Posted: September 13th, 2017

Understanding Business and Management Research Methods

Paper, Order, or Assignment Requirements

 
it is a Part B from the PDF that I uploaded it. and it is about an academic essay to critically analyse and evaluate different research methodological approaches applied in academic journal articles (ABS ranking 3* and above).
all the details is already written on the paper.

I uploaded the paper already and you can see that it is required to 2000 word and minimum 35 sources . if that help you could you can reduce it to 35.

Brunel Business School Master of Science MODULE CODE: MG5615 TITLE: Understanding Business and Management Research Methods This assignment comprises two parts: A: A group presentation weighting 40% of the grade of this module B: An individual academic essay weighing 60% of the grade of this module Part A (40%) You will be allocated to a sub-group (normally FIVE/SIX students) within the allocated seminar group to deliver a presentation on “Comparison of Research Methodologies: Qualitative Versus Quantitative Approaches”. Each group will be given 10 minutes for this group presentation. Normally the presentation will contain 10 slides. You will need to explain, compare, evaluate and criticise these two different research approaches to demonstrate thorough understandings of various research methods as a team. The group presentation will be assessed by · Effectiveness of group work · Clear and confident communication skills · Quality, logic and relevance of the content · Tightness of structure (introduction, analysis, argument, and conclusions) · Use and acknowledgement of adequate sources and referencesMG5615 Coursework Assignment 2014-15 MG5615 Understanding Business and Management Research Methods Page 2 of 7 The group presentation will be taken place in Week 26 and will be assessed by your allocated academic tutor for this module. Part B (60%) This is an individual assignment. You are required to write an academic essay to critically analyse and evaluate different research methodological approaches applied in academic journal articles (ABS ranking 3* and above). Typically, your essay should have (a) an executive summary (b) Introduction (c) literature review of research methodologies (d) discussion, analysis and evaluation of different research methodological approaches (e) findings and what you have learnt from this assignment (f) references (Harvard Referencing System). In this assignment, you need to demonstrate an in-depth understanding of different research methodologies including qualitative research methods, quantitative research methods, and a mixture of both. You are expected to use relevant materials from academic research books and academic journal articles (ABS ranking 3* above) in your subject area to support your analysis and arguments when formulating your assignment. Your analysis, discussion and evaluation should be backed with appropriate examples where necessary. This assignment should be presented with 12 pt. Times New Roman Text with line spacing of 1.5. The word limit is 2000 words (excluding references). Note that assignment below this word limit by more than 10% would result in decrease in the overall achieved mark by 10%. Proper referencing of all ideas, concepts, theories and quotes used in your work is essential. Normally you are required to present no less than 35 academic journal article references. The Harvard referencing system must be used, details of which are contained on your handbook. Failure to employ a clear and appropriate system of referencing will be penalised. Please include the presentation slides as appendix at the end of your report. Submission This academic essay should be Microsoft Word processed. It should be submitted Via Blackboard Learn, by 12.00 pm 25 th March, 2015. Your submission should have a title page clearly indicating the Module Code, your Registration Number, Your Allocated Tutor’s Name and the Word Count of the essay. A Cover Page is also required which should contain title, your student number, name of your programme (i.e. Management, HRM, International Business, Marketing, Corporate Brand Management), module code, module title and date of submission. Late submissions: please check with TPO / check the student handbookMG5615 Coursework Assignment 2014-15 MG5615 Understanding Business and Management Research Methods Page 3 of 7 Indicative Marking Criteria SENATE REGULATION 2: (2009 ONWARDS) POSTGRADUTE new SR3.47 (2013-onwards) Assessments and assessment blocks 47. Each element of assessment (other than those assessed on a pass / fail basis) shall be assessed as follows: Indicative Mark Band Grade Grade Point 90 and above A++ 17 80-89 A+ 16 73-79 A 15 70-72 A- 14 68-69 B+ 13 63-67 B 12 60-62 B- 11 58-59 C+ 10 53-57 C 9 50-52 C- 8 48-49 D+ 7 43-47 D 6 40-42 D- 5 38-39 E+ 4 33-37 E 3 30-32 E- 2 29 and below F 1 MG5615 Coursework Paper 2014-15 MG5615 Understanding Business and Management Research Methods Page 4 of 7 The marking scheme for the “PART 1 40%” is described in the table below. Each criterion outlined in the marking scheme below will be given equal weighting in terms of marks allocated (25%). Criterion Grade descriptors according to: Content appropriateness of material, relevance, feasibility, quality of solutions Presentation of report (10%) A++ to AScholarly presentation, of publishable quality B+ to BVery good presentation, demonstrating understanding and application of advanced communications skills C+ to CGood presentation, demonstrating understanding and application of effective communications skills D+ to DSatisfactory presentation, demonstrating understanding and application of acceptable communications skills E+ to EPartially satisfactory presentation, demonstrating limited understanding and application of communications skills F Unsatisfactory presentation, demonstrating weak understanding and application of communications skills Structure & writing of report (10%) Extremely well structured report, of publishable quality Very well structured report, demonstrating understanding and application of advanced communications skills Well-structured report, demonstrating understanding and application of effective communications skills Satisfactorily structured report, demonstrating understanding and application of acceptable communications skills Report has only partially satisfactory structure, demonstrating limited understanding and application of communications skills Unsatisfactorily structured report, demonstrating weak understanding and application of communications skills Analytical and evaluative skills (10%) Report provides a clear demonstration of sophisticated analytical and evaluative skills Report provides a clear demonstration of well-developed analytical and evaluative skills Report provides a clear demonstration of good analytical and evaluative skills Report provides evidence of some application of analytical and evaluative skills Report provides only limited evidence of application of analytical and evaluative skills Report does not provide evidence of application of analytical and evaluative skills Evidence of critical reflection and personal development through module (10%) Report provides a clear demonstration of sophisticated critical reflection on the business planning process, personal development, and Report provides a clear demonstration of well-developed critical reflection on the business planning process, personal development, and Report provides a clear demonstration of good critical reflection on the business planning process, personal development, and Report provides some evidence of good critical reflection on the business planning process, personal development, and the article Report provides only limited evidence of critical reflection on the business planning process, personal development, and the article Report does not provide evidence of critical reflection on the business planning process, personal development, and the article reviewedMG5615 Coursework Paper 2014-15 MG5615 Understanding Business and Management Research Methods Page 5 of 7 the article reviewed the article reviewed the article reviewed reviewed reviewed The marking scheme for the “PART 2, individual Report 60%” is described in the table below. Each criterion outlined in the marking scheme below will be given equal weighting in terms of marks allocated (25%). Criterion Grade descriptors according to: Content appropriateness of material, relevance, feasibility, quality of solutions Knowledge (15%) Evidence of reading in the area of Research Methods and the relevant topic understudy A* to AExcellent, Comprehensive, detailed and well organised and structured review of selected factual information on the topic understudy, with correct emphasis on the question at hand. Evidence of reading of a wide range of relevant literature sources including effective use of the reading list. Makes very good use of factual evidence to support arguments. Well sustained effective style of writing that is appropriately concise or expansive. Accurate Referencing B+ to BVery good, relevant evaluation, detailed and well organised response. Good overview of the topic understudy, and the use of factual information to address the question at hand, which is consistent and mainly error free. Evidence of effective use of the reading list with some evidence of wider reading. Competent English and fluent writing. Good referencing C+ to CFair range of information and use of terminology but not complete and/or some errors. Limited evidence of the topic understudy, from relevant reading in the area of the topic understudy, including the reading list and/or course notes. Few grammatical errors. Limited, but adequate referencing D+ to DMainly descriptive answer, satisfactory but not complete. Evidence of some reading, but little real research effort is shown. Some barely adequate references not well presented and not consistent. Lack of knowledge in some areas of the topic understudy, relevant to the question at hand and some factual errors. English is adequate E+ to EWork does not demonstrate evidence of understanding the question at hand and/or the wider general aspects of the topic understudy. Limited information and content, many factual errors, and/or little evidence of reading. F Little or no adequate content relating to the topic understudy, few relevant facts, and/or major factual errors, too short and no evidence of readingMG5615 Coursework Paper 2014-15 MG5615 Understanding Business and Management Research Methods Page 6 of 7 Understanding (15%) Use of Normative literature to explain the conceptual aspects of Rsearch