ASSESSMENT BRIEF

Academic year and term: 2022/23 – Semester A

Module title: Business Research Methods

For further module description see Module Brief (LTAF).

Assessment deadlines – Formative assessment (one-page outline): TBC (Sep 2022 Starters /
Sem. A: this Sem. A module)
Summative Coursework (multi-question assignment):TBC (Sep 2022
Starters / this Sem. A module)

Instructions for assessment

Component Individual or Word % Must Must

group work? count weighting attempt pass

Coursework (multi- Individual max. 3,500 100% Yes Yes

question assignment) words

You are asked to produce a report, which consists of three activities:

Section 1. Please provide a detailed critique of at least two well-used research methodologies.
Section 2. Please construct a research instrument that could be used to collect data in your capstone project.
You will not be collecting any data – just designing the tool.
Section 3. Please reflect upon the audience and critical aspects of research dissemination in the specific
context of your potential research findings and outcomes from the developed instrument.

Should you fail the assessment at the first attempt and be referred to retake the coursework, only the failed
individual elements will need to be reworked, with 10% of the re-sit mark awarded for an additional reflective
statement demonstrating how you learnt from the feedback and what you did differently the second time.

The final report should be submitted via Moodle to a turn-it-in box and will be graded according to the following
marking criteria (see more instructions of the writing of above sections outlined under “Structure and
presentation” below):

Section 1 – Clarity and justification of 10%

research problem
Section 1 – For the literature analysis, 15%
breadth and depth of explored research
with a clear focus emerging
Section 1 – Critique of two specific 40%
research methods

Section 2 – Demonstration of the proposed 10%

research instrument’s potential for new
knowledge generation and rigour in
deduction of conclusions
University of Roehampton Business School 1/10
 Section 3 – Comprehensive appraisal of 15%
research dissemination requirements
All sections – Form and presentation 10%
(this section only for main submission)

Applies to re-sit only – Reflective section 10%

marked instead of “Form and Presentation”

Additional instructions for re-sit

The same assignment task as for the main assignment period applies to the re-sit, with further instructions
see below.

Re-sit deadlines will be published via Moodle. Visit the module’s Moodle site and check your
Roehampton email account on a regular basis. The school is not obliged to check whether you have
noticed re-sit deadlines.

You are required to improve and resubmit your original work as well as adding a further reflective commentary
discussing what you have learned from the process. You must resubmit your work using the specific re-sit
Turnitin link on Moodle.

The original marking criteria will still apply (see marking weights provided above and marking grid
provided below) except that the 10% weighting for presentation will be awarded instead to your
reflective piece.

You should:
 Review your previously submitted work and read carefully the feedback given by the marker.
 Use this feedback to help you revisit and rewrite your work, improving it in the areas identified as weak
in the original marking process
 Include with your resubmission an additional reflective piece (400-700 words) on what you understand
was weak, how you set about addressing this and what you have learned from this that may help you
with further assignments. You should address the following specifically:
o Identify tutor feedback points on your original work and identify where/how the resit work has
changed (give page number) in response to feedback
o Identify the lessons you have learnt from doing the resit
o Reflect on how your feedback and this process will help you improve future assignments
If you did not submit work at the first opportunity, you cannot reflect on your feedback. However, you are still
required to submit a reflective piece in which you identify your reasons for non-submission, the implications
of non-submission for your future success and how you propose to address this in the future. If you have
issues with confidentiality of your reasons for non-submission then you could reflect on how you have met
the learning outcomes for the module, how you can use what you have done on the module to support your
future career and what skills/employability attributes you feel the module has helped you to develop.

If you were deferred at the first assessment opportunity you do not need to include the reflective piece as
this is a first submission at a later date, not a re-sit.

Structure and presentation

Any written work should be spell-checked, and a contents page should be included. Do not use various font
sizes and colours. Black ink, Arial, size 11, 1.5 lines spaced is recommended. Use DIN A4 format and page
margins of 2.5 cm or 1 inch.
University of Roehampton Business School 2/10
Your report should be presented in good academic style, having been formatted using the Harvard
referencing system and proofread for grammatical errors. It should not exceed 3,500 words including tables
and figures but excluding references.

