International Business Project Report

MARKING CRITERIA

GENERAL COMMENTS ON THIS SECTION

Is there a clear introduction that discusses the topic of research and rationale (what you are doing and why)?

Are appropriate background information has been provided including all special terms and definitions?

Are the aim and objectives, research questions (or hypothesis) clear, relevant and achievable (testable)?

Do aims, objectives etc go beyond mere description i.e. do they involve explanation, comparison, criticism or evaluation?

Does the introduction indicate the content of the other chapters?

70 - 100%

60 - 69%

50 - 59%

40 - 49%

20 - 39%

0 - 19%

· Comprehensive background information, definitions and rationale.

· Clearly and explicitly identifies aim, objectives and appropriate research questions / hypotheses.

· Has detailed critique of how they were arrived at and potential issues.

· Detailed but succinct identification of content of remaining chapters.

· Good background information, definitions and rationale.

· Clearly identifies aim, objectives and research questions / hypotheses.

· Partial critique of aim, objectives and research questions/hypotheses and potential issues.

· Adequate identification of content of remaining chapters.

· Some good background information but lacking in some aspects.

· Identifies aim, objectives and research questions /hypotheses but lacking detail in some aspects.

· Lacking a clear rationale of how they were derived.

· Adequate but not succinct identification of content of remaining chapters.

· Background information has some relevance but is lacking in some key aspects.

· Adequate identification of research area(s) but questions/hypotheses not well articulated or poorly explained

· Limited explanation of how they were derived

· Some indication of content of remaining chapters.

· Does give some indication of research areas but very limited background information.

· Lacks adequate identification of aim, objectives and research questions / hypotheses

· Very limited explanation of how they were derived.

· Limited indication of content of further chapters

· Irrelevant or very limited background information.

· Does not identify aim and / or objectives and / or research questions / hypotheses.

· No explanation of how they were derived.

· No indication of content of the remaining chapters.

MARKING CRITERIA

GENERAL COMMENTS ON THIS SECTION

Has a comprehensive range of relevant literature, pertinent to the aim and RQs of the dissertation or is the impression given that almost everything read on or around the problem has been included?

Are the key themes and issues surrounding the research questions clearly drawn from the literature?

Does it attempt to compare and contrast a number of relevant concepts, models or theories in a critical manner or is it merely descriptive?

Are these used in an effective manner?

Are the sources used up to date, where appropriate and do they have sufficient academic weight?

Have sources been acknowledged and referenced fairly and properly?

Is the bibliography at the end of the dissertation complete and in the appropriate version of the Harvard System?

70 - 100%

60 - 69%

50 – 59%

40 - 49%

20 - 39%

0 - 19%

· Comprehensive appraisal of relevant literature.

· Critical appraisal of relevant literature.

· Clear relation to research questions.

· Citations are correct and appropriate

· Bibliography wide ranging and correct in all aspects.

· Comprehensive appraisal of relevant literature

· High level of critical appraisal.

· Related to research questions.

· Citations mainly correct.

· Bibliography wide ranging but with minor errors.

· Adequate appraisal of mostly relevant literature

· Some critical appraisal.

· Not always relevant to research questions.

· Citations correct but some errors.

· Bibliography wide ranging but with some errors.

· Adequate discussion of some relevant literature

· Tends towards the descriptive with very limited critical appraisal.

· Some relevance to research questions.

· Some citations correct but a number of errors.

· Bibliography limited and with some errors.

· Literature is limited in scope or irrelevant.

· Little appraisal and very descriptive.

· Limited relevance to research questions.

· A large number of citation errors.

· Bibliography limited with many errors.

· Poor and limited use of literature.

· Vague understanding of relevance of literature.

· Student appears to have relied heavily on too few texts.

· No or very few citations used.

· Bibliography very limited and does not adhere to the Harvard System.

MARKING CRITERIA

GENERAL COMMENTS ON THIS SECTION

Is there a clear rationale for methodology i.e. is student aware of nature and types of research e.g. are distinctions between qualitative and quantitative, positivist and interpretative methods addressed?

