effectively
in an
appropriate
format/lang
uage.
Usually
presents
information
in a clear
and concise
manner.
Some
spelling,
grammatical
or
referencing
errors.		 Mostly
communicat
es in an
appropriate
format/lang
uage.
Presents
information
in a clear
and mostly
concise
manner,
sometimes
meaning is
not clear.
Some
spelling,
grammatical
or
referencing
errors		 Meaning
is clear
and
format
conforms
to basic
requireme
nts.
Limited
use of
language.
Major
spelling,
grammati
cal and
referencin
g errors.		 Meaning
is clear but
use of
language
and format
is
inappropri
ate.
Significant
spelling,
grammatic
al and
referencin
g errors.		 Does not
communic
ate
effectively
and
meaning
is unclear.
Does not
use
appropriat
e format/
language.
Significan
t spelling,
grammatic
al and
referencin
g errors.

International Project/Bachelor Thesis in International Business (65% of module marks)
This is an individual research project on an international business topic chosen by the student, with
a word length of 5,000 words ++.
You are advised to begin thinking about your topic and supporting literature for your project as early as
possible.
You need to choose a problem in an area of business theory (so that there is published research available)
and where there is a reasonable chance of access to primary data. A reasonable chance of access is where
you already have access to a proportion of respondents for your research that enables you to answer your
research question.
It is recognised that for some students there may be limited opportunities to work with business
organisations for primary data collection, so that some projects may emphasise desk research using
secondary sources. Nonetheless you are encouraged, where possible, to include primary data, which could
include, for example, interviews or a small-scale survey. If you have access to an organisation, for example
through a part-time job, then you will be encouraged to base your project on that organisation.
• What business and management topic or topics are you interested in? Accounting, Economics,
Management, Marketing, Human Resource Management, etc.
• What organisational contacts do you have? Through family, friends, a part-time job?
65% of module marks
NB: Supervisors will be appointed for each individual student and will provide formative assessment
feedback during term 2.
Required structure of the Bachelor thesis/International project (note that each chapter should have
numbered sub-sections):
Cover page
Acknowledgements
Abstract/Executive summary
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background and context
1.2 Research problem and rationale
1.3 Research aim and objectives
1.4 Research questions/hypotheses
1.5 Content of the remaining chapters
Chapter 2: Literature review
2.1
2.2
2.3
(..) (thematic sub-sections, with the last one addressing literature gap
2.4 (or other sub-section) Literature gap
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Research design and purpose
3.2 Target population and sampling procedure
3.3 Data collection
3.4 Data analysis methods
3.5 Reliability and validity
3.6 Scope and Limitations
3.7 Ethical concerns
Chapter 4: Analysis and discussion of findings
4.1 Analysis of findings (you can choose your own headings in this chapter)
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.2… (individual subsections)
…
4.? Discussion of findings
(the last section)
Chapter 5: Conclusion and recommendations
5.1 Conclusions
5.2 Recommendations
5.3 Future research outlook
References (15-20+)
(Alphabetically listed, in UoR Harvard formatting style)
Appendix (including, e.g., survey questions, interview transcripts, additional figures/tables)
Generic Marking Grid for International Project – indicating the structure
1. Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION WEIGHTING 10/100

MARKING CRITERIA GENERAL COMMENTS ON THIS
SECTION
Is there a clear introduction that discusses the topic of research and
rationale (what & why)? Has the research problem (including
knowledge gap) been stated?
Are the aim and objectives, research questions and/or hypotheses
(including variables) clear, relevant and achievable (testable)?
Have they been further explained in terms of how and to what
extent they were answered/tested?
Do aims, objectives etc. go beyond mere listing, i.e. do they involve
explanation, comparison, criticism or evaluation?
Does the introduction indicate the content of the other chapters?

