Employability, Research and Professional

ERPD Marketing – u25838 - research proposal criteria, feedback & marking sheet (worth 65%)

Student Number:

proposal title:

PROPOSAL CRITERIA

EXCELLENT

MODERATE

POOR

WEIGHT / MARK

Title of research

Clear / focused, novel

Lacks clarity, scope is too broad

Vague and or muddled

Of 10%

Introduction, Rationale &

Research Questions

Clear RQ’s that relate closely to each other, the title and rationale

Coherent RQ’s but limited links to one another, title, or rationale. May need rewording.

Very unclear RQ’s (too many / too few / vague) -weak links, poorly worded.

Literature review

Clear and logical structure / literature is presented well, discussion flows, sources are relevant to the topic

Literature is loosely focussed does not narrow to research agenda – some relevance to research but needs to be clearer

No clear structure to the literature, vague and unfocused – little apparent relevance to research

Of 30%

Highlights main theoretical concepts - extensive range of sources used (mostly. journals)

Illustrates a few theoretical concepts – limited range of sources, needs greater use of journals supporting evidence.

Few or no theoretical concepts discussed -- few sources used, very descriptive account.

Presents a strong critical argument for the research – strong insights or synthesis between areas shown

Vague argument for the research – largely descriptive account, does not adequately compare, contrast, question ‘so what’?

Leaves reader wondering why the literature is included – little or no argument made for the research. Descriptive

Methodology

Clear, justified explanation of methodological choices.

Some explanation of methodology, confused in parts

Confusing or lack of explanation of methodology

Of 5%

Methodology links to the proposed research

Some links to proposed research. Needs more references.

No attempt to link to proposed research

PROPOSAL CRITERIA

EXCELLENT

MODERATE

POOR

WEIGHT / MARK

Methods

Good explanation / justification of methods chosen and how they will answer the RQ’s

Some explanation but lacking in some elements e.g. Why chosen / how they ‘fit’ with approach, sampling and aims

Very little explanation of methods or inappropriate choices – needs further elaboration on how / why?

Of 10%

Sampling

Sampling strategy appropriate for this research – good explanation of who, how many, how chosen and why.

Sampling strategy too broad, too narrow or lacking sufficient detail of how this was decided and why the strategy is appropriate for the target. Some elements lacking.

No clear sampling strategy – lacking detail, explanation of choices and justifications. Choices may be inappropriate or unrealistic.

Of 10%

Ethics & Limitations

Thorough consideration of issues – with reference to ethical principles/codes/ERC

Consideration too brief / surface, needs to consider a broader range of issues in detail.

Little or no consideration given. Limits discussion to only ethics or limitations.

Of 5%

Timescale

Well structured, considers a range of relevant details/stages, realistic.

Considers some relevant details and is mostly realistic. Tends to be brief and lacks detail

Little consideration; significant amount of detail missing,

Of 5%

Referencing

Excellent throughout – applied APA style correctly, cites a range of quality academic and practitioner sources, has clearly engaged in reading widely

Some errors in APA formatting, could have used a broader range of sources, some key literature / models missing

May include plagiarism issues, APA format not applied correctly, appears little engagement in reading.

Of 20%

Overall coherence

Excellent links made between sections, arguments flow, and evidence of broad range of reading.

Some links made between sections, some arguments presented, could have provided greater details in places.

Lacking links between sections, unclear expression, under/over word length, weak grasp of topic.

Of 5%

MARKER COMMENTS

Mark:

%