Producing a report on research methodologies, research instruments, and research dissemination

Section 1: Critiquing Research Methodologies

You are asked to produce a report, which consists of three activities:

Section 1. Please provide a detailed critique of at least two well-used research methodologies.

Section 2. Please construct a research instrument that could be used to collect data in your capstone project. You will not be collecting any data – just designing the tool.

Section 3. Please reflect upon the audience and critical aspects of research dissemination in the specific context of your potential research findings and outcomes from the developed instrument.

Should you fail the assessment at the first attempt and be referred to retake the coursework, only the failed individual elements will need to be reworked, with 10% of the re-sit mark awarded for an additional reflective statement demonstrating how you learnt from the feedback and what you did differently the second time.

The same assignment task as for the main assignment period applies to the re-sit, with further instructions see below.

Re-sit deadlines will be published via Moodle. Visit the module’s Moodle site and check your Roehampton email account on a regular basis. The school is not obliged to check whether you have noticed re-sit deadlines.

You are required to improve and resubmit your original work as well as adding a further reflective commentary discussing what you have learned from the process. You must resubmit your work using the specific re-sit Turnitin link on Moodle.

The original marking criteria will still apply (see marking weights provided above and marking grid provided below) except that the 10% weighting for presentation will be awarded instead to your reflective piece.

Review your previously submitted work and read carefully the feedback given by the marker.

Use this feedback to help you revisit and rewrite your work, improving it in the areas identified as weak in the original marking process

Include with your resubmission an additional reflective piece (400-700 words) on what you understandwas weak, how you set about addressing this and what you have learned from this that may help you with further assignments. You should address the following specifically:

Identify tutor feedback points on your original work and identify where/how the resit work has changed (give page number) in response to feedback

Identify the lessons you have learnt from doing the resit

Reflect on how your feedback and this process will help you improve future assignments

If you did not submit work at the first opportunity, you cannot reflect on your feedback. However, you are still required to submit a reflective piece in which you identify your reasons for non-submission, the implications of non-submission for your future success and how you propose to address this in the future. If you have issues with confidentiality of your reasons for non-submission then you could reflect on how you have met the learning outcomes for the module, how you can use what you have done on the module to support your future career and what skills/employability attributes you feel the module has helped you to develop.

Section 2: Constructing a Research Instrument

Select a topic of interest or business problem relevant to your degree specialism, e.g. strategy, supply chain management, international business & economics, marketing, finance, or human resources. Choose one of these topics that motivates you and that you are likely to pursue for your Dissertation or Consultancy Project (you may change your mind later, but it will be to your advantage if you stick to it, so choose carefully). This will require some preliminary research into that specific area.

An introduction that provides a brief commentary of key relevant literature. Be sure to justify your choice of these references in introducing the existing knowledge on your topic (about 500 words).

Attach a full visual presentation such as a mind map, a Venn diagram, or a grandfather, father, son literature map in the report’s appendix to show the scope of your review of literature. That visual presentation will be considered when marking together with your brief commentary

A detailed critique of at least two well-used research methodologies in the literature you have reviewed. Discuss a) how they are applied; b) how the methods were deployed to provide a worthwhile contribution to theory and research and c) what gaps the methods may leave that could lend the area to further analysis (and an opportunity for your own research).

Discuss pros and cons of methods in the context of the proposed research question / research problem; and demonstrate full awareness of constraints and limitations deriving from investigation (about 1,500 words).

Mitigating circumstances/what to do if you cannot submit a piece of work or attendyour presentation

The University Mitigating Circumstances Policy can be found on the University website: MitigatingCircumstances Policy

Your work will be assessed by a subject expert who will use either the marking criteria provided in the section “Instructions for assessment” or the Marking rubric enclosed in the Appendix, as appropriate for this module. 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.

Between you handing in your work and then receiving your feedback and marks within 20 days, 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.