Example layout and content of final report
Please note that this is just an example of the approach you might take. Not all elements will be appropriate for all projects.
Example Management Research project format and layout
Typical sequence:
Front Cover
Acknowledgements
Abstract
Declaration
Table of contents
List of tables
List of figures
1 Introduction
1.1 Background to the research
1.2 Research question
1.3 Justification for the research
1.4 Outline methodology
1.5 Outline of the chapters
1.6 Definitions
1.7 Summary
2 Literature review
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Parent disciplines/fields
2.3 Main theme, analytical models and applicability to research questions
2.4 Summary
3 Methodology
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Methodological considerations
3.2.1 Justification for the selected paradigm and methodology
3.2.2 Rejected methodologies and methods
3.3 Research design
3.4 Research methods / procedures
3.5 Ethical considerations
3.6 Summary
4 Findings
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Application of methodology
4.3 Description of findings for each research question
4.4 Summary
5 Analysis
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Findings for each research question discussed in the light of the literature
5.3 Summary
6 Conclusions and implications
6.1 Introduction
62 Critical evaluation of adopted methodology
6.3 Conclusions about each research objective (aim)
6.4 Conclusions about the research question/s
6.5 Limitations of the study
6.5 Opportunities for further research
6.7 Recommendations (where appropriate)
Reference List (APA)
Appendices
Basics of Structure and Style of Your Management Research project
A six-chapter structure can be used to effectively present a Management Research project / Dissertation (or five chapters if Findings and Analysis are combined). Firstly, Chapter 1 introduces the core research problem, ‘sets the scene’ and outlines the path, which the reader will travel towards the report’s conclusion. The research itself is described in chapters 2 to 5:
The research problem arising from the body of knowledge developed during previous research (chapter 2),
Methods used in this research to collect data about the research question (chapter 3),
Results of applying those methods in this research (chapter 4), and
Interpretation of the research findings including their place in the body of knowledge / theories outlined previously in chapter 2 (chapter 5).
Conclusions about the research problem based on the results of chapters 4 and 5. Recommendations (if necessary), based on the conclusions and an implementation plan (if necessary) for the solution to be integrated into the organisation (chapter 6).
Each chapter should stand almost alone. Each chapter (except the first) should have an introductory section linking the chapter to the main idea of the previous chapter and outlining the aim and the organisation of the chapter. Each chapter should also have a concluding summary section, which outlines major themes established in the chapter – without introducing new material.
As well as the structure discussed above, examiners also assess matters of style. Within each of the chapters of the Dissertation, the spelling, grammar, styles, etc. should be consistent styles from the first draft and throughout the report for processes such as using bold type, italics, indenting quotations, single and double inverted commas, making references, spaces before and after side headings and lists, and gender conventions, etc.
Value judgements and words should not be used. For example, ‘it is unfortunate’, ‘it is interesting’, ‘it is believed’, and ‘it is welcome’ are inappropriate. Although first person words such as ‘I’ and ‘my’ are now acceptable in a Dissertation, their use should be kept to a minimum. ‘My’ recommendation is avoid their use unless it is absurd not to use them. Discuss this with your supervisor.
Authorities should be used to back up any claim of the researcher, wherever possible. If the examiner wanted to read opinions, he or she could read letters to the editor of a newspaper. Moreover, few if any authorities in the field should be called ‘wrong’, at the worst they might be called ‘misleading’.
The student must always be trying to communicate with the examiners in an easily followed way. This easily followed communication can be achieved by using several principles. Firstly, have sections and sub-sections starting as often as every second page, each with a descriptive heading in bold. Secondly, start each section or sub section with a phrase or sentence linking it with what has gone before. Thirdly, briefly describe the argument or point to be made in the section at its beginning. For example, ‘Seven deficiencies in models in the literature are identified’. Fourthly, make each step in the argument easy to identify with a key term in italics or the judicious use of ‘firstly’, ‘secondly’, or ‘moreover’, ‘in addition’, ‘in contrast’ and so on. Finally, end each section with a summary, to establish what it has achieved; this summary sentence or paragraph could be flagged by usually beginning it with ‘In conclusion,…’ or ‘In brief,…’
Paragraphs should be short; as a rule of thumb, approximately four paragraphs should start on each page if my preferred line spacing of 1.5 and Arial 11 point font is used to provide adequate structure and complexity of thought on each page. (A line spacing of 2 and more paragraphs per page makes a Dissertation appear disjointed and ‘flaky’, and a sans serif font is not easy to read.)
