FinalResProposalcriteria xERPD20Checklist
RESEARCH PROPOSAL TITLE: AN EXPLANATORY STUDY OF THE CHALLENGES BRANDS FACE WHEN USING INFLUENCER MARKETING DUE FOR 8 MAY 2019
|
ERPD Marketing – u25838 – research proposal criteria, feedback & marking sheet (worth 65%) |
|
|
Student Number: |
proposal title: |
|
PROPOSAL CRITERIA |
EXCELLENT |
MODERATE |
POOR |
WEIGHT / MARK |
|||||
|
Title of research |
Clear / focused, novel |
Lacks clarity, scope is too broad |
Vague and or muddled |
Of 10% |
|||||
|
Introduction, Rationale & Research Questions |
Clear RQ’s that relate closely to each other, the title and rationale |
Coherent RQ’s but limited links to one another, title, or rationale. May need rewording. |
Very unclear RQ’s (too many / too few / vague) -weak links, poorly worded. |
||||||
|
Literature review |
Clear and logical structure / literature is presented well, discussion flows, sources are relevant to the topic |
Literature is loosely focussed does not narrow to research agenda – some relevance to research but needs to be clearer |
No clear structure to the literature, vague and unfocused – little apparent relevance to research |
Of 30% |
|||||
|
Highlights main theoretical concepts – extensive range of sources used (mostly. journals) |
Illustrates a few theoretical concepts – limited range of sources, needs greater use of journals supporting evidence. |
Few or no theoretical concepts discussed — few sources used, very descriptive account. |
|||||||
|
Presents a strong critical argument for the research – strong insights or synthesis between areas shown |
Vague argument for the research – largely descriptive account, does not adequately compare, contrast, question ‘so what’? |
Leaves reader wondering why the literature is included – little or no argument made for the research. Descriptive |
|||||||
|
Methodology |
Clear, justified explanation of methodological choices. |
Some explanation of methodology, confused in parts |
Confusing or lack of explanation of methodology |
Of 5% |
|||||
|
Methodology links to the proposed research |
Some links to proposed research. Needs more references. |
No attempt to link to proposed research |
|
Methods |
Good explanation / justification of methods chosen and how they will answer the RQ’s |
Some explanation but lacking in some elements e.g. Why chosen / how they ‘fit’ with approach, sampling and aims |
Very little explanation of methods or inappropriate choices – needs further elaboration on how / why? |
|
|
Sampling |
Sampling strategy appropriate for this research – good explanation of who, how many, how chosen and why. |
Sampling strategy too broad, too narrow or lacking sufficient detail of how this was decided and why the strategy is appropriate for the target. Some elements lacking. |
No clear sampling strategy – lacking detail, explanation of choices and justifications. Choices may be inappropriate or unrealistic. |
|
|
Ethics & Limitations |
Thorough consideration of issues – with reference to ethical principles/codes/ERC |
Consideration too brief / surface, needs to consider a broader range of issues in detail. |
Little or no consideration given. Limits discussion to only ethics or limitations. |
|
|
Timescale |
Well structured, considers a range of relevant details/stages, realistic. |
Considers some relevant details and is mostly realistic. Tends to be brief and lacks detail |
Little consideration; significant amount of detail missing, |
|
|
Referencing |
Excellent throughout – applied APA style correctly, cites a range of quality academic and practitioner sources, has clearly engaged in reading widely |
Some errors in APA formatting, could have used a broader range of sources, some key literature / models missing |
May include plagiarism issues, APA format not applied correctly, appears little engagement in reading. |
Of 20% |
|
Overall coherence |
Excellent links made between sections, arguments flow, and evidence of broad range of reading. |
Some links made between sections, some arguments presented, could have provided greater details in places. |
Lacking links between sections, unclear expression, under/over word length, weak grasp of topic. |
|
|
MARKER COMMENTS |
Mark: % |
· 70+ will have all or the majority of the ‘excellent’ boxes ticked. 60 – 69 will have some of the ‘excellent’ boxes ticked and some in the moderate. 50 – 59 will have mainly ‘moderate’ boxes ticked. 40 – 49 will have some of the ‘poor’ boxes ticked and some in the moderate. 0-39 will have all or the majority of the ‘poor’ boxes ticked
Wk10
ERPD 2016 Final Research Lecture
“20 key things to remember before submitting your research
proposal”.
Becky Quew-Jones
•
Consider the Future
In your final year you will undertake either a research based
Dissertation, a Business Research Project (BRP) or a Work-
Based Learning Project. You will need some understanding
of research and research methods.
•This unit has provided a valuable opportunity to start
thinking about what topics interests you and what you
might like to pursue in more detail in your final year.
•Your career? Think about it – what will you do?