Have the alternatives been discussed and have the advantages and disadvantages of chosen methods been evaluated? Has this understanding informed their choice of approach?

Is the methodology described appropriate for the data required?

Is the research methodology described fully so that it could be replicated? I.e.

Are the research instruments well designed with all questions etc relevant to research aims?

Has a pilot study been evaluated?

Were research instruments approved by supervisor before implementation?

Are sampling methods described in detail in relation to sampling theory i.e. who are the respondents; how many are there; why and how were they selected?

Is there evidence of care and accuracy in the data collection process?

Are data analysis methods discussed?

Are reliability and validity issues addressed?

Has the methodology been evaluated in retrospect with suggestions for improvement if the research were to be undertaken again?

70 - 100%

60 - 69%

50 - 59%

40 - 49%

20 - 39%

0 - 19%

· Has a very clear and well articulated academic rationale for methodology and research approach.

· Methods highly relevant to purpose with evidence of exploring alternative methods and choices well justified.

· Sampling correct in all aspects and clearly explained.

· Critical evaluation

· Overall approach very well planned and executed.

· Has clear academic rationale for methodology and research approach but perhaps not always well articulated?

· Methods largely relevant to purpose with evidence of exploring alternative methods but incomplete justification.

· All elements of sampling theory addressed with some being well done.

· Evaluation may lack a critical approach in some aspects

· Generally well planned and executed.

· Some academic rationale for methodology/ approach but lacking detail in areas.

· Methods not relevant to purpose in all aspects but has some good aspects. Justification for choice is limited.

· All elements of sampling theory adequately addressed

· Evaluation has been attempted but is limited in terms of a critical approach.

· There may be shortcomings in the planning and execution.

· Limited methodological rationale.

· Methods have some relevance to purpose but have been insufficiently planned and executed. Justification for choice is very limited.

· Sampling theory addressed but limited with omissions.

· Evaluation is attempted and applied but is poor.

· Overall planning and execution weak.

· Basic rationale for methodology.

· Methods are mainly irrelevant to purpose or are poorly explained and difficult to understand.

· Sampling theory extremely weak and lacking detail.

· Limited evaluation with very little actual application.

· Poorly planned and executed.

· No attempt at rationale for methodology.

· Describes processes that do not relate to the purpose.

· No sampling theory discussed.

· No or very limited and vague evaluation.

· Execution fails to achieve minimum standard required.

MARKING CRITERIA

GENERAL COMMENTS ON THIS SECTION

Is the data presented relevant to aims and objectives?

Does any statistical presentation make the most of the data collected?

Is any qualitative data categorised and presented systematically?

Is there any secondary data doe this study?

Are the findings presented clearly and interestingly for the reader to follow? i.e. is diagrammatic representation of data e.g. tables, charts etc embedded in the text?

Are the appendices used appropriately for bulky and/or less interesting/essential data?

FOR QUESTIONNAIRES Do the appendices contain a data summary sheet, a summary questionnaire and details of statistical analysis undertaken?

FOR INTERVIEWS Do the appendices contain data collected and analysed such as interview transcripts?

FOR OBSERVATIONS Do the appendices contain back up data on observations carried out?

FOR SECONDARY DATA do the appendices contain sources where data collected and how they have been analysed?

Is the most relevant data clearly summarised, discussed and evaluated?

Have patterns in the data been identified and/or key variables compared and relationships highlighted?

Are all statements discussed in context and supported by the data?

Have the findings of the primary research been compared and contrasted with findings, theories, models or concepts derived from the literature review?

70 - 100%

60 - 69%

50 - 59%

40 - 49%

20 - 39%

0 - 19%

· Clear and unambiguous presentation of data.

· Relevant, rigorous and thorough analysis.

· Excellent discussion and evaluation of findings.

· Excellent linkage to the literature.

· Clear presentation of data with few errors.

· Relevant and thorough analysis.

· Good discussion and evaluation of findings.

· Good linkage to the literature but some omissions.

· Generally clear presentation of data but some errors.

· Relevant analysis but lacks thorough approach.