Section 1: Comparing two research methodologies

Select a topic of interest or business problem relevant to your degree specialism, e.g. strategy, supply chain
management, international business & economics, marketing, finance, or human resources. Choose one of
these topics that motivates you and that you are likely to pursue for your Dissertation or Consultancy Project
(you may change your mind later, but it will be to your advantage if you stick to it, so choose carefully). This
will require some preliminary research into that specific area.

Provide the following subsections and address the following tasks for the chosen business problem:

1.1 Research Short explanation of the research problem and the particular question that
problem you would want to study (about 150 words).
1.2 Selected key An introduction that provides a brief commentary of key relevant literature.
readings Be sure to justify your choice of these references in introducing the existing
knowledge on your topic (about 500 words).
Attach a full visual presentation such as a mind map, a Venn diagram, or a
grandfather, father, son literature map in the report’s appendix to show the
scope of your review of literature. That visual presentation will be considered
when marking together with your brief commentary.
1.3 Two appropriate A detailed critique of at least two well-used research methodologies in the
research methods literature you have reviewed. Discuss a) how they are applied; b) how the
methods were deployed to provide a worthwhile contribution to theory and
research and c) what gaps the methods may leave that could lend the area
to further analysis (and an opportunity for your own research).
Discuss pros and cons of methods in the context of the proposed research
question / research problem; and demonstrate full awareness of constraints
and limitations deriving from investigation (about 1,500 words).

Section 2: Instrument and Conclusions

Provide the following subsections and address the following tasks for the chosen business problem:

2.1 Instrument  Provide the details of a proposed research instrument such as, an
interview guide, survey questionnaire, or other appropriate instruments.
Provide this as an appendix to your report.
 Write 500 words of reflection, regarding how you have designed the
instrument and why the way you did. The instrument is only for illustrative
purposes and does not necessarily have to be complete.
2.2 Conclusions Concluding evaluation of instrument’s expected value for the research
question(s) that you consider worthy of further investigation, and reflective
by taking section 1 into account (about 350 words).
2.3 Bibliography A bibliography containing a minimum of 12 references to relevant journal
(covers section 1 articles from good academic sources, including at least 6 published in the
and 2) last 24 months and all cited in your analysis. Please include all references
referred to in section one and two here.
Note that the references listed in the full visual presentation (see subsection
1.2) must also be included here.

Section 3: Research Dissemination

Provide the following subsections and address the following tasks for the chosen business problem:
University of Roehampton Business School 3/10
 3.1 Relevance and Briefly explain who and why may be the right audience for implementing the
audience potential findings from the suggested research (about 200 words).
3.2 Communication Reflect what kind of summarising, media, and design of the report would be
of research needed to disseminate the outcomes properly and most effectively. Who
could be partners in public organisations, NGOs, associations, or industry?
(about 200 words).

Formative assessment

You are invited to submit a one-page outline specifying in brief full sentence bullet points how you think to
address the following tasks:
 1.1 Research problem, especially a precise definition and justification why chosen
 1.3 Two appropriate research methods, especially how these are suitable to address the problem
stated in 1.1.
 2.1 Instrument, especially what research arenas & disciplines, ideas, examples read, techniques, or any
other input will inform how that instrument is created.
The purpose of the formative submission is to receive feedback and to be advised what are the points with
the most radical potential to improve the work. The formative assessment will not be marked, and it will not
be considered in any form when the final submission is reviewed.