The Dissertation will have to go through several drafts. The first draft should be started early, and a tentative table of contents of each chapter & sections produced as soon as possible. Once again, discuss this with your supervisor.
Details of the Report Chapters and their sections
How should you present the Management Research Project report? By using the structure developed below, you will ensure that your report demonstrates the key requirements.
Abstract
The abstract should be written last. In it you should consolidate the most important features of the work including the objective, a very brief summary of the methods and principal results, conclusions and recommendations (where appropriate). You should aim to write no more than 250‐300 words.
Many of the papers read in pursuit of your project will have abstracts of varying quality and so you should have an idea of what makes a good abstract and which features to include and which to avoid.
1 Introduction
This chapter sets the scene for the whole report.
1.1 Background to the Research
Section 1.1 outlines the broad field of study and then leads into the focus of the research problem. This section is short and aims to orient the readers and grasp their attention.
1.2 Research Question
Section 1.2 outlines the core or one big idea of the research, starting with the research problem. The research problem is one or two sentences that cannot be answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’; it is the broad problem that the researcher will examine more precisely, and is the problem prompting and placing a boundary around the research without specifying what kind of research is to be done.
After the research problem is presented, a short paragraph should say how the problem is solved in the project. This step is necessary because academic writing should not be a detective story with the solution kept a mystery until the end.
After the research problem and a brief summary of how it will be solved is presented, section 1.2 presents the research question. The research problem above usually refers to decisions; in contrast, the research question usually requires information for its solution. The research question is the specific question that the researcher will gather data about in order to satisfactorily solve the research problem.
1.3 Justification for the Research
An examiner is concerned that the student has not addressed a trivial research area. So the research problem should be important on several theoretical and practical grounds.
1.4 Methodology
Section 1.4 is an introductory overview of the methodology, and is placed here in chapter 1 to satisfy the initial curiosity of the examiner. This section should refer to sections in chapter 2 and 3 where the methodology is justified and described. So this section first describes the methodology in very general terms only.
1.5 Outline of the Dissertation
Each chapter is briefly described in this section.
1.6 Definitions
Definitions adopted by researchers are often not uniform, so key and controversial terms are defined to establish positions taken in the project research. Definitions should match the underlying assumptions of the research and students may need to justify some of their definitions.
1.7 Summary
The final paragraph of each chapter usually summarises the key achievements of the chapter. So the conclusion of chapter 1 should read something like:
This chapter introduces the research problem and research question. Then the research is justified, definitions are presented, the methodology is briefly described and justified, the report is outlined, and the limitations are given. On these foundations, the report can proceed with a detailed description of the research.
2 Literature Review
The second chapter aims to build a theoretical foundation upon which the research is based by reviewing the relevant literature to identify research issues which are worth researching because they are controversial and have not been answered by previous researchers. That is, the literature review is not an end in itself, but is a means to the end of identifying the worthy research issues, which will be listed in the chapter’s conclusion and were briefly introduced to the examiner in section 1.2.
This chapter is about knowledge already existing in the literature, so the student’s own ideas or opinions have no place in this chapter, except where they are used to structure the treatment of the literature and are clearly supported by authorities, evidence or logic.
Chapter 2 reviews the parent and immediate disciplines/fields of the research problem, with the aims of charting the body of knowledge with a summary model or two, showing where the research problem fits into that body of knowledge and then identifying research questions. These will focus the discussion of later chapters on directions where further research is required to answer the research problem, that is, having sections in chapter 3 and 4 explicitly related to the research questions facilitates the ‘seamless’ characteristic of an effective Dissertation.
References in chapter 2 should include some well-established, relevant references to show that the candidate is aware of the development of the research area, but the chapter must also include recent writings – having only well-established references generally indicates a worn-out research problem. Old references that have made suggestions, which have not been subsequently researched, might be worth detailed discussion, but why have the suggestions not been researched in the past?
