Posted: February 1st, 2022

BSM 777: Research Methods CW1: Research Proposal

BSM 777: Research Methods CW1: Research Proposal 100% Page 1 of 15
BSM 777: Research Methods
CW1: Research Proposal 100%
1
st Milestone (15%): 2
nd Milestone (55%): 3
rd Milestone (30%)
Written Research
Proposal
Final Written Proposal Final Proposal
PRESENTATION
Submission Deadline: Submission Deadline: Date:
4 November 2018 at
10pm
27 November 2018 at
10pm
28 November
(specific schedule to be
announced)
Submission Mechanism: Submission Mechanism: Submission Mechanism:
Upload to
CampusMoodle:
 Upload to the specific
submission area
 MS Word format
Upload to
CampusMoodle:
 Upload to the specific
submission area in
CampusMoodle
Powerpoint document
to be uploaded to
CampusMoodle, to the
specific submission area
until 27 November 2018
at 10pm
Assessment Title and Weight
Coursework 1 (CW1): Research Proposal.
This assessment weighs 100% of the final module grade and comprises three milestones.
Completion of this BSM 777 – Research Methods module is a prerequisite for BSM 784 – final
Research Project (Dissertation/ Basic Research or Business Plan/Applied Research).
Aim of the Assessment
To provide students with an understanding of the underlying principles of research methods and
professional research practice. This process requires the student to develop the capability to identify
and utilize appropriate strategies and techniques within the context of an individual research
investigation into a chosen aspect of the hospitality and tourism industry.
BSM 777: Research Methods CW1: Research Proposal 100% Page 2 of 15
Assessed Learning Outcomes
1. Identify relevant research topics and questions related to hospitality practice, which provide
scope for an individual investigation.
2. Review and use existing research and literature to provide suitable scope and context in the
development of a research proposal.
3. Identify major research approaches and methodologies that will assist in the development and
management of the research process in a professional context.
4. Critically evaluate and apply research methods and project management techniques in the
design and planning of a research proposal.
Assessment Criteria
The assessment will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
Criterion Percentage
Title + Abstract (≈ 100 words) + Introduction (≈ 400 words) 15%
Literature review (≈ 1200 words) 30%
Methodology (≈ 1350 words) 40%
Ethical considerations (≈ 150 words) + Limitations and outcomes (≈ 300
words)
10%
Formalities (Structure and Referencing) 05%
Refer to the Assessment Marking Criteria for details of each criterion across the grade bands.
Transversal to all the criteria are conceptual /theoretical consistency and autonomy, to be revealed
by a critical, evaluative and creative thinking. Together, they compose a deep approach to tackling
academic tasks, comprising the main requisite for being awarded with Excellent grade. This grade
means that the Research Proposal achieves the final purpose of clearly convincing a potential
Supervisor, and/or indicates a good potential to persuade a sponsor to financing the project.
BSM 777: Research Methods CW1: Research Proposal 100% Page 3 of 15
ASSESSMENT BRIEF – WRITTEN RESEARCH PROPOSAL
Word Limit
3,500 words. The word count is to exclude the Cover Page, the Table of Contents, in-text references,
text associated with tables and graphs…etc.
STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL
Your Research Proposal must include all the following sections in the given order:
1. Abstract (approximately 100 words)
 Together with the Title, should convey the essence of the research, stated in a clear, precise,
accurate and appealing way, capturing the attention and interest from the reader.
2. Introduction (approximately 400 words)
 What is it all about? Or stating clearly the direction of the research.
 Central idea of the topic of investigation, purpose and aims of the research;
 Background to the study (contextual information, which may include a summary on how
the idea came up and the circumstances within which the research will occur);
 Why is it important to run this research?
 Structure of the present proposal
3. Literature Review (approximately 1200 words)
 What is already known about this topic?
 Demonstrating the necessary intellectual familiarity with the research field
 Relevant topics and key ideas, themes and terms in the area of study
 Theoretical framework
 Relevant research in the field of study
 Where the proposed research fits in?
 What is new about it?
 Providing rationale for research questions and methodological options – drawing your
conceptual framework
4. Methodology (approximately 1350 words)
 What do we want to find out, and how to get there?
 Research questions (and/or hypothesis), Aims and Objectives
 Philosophical assumptions, research approach to theory development, type of research
and justification for methodological choices
 Research design and strategies
 Sampling, if applicable, or people selection procedures
 Data collection and data analysis methods
 Resources and time planning (project management)
 Personal skills, travel, permissions, copies, software, translations, etc.