•Use these opportunities to develop a specialism and a
competitive advantage over the 350,000+ other
students graduating this year.
1. Don’t miss the deadline!
•Assessment Deadline for BRP : Wednesday 6thMarch
2016
Word count: up to 2,000 words.
The assessment for Term 2 is 100% coursework,
and is worth 60% of the unit.
•Check when the UG office closes if you are submitting
on the 1st.
•When you submit your work at the UG office, please
write your seminar tutor’s name (not the lecturer or
unit coordinator) on the submission sheet.
2. You must use the structure provided (Please see the
research proposal template on Moodle)
Use the following headings:
1.Title
2.Research Questions
3.Literature Review (as a guide: around 900 – 1000 words)
4.Methodology / Methods / Sample (as a guide: around 600 words)
5.Ethical issues
6.Timescale
7.Appendix
3. Don’t ignore the word count – you don’t have an
extra 10%
•This Research Proposal should be up to 2,000 words in length (if you
write 2,001 words or more you will lose marks).
•The word count required for this assignment does NOT include your
Contents Page, Bibliography, Appendices or Turnitin Report.
•You can also exclude the ‘Timescale Table’ in Section 6 of the template
from the word count (the template can be found on Moodle)
•Please put the word count on the front page of your work
Marks will be deducted if the word count is exceeded.
•We will deduct 5 marks – in cases where a student
submits work between 2001 – 2500 words.
•We will deduct 15 marks – in cases where a student
submits between 2501 – 3000.
•3001 + words will fail automatically.
4. What you need to include in the Appendix:
•You will need to include evidence that you have put your work
through Turnitin. Please include a printed page from Turnitin
showing the % match, in your Appendix.
•Check your Turnitin Report to make sure you have referenced
correctly. There is a difference between poor scholarship and
Plagiarism.
•You will need to submit a proposal which is your own work.
Plagiarism will be identified and will be subject to disciplinary
procedures.
• Optional: You could submit an Ethical Checklist Form in the Appendix –
this is not essential, but completing the form may help you think more
critically about your work. A blank Ethics Form is available on Moodle.
•Completing the Ethics form might highlight issues you hadn’t considered.
5. Present your work professionally and clearly:
Presentation does matter and does affect the mark.
•“Very good presentation, presentation, organisation, grammar, spelling,
punctuation, diagrams and tables” (70+, University Assessment Criteria
Level Five)
•The Research Proposal should be word-processed. Please use a standard
type face e.g. Courier, Times New Roman or Arial in Word.
•The work needs to be written in third person, and in an academic style.
•Please submit the work stapled together.
•Be consistent – margins, font, size, headings.
•Reference correctly using Harvard APA (6th Edition).
6. Ensure you understand what a research Proposal is
•A good proposal is direct and straightforward, it says clearly
what you are proposing to do, why you want to research the
topic and how the research is going to be undertaken.
•Good research demands clarity and strong justification
(think about ‘why’ you are proposing everything).
•A good research proposal helps provide evidence that you
have the necessary knowledge to do research.
•The assessment for this unit does not ask you to collect
primary data. You are only asked to propose a research
study. So, please do not collect primary data!
7. The Title should summarise what the work overall is
trying to do.
•Your 2 research questions will be relatively more
specific than the overall title.
•Try to avoid proposing ‘too much’. Discussions with
your tutor will help.
•You have had 12 weeks of seminars…reflect on the
advice you have been given by your tutor.
8. Good literature reviews help produce good research
questions
•Literature Review: aim for around 900-1000 words
•Good research questions evolve as you read.
•Many scholars will have published studies in areas related to your chosen
topic area. As you read and review the literature on your topic, think about
where your proposed research study will fit into the research literature.
•Can you add something new to what has been done already?
Good questions = questions you could only ask if you
know something about the topic and have done some
reading?
•Do you need to have studied Business/HRM/marketing
to be able to ask your research question? Has your
reading into the subject and critical review of relevant
theories and research findings helped you design the
question? How?
Remember: you are not studying sociology or politics.
Keep the questions ‘business focused’. You need
relevant research questions
•Relate to course content: your topic must relate to
your degree course.
•Research is about questions – you need to present 2
closely related questions that help you investigate an
academic problem worthy of research.
•Your literature review will help you identify an
‘academic problem’.
E.g. you may have critically reviewed a particular area of literature relating
to your chosen topic and discovered that something (e.g. a relationship,
effect or cause) is unclear or not very well understood.
•You may find contradictory results in different studies.
•There may be a lot of research in one industry or country – but not in
others.
•Maybe you want to explore or test a theory in a new context?
•Maybe you want to expand or develop a theory?
•What will your proposed research study do to help the world
understand more about your topic?
•
9. Make the link between your literature review and
research questions very clear
The literature review should help you decide what you want to research,
and why.