OVERALL IMPRESSION: INTRODUCTION

70 – 100% 60 – 69% 50 – 59% 40 – 49% 20 – 39% 0 – 19%
• Comprehensive
background
information,
definitions and
rationale.
• Clearly and
explicitly
identifies aim,
objectives and
appropriate
research
questions /
hypotheses.
• Has detailed
critique of how
they were
arrived at and
potential issues.
• Detailed but
succinct
identification
of content of
remaining
chapters.		 • Good background
information,
definitions and
rationale.
• Clearly identifies
aim, objectives and
research questions /
hypotheses.
• Partial critique of
aim, objectives and
research
questions/hypotheses
and potential issues.
• Adequate
identification of
content of remaining
chapters.		 • Some good
background
information
but lacking in
some aspects.
• Identifies aim,
objectives and
research
questions
/hypotheses
but lacking
detail in some
aspects.
• Lacking a clear
rationale of
how they were
derived.
• Adequate but
not succinct
identification
of content of
remaining
chapters.		 • Background
information has
some relevance but is
lacking in some key
aspects.
• Adequate
identification of
research area(s) but
questions/hypotheses
not well articulated
or poorly explained
• Limited explanation
of how they were
derived
• Some indication of
content of remaining
chapters.		 • Does give
some
indication of
research
areas but
very limited
background
information.
• Lacks
adequate
identification
of aim,
objectives
and research
questions /
hypotheses
• Very limited
explanation
of how they
were
derived.
• Limited
indication of
content of
further
chapters		 • Irrelevant or
very limited
background
information.
• Does not
identify aim
and / or
objectives
and / or
research
questions /
hypotheses.
• No
explanation
of how they
were
derived.
• No
indication of
content of
the
remaining
chapters.

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW WEIGHTING 25/100

MARKING CRITERIA GENERAL COMMENTS ON THIS
SECTION
Has a comprehensive range of relevant literature, pertinent to the aim
and RQs of the thesis been selected for review? Is the impression
given that extensive reading on the topic and around the problem took
place and has been relayed?
Are the key themes and issues surrounding the research questions
clearly drawn from the literature?
Does it attempt to compare and contrast a number of relevant
concepts, models or theories in a critical manner or is it merely
descriptive?
Is the theoretical framework used in an effective manner?
Are the sources used up to date (current, state-of-the-art
publications), where appropriate, and do they have sufficient
academic weight?
Have sources been acknowledged, cited, and referenced fairly and
properly?
Has the text been well paraphrased and a critical stance is detectable?
Are the references at the end of the thesis complete and in the
appropriate Harvard referencing style?
Has literature gap been clearly identified and addressed (including
recent citations) at the end?

OVERALL IMPRESSION: LITERATURE REVIEW

70 – 100% 60 – 69% 50 – 59% 40 – 49% 20 – 39% 0 – 19%
• Comprehensive
appraisal of
relevant
literature.
• Critical
appraisal of
relevant
literature.
• Clear relation
to research
questions.
• Citations are
correct and
appropriate
• Bibliography
wide ranging
and correct in
all aspects.		 • Comprehensive
appraisal of
relevant
literature
• High level of
critical
appraisal.
• Related to
research
questions.
• Citations
mainly correct.
• Bibliography
wide ranging
but with minor
errors.		 • Adequate
appraisal of
mostly
relevant
literature
• Some critical
appraisal.
• Not always
relevant to
research
questions.
• Citations
correct but
some errors.
• Bibliography
wide ranging
but with
some errors.		 • Adequate
discussion of
some relevant
literature
• Tends towards
the descriptive
with very
limited critical
appraisal.
• Some
relevance to
research
questions.
• Some citations
correct but a
number of
errors.
• Bibliography
limited and
with some
errors.		 • Literature is
limited in
scope or
irrelevant.
• Little appraisal
and very
descriptive.
• Limited
relevance to
research
questions.
• A large
number of
citation errors.
• Bibliography
limited with
many errors.		 • Poor and
limited use of
literature.
• Vague
understanding
of relevance of
literature.
• Student
appears to
have relied
heavily on too
few texts.
• No or very few
citations used.
• Bibliography
very limited
and does not
adhere to the
Harvard
System.