 Action plan, and timeline (identifying milestones and pre-requisites)
5. Ethical considerations (approximately 150 words)
 Assuring that the research is socially acceptable: What precautions and specific actions will
be taken to respect participant’s dignity, safety, freedom, privacy, confidentiality, and
scientific integrity?
6. Limitations and Outcomes (approximately 300 words)
 Possible benefits of the study (how useful can it be?)
 Limitations of the research (what the study cannot achieve)
7. References:
List all references you used in your preparation of the Research Proposal including the
preliminary literature review. All references must follow the RGU Harvard referencing system.
BSM 777: Research Methods CW1: Research Proposal 100% Page 4 of 15
FORMATTING GUIDELINES
The same as students will have for the final Project: BSM784.
The following was extracted from BSM 784: Research Project – Module Handbook (pp. 9-10).
BSM 777: Research Methods CW1: Research Proposal 100% Page 5 of 15
Submission Requirements
As mentioned in the first page of this Assessment brief
Support
For any questions on the assessment, please contact the Module Co-ordinator Ms. Olga
Sasinovskaya o.sasinovskaya@rgu.ac.uk
Policies and Penalties
Plagiarism
“Plagiarism is the practice of presenting the thoughts, writings or other output of another or
others as original, without acknowledgement of their source(s). All material used to support a
piece of work, whether a printed publication or from electronic media, should be appropriately
identified and referenced and should not normally be copied directly unless as an
acknowledged quote. Text translated into the words of the individual student should in all
cases acknowledge the source.” For further information please see:
https://www.essaybishop.com/write-my-essay/rgu.ac.uk/about/academic-affairs/quality-assurance-and-regulations
Before submitting assignments, you should check to ensure that:
 All material identified as originally from a previously published source has been properly
attributed by an appropriate reference in the text;
 Direct quotations are marked as such (using “quotation marks” at the beginning and end of the
selected text), and
 A citation has been included in the list of references at the end of the text.
Late Submissions
The penalty for late submission of a piece of coursework is that the coursework is failed. A fail will
also be given for any accounts of plagiarism found in the coursework.
If you, for genuine reasons, are unable to meet the submission date, please contact Ms. Samia
Hossfeld hossfeld@bhms.ch before the submission deadline with the Coursework Extension Form
to apply for an extension of the coursework.
Penalties
 There is a penalty for deviating substantially (+/- 10%) from the word limit. The penalty is a
deduction of up to 5 grade points from the final grade.
 There is a penalty for not implementing changes after Milestone 1 tutoring. The penalty is a
deduction of up to 10 grade points from the final grade
 There is a penalty for poor spelling and grammar. The penalty is a deduction of up to 5 grade
points from the final grade.
 There is a penalty for poor presentation for the Research Proposal (format and structure). The
penalty is a deduction of up to 5 grade points from the final grade.
BSM 777: Research Methods CW1: Research Proposal 100% Page 6 of 15
Assessment Marking Criteria – WRITTEN RESEARCH PROPOSAL (DRAFT AND FINAL)
Student Number Student Name
A [70+%] B [60-69%] C [50-59%] D [40-49%] E [35-39%] F [0-34%]
Criterion/Grading Scale EXCELLENT
Outstanding
COMMENDABLE
Meritorious
GOOD
Highly Competent
SATISFACTORY
Competent
BORDERLINE FAIL
Open to Condonement
FAIL
Unsatisfactory
Title and Abstract +
Introduction
(1) Conceptual relevance
(mastering the purpose
of this component –
capturing readers’
interest and stating
clearly the direction of
the research, in a clear,
precise and accurate
way);
(2) Autonomy,
critical/creative thinking,
demonstrating
authorship and
ownership of the project,
portraying a deep
intrinsic motivation
Consistent, deep and
relevant, meeting all
the criteria. Structure
and text clearly
demonstrate that
student is able to
portray an appropriate
and “shining” output
(coming from intrinsic
motivation), totally
convincing the intended
audience, and can fully
stand for his/her
project. Almost “readyto-be-published”.

Potential supervisors
could “fight” for guiding
this student.
Consistent and relevant,
meeting clearly
conceptual criteria (being
able to state the project
direction); nevertheless it
may be not totally
convincing in terms of
autonomy and
creative/critical thinking,
lacking the shining effect,
that only with consistent
risk taking is possible to
attain. Can easily
convince someone to be
his/her supervisor,
although with identifiable
fine-tuning needs.