Reading List
Essential Readings
Baaij, M. (2014) An Introduction to Management Consultancy, Sage, London.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015) Business Research Methods (4th edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Recommended Readings
Chen, A.H., Peng, N., & Hackley, C. (2008) Evaluating service marketing in airline industry and its
influence on student passengers' purchasing behaviour using Taipei: London route as an example. Journal
of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 25 (2), 149–160
Chen, A., Peng, N., & Hung, K. P. (2015). The effects of luxury restaurant environments on diners’
emotions and loyalty: incorporating diner expectations into an extended Mehrabian-Russell
model. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(2), 236-260.
Feng, M., Yu, W., Chavez, R., Mangan, J., & Zhang, X. (2017). Guanxi and operational performance: the
mediating role of supply chain integration. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(8), 1650-1668.
Fisher, C. (2010) Researching and Writing a Dissertation: An Essential Guide for Business Students (3nd
ed.). Harlow, Essex: FT Prentice Hall.
Gary, T. (2009) How to Do Your Research Project. A Guide for Students in Education and Applied Social
Science. London, Sage.
Hagos, S., Izak, M., & Scott, J. M. (2018). Objective institutionalized barriers and subjective performance
factors of new migrant entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research.
Hung, K.P., Chen, A.H., Peng, N., Hackley, C., Tiwsakul, R.A., & Chou, C.L. (2011) Antecedents of
luxury brand purchase intention. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20 (6), 457–467.
Loeffler, T. (2004). A photo elicitation study of the meanings of outdoor adventure experiences.
Journal of Leisure Research, 36(4), 2159-6417.
University of Roehampton Business School 4/10
Massaro, M., Dumay, J., & Guthrie, J. (2016) On the shoulders of giants: undertaking a structured
literature review. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29, 767-801.
Miller, T.W. (2019) Data Visualization and Text Principles and Practices: The Eye of Data Science. FT
Press Analytics). Pearson FT Press, New York (forthcoming).
Newton, R. (2016) Project Management Step by Step: How to Plan and Manage a Highly Successful
Project (2nd edn.). Pearson, Harlow
Ng, W. & Coakes, E. (2013) Business Research: Enjoy Creating, Developing and Writing your Business
Project. Kogan Page, London.
O’Mahoney, J. & Markham, C. (2013) Management Consultancy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Slack, R., & Munz, M. (2016) Intellectual capital reporting, leadership and strategic change. Journal of
Applied Accounting Research, 17(1), 61–83.
Sturdy, A, Handley, K, Clark, T & Fincham, R (2010) Management Consultancy: Boundaries and
Knowledge in Action, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human
Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367.
Vourvachis, P. & Woodward, T. (2015) Content analysis in social and environmental reporting research:
trends and challenges. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 16 (2), 166–195.
Wallendorf, M., & Arnould, E.J. (1991). “We gather together”: consumption rituals of Thanksgiving
day. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 13-31.
Warren, S. (2018) Research using Secondary Sources: A guide for Business, Management and
Organization. Routledge, Abingdon and New York.
Weyrauch, V.; Echt, L., & Arrieta, D. (2013) How to Communicate Research for Policy Influence. Toolkit
No.1: First approach to research communication. Buenos Aires. CIPPEC
(https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08a16e5274a31e00003fc/Guia-01-serie-3-ingles.pdf).
Willis, J.W. & Edwards, C. (2014) Action Research: Models, Methods, and Examples, Applied Research
in Education and the Social Sciences, Age Publishing, Charlotte.
Yang, X., Mao, H., Jia, L., & Bublitz, M. G. (2018). A Sweet Romance: Divergent Effects of Romantic
Stimuli on the Consumption of Sweets. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(6), 1213-1229.
Yu, W., Ramanathan, R., & Nath, P. (2017). Environmental pressures and performance: An analysis of the
roles of environmental innovation strategy and marketing capability. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 117, 160-169.
Zarantonello L., Formisano M., & Grappi S. (2016) The relationship between brand love and actual brand
performance: evidence from an international study. International Marketing Review, 33 (6), 806–824.

Zarantonello, L., & Luomala, H.T. (2011). Dear Mr Chocolate: constructing a typology of contextualized
chocolate consumption experiences through qualitative diary research. Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, 14 (1), 55-82.

