Assessment Information
Subject Code: BUS 604
Subject Name: Business Research Methods Assessment Title: Assessment 2 – Essay on research paradigm
Weighting: 35 %
Length: 3000 words Due Date: Submission due Week 4 – Sunday at 11.59 pm
COURSE: Master of Business (Research)
Unit: Business Research Methods
Unit Code: BUS604
Type of
Assessment: Assessment 2 – Report on research paradigm
Unit Learning Outcomes addressed: (a) Demonstrate a critical appreciation of the major steps involved in conducting research.
(b) Demonstrate an extended understanding of various business research designs and methods and be able to evaluate and explain their strengths and weaknesses in research designs for particular projects.
(c) Demonstrate a critical appreciation of ethical issues in research and an advanced understanding of appropriate procedures and protocols applicable to these issues.
(d) Critically review and evaluate research literature.
(e) Design research for a particular project, explaining the limitations, advantages, and technical and ethical implications of the techniques employed.
(f) Select, justify and design questions suitable for a survey instrument and be able to analyse survey data in relation to a particular research question.
(g) Prepare a formal research proposal investigating an innovative and/or unresolved research question.
Criteria for Assessment: • Knowledge and Understanding
• Content and exploration of theories and ideas
• Analysis, synthesis and critical engagement
• Technical skills and referencing
Assessment Task: Using particular research methodologies raises many philosophical questions for researchers about the nature of reality, how knowledge is constructed, the role of value in research and how
research should be conducted. Identify relevant research philosophies or paradigms and investigate their epistemology, ontology, axiology and their implications for methodology (research design, data collection, etc.) selection.
Your essay must focus on contentious and problematic issues, therefore they must contain a well-argued case with an appropriate structure and obey academic conventions regarding referencing, etc.
Although you may use any scholarly sources, the following are list of readings you can use to support your arguments.
Creswell, J.W and Creswell, J.D. (2018). Research Design
Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, SAGE, Thousand Oaks
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2018). Business research methods. Oxford university press.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (2017). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. Routledge.
Hammersley, M., & Gomm, R. (1997). Bias in social research. Sociological Research Online, 2(1), 1-13.
Neuman, W (2017) Social research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches: The Meanings of methodology, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International journal of social research methodology, 8(5), 375-387.
Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of Education, 48(2), 311-325.
Submission Date: Week 4 (online submission).
Total Mark & Weighting: 35 marks | 35%
Students are advised that any submissions past the due date without an approved extension or approved extenuating circumstances incur a 5% penalty per calendar day,
calculated from the total mark e.g. a task marked out of 35 will incur a 1.75 mark penalty per calendar day.
Criteria HD (High
Distinction)
85%-100% DN (Distinction)
75%-84% CR (Credit) 74%-65% P (Pass)
50%-64% F (Fail)
0%-49%
Knowledge and understanding
5 marks Command
of the topic, unusual
creativity, perception and insight,
all
suggesting that work should be published in an academic forum. Demonstrate s command
of the topic by showing
creativity, perception and insight — a serious contribution to the academic debate. Demonstrates a well- informed understanding of the topic by showing
creativity and insight — a serious contribution to the academic debate. Understandin
g of contemporary academic debate, with some
creative input and insight, with a tendency toward description. Limited/poor understanding demonstrated. Any creative input is somewhat off the point.
Content and exploration of theories and ideas
10 marks Outstandin g selection that makes a substantial contributio n to Outstanding selection from a wide relevant and innovative range of Selection from a wide and relevant range of perspectives and sources Relevant selection from a range of perspectives and sources. Sources are Narrow selection, minimal use of sources, to support the argument.
academic debate. perspectives and sources. that draws upon contemporar y academic debate. mostly integrated into the overall argument.
Analysis, synthesis and critical engagement
15 marks Outstandin g use of source material. Excellent argument
that is of the highest academic quality. Critical distance and outstanding analysis of the question, to a high Sources very well integrated into the overall argument. Clear well structured argument that is well crafted and cogent. Critical distance and outstanding analysis of the question. Sources wellintegrated into the overall argument. Clear, cogent and wellstructured argument.
Critical distance and sound analysis of the question. Mostly clear, cogent and well-structured argument. Demonstrates
criticality and generally good analysis. Sources are not properly integrated into the argument. Absence of clear and cogent argument.
Incomplete analysis with a tendency to accept the source material at face value.
degree of excellence.
Technical skills and referencing
5marks Referenci ng impeccab
le using appropria
te
conventio ns.
No errors
in
grammar
or spelling. Referencing clear and accurate using appropriate conventions.
Virtually no errors in grammar or spelling. Referencin g clear and accurate using appropriat e
conventions. Good grammar and spelling. Referencing sufficiently clear and using an appropriate convention. Adequate grammar and spelling. References limited/inappropriat e. Many errors in grammar and
spelling, making it difficult or impossible to read.