Generally criteria are
being met, although text
and/or structure may
indicate that not all the
dimensions of the project
had been grasped. Deep
intrinsic ownership may
be lacking, because
student may be acting
defensively, trying to do
the task within a safe
prescriptive approach,
not bringing student’s
creativity. Can convince
someone to be his/her
supervisor, although
he/she may need some
time to gain autonomy.
Task is globally addressed,
although it may indicate
that student is doing
because it is said in the
Assessment brief, without
clear and convincing notion
of the research direction.
The way the assignment is
done may indicate that it
was done somehow
superficially. A potential
supervisor may be willing to
accept this student,
although with the need to
prescribe extra assignments
so the student can grow in
terms of conceptual
consistency, and then in
creativity
Denotes overall confusion
about what is meant by this
research proposal
component. Nevertheless, at
least one idea is
approximately appropriate,
namely the direction of the
proposed research. It falls
also under this grade, the
student that can portray
some creative ideas,
although, by lacking of
consistency, they indulge in
rush conclusions. A potential
supervisor recognizes that
this could be a case where
tight schedule and
assignments are needed, so
student can achieve the
minimum requirements
Confusion and
unacceptably
vague and/or
irrelevant, with
fatal errors
and/or
omissions.
Student seems
to be “lost”.
(15%) 10.5 – 15 9 – 10 7.5 – 8.5 6 – 7 5 – 5.5 0 – 4.5
BSM 777: Research Methods CW1: Research Proposal 100% Page 7 of 15
A [70+%] B [60-69%] C [50-59%] D [40-49%] E [35-39%] F [0-34%]
Criterion/Grading Scale EXCELLENT
Outstanding
COMMENDABLE
Meritorious
GOOD
Highly Competent
SATISFACTORY
Competent
BORDERLINE FAIL
Open to Condonement
FAIL
Unsatisfactory
Literature review
(1) Conceptual
consistency:
demonstrates familiarity
with research field, and
relevant topics, making
the further understanding
of research questions
clear; quantity of
reviewed literature
reveals adequacy and is
updated.
(2) Autonomy,
critical/creative thinking:
is able to clearly relate
his/her proposed research
within the past (where it
fit) and future (what is
new about it) path of the
research field
Consistent, deep and
relevant, meeting all
the criteria. Structure
and text clearly
demonstrate that
student really “knows
what he/she is talking
about”, and explains
theories and concepts
with accuracy.
Autonomy is revealed
by critically reviewing
and applying theories in
relation to his/her own
project. Almost “readyto-be-published”.

Improvements
suggestions by a
supervisor can be done,
although they are not
essential
Conceptual criteria are
met, but the Autonomy
criterion is not totally
convincing, lacking a
clear attempt to argue
critically, and to relate
theories with his/her
project. A supervisor
could assign some tasks
to enhance creativity, to
enlarge the scope of
conceptual use.
Conceptual criteria are
met, with minor flaws,
but the writing
(structure and text)
shows defensiveness,
addressing the task
superficially, lacking a
clear autonomy. A
supervisor could assign
tasks to promote a
deeper and more
consistent grasping of
concepts, to further
allow a sound
autonomy.
Concepts are mentioned
with an approximate
definition, although with a
few not negligible flaws;
autonomy is not shown, or it
is superficially portrayed
(example, with rush or
inconsistent arguments). A
supervisor would prescribe a
commitment with
conceptual /theoretical
learning, sine qua non
student would be able to
claim for an autonomous
project.
Denotes confusion about
concepts and the required
task (the purpose of literature
review). Nevertheless, at least
one idea is approximately
appropriate, example, one
relevant theory is identified,
with main concepts defined.
Only with a tight schedule and
assignments, can eventually a
student within this grade
achieve the minimum
requirements to pursue such a
project.
Confusion and
unacceptably
vague and/or
irrelevant, with
fatal errors
and/or
omissions.
(30%) 21 – 30 18 – 20.5 15 – 17.5 12 – 14.5 10.5 – 11.5 0 – 10
BSM 777: Research Methods CW1: Research Proposal 100% Page 8 of 15
A [70+%] B [60-69%] C [50-59%] D [40-49%] E [35-39%] F [0-34%]
Criterion/Grading Scale EXCELLENT
Outstanding
COMMENDABLE
Meritorious
GOOD
Highly Competent
SATISFACTORY
Competent
BORDERLINE FAIL
Open to Condonement
FAIL
Unsatisfactory
Methodology
(1) Conceptual consistency:
demonstrates an adequate
definition (clear, precise and
achievable) and classification of
research questions; reveals
grasping of research paradigms
concepts, different methodological
choices, being able to design
relevant data collection and
analysis methods and techniques;
(2) Autonomy, critical/creative
thinking: the proposal shows overall
coherence and the student is able
to critically evaluate different
alternatives; autonomy is to be
present when planning resources
and time, portraying a capacity to
integrate tasks and to identify
project management needs.