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY WEIGHTING 20/100

MARKING CRITERIA GENERAL COMMENTS ON
THIS SECTION
Is there a clear rationale for methodology, i.e. is the student aware of nature
and types of research, e.g., are distinctions between qualitative and
quantitative, positivist and interpretative methods addressed?
Have the alternatives been discussed and have the advantages and
disadvantages of chosen methods been evaluated? Has this understanding
informed their choice of approach?
Is the research design/methodology described – in relation to all the
research onion layers – justifiable? Are the research instruments well
designed with all questions etc. relevant to research aims?
Has target population (be it human or non-human) been clearly described,
appropriate sampling techniques names and explained, sample size (both
for primary and secondary data sets) addressed? Is sampling process
described in detail in relation to the units of analysis, e.g., who the
respondents were; how many were there; why and how were they selected?
Were research instruments approved by supervisor before
implementation?
Is there evidence of care and accuracy in the data collection process?
Are data analysis methods discussed in detail? Are all instruments of data
collection specifically named, data sets for secondary data specified,
survey design addressed – when applicable – in sufficient detail?
Are all the applicable methods of data analysis, including statistical tests,
qualitative analysis methods, and the like clearly names and explained?
Are validity and reliability separately discussed – not only theoretically,
but in relation to potential threats and errors? Has the reliability test been
performed, if applicable?
Has a pilot study been evidenced and evaluated?
Has the scope of the study been clearly delineated, and all the limitations
discussed? Has the methodology been evaluated in retrospect with
suggestions for improvement if the research were to be undertaken again?
Have the applicable ethical issues/concerns (as related to the whole
research project) been identified and explained in terms of how they were
mitigated?

OVERALL IMPRESSION: METHODOLOGY

70 – 100% 60 – 69% 50 – 59% 40 – 49% 20 – 39% 0 – 19%
• Has a very
clear and well
articulated
academic
rationale for
methodology		 • Has clear
academic
rationale for
methodology
and research
approach but		 • Some academic
rationale for
methodology/
approach but		 • Limited
methodological
rationale.
• Methods have
some relevance		 • Basic
rationale for
methodology.
• Methods are
mainly		 • No attempt at
rationale for
methodology.
• Describes
processes that

 

and research
approach.
• Methods
highly relevant
to purpose
with evidence
of exploring
alternative
methods and
choices well
justified.
• Sampling
correct in all
aspects and
clearly
explained.
• Critical
evaluation
• Overall
approach very
well planned
and executed.		 • Methods largely
relevant to
purpose with
evidence of
exploring
alternative
methods but
incomplete
justification.
• All elements of
sampling theory
addressed with
some being well
done.
• Evaluation may
lack a critical
approach in
some aspects
• Generally well
planned and
executed.		 lacking detail in
areas.
• Methods not
relevant to
purpose in all
aspects but has
some good
aspects.
Justification for
choice is limited.
• All elements of
sampling theory
adequately
addressed
• Evaluation has
been attempted
but is limited in
terms of a
critical
approach.
• There may be
shortcomings in
the planning and
execution.		 to purpose but
have been
insufficiently
planned and
executed.
Justification for
choice is very
limited.
• Sampling
theory
addressed but
limited with
omissions.
• Evaluation is
attempted and
applied but is
poor.
• Overall
planning and
execution
weak.		 irrelevant to
purpose or
are poorly
explained and
difficult to
understand.
• Sampling
theory
extremely
weak and
lacking
detail.
• Limited
evaluation
with very
little actual
application.
• Poorly
planned and
executed.		 do not relate
to the
purpose.
• No sampling
theory
discussed.
• No or very
limited and
vague
evaluation.
• Execution
fails to
achieve
minimum
standard
required.

perhaps not
always well
articulated?
Chapter 4: ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS WEIGHTING 25/100