Referencing and submission

You must use the Harvard System.

University of Roehampton Business School 5/10

The Business School requires a digital version of all assignment submissions. These must be submitted via
Turnitin on the module’s Moodle site. They must be submitted as a Word file (not as a pdf) and must not
include scanned in text or text boxes. They must be submitted by 2pm on the given date. For further general
details on coursework preparation refer to the online information at
https://library.roehampton.ac.uk/referencing/roeharvard

University of Roehampton Business School 6/10

Mitigating circumstances/what to do if you cannot submit a piece of work or attend
your presentation

The University Mitigating Circumstances Policy can be found on the University website: Mitigating
Circumstances Policy

How will your work be assessed?

Your work will be assessed by a subject expert who will use either the marking criteria provided in the section
“Instructions for assessment” or the Marking rubric enclosed in the Appendix, as appropriate for this module.
When you access your marked work, it is important that you reflect on the feedback so that you can use it to
improve future assignments.

Marking and feedback process

Between you handing in your work and then receiving your feedback and marks within 20 days, there are a
number of quality assurance processes that we go through to ensure that students receive marks which
reflects their work. A brief summary is provided below.

 Step One – The module and marking team meet to agree standards, expectations and how feedback
will be provided.

 Step Two – A subject expert will mark your work using the criteria provided in the assessment brief.

 Step Three – A moderation meeting takes place where all members of the teaching and marking team
will review the marking of others to confirm whether they agree with the mark and feedback.

 Step Four – Work at Levels 5 and 6 then goes to an external examiner who will review a sample of
work to confirm that the marking between different staff is consistent and fair.

 Stop Five – Your mark and feedback are processed by the Office and made available to you.

University of Roehampton Business School 7/10

Appendix: Marking rubric for Summative assignment

Rubric category Outstanding Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Marginal Fail Fail Fail Not done
(range) (90-99) (80-89) (70-79) (60-69) (50-59) (40-49) (30-39) (20-29)
Assigned mark >> 100 85 75 65 55 45 35 25 0
________________
Marking criteria
(weight out of 100)
Clarity and Outstanding and Topic introduced Very good effort Good effort at Generally Some effort at Weak effort at Insufficient effort Missing. Wholly
flawless. in an articulated at introducing the introducing the adequate effort at introducing the introducing the at introducing the incorrect or not
justification of
and well- topic; insightful topic; good introducing the topic; few topic; very few topic; no attempted.
research supported examples and examples or topic; some examples or examples or examples given,
problem fashion; extensive very good references examples or references references and very limited
(section 1) use of appropriate references provided to references provided to provided to number of
examples or provided to support provided to support support references
references. support arguments. support arguments. arguments. provided to
(10%) Research arguments. arguments. support
question clearly Research arguments.
followed up question clearly
consistently in followed up
subsequent consistently in
sections of the subsequent
submission. sections of the
submission.
Literature Outstanding and Comprehensive, Critical review Good analysis of Ideas organised Relatively poor Very poor Ideas organised Missing. Wholly
flawless. systematic, and and synthesis of the literature, into a coherent organisation and organisation and randomly or not incorrect or not
analysis
critical analysis; ideas; material quite critical and argument; some analysis of ideas; analysis of ideas; organised at all; attempted.
(section 1) authoritative mostly selected well-developed; critical analysis of material selected limited sources very limited
sources included; from authoritative material selected ideas; material mainly from non- selected; major sources selected;
(15%) all citations and sources; almost mainly from selected from a authoritative errors in citations citations and
references in all citations and authoritative mix of sources, sources; and references. references are
Harvard format. references in sources; most including non- significant errors Literature map not appropriate.
Clear and Harvard format. citations and authoritative in citations and lacking several Literature map
comprehensive literature map is references in ones; some references. and major parts. not appropriately
literature map is mostly clear and Harvard format. errors in citations Literature map developed.
attached. comprehensive. Literature map and references. lacking several
lacking minor Literature map parts.
parts or lacking some
contributions. parts or
contributions.
Critique of two Outstanding and Most appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Generally Selection of Selection of Selection of Missing. Wholly
flawless. research method research method research method appropriate research method research method research method incorrect or not
specific
selected and very selected and well- selected and research method not very well not well explained not at all attempted.
research well-explained; explained; very presented and selected; general explained or not or not explained or not
methods full awareness of good awareness clearly explained; awareness of fully appropriate; appropriate; appropriate; very
(section 1) constraints and of constraints and good awareness constraints and some awareness limited awareness limited
limitations limitations of constraints and limitations of constraints and of constraints and awareness, if
deriving from deriving from limitations deriving from limitations limitations any, of
(40%) investigation. investigation. deriving from investigation. constraints and
University of Roehampton Business School 8/10
 Rubric category Outstanding Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Marginal Fail Fail Fail Not done
(range) (90-99) (80-89) (70-79) (60-69) (50-59) (40-49) (30-39) (20-29)
Assigned mark >> 100 85 75 65 55 45 35 25 0
________________
Marking criteria
(weight out of 100)
investigation. deriving from deriving from limitations
investigation. investigation. deriving from
investigation.
Demonstration Outstanding and Insightful Perceptive Overall good Potential for new Potential for new Very limited Insufficient, Missing. Wholly
flawless. evaluation and appraisal of the appraisal of the knowledge knowledge appraisal. vague and incorrect or not
of the proposed
critical discussion chosen research chosen research generation is generation is unclear appraisal. attempted.
research of the chosen method’s method’s addressed but not somewhat
instrument’s research potential in potential in in expected alluded to.
potential for new method’s specific context of specific context of rigour.
potential in research problem. research problem
knowledge
specific context of
generation and research problem.
rigour in
deduction of
conclusions
(section 2)