Consistent, deep and
relevant approach,
meeting all the
criteria. Research
questions met the
criteria (although
they can be subject to
later improvements).
The concepts are
used without flaws,
and the text is fluent
and well structured,
demonstrating
maturity and
autonomy. This is
enhanced by the
planning of resources
and time, indicating
that, although
needing supervision,
student could go on
with few direct help.
Almost “ready-to-bepublished”
chapter.
Conceptual criteria are
met, and research
questions satisfy the
criteria. Student reveals
overall grasping of
methodology concepts,
although not in a totally
convincing way. The
overall coherence
seems achieved;
nevertheless it could be
improved with a more
consistent critical
analysis. The planning
of resources may or
may not be totally
adequate. This grade
means that student
achieves overall
requisites of this
chapter, although in
one of its criteria it can
be somehow weaker.
Conceptual criteria
are met, with some
minor flaws. Research
questions may
indicate that a clearer
idea about what the
project is about is
needed. The writing
can denote that in
some components of
this criterion, student
is not confident or
consistent, and so
portraying a less
convincing autonomy.
In cases like this, a
supervisor could
recommend that
student revise
concepts and
reflecting upon
against his/her
research project idea.
Relevant concepts are
included, although with a
few not totally negligible
flaws. The way the chapter
is written and/or structured
can show that the student
is not tackling the task with
the necessary
appropriateness, denoting
that maybe he/she is
adopting a safe, defensive
approach, hindering
autonomy. Although
possible to identify
paragraphs for the different
criteria components, they
seem to be superficially
met. A supervisor could
advice a student with this
approach to go back to
make consistent basic
concepts.
Denotes confusion about
concepts and the
required autonomy; at
least one research
question and a concept
and/or an idea and/or
criteria component is
approximately adequate.
Such a grade would
require that a potential
supervisor could
prescribe a “probation”
period where the student
should study
methodology, and all the
basic concepts
associated, and then to
proceed with defining a
sound idea for research
project.
Confusion and
unacceptably
vague and/or
irrelevant, with
fatal errors
and/or
omissions.
(40%) 28 – 40 24 – 27.5 20 – 23.5 16 – 19.5 14 – 15.5 0 – 13.5
BSM 777: Research Methods CW1: Research Proposal 100% Page 9 of 15
A [70+%] B [60-69%] C [50-59%] D [40-49%] E [35-39%] F [0-34%]
Criterion/Grading Scale EXCELLENT
Outstanding
COMMENDABLE
Meritorious
GOOD
Highly Competent
SATISFACTORY
Competent
BORDERLINE FAIL
Open to Condonement
FAIL
Unsatisfactory
Ethical considerations +
Limitations and Outcomes
(1) Conceptual acknowledgement
of ethical considerations
(assuring social acceptability and
scientific integrity), limitations
within methodological
framework, and anticipated
findings and benefits; (2)
Autonomy, critical/creative
thinking: adequate reflection
upon the specificity of the
proposed research
Consistent, deep and
relevant, meeting all the
criteria. Student
demonstrates fully
understanding of the
purpose of these
components in a research
proposal, and reveals
autonomy and critical
thinking, being able to
enhance the potential value
of his/her project.
Globally consistent
and relevant,
demonstrating sound
understanding of the
purpose of these
components in a
research proposal;
nevertheless, critical
thinking could be
improved by a
deeper, specific
reflection.
Conceptual criteria
are met, with minor
flaws or incomplete
acknowledgement of
the different topics;
the text shows some
defensiveness, not
portraying a clear
critical thinking.
Concepts are mentioned
with an approximate
definition or
understanding, although
with a few not negligible
flaws or
misunderstanding; the
way the text is written
and structured can show
that the r task is
addressed defensively,
and hence somehow
superficial.
Denotes some confusion
about concepts and the
purpose of these
components; at least one
concept and/or an idea is
approximately adequate.
Confusion and
unacceptably
vague and/or
irrelevant, with
fatal errors
and/or
omissions.