Ensure you make it as clear as possible to the reader how your reading
(your review of literature) helped you design your research questions.
•The marker will want to know why you are asking the research
questions– your analysis of the literature should provide reasons for
wanting to ask a research question. Make it clear in your literature review
how the review led to the questions.
It would be useful to conclude your literature review
by stating how your work will fit into the literature.
•As you review the literature (identifying strengths,
weaknesses, methodological trends/limitations, assessing
reliability, generalisability etc.) you will gradually arrive at your
research questions.
•E.g. Will you add something new? Will you build on what has
been done in some way? Will you develop deeper
understanding of something? Maybe you will address a
weakness in the literature?
•How does your review lead you to your research questions?
Use the review to present an argument for your own research.
General literature review tips…
•Provide a clear and logical structure.
•Highlight the main theoretical concepts in the area.
•Present strong critical arguments for the research.
•Provide a literature review that is relevant to your research idea
•Be critical – rather than descriptive.
•Don’t report what you have read – review it.
•Develop views from what you have read, and put forward (from a review of the
evidence) your own conclusions on what is known and what is not known.
•Use the review to present an argument for your own research
•Cover a range of academic sources (including recently published studies)
10. As a guide, aim to include around 15 -20+ different
academic sources in your literature review.
•Citing just 3 sources from the Internet is not a literature review
•Rely (mostly) on journal papers.
•Use Harvard APA referencing.
40-49
•“Topic is researched using mainly books & Internet. Attempts
to use &/or present references/bibliography according to
convention” (University Assessment Criteria Level Five).
11. The markers are looking for a review, not a report
of the literature
It is important that you review the literature, rather than simply
report what you have read. Reviewing literature requires you to
synthesize sources, identify themes and think critically.
•Think about a restaurant or film review. Instead of repeating
exactly what has been eaten or seen, the reviewer provides a
critique, questions, assesses the strength of the film/food, makes
judgements, compares, analyses, and comes to conclusions.
•Don’t simply read a source and then describe or paraphrase
what you have read.
12. Don’t be afraid to have your own opinions.
•Your views, statements, assertions, arguments and conclusions will be the
result of careful consideration and analysis of the evidence (research
literature).
•Your conclusions (or you might say – your opinions) will flow logically
from your review of the evidence and the arguments you put forward.
70-79
•“well argued and covers the subject matter in a thorough, thoughtful and
competent manner. Contains some originality of approach, insight or
synthesis” (University Assessment Criteria Level Five).
13. Descriptive or critical? Reflect
14. There are many, many sources available to help
you develop your critical thinking, critical reading, and
critical writing skills…..use these sources!
An Example from the University of Leicester:
•http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/ld/resources/writing/writing-resources/critical-writing
•http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/ld/resources/study-guides-pdfs/writing-skills-pdfs/critical-writing-v1%200
•What is critical writing?
•What is descriptive writing?
•The difference between descriptive writing and critical writing
•Finding your academic voice
•Stringing together of quotes
•Strategic use of paragraphs
15. It may be useful when reading to keep in mind the
following 3 point strategy:
• Reflect
• Examine reasons
• Consider alternatives
(Edited from, and Inspired by: http://www.criticalthinking.net/howteach.html)
Reflect
•Be Reflective.
•Give yourself time to think.
•Avoid quick, instinctive, judgments.
•Avoid accepting the first idea that comes into your
head.
•Avoid accepting (without question) whatever you hear
or read.
•Do you really “know” if it is true?
•Are you making any assumptions?
Examine the reasons
•Look at the claims and ask yourself: How do you know?
•What are the reasons?
•Is there any evidence? Is it a good source of information? How
reliable is the evidence?
•Examine the reasons given for conclusions and claims.
•Do the claims and conclusions logically follow from the evidence?
How convincing are they?
•Are there errors in the reasoning?
Consider alternatives
•Look at the reasons, the conclusions, explanations,
sources of evidence etc.
•What alternative explanations might exist?
•What else is possible, and what seems more likely?
Why?
•Is anything ever certain?
16. Don’t forget to include all three parts in section 4
Methodology / Methods / Sample (aim for around 600 words):
You will need to include all three sections in this part of the proposal:
•4.1. Methodology
•4.2. Research methods
•4.3. Sampling strategy
• Please note: in all sections you need to justify your decisions and
reference research methods texts.
4.1 Methodology:
•Your methodology should outline your overall
approach and the philosophical stance you will adopt
(i.e. positivist or interpretivist?).
•Say why you have taken this approach.
•Read about the basic differences between
interpretivist and positivist approaches to research.
Comment on whether your proposed research is more
interpretivist or positivist, and inductive or deductive.
Quantitative Research:
Tends to emphasise quantification in the collection and analysis
of data that:
1.Entails a deductive approach to the relationship between
theory and research – concerned with testing theories.