The research questions or hypotheses developed during chapter 2 should be presented throughout the chapter as the literature survey unearths areas which require researching, that is, they should appear to ‘grow out’ of the review, even though the candidate may have decided on them long before while writing very early drafts of the chapter. Thus, chapter 2 identifies and reviews the conceptual/theoretical dimension and the methodological dimension of the literature and discovers research questions or hypotheses that are worth researching in later chapters.
3 Methodology
Chapter 3 describes the major methodology used to collect the data, which will be used to answer the research question. Chapter 3 usually centres on the major methodology of the research, although the same considerations might be briefly mentioned when discussing any secondary methodologies.
Chapter 3’s section about data collection must be written so that another researcher can replicate the research, and is required whether a qualitative or quantitative research methodology is used. Indeed, a qualitative Dissertation may contain even more details than a quantitative one, for a qualitative researcher may influence subjects more. For example, how subjects were chosen, how they answered, and how notes and/or recordings were used. Moreover, the student may wish to use ‘I’ when describing what he or she actually did in the field, to reflect an awareness that the researcher cannot be independent of the field data, but rather is a participant.
The chapter should have separate sections to cover:
* Justification for the methodology in terms of the research problem and the literature review;
* The unit of analysis and subjects or sources of data;
* Construction of instruments or procedures used to collect data, including how the dependent variable was measured, details of pilot studies and explicit concern about specific procedures used to handle internal and external validity;
* Administration of instruments or procedures: when, where and who, non-response bias, response rates, dates and protocols of interviews, so that the research is reliable, that is, it could be repeated;
* Limitations of the methodology if they were not explicitly discussed in section 1.4;
* Any special or unusual treatments of data before it was analysed (for example, special scoring of answers to a survey question);
* Computer programs used to analyse the data, with justifications for their use (for example, why chi-square or coding was used) – this may require a brief description of the type of data and some appropriate references where similar procedures had been used in similar circumstances; and
* Ethical issues.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology adopted (for example, a mail survey and a particular need for achievement instrument), in a far more detailed way than in the introductory description of section 1.4. Students will have to provide enough detail to show the examiner that the (s)he knows the body of knowledge about the methodology and its procedures. That is, examiners need to be assured that all critical procedures and processes have been followed.
The student must not only show that he or she knows the appropriate body of knowledge about procedures, but must also provide evidence that the procedures have been followed. For example, dates of interviews or survey mailings should be provided.
Appendices to the Dissertation should contain copies of instruments used and instruments referred to; however, well-constructed tables of results (or charts) in chapter 4 should be adequate for the reader to determine correctness of analysis.
The penultimate section of chapter 3 should cover ethical considerations of the research. In summary, writing chapter 3 is similar to an accountant laying an ‘audit trail’ – the student should treat the examiner like an accountant treats an auditor, showing he or she knows and can justify the correct procedures and providing evidence that they have been followed.
4 Findings
What follows relates specifically to projects within the quantitative paradigm. For projects that are based within the qualitative paradigm the processes of data analysis and interpretation in the light of the established literature and the emergence of theoretical conclusions are typically combined processes. Therefore, the processes described below as falling into chapters 4 and 5 respectively may be undertaken within the same chapter/s: in other words, data and theory are handled iteratively. In a qualitative Dissertation a separate conclusions chapter will develop higher level, theoretical, findings and also deal with the issues outlined in sections 5.2, 5.5 and 5.6 below.
So, in the case of quantitative Dissertation, Chapter 4 simply presents patterns of results and analyses them for their relevance to the research questions or hypotheses. Frequent summary tables and figures of results are essential, so that readers can easily see patterns in the mass of data presented in this chapter. This chapter should be clearly organised.
The introduction of chapter 4 may be different from introductions of other chapters because it refers to the following chapter – chapter 5 will discuss the findings of chapter 4 within the context of the literature. Without this warning, an examiner may wonder why some of the implications of the results are not drawn out in chapter 4.