MARKING CRITERIA GENERAL COMMENTS ON THIS
SECTION
Are the findings presented relevant to aims and objectives?
Does any statistical presentation make the most of the data
collected?
Are any qualitative data analysis results categorised and presented
systematically?
Is there any evidence provided of secondary data analysis, if
applicable?
Are the findings presented clearly and interestingly for the
reader to follow, i.e. in tables, charts etc. embedded in the text,
numbered and captioned?
Are the appendices used appropriately for bulky and/or less
interesting/essential data interpretation?
FOR QUESTIONNAIRES Do the appendices contain a data
summary sheet (including the final sample size/number of
responses), a summary questionnaire and details of statistical
analysis undertaken?
FOR INTERVIEWS Do the appendices contain additional
evidence for data collection and exemplary excerpt(s) of
interview transcripts?
FOR OBSERVATIONS Do the appendices contain back up data
on observations carried out?

 

FOR SECONDARY DATA do the appendices contain sources
where data were collected and how they were analysed?

OVERALL IMPRESSION: ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

70 – 100% 60 – 69% 50 – 59% 40 – 49% 20 – 39% 0 – 19%
• Clear and
unambiguous
presentation
of data.
• Relevant,
rigorous and
thorough
analysis.
• Excellent
discussion
and
evaluation of
findings.
• Excellent
linkage to the
literature.		 • Clear
presentation of
data with few
errors.
• Relevant and
thorough
analysis.
• Good
discussion and
evaluation of
findings.
• Good linkage
to the literature
but some
omissions.		 • Generally
clear
presentation of
data but some
errors.
• Relevant
analysis but
lacks thorough
approach.
• Discussion and
evaluation of
findings lacks
rigour but
some useful
findings.
• Clear but
partial linkage
to the literature
but many
omissions.		 • Presentation of
data is limited
or lacks clarity.
• Analysis is
basic and
pedantic in
many areas.
• Discussion and
evaluation is
superficial or
relies on
unsupported
assertions.
• Attempts
linkage to the
literature but
not in a clear
manner.		 • Unclear or
confusing
presentation
of data.
• Analysis is
basic and
pedantic in all
areas.
• Discussion
and
evaluation
very limited
or shows lack
of
understanding
of evidence
collected.
• Minimal
linkage to the
literature.		 • Much or all of
the data has
been presented
in an unclear
manner.
• No analysis or
trivial.
• No or very
limited
discussion of
findings.
• No or very
weak linkage
to the
literature.

Chapter 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS WEIGHTING 10/100

MARKING CRITERIA GENERAL COMMENTS ON
THIS SECTION
Do the conclusions clearly follow on from the findings? Are the
conclusions well-grounded in the evidence and arguments
presented?
Have the aim, objectives and research questions been clearly
reviewed/revisited and addressed?
Are the conclusions discussed in context and are they applicable
to a wider scenario?
Are some sound business/management recommendations put
forward (preferably naming the stakeholders in question) and are
they consistent with the findings and conclusion?
Is the future research direction indicated at the end?

OVERALL IMPRESSION: CONCLUSION

70 – 100% 60 – 69% 50 – 59% 40 – 49% 20 – 39% 0 – 19%
• Conclusions
valid and
consistent with
analysis.		 • Conclusions
valid and
generally
consistent with
analysis.		 • Conclusions
generally valid
and partially
consistent with
analysis.		 • Some valid
conclusions but
generally
inconsistent with
analysis.		 • No obvious
conclusions
drawn or they
are inconsistent
with analysis.		 • Conclusions do
not relate to
purpose.
• No attention to
aim, objectives

 

• Comprehensive
reference to
aim, objectives
and research
questions.
• Conclusions
discussed in
detail and
context and
recognised
applicable to
wider scenario.
• For work based
dissertation
recommendatio
ns are consistent
with findings
and
conclusions.		 • Good reference
to aim,
objectives and
research
questions.
• Conclusions
discussed in
context and
recognised
briefly that
applicable to a
wider.
• For work based
dissertation
some logical
recommendation
s.		 • Some reference
to aim,
objectives and
research
questions.
• Conclusions
discussed in
context and
some
recognition of
wider
application.
• For work based
dissertation
some
recommendatio
ns but may be
questionable
based on
findings and
conclusions.		 • Limited
reference to aim,
objectives and
research
questions.
• Conclusions
briefly discussed
in context and
wider context.
• For work based
dissertation
limited
recommendation
s.		 • Very little
attention to aim,
objectives and
research
questions.
• Conclusions
very briefly
discussed in
context.
• For work based
dissertation very
few appropriate
recommendation
s.		 and the research
questions.
• Conclusions not
discussed in
context.
• For work based
dissertation no
recommendatio
ns