2.Epistemological orientation (The type of knowledge you can
generate) tends to be positivist/realist.
3.Ontological position (Belief about the nature of reality) tends
to view social reality as external and object
Qualitative Research:
Tends to emphasise words rather than quantification that:
1.Predominantly emphasises an inductive approach to the relationship
between theory and research – concerned with generating theories.
2.Epistemological orientation (The type of knowledge you can generate)
tends to be interpretivist: concerned with the ways individuals interpret their
social world.
3.Ontological position (Belief about the nature of reality) tends to view social
reality as socially constructed and subjective.
(Bryman, 2003, p. 22).
4.2 Research Methods
•Your research proposal will need to propose primary data
collection.
•How do you propose to do your research, and why? You
should describe the method(s) by which you are going to gather
the data, any potential problems (e.g. reliability?) with your
selected method(s) – and how you might deal with those
problems.
•Use research methods texts to help you explain why you are
going to use the method(s) in relation to your research
questions.
4.3 Sampling strategy:
•You then need to outline the sampling strategy. You will
need to consider questions such as: who you are going to
research, how have they been chosen (e.g. probability /
non probability) and how many people and/or
organisations do you intend to research?
•The answers to these questions need to be justified (i.e.
explain why).
•You need to be realistic.
Read about sampling – and consider how it is different
in realist/positivist research compared to interpretivist
research.
•What are the aims of your research?
–Interpretivist research aims to do something very
different to positivist research.
–Link to your literature review where possible – to
support your sampling choices.
17. Be realistic
• You need to be realistic – it is unlikely that you could obtain data from a
Premier League Football Club, or the Chief Executive of a major multinational
company.
Also…
Please note: you should not attempt to research any subject involving children
or vulnerable groups. Research on the National Health Service is also
problematic, as you need to comply with NHS guidelines for researchers.
18. Don’t neglect the Ethics section – it is an important
part of the proposal and is marked.
• It is important that you demonstrate that you understand the ethical
issues facing researchers.
•You should consider issues related to confidentially and anonymity.
Check what the forms below are, and why they
are used by researchers:
• Ethics Form (What is the golden rule?)
•Participant Information Sheet
•Consent Form
• Will you use these forms? How?
• http://www.port.ac.uk/research/ethics/
19. You need a realistic timescale plan
Your plan should be over a 7-10 month period of time
•Include a plan (presented as a table – see the template) of what you
propose to do, month by month (e.g. from September to March) and
consider any resources you might need.
•You could plan your research over anything between 7-10 months.
•Remember to be realistic and pragmatic.
•Y
20. Overall coherence: your research proposal needs
to link together and flow
There are obvious links between sections.
•What are you trying to achieve? Why? How?
•Interpretivist or positivist? This will influence how you phrase
your questions, the type of method you propose, how you
sample, how you think about reliability and validity, the types of
claims you believe you can make about data, the generalisability
and aims of the research…
Avoid common mistakes made by students who have
failed in the past
Students who fail usually….
1. Tend not to attend regularly
2. Don’t read the handbook or check lecture slides
3. Don’t follow the directions or guidelines given and ignore word limits.
4. Produce vague research questions or too many research questions
5. Fail to make any reference (or very little) to any research methods texts.
6. Are unrealistic about what can be achieved (e.g. proposing to collect data from a Premier League
Football Club).
7. Start writing the proposal during the final week before it is due to be submitted.
8. Fail to explain how the literature review helped justify the research questions. Good research questions
evolve as you read.
9. Produce a report of the literature – rather than a critical review of it.
10. Submit work which contains poor scholarship, large quantities of paraphrasing or description, and
sometimes plagiarism.
References & Useful Sources
Bryman, A. (1998). Social Research Methods. Oxford.
Chaffee, T. (2005). Thinking Critically. Cengage.
Collis, J., and Hussey, R. (2009). Business Research: A practical guide for undergraduate and
postgraduate students. Palgrave-MacMillan.
Cottrell, S. (2011). Critical Thinking Skills. Palgrave.
Fink, A. F. (2009). Conducting Research Literature Reviews. Sage
Gill, J. and Johnson P. (2011) Research Methods for Managers. Sage
Groarke, L., and Tindale, C. (2008). Good Reasoning Matters. Oxford.
Hart, C. (1998). Doing a Literature Review. Sage.
Lee, N. (2008). Doing Business Research. Sage.
Machi, L. A., and McEvoy, B. T. (2008). The Literature Review. Sage.
McEwan, E. K. (2003). Making Sense of Research. Sage.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students. Pitman.
Saunders, M., and Lewis, P. (2012). Doing Research in Business and Management: An Essential
Guide to Planning Your project. Prentice Hall.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
