Understanding Business and Management Research Methods Essay

(25%)

Use of Normative literature to explain the conceptual aspects of

Rsearch Methods and the relecvant topic understudy

Demonstrates 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.

Demonstrates 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.

Demonstrates 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

Satisfactory 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

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.

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.

Very 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 arguments effectively based on thorough review of evidence, and effective

Good, 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 structured and links topics to make points but within clear boundaries of the question at hand.

Adequate 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 question at hand. Generally logical and clear arguments presented using a clear structure and

Basic 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 argument, but shallow and not always logical and makes few or no links to practice.

Very 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

logic to the arguments presented and the response offers no

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.

(25%)

Use of literature, practical examples and own opinions to draw conclusions and justify arguments

Extremely 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 recognizes limits of own judgement and knowledge. Good

critical thinking, and evaluates issues and material beyond the scope of the question.

Fair 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

Some 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

At 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.

Little or no evaluation is offered of concepts, theory and methods

relevant to the topic understudy, or the question at hand.

No effective evaluation is offered of any concepts, theory and methods

relevant to the topic understudy, or the question at hand.