REFERENCES
Alphabetically listed, in Harvard style
APPENDIX
COHERENCE AND PRESENTATION WEIGHTING 10/100
This section considers the overall holistic nature of the dissertation. Marks should be awarded according to
the descriptors below recognising the overall consistency, compliance with presentation requirements and
coherence of the dissertation.

MARKING CRITERIA YES
(or few
errors)		 NO (or
many
errors)
Are the overall style and presentation in accordance with specifications?
Standard title page
Length 5,000++ words
Word count given
Correct pagination
Correct margins
Double spacing for text
Single spacing for indented quotes and references
Numbered chapter and section headings
Tables and figures numbered and captioned correctly
Appropriate font/bolding and italics
Is the abstract a concise (max 1 page) summary of the aim, methodology and
findings/conclusion?
Is the contents page clear, concise and informative?
Are appendices, tables and figures listed and appropriately referred to?

 

Has the thesis been spell and grammar checked?
Has the academic style been followed?
Are citations and references in the required (UoR Harvard) referencing style?
Does the thesis have an overall coherence?
Have paraphrasing issues been kept to minimum?

OVERALL IMPRESSION: COHERENCE

70 – 100% 60 – 69% 50 – 59% 40 – 49% 20 – 39% 0 – 19%
• Fulfils all
requirements
and follows
an
acceptable
style in a
correct
manner.
• Easy to read
and leads the
reader along
a well
argued path.
• Has an
overall
coherence.		 • Fulfils most
requirements
and follows an
acceptable
style in a
generally
correct
manner.
• Presented so
that it is easy
for reader to
follow.
• Is generally
coherent
although it
may lack
coherence in
parts.		 • Attempts to
follow an
acceptable
style and
fulfils most of
the
requirements.
• Not presented
with
maximum
clarity and
sometimes
difficult to
follow the
argument.
• Some evidence
of coherence.		 • Generally
attempts to
conform to
requirements
and adequately
executed.
• Some aspects
of presentation
unclear.
• Has limited
coherence.		 • Does not
meet some of
the key
requirements.
• Fails to
follow an
acceptable
style and
some aspects
unclear.
• Very little
coherence.		 • Does not meet
many of the
key
requirements
• Fails to follow
an acceptable
style and often
unclear an
untidy.
• No coherence

How will your work be assessed?
Your work will be assessed by a subject expert who will use the marking grid provided in this assessment
brief. When you access your marked work, it is important that you reflect on the feedback so that you can
use it to improve future assignments.
Referencing
You MUST use the Harvard referencing style as outlined by University of Roehampton.
Assignment submissions
The Business School requires a digital version (in Word) of all assignment submissions. These must
be submitted via Turnitin on the module’s Moodle site by the specified deadline.
Marking and feedback process
Between you handing in your work and then receiving your feedback and marks, there are a number of
quality assurance processes that we go through to ensure that students receive marks which reflects their
work. A brief summary is provided below.
• Step One – The module and marking team meet to agree standards, expectations and how feedback
will be provided.
• Step Two – A subject expert will mark your work using the criteria provided in the assessment brief.
• Step Three – A moderation meeting takes place where all members of the teaching and marking team
will review the marking of others to confirm whether they agree with the mark and feedback
• Step Four – Work at Levels 5 and 6 then goes to an external examiner who will review a sample of
work to confirm that the marking between different staff is consistent and fair
• Stop Five – Your mark and feedback are processed by the Office and made available to you.