Chapter 4 should be restricted to presentation and analysis of the collected data, without drawing general conclusions or comparing results to those of other researchers that were discussed in chapter 2. That is, although chapter 4 may contain references to the literature about methodologies, it should not contain (many!) references to other literature. If the chapter also includes references to other research, the more complete discussion of chapter 5 will be undesirably repetitive and confused.
After the introduction, descriptive data about the subjects is usually provided, for example, their gender or industry in survey research, or a brief description of case study organisations in case study research. This description helps to assure the examiner that the student has a ‘good feel’ for the data. Then the data for each research question is usually presented, in the same order as they were presented in chapters 2 and 3 and will be in sections 5.2 and 5.3.
In chapter 4, the data should not be merely presented and the examiner expected to analyse it. One way of ensuring adequate analysis is done by the student is to have numbers placed in brackets after some words have presented the analysis.
For quantitative data, you should expect to make extensive use of tables, or figures and graphs. A narrative of the results should be restricted to highlighting the most important results and should refer the examiner to tables etc. rather than simply repeat in word form what may be obvious from tables. However, important comparative information, should be identified briefly ‐ if only to direct the examiner to a specific table. A clear statement should be included on the findings in relation to your study question(s).
All patterns of results in chapter 4 must be supported by the evidence unearthed by the procedures described in chapter 3. That is, a reader should be able to check findings by looking at tables or figures. So each table or figure should be referred to in the body of the chapter, with the reason for its presence. Thus, a topic should be introduced in words and the main findings presented; then the table or figure referred to and evidence from it should be introduced in one or two sentences; and then the highlights of the table or figure should be discussed more fully, together with a brief description of what the reader will look for in the table or figure when he or she turns to it. In other words, a reader should not be expected to develop the links between the words in chapter 4 and a table or figure by himself or herself. Indeed, the reader should be able to grasp the meaning by reading either the words or the figures without reference to the other.
When figures are used, the table of data used to construct the figure should be in an appendix. All tables and figures should have a number and title at the top and their source at the bottom. If no source is listed, the examiner will assume the researcher’s mind is the source.
5 Analysis
Chapter 5 is the most important chapter of the report, for after ensuring the methodology and research processes are sound, the examiners will spend much time studying chapter 5. But the chapter is often characterised by fatigue, so the student must discover springs of interest and creativity to make his or her chapter 5 worthy of the rest of the report, and make it clearly show that the research does make some contribution to the body of knowledge. Thus the research’s contributions to knowledge should be the explicit theme of sections 5.2 to 5.4.
A jigsaw puzzle analogy is useful for understanding what chapter 5 is about. Research begins like a jumbled jigsaw puzzle about the research problem. Chapter 2’s literature review starts putting the pieces together to uncover a picture, but shows that some pieces are missing and so the complete picture cannot be known. Then chapters 3 and 4 describe the hunt for the missing pieces. Then chapter 5 returns to the puzzle, briefly summarising what the picture looked like at the end of chapter 2 and then explaining how the new pieces fit in to make the whole picture clear.
Findings for each research objective are summarised from chapter 4 and explained within the context of this and prior research examined in chapter 2; for example, with which of the researchers discussed in chapter 2 does this research agree or disagree, and why?
For each research objective, the agreement or disagreement of the results of a numbered section in chapter 4 with the literature should be made clear and the reason for disagreement thought through. For example, the disagreement might be because some previous research was done in the USA and this research was done in England.
Each research objective should have its own subsection, that is, 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and so on, and each section will have a reference to the appropriate section of chapter 4 so that the examiner can clearly see that the conclusions come from the findings in chapter 4. Of course, each section will also have many references to the writers discussed in chapter 2.
6 Conclusion
This chapter draws the research project to a conclusion by considering the research process and examining how successful the project has been in addressing the research question.
6.1 Critical Evaluation of Adopted Methodology
Once the research has been completed, the student has an obligation to explain to the reader how successful the chosen research methodology fitted the problem. Inevitably, with hindsight, the student will find areas where his or her selection of research method was perhaps inappropriate, or unsuccessful in some way. This section deals with these issues.