(10%)
Appraisal of Outstanding and Insightful, Perceptive Good appraisal In general, a valid Appraisal that Research Insufficient, Missing. Wholly
flawless. comprehensive appraisal that that does address appraisal, with does address dissemination vague and incorrect or not
research
appraisal that demonstrates a research some limitations. research requirements unclear appraisal. attempted.
dissemination demonstrates a very good dissemination dissemination more alluded to
requirements very good understanding of requirements still requirements to than discussed in
(section 3) understanding of the variety of appropriately. some extent; appropriate detail
the variety of research cultures, limited depth. or convincingly.
research cultures, including
(15%) including academic
academic scholarship,
scholarship, corporate in-
corporate in- house research
house research and business
and business consulting.
consulting.
Form and Outstanding and Clear, concise, Very good control Competent Length Presentation is Poorly presented Very poorly Missing. Wholly
flawless. and effectively of length; skilled control of length; requirements either too long or work; presented work; incorrect or not
presentation
argued within the use of academic good use of observed; too short in presentation is presentation is attempted.
(all sections) length allowed; conventions; academic appropriate use relation to either too short or inadequate,
skilled use of nearly all errors conventions; of academic content; some too long unfocused, and
(10%) academic eliminated in accurate spelling, conventions; errors in (waffling); missing not at all clear;
conventions; proof-reading. grammar, etc.; minor errors in application of several elements missing several
accurate proof- careful proof- spelling, grammar academic or parts; major and key elements
reading. reading. etc.; quite careful conventions; errors in spelling, or parts; spelling,
proof-reading. some errors in grammar etc.; grammar etc. are
University of Roehampton Business School 9/10
 Rubric category Outstanding Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Marginal Fail Fail Fail Not done
(range) (90-99) (80-89) (70-79) (60-69) (50-59) (40-49) (30-39) (20-29)
Assigned mark >> 100 85 75 65 55 45 35 25 0
________________
Marking criteria
(weight out of 100)
spelling, grammar little indication of very scarce; no
etc.; some proof-reading. indication of
indication of proof-reading.
proof-reading.

University of Roehampton Business School 10/10