Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.
GET A 40% DISCOUNT ON YOU FIRST ORDER
The Business Project Proposal Feedback
Student Number: 1503 1461 Date: January 2016
Marker: Pam Seanor e: firstname.lastname@example.org
Please note that achievement of the learning outcomes for this assessment is demonstrated against the assessment criteria.
|Assessment Criteria||The five-point scale below reflects the ratings on the marking grid|
|Critical evaluation of literature||A B C D E|
|Case for methodology||A B C D E|
|Clarity of problem definition and scope||A B C D E|
|Limitations and planning||A B C D E|
|Presentation||A B C D E|
|Strengths of this assignment are: I can see that you have structured the proposal – however it appears that you did not address what was required in the sections. You discuss challenges [pp.3-4] and offer a model [p.5]; however, as reflected above, the study needs more reading, thinking and writing. You do end the review in your research questions. However, by posing ‘does the company…?’, you will end up with yes or no answers. Please look at other aims and objectives in texts and/or empirical studies [see below]. I am particularly concerned that you do not appear to address the CSR topic, upon which you were allocated to Catherine as your supervisor; nor do you refer to the core text or materials mentioned in the lectures and/or workshops [see below].
The main ways to improve this assignment are: As above, your review of the literature shows evidence of sources. However, we asked for 6-10 seminal sources. These do not appear as seminal as the most cited is by 3 others. So. where most are recent they show no seminal works informing your study. You simply have not read widely enough to position yourself in the narratives. Meaning, it is not analytical or evaluative. Instead you mainly describe one paper, then the next one. Now – the contemporary issue you were allocated is CSR. On the one hand, CSR is interesting as it is being questioned by traditional sources. On the other hand, there are those writers critiquing that it is not going far enough. For your dissertation, you need to revisit the materials on reviewing the literature and themes. Look at the themes in other papers.
Methodology – This is problematic in a variety of ways. All of it is based upon a single reference [e.g. Kish, 1965]. Moreover, you say you are going to telephone companies and ask questions. There is no discussion or inclusion of ethics form or consent templates. Consider that you might examine CSR using a case study; this would be the methodology – which was highlighted in the lectures. Then you can consider what 2nd data are you going to examine and WHY [Here please look at Silverman’s qualitative research textbook; he has a section on CSR and analysing documents]. Further, you show no attempt to discuss how you are going to analyse the data other than saying Excel [revisit lecture materials and the Silverman text – perhaps using content analysis of documents]. As above, I would have welcomed Collis and Hussey, the core text; please revisit it and lecture materials for your dissertation.
As for the problem and scope and planning– Basically, the timeframe concerns me as you have the submission date incorrect [1st May, p.8]. Finally, please attempt the Gantt chart for your dissertation; this was part of the brief. Finally, as for referencing – far too many unsupported statements in your text [e.g. pp7-8 have no references] and those in section 6 are incomplete + one of your references is inaccurate Melissa, B.
Please arrange what should be the 2nd meeting with your supervisor, from this proposal it does not appear you have met with Catherine, to discuss your proposal and the feedback. Make time and engage in the sessions (lectorials, workshop and espresso language) in Term 2.
Sources of help with your academic work are listed in the module handbook and on the module blackboard site.
Research Proposal Marking Grid Student number: 1503 1461
|Mark||Critical evaluation of main literature||Case for methodology
Clarity of problem definition and scope
|Limitations and planning
|Excellent preliminary review of up-to-date relevant literature. Considerable understanding of relevant theory and/or concepts. Argument linked to academic debate. Leads to focussed research questions.||Excellent grasp of research design. The proposed study uses appropriate sampling methods, data collection methods and data analysis procedures. Clear evaluation measures are taken to avoid errors or bias.||Problem clearly explained and scope well defined. Meaningful connection of academic and practitioner literature to aims and objectives, using appropriate sampling, data collection and analysis methods. Concludes with strong ideas for interpretation of intended purpose||Strong attempt to consider any limitations of the study, with appropriate ideas to address these. Well planned timetable and allows for contingencies. If undertaking primary research, signed ethics form used extensively.||Excellent writing style and referencing, citing sources correctly and with excellent spelling and grammar. Within word limit. Good use of diagrams and tables to illustrate points.|
|Good review of up-to-date and relevant literature. Well-interpreted and well organised and contributing clearly to research aim and methods.
||Good grasp of research design. Proposed study uses good sampling, showing choice of data collection and data analysis methods. Fair evaluation of options.
||Problem clearly explained and scope well defined. Well-structured proposal, which shows good connections between sections but may lack coherence in places. Concludes with suitable ideas for interpretation of intended purpose.||Good attempt to consider any limitations of the study, with good ideas to address these. Well-planned timetable. If undertaking primary research, ethical implications of aspects of proposed study and minimise potential harm. Signed ethics form included.||Good academic writing style and referencing. But with some minor errors. Well-structured text, tables/figures. Within word limit.
|Fair attempt to evaluate relevant literature. Some understanding of relevant theory or concepts, but will miss more subtle points and recent developments. Leads to research questions.||Understanding of research design. Proposed study uses good sampling, but is descriptive in discussion of data choices and has slim discussion of how data will be analysed. Meaning lacks detail and some aspects threaten validity of findings.||Attempt at clarifying problem and scope. Proposal may lack clear structure in areas and the justification for choice of objectives or methods in some sections may be unclear.||Some attempt to consider the limitations of the study. Satisfactory timetable. If undertaking primary research, ethical implications of the proposed study described. Signed Ethics form included||Some attempt at appropriate writing style and referencing, though some errors or omissions. Occasionally fail to give sources. Adequate presentation of text, and tables/ figures. Within word limit.|
|Review focuses on only a few authors and is descriptive and superficial. Recent developments and some key areas missing. Less clear links to final research aim.||Some understanding of research design. Proposed study uses basic methods but lacks detail. Inadequate evaluation options.||Some attempt at clarifying problem and scope. Basic structure with basic research methods but lacks clear justification for these.
||Little attempt to address limitations of the study. Satisfactory timetable. If undertaking primary research, signed Ethics form used basically||Writing style poor as is referencing. Text, tables or figures poorly structured. Minor infringement of word limit.|
|Unfocused, disorganized and/or not relevant. No links to research questions.
||Little understanding of research design
||Unclear.||No attempt to address limitations. Unrealistic timetable. If undertaking primary data, NO ethics form.||Inappropriate writing style, presentation, poor referencing.