Note that a report that describes the research process as faultless and the findings unquestionable is almost certainly a referral! This demonstrates that the student has not fully understood what a piece of research should achieve.
6.2 Conclusions about the Research Objectives
6.3 Conclusions about the Research Question
Based on chapter 5, implications of the research for furthering understanding of the research question are explored. The section goes beyond the mere number crunching (if appropriate) of chapter 4 and incorporates qualitative findings about the research problem developed during the research, including those insights discovered during interviews in qualitative research which had never even been considered in the literature reviewed in chapter 2.
You are warned that examiners are careful that conclusions are based on findings alone, and will dispute conclusions not clearly based on the research results. That is, there is a difference between the conclusions of the research findings in chapter 4 and implications drawn from them later in chapter 5. For example, if a qualitative methodology is used with limited claims for generalisability, the conclusions must refer specifically to the people interviewed in the past – ‘Marketing Cheshire managers placed small value on advertising’ rather than ‘Marketing Cheshire managers place small value on price’.
This section may sometimes be quite small if the research objectives dealt with in the previous sections comprehensively cover the area of the research problem. Nevertheless, the section is usually worth including for it provides a conclusion to the whole research effort.
You should not repeat your description of results in this section, other than by way of a brief summary or drawing together of the threads. Instead, you should compare your findings with previous work and identify the strengths and weaknesses of your study compared to others. Methodological problems should be discussed and their likely influence on your results, focusing on such things as sampling error, measurement error and biases.
6.4 Limitations
Section 1.4 has (hopefully!) previously outlined major limitations of the research that were a deliberate part of the overall plan (for example, industry boundaries to the research problem). This section discusses other limitations that became apparent during the progress of the research, for example, questionnaire results may indicate that age of respondents is a limitation, etc.
6.5 Opportunities for Further Research
This final section is written to help other researchers in the selection and design of future research. Further research could refer to both topics and to methodologies – or to both. A case study methodology thesis might mention the need for positivist research to generalise the findings. Removing some limitations mentioned in section 1.4 usually provides opportunities for further research, for example, different regions or countries, different industries and different levels of management.
6.6 Recommendations (if appropriate)
If your Dissertation has been written in collaboration with an organisation to solve an organisational problem, then it will almost certainly be appropriate to include a recommendations section. However, care must be taken to ensure that the recommendations are based solely on the conclusions; it is all too easy to make logical ‘leaps of faith’. Be warned, examiners look for and frown upon such activity!
Where the project is of a more theoretical nature then a recommendations chapter will probably not be appropriate. Discuss this with your supervisor when designing the report layout.
6.7 Implementation Plan
This should include timescales and costings in addition to discussion of the managerial and organisational issues involved with the implementation. It is important that you give adequate justification for what you are recommending. A table and/or use of spreadsheet data often helps to clarify things in this section.
References: These should be in the APA style; remember it is quality and relevance of references that count, not quantity!
Appendices: These may be required to record supplementary analyses of background interest or other information, which would be inappropriate in the text of your dissertation, eg. study questionnaires; interview questions. It is not necessary to include copies of all of your questionnaires or full transcripts of interviews / focus groups within these. Appendices should be kept to a minimum and must be referred to within the body of your Dissertation. Your Performance Review Forms must be included as Appendix 1.
A: Learning Outcomes
2.Critically assess the various potential methodological and analytical approaches that could be employed in the design of a research project.
3.Apply the methods and skills learnt to conduct an independent research project that provides evidence of an ability to critically evaluate argument/s, analyse data into information, report research findings and to synthesise evidential and theoretical concepts.
4.Provide evidence of critical reflection through reporting of relevant judgements that demonstrate an ability to articulate information, develop ideas and/or propose solutions through the application of autonomous learning.
B: Assessment Task
Report
Submit your full management research report presented according to the format laid out in the Structure & Marking Scheme overleaf.
Cpecific Criteria/Guidance
Please see the Structure & Marking Scheme (overleaf) for section weighting and key criteria.
All students’ research reports are marked by their supervisor and by a second marker. Where there is a disparity between these grades a third marker is sought. Following this a sample of scripts is scrutinised by the External Examiner.