· Discussion and evaluation of findings lacks rigour but some useful findings.

· Clear but partial linkage to the literature but many omissions.

· Presentation of data is limited or lacks clarity.

· Analysis is basic and pedantic in many areas.

· Discussion and evaluation is superficial or relies on unsupported assertions.

· Attempts linkage to the literature but not in a clear manner.

· Unclear or confusing presentation of data.

· Analysis is basic and pedantic in all areas.

· Discussion and evaluation very limited or shows lack of understanding of evidence collected.

· Minimal linkage to the literature.

· Much or all of the data has been presented in an unclear manner.

· No analysis or trivial.

· No or very limited discussion of findings.

· No or very weak linkage to the literature.

MARKING CRITERIA

GENERAL COMMENTS ON THIS SECTION

Do the conclusions follow on from the findings? Are the conclusions well grounded in the evidence and arguments presented?

Have the aim, objectives and research questions been clearly reviewed and addressed?

Are the conclusions discussed in context and are they applicable to a wider scenario?

For work based dissertation are recommendations given and are they consistent with the findings and conclusion?

70 - 100%

60 - 69%

50 - 59%

40 - 49%

20 - 39%

0 - 19%

· Conclusions valid and consistent with analysis.

· Comprehensive reference to aim, objectives and research questions.

· Conclusions discussed in detail and context and recognised applicable to wider scenario.

· For work based dissertation recommendations are consistent with findings and conclusions.

· Conclusions valid and generally consistent with analysis.

· Good reference to aim, objectives and research questions.

· Conclusions discussed in context and recognised briefly that applicable to a wider.

· For work based dissertation some logical recommendations.

· Conclusions generally valid and partially consistent with analysis.

· Some reference to aim, objectives and research questions.

· Conclusions discussed in context and some recognition of wider application.

· For work based dissertation some recommendations but may be questionable based on findings and conclusions.

· Some valid conclusions but generally inconsistent with analysis.

· Limited reference to aim, objectives and research questions.

· Conclusions briefly discussed in context and wider context.

· For work based dissertation limited recommendations.

· No obvious conclusions drawn or they are inconsistent with analysis.

· Very little attention to aim, objectives and research questions.

· Conclusions very briefly discussed in context.

· For work based dissertation very few appropriate recommendations.

· Conclusions do not relate to purpose.

· No attention to aim, objectives and the research questions.

· Conclusions not discussed in context.

· For work based dissertation no recommendations

MARKING CRITERIA

YES (or few errors)

NO (or many errors)

Is the overall style and presentation in accordance with that specified in the MSG?

Standard title page

Length 8000 – 10000 words

Word count given

White A4 paper

Loose spiral binder

Correct pagination

Correct margins

Double spacing for text

Single spacing for indented quotes and references

Chapter and section headings

Tables and figures numbered correctly

Appropriate font/bolding and italics

Is the abstract a concise (1 page) summary of the aim, methodology and findings/conclusion?

Is the contents page clear, concise and logically numbered?

Are appendices, tables and figures listed and appropriately referred to?

Has the dissertation been spell and grammar checked?

Does the dissertation have an overall coherence?

70 - 100%

60 - 69%

50 - 59%

40 - 49%

20 - 39%

0 - 19%

· Fulfils all requirements and follows an acceptable style in a correct manner.

· Easy to read and leads the reader along a well argued path.

· Has an overall coherence.

· Fulfils most requirements and follows an acceptable style in a generally correct manner.

· Presented so that it is easy for reader to follow.

· Is generally coherent although it may lack coherence in parts.

· Attempts to follow an acceptable style and fulfils most of the requirements.

· Not presented with maximum clarity and sometimes difficult to follow the argument.

· Some evidence of coherence.

· Generally attempts to conform to requirements and adequately executed.

· Some aspects of presentation unclear.

· Has limited coherence.

· Does not meet some of the key requirements.

· Fails to follow an acceptable style and some aspects unclear.

· Very little coherence.

· Does not meet many of the key requirements

· Fails to follow an acceptable style and often unclear an untidy.

· No coherence