(10%) 7 – 10 6 – 6.5 5 – 5.5 4 – 4.5 3.25 -3.5 0 – 3
Formalities (structure and
referencing)
Respect the proposed structure
and list all references used in the
preparation of the Research
Proposal including the preliminary
literature review. All references
must follow the RGU Harvard
referencing system
All the components of the
structure are present.
There is full match between
in-text references and list
of references.
All references are included
and correct, namely second
referencing and quotations
[negligible typing mistakes can
be accepted].
All the components of
the structure are
present.
There is full match
between in-text
references and list of
references.
Minor or negligible
referencing flaws
considering RGU
Harvard ref. system.
All the components of
the structure are
present.
There is full match
between in-text
references and list of
references.
At least 2/3 of the
references are
correctly included
following RGU
Harvard system
All the components of the
structure are present.
Negligible mismatch
between in-text
references and list of
references.
More than 1/3 of
references are lacking
and/or not correctly
included.
Some components of the
structure are present.
Evident mismatch
between in-text
references and list of
references.
Most of the references
are inconsistently and
incorrectly included.
Confusion with
fatal errors
and/or
omissions). No
references, or
not at all
fulfilling the
system)
(5%) 3.5 – 5 3 2.5 2 1.5 0 – 1
BSM 777: Research Methods CW1: Research Proposal 100% Page 10 of 15
ASSESSMENT BRIEF – VERBAL RESEARCH PROPOSAL PRESENTATION
What is special about this assessment component? What is its’ overall aim?
With this assessment component, student has an opportunity to demonstrate how much he/she
owns his/her own project; how motivated he/she is, how ready he/she is to start a project that
requires capacity to work independently, with autonomy. With such a presentation, a student
should be striving to convincing someone to be his/her supervisor (represented by the two markers
who will attend the presentation).
Time Limit
10 minutes for presentation and 2 to 5 minutes to answer first and second markers questions.
Powerpoint presentation will have approximately 12 to 18 slides. The proportion of time to devote
to each component will follow the proportion of words in the written proposal and the weight in
terms of assessment criteria:
 1 minutes to the Introduction (motivating the audience) +
 3 minutes for literature review, explaining your conceptual framework +
 4,5 minutes to explain the Methodology +
 1 minute to Ethical considerations and limitations and outcomes. +
 0,5 minutes: slides with list of references and final thank you note
STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL PRESENTATION (THE SAME FOR THE
WRITTEN PROPOSAL, BUT ADAPTED TO THE CONTEXT OF AN ORAL PRESENTATION)
1. Cover slide – Title and other formal information (1 slide)
2. Introduction (approximately 1 or 2 slides)
 What is it all about? Or stating clearly the direction of the research.
3. Literature Review (approximately 2 to 4 slides)
 What is already known about this topic?
 Demonstrating the necessary intellectual familiarity with the research field
 Where the proposed research fits in?
 What is new about it? Providing rationale for research questions and methodological
options – drawing your conceptual framework)
4. Methodology (approximately 5 to 6 slides)
 What do we want to find out, and how to get there?
 Research questions (and/or hypothesis), Aims and Objectives
 Justification for all methodological choices, design and strategies
 Sampling or people selection procedures, Data collection methods (+planned analysis)
 Resources and time planning (project management)
5. Ethical considerations (1 slide)
 Assuring that the research is socially acceptable: What precautions and specific actions will
be taken to respect participant’s dignity, safety, freedom, privacy, confidentiality, and
scientific integrity?
6. Limitations and Outcomes (1 or 2 slides)
 Possible benefits of the study (how useful can it be?)
 Limitations of the research (what the study cannot achieve)
7. References: (probably between 2 and 4): All references must follow the RGU Harvard
referencing system.