D: Key Resources
The set text for this module is:
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research Methods for Business Students (7th ed.) London: Prentice Hall.
Alternative texts and subject specific guides are also available. They include:
Cottrell, S. (2014). Dissertations and project reports: A step by step guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Davies, M. B., & Hughes, N. (2014). Doing a successful research project: Using qualitative or quantitative methods (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fisher, C., & Buglear, J. (2010). Researching and writing a dissertation: An essential guide for business students (3rd ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall/Financial Times.
McMillan, K., & Weyers, J. (2014). How to complete a successful research project. New York;Harlow, England;: Pearson.
Each of the textbooks listed other than Cottrell is available as an e-book through the library as well as in hard copy. The Cottrell text is currently available new at £11.99 (correct at 6th September 2019).
Criteria 90-100% 80-90% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 30-39% 20-29% 10-19%
0-9%
Methodology (15%)
Explanation & justification for:
Methodological paradigm & research design
Research population & sampling method
Research methods and means of data analysis
Research paradigm explained & justified
Research approach identified & justified
Research method appropriate, thorough & imaginative
Sample size significant & appropriate Research paradigm explained & justified
Research approach identified & justified
Research method appropriate, thorough & imaginative
Sample size significant & appropriate Research paradigm explained & justified
Research approach identified & justified
Research method appropriate & thorough
Sample strong Research paradigm explained
Research approach identified
Research method identified but not justified
Sample adequate but limited in size or quality Research paradigm attempted but only partly grasped
Research approach identified
Research method identified but not justified
Sample limited Research paradigm not addressed or not understood
Research approach not justified
Research method very general
Sample inadequate Research paradigm not addressed
Research approach not explained
Research method very general
Sample inadequate Research paradigm not addressed
Research approach not explained
Research method identified only in part
Sampling technique not explained Research paradigm not addressed
Research approach not explained
Research method unclear
Sampling technique not explained Research paradigm not addressed
Research approach not explained
Research method missing
Sampling technique not explained
Presentation of findings (15%)
Description of critical findings
Use of appropriate forms of analysis (quantitative / qualitative)
Clear data presentation (tables / diagrams)
Findings clearly & imaginatively presented.
Diagrams & tables aid understanding.
Commentary complements data to ensure awareness of key points. Findings clearly & imaginatively presented.
Diagrams & tables aid understanding.
Commentary complements data to ensure awareness of key points. Findings clearly & imaginatively presented.
Diagrams & tables aid understanding.
Commentary complements data. Findings clearly presented.
Diagrams & tables aid understanding.
Commentary useful but may only draw attention to obvious points. Findings clearly presented.
Diagrams & tables aid understanding but may be unnecessary at times.
Commentary useful but may only draw attention to obvious points.
Insufficient thought given to presentation of findings.
Most points illustrated by pie or bar charts even if not needed.
Over reliance on percentages Commentary largely absent and findings presented mainly in pie or bar charts.
Commentary largely absent and findings presented mainly in pie or bar charts.
May be errors in these. Findings very limited Findings absent
Criteria 90-100% 80-90% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 30-39% 20-29% 10-19%
0-9%
Analysis & interpretation of findings (20%)
Explanation of data / analysis presented
Interpretation of data in relation to findings and the literature / concepts / theory (variance and concurrence)
Clear connection made between different questions or elements of original research.
Exceptional connections made with existing research to demonstrate how findings add value. Clear connection made between different questions or elements of original research.
Clear connections made with existing research to demonstrate how findings add value. Clear connection made between different questions or elements of original research.
Connections made with existing research to demonstrate variance & concurrence. Clear connection made between different questions or elements of original research.
Reference to existing research but connections to it may not be clear. Some connection made between different questions or elements of original research.
Reference to existing research on subject limited or missing. Analysis adds little to the research findings.
Reference to existing research on subject limited or missing. Analysis adds little to the research findings.
Reference to existing research on subject limited or missing. Analysis so perfunctory as to have little or no value. Barely any analysis No analysis
Conclusions (10%)
Appropriate conclusions
Reviews limitations
Considers potential improvement and opportunities for further research
Recommendations (if/where applicable) Provides considered & convincing answers to how far each aim has been realised & the research question answered.