Methods and the relecvant topic understudy A* to ADemonstrates comprehensive grasp of concepts, theories and methods relevant to the topic understudy, and in particular the question at hand. Articulate explanation of relevant theory. Offers a largely complete answer to the question, which is consistent, cogent and expands the bounds of the question. B+ to BDemonstrates very good understanding of many of the relevant concepts, theories and methods relevant to the topic understudy, Summarises and extrapolates pertinent issues, but not always consistent or clear in explanation. C+ to CDemonstrates understanding by translating, reorganising, and/or rephrasing relevant concepts, theory and methods relevant to the topic understudy, Some evidence of understanding aided by reading, not always lucid. Some areas of issues/topics presented may be weak or not complete D+ to DSatisfactory understanding, explanation and summarisation of concepts, theory and methods relevant to the topic understudy. However, mainly descriptive answer, which is not complete and offers little insight from, sources other than lecture material and the reading list. The response lacks depth and perception; variable and/or limited grasp of appropriate content and context E+ to EVague, unconvincing and inconsistent response, but sufficient to create basis for an adequate answer. Little or no real explanation, summarisation or interpretation of concepts, theories or methods relevant to the topic understudy. Little or no evidence of the use of lecture material or the reading list. F No real explanation, summarisation or interpretation of concepts, theories or methods relevant to the topic understudy. Errors of understanding and no evidence of the use of lecture material or the reading list. Analysis (15%) Synthesis of literature with practical examples to emphasise important issues A* to AVery effective identification of relevant concepts, methods and theory with evidence from a wide variety of reading and practical examples. Comprehensively breaks down arguments, theories and structures. Very good analytical B+ to BGood, relevant and comprehensive breakdown of arguments with good recognition of relevant concepts, theory and methods. Analysis is based on some evidence linked to practice. Logically C+ to CAdequate breakdown of subject but not comprehensive. Some ability to discern and discuss theory, methods and concepts pertinent to the topic understudy, but within limited boundaries of the D+ to DBasic analysis of concepts, theory and methods relevant to the question at hand. However, correctly identifies some content and context relevant to the topic understudy, with fair discussion. Some structure to E+ to EVery limited or no analysis of concepts, theory and methods relevant to the topic understudy, e.g. project management and the response fails to tackle the question at hand. Inadequate structure and/or F No evidence of significant analytical ability, arguments presented is unclear or erroneous, and the response lacks proper structure and logic and offers no evidence or links to practice. MG5615 Coursework Paper 2014-15 MG5615 Understanding Business and Management Research Methods Page 7 of 7 arguments effectively based on thorough review of evidence, and effective linking of topics within the wider domain of the topic understudy. structured and links topics to make points but within clear boundaries of the question at hand. question at hand. Generally logical and clear arguments presented using a clear structure and breakdown of topics, but offer few examples or evidence from practice. argument, but shallow and not always logical and makes few or no links to practice. logic to the arguments presented and the response offers no evidence or links to practice. Evaluation (15%) Use of literature, practical examples and own opinions to draw conclusions and justify arguments A* to AExtremely effective, Relevant and comprehensive evaluation of concepts, theory and methods pertinent to the topic understudy, and the question at hand. Expresses personal perspectives, with some self-criticism where appropriate and recognises limits of own judgement and knowledge. Good critical thinking, and evaluates issues and material beyond the scope of the question. B+ to BFair judgement of relevant concepts, theory and methods relevant to the topic understudy, within the scope of the question at hand. Some development of major and/or minor issues, some judgement correctly expressed but based on arguments from source material with some limitations C+ to CSome adequate evaluation based on an adequate if simple analysis. May identify some concepts, theory and methods relevant to the topic understudy, but the arguments and evaluation is not well developed. Work is mainly descriptive with some analysis but not endowed with incisive judgement D+ to DAt most some minimal evaluation based on limited or simple analysis of some concepts, theory and methods relevant to the topic understudy, that may be shallow, weak or vague. The response lacks critical evaluation. E+ to ELittle or no evaluation is offered of concepts, theory and methods relevant to the topic understudy, or the question at hand. F No effective evaluation is offered of any concepts, theory and methods relevant to the topic understudy, or the question at hand.