BSM 777: Research Methods CW1: Research Proposal 100% Page 11 of 15
Assessment Marking Criteria – VERBAL PRESENTATION
Student Number Student Name
Criterion
Percentage
A [70+%] B [60-69%] C [50-59%] D [40-49%] E [35-39%] F [0-34%]
EXCELLENT
Outstanding
COMMENDABLE
Meritorious
GOOD
Highly
Competent
SATISFACTORY
Competent
BORDERLINE FAIL
Open to
Condonement
FAIL
Unsatisfactory
INTRODUCTION
(1) Conceptual relevance:
1.1. relevance and interest of the topic of research
1.2. stating clearly the direction of the research, in a clear,
precise and accurate way;
(2) Autonomy, critical/creative thinking:
2.1. demonstrating authorship and ownership of the project,
2.2. portraying a deep intrinsic motivation and
2.3. committed enthusiasm
15%
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
10.5 – 15 9 – 10 7.5 – 8.5 6 – 7 5 – 5.5 0 – 4.5
BSM 777: Research Methods CW1: Research Proposal 100% Page 12 of 15
LITERATURE REVIEW
(1) Conceptual consistency:
1.1 demonstrates familiarity with research field, and relevant
topics (what is already known);
1.2. logical and consistent structure,
1.3. clearly demonstration of the rationale for research questions
and methodological options;
1.4. drawing conceptual framework
(2) Autonomy, critical/creative thinking:
2.1. conveys capacity to compare and discuss different
perspectives at deep level;
2.2. reveals confidence and consistency when explaining
conceptual framework;
2.3. is able to clearly “sell” the potential of his/her proposed
research by relating it with the past (where it fit) and future
(what is new about it) path of the research field;
30%
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
21 – 30 18 – 20.5 15 – 17.5 12 – 14.5 10.5 – 11.5 0 – 10
BSM 777: Research Methods CW1: Research Proposal 100% Page 13 of 15
METHODOLOGY
(1) Conceptual consistency:
1.1. clear, precise and achievable of research questions;
1.2. reveals accuracy when using research methods terminology
and methodological choices and decisions are adequate and well
explained;
1.3. demonstrated how sampling (or participant selection
criteria) procedures are adequate and feasible;
1.4. data collection methods are adequate and student is able to
explain how to prepare them;
(2) Autonomy, critical/creative thinking:
2.1. the proposal reveals overall coherence and student stand for
it, consistently with literature review;
2.2. student is able to critically evaluate different alternatives to
defend his/hers;
2.3. reveals potential to act with autonomy when planning
resources and time, portraying a capacity to integrate tasks and
to identify project management needs;
2.4. the overall proposal and the way student stands for it reveals
“readiness” (student knows what to do to start immediately
his/her research)
40%
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
28 – 40 24 – 27.5 20 – 23.5 16 – 19.5 14 – 15.5 0 – 13.5
BSM 777: Research Methods CW1: Research Proposal 100% Page 14 of 15
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS + LIMITATIONS AND OUTCOMES
(1) Conceptual:
1.1. adequate acknowledgement of ethical considerations;
1.2 adequate consideration of anticipated possible benefits and
1.3. limitations within methodological framework (what the
research is not)
(2) Autonomy, critical/creative thinking: adequate reflection on
the specificity of the proposed research considering:
2.1. changes to introduce upon potential ethical issues;
2.2. “selling” skills when conveying the “positioning” of this
research (how useful it can be – benefits; and what it is not to be
expected – limitations)
5%
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
3.5 – 5 3 2.5 2 1.5 0 – 1
FORMALITIES:
1.1. Referencing according to RGU Harvard rules respected;
1.2. All the components of the proposed structure are present
PRESENTATION AND DELIVERY:
2.1. Presentation well organized and relevant;
2.2. Revealing effort to be clear and appealing to the audience;
2.3. Free from spelling and grammatical errors;
2.4. Student revealed confidence by being able to explain
without simply reading the slides, demonstrating that he/she
knows what he/she is talking about;
2.5. Student revealed confidence when answering the final
question
5%
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.5 – 5 3 2.5 2 1.5 0 – 1
BSM 777: Research Methods CW1: Research Proposal 100% Page 15 of 15
Effects on the Marker as a potential Supervisor: [to consider the scale as
equivalent to a “totally agree” to “totally disagree” 6 -point Likert-scale]
1.1. This presentation convinced me on how interesting this
research idea / topic can be
1.2. This presentation convinced me on the academic consistency
and accuracy this student can achieve
2.1. This presentation convinced me that this student really
“owns” his/her project and is committed to take full authorship
2.2. This presentation convinced me on student’ intrinsic
motivation to take this research
2.3. This presentation convinced me on student capacity to act
with committed independence and autonomy, demonstrating
“readiness” to start his/her research
2.4. I would choose this student’ project to supervise.
5%
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.5 – 5 3 2.5 2 1.5 0 – 1
Total
PENALTIES
Penalty 1: deviation (+/-10%) from time limit [-5]
Penalty 2: other behaviours resulting in wasted time (arriving late, no
previous submission of ppt presentation) [-5]

Check Price Discount

More Assignment Samples: Assessment Task – NAPLAN Exercise – Word count: 500 words »