Provides highly informed critical reflection on the research process.
Identifies areas for further or connected research. Provides considered & convincing answers to how far each aim has been realised & the research question answered.
Provides informed critical reflection on the research process.
Identifies opportunities for further or connected research.
Provides considered answers to how far each aim has been realised & the research question answered.
Critically reflects on the research process.
Identifies opportunities for further research. Addresses how far the research question has been answered.
Acknowledges limitations in the research process.
Identifies opportunities for further research. Typically omits one of:
how far the research question has been answered;
limitations in the research process;
opportunities for further research. A thin conclusion that may omit limitations in the research process and opportunities for further research Inadequate conclusion that fails to add value to the report by answering the question or setting the scene for future research Conclusion is not connected to the research question No meaningful conclusion No conclusion
Criteria 90-100% 80-90% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 30-39% 20-29% 10-19%
0-9%
Written Expression (5%)
Clear, coherent writing style.
Competence in grammar, spelling, syntax and proof-reading.
Extremely well-written, with accuracy and flair; sophisticated, fluent and persuasive expression of ideas
Near perfect spelling, punctuation and flowing syntax Very well-written, with accuracy and flair; sophisticated, fluent and persuasive expression of ideas
Near perfect spelling, punctuation and flowing syntax Well expressed, fluent, sophisticated and confident expression; highly effective vocabulary and clear style
Near perfect spelling, punctuation and syntax Clear, fluent, confident expression; appropriate vocabulary and style
High standard of accuracy in spelling, punctuation and syntax Clearly written, coherent expression;
reasonable range of vocabulary and adequate style
Overall competence in spelling, punctuation and syntax, although there may be some errors
Expression and style reasonably clear but lack sophistication. Limited vocabulary. Limited or no proof reading
Inaccuracies in spelling, punctuation and syntax do not usually interfere with meaning but are too frequent and indicative of a careless approach Expression of ideas insufficient to convey clear meaning; inaccurate or unprofessional terminology.
Many errors in
spelling, punctuation and syntax – often repeated. No evidence of proof-reading Lack of clarity, very poor expression; style inappropriate, terminology; inadequate and inappropriate vocabulary
Many serious errors of spelling, punctuation and syntax that interfere with meaning and clarity of expression Inaccuracies of expression and vocabulary render meaning of written work extremely unclear
Many serious errors of even basic spelling, punctuation and syntax that undermine or block clarity of meaning and discussion Inaccuracies of expression and vocabulary render meaning of written work completely unclear
Many serious errors of even basic spelling, punctuation and syntax that undermine or block clarity of meaning and discussion
Referencing (5%)
Accuracy in referencing according to the APA system.
Number of references and balance between types of source material.
Ability to paraphrase rather than use direct quotations All sources acknowledged and meticulously listed/cited. A comprehensive list of references.
Reference sources integrated into argument with direct quotes used for impact only. All sources acknowledged and meticulously listed/cited. A very thorough list of references.
Reference sources integrated into argument with direct quotes used for impact only. All sources acknowledged and correctly listed/cited.
Reference sources integrated into argument with direct quotes used sparingly Sources mainly acknowledged and mostly accurately listed/cited.
Appropriate number and balance of listed references (i.e. books, journals and web articles).
Some direct quotes could have been worked in more effectively Sources usually, but not always, acknowledged; referencing generally accurate, but with too many inaccuracies and errors.
Modest number of listed references which lacks balance between sources. Inclined to rely too much at time on direct quotations. Sources not always acknowledged; references too often incorrectly cited/listed. Over-reliance on using direct quotations and website URLs.
Low number of listed references.
Paraphrasing weak and inaccurate.
Over-reliance on web sources. Referencing incomplete, or inaccurate.
Little or no paraphrasing with excessive use of direct quotations.
Deliberate or unintentional plagiarism.
Little attempt to apply APA system.
Large reliance on web sources. Referencing highly inaccurate or absent.
Paraphrasing non-existent.
. No meaningful attempt at referencing.
No attempt to use or apply APA system No attempt at referencing.
.