research proposal and work plan

University of Lincoln Assessment Framework
Assessment Briefing 2021-2022
Module Code & Title: Dissertation BUS9036M
Contribution to Final Module Mark: 10%
Description of Assessment Task and Purpose:
The aim of this assessment is to produce a research proposal and work plan for your dissertation.
This must be in the format of the form on Blackboard. Please locate the template for the Proposal
on Blackboard (
see Assessments tab).
Further Guidance:
Specific texts and source materials are dependent upon the focus and methodology of your
research. Generic guidance can for example be found in texts such as:
Biggam, J. (2018) Succeeding with your Master’s Dissertation 4th Edition Sage:London
In addition, learning Resources which will support this assessment include – a variety of which can
be found
here (including how you can manage your dissertation process). Additional Learning
Resources are also available via the blackboard module site.
You may find the information contained in the ‘Late Arrivals’ guide on Blackboard useful in engaging
with this module.
Learning Outcomes Assessed:
The learning outcomes for this assessment are as follows- that at the end of an effective
submission you will be able to:
LO1 Communicate the aims, objectives and relevance of your chosen research project.

LO2 Develop achievable and logical plans to guide the implementation of your chosen
research project.

Knowledge & Skills Assessed:
The successful completion of this assessment task will contribute to the development of the
following for you:
Subject Specific Knowledge, Skills and Understanding: Literature searching, Referencing,
Subject-specific knowledge, Project Planning, Techniques and Skills.
Professional Graduate Skills: independence and personal responsibility, written
communication, critical thinking, working under pressure to meet deadlines, self-reflection,
problem solving, effective time management.
Emotional Intelligence: motivation, resilience, self-confidence.
Assessment Submission Instructions:
You will produce a project proposal (One document) – this will be the equivalent of 1000 words and
will form the basis of an agreed Plan of work. Please use the template for this found on Blackboard.
The submission date of this Assessment is JUNE 22nd at 12 noon (UK) time 2022
Date for Return of Feedback:
Three weeks after the submission date
Format for Assessment: Please use the template provided on the Blackboard Site.
Marking Criteria for Assessment:
Please see the Appendix for a detailed rubric across all grading thresholds.
Feedback Format: Feedback is provided by Grademark Studio on Turnitin and through the use of
the rubric.
Additional time slots will be available for face to face feedback as required/requested.
Please note that all work is assessed according to the University of Lincoln Management of
Assessment Policy
and that marks awarded are provisional on Examination Board decisions (which
take place at the end of the Academic Year.
Assessment Support Information:
Learning Resources which will support this assessment include:
Research and Dissertations
Introduction to Postgraduate Study Skills
Postgraduate Study Skills: Being Critical at Master’s Level
Postgraduate Study Skills: Managing the Dissertation Process
Postgraduate Study Skills: Academic Writing and the Research Process
Postgraduate Study Skills: In-depth Critical Literature Review
Postgraduate Study Skills: Reading Critically
Harvard Referencing
Important Information on Dishonesty & Plagiarism:
University of Lincoln Regulations define plagiarism as ‘the passing off of another person’s thoughts,
ideas, writings or images as one’s own…Examples of plagiarism include the unacknowledged use of
another person’s material whether in original or summary form. Plagiarism also includes the copying
of another student’s work’.
Plagiarism is a serious offence and is treated by the University as a form of academic dishonesty.
Students are directed to the University Regulations for details of the procedures and penalties
involved.
For further information, see
plagiarism.org
Assessment Rubric (Assessment 1)

Clarity 12% Excellent (5) Good (4) Satisfactory (3) Fair – with risk of
failure (2)
Poor – needs significant
improvement (1)
Not
Evidenced
(0)
Is the focus of the project
clear and suitable? Do we
have a central aim and
related objectives? Is the
focus suitable for the
degree title?
Excellent Clarity Aims and objectives clearly
expressed but would benefit
from further
improvement/tightening
Aims and objectives apparent
and workable, but some further
clarification required
General aim
apparent but are
insufficient to
provide the guidance
or structure
required.
General aims weekly
identified but need
further refinement and
objectives need to be
articulated
appropriately
Not
Evidenced
Rationale 20%
What is the justification for
and relevance of the topic;
in terms of academic
literature, contemporary
business practice and/or
enterprise development?Is
there scope for critical
thinking and
originality/creativity?
Excellent Rationale
– clear and concise.
Rationale fundamentally
sound but would benefit
from further
thought/stronger argument
in some areas.
Rationale as outlined is generally
relevant, but lacks originality
and/or scope for
creativity/criticality. The
rationale needs to be
clearer/stronger in some
respects; to enable the work to
make appropriate
recommendations/develop
stronger conclusions.
Rationale is weak
and arguments need
strengthening in
several important
respects if the work
is to meet a pass
standard.
Rationale
unclear/inconsistent.
The argument
insufficiently supported
and lacks
clarity/relevancy.
Not
Evidenced
Suitability 20%

 

Is the approach to the
problem or project sound?
Are the potential sources
of evidence identified and
to what extent can this
material be assembled?
Have sources of evidence
been evaluated? Are the
sources/subject accessible?
Excellent – clear
relationship
between
aims/objectives
and chosen
approach. If
followed through
competently the
work should
address all aims
and objectives.
The approach is generally
suitable and, if carried out
competently should enable
the general aims and most of
the objectives to be met.
There are some minor
concerns/potential
improvements required
Approach being taken is broadly
appropriate. However, there are
some doubts about some aspects
and further work is needed in
several important respects.
However, there is confidence
that the approach should enable
the work to succeed.
There are significant
doubts about the
suitability of the
approach being
taken/proposed.
Unless the issues are
addressed then the
work is unlikely to
meet the standard
expected.
Methods/Sources are
either inappropriate or
ill defined. Unless the
approach is
changed/further
developed the work is
likely to fail.
Not
Evidenced

 

References 12%
Is the scope and
extent of the
literature
understood? Have
the key sources
been identified an
accessed? Are the
citations correct?
Excellent –
precise and
appropriate with
no obvious
limitations
The references/sources are
broadly and specifically
appropriate to the purpose of
the research. If used well they
should enable the work to reach
a high standard. Some minor
additions/adjustments are
needed to improve the
potential.
The evidence presented
confirms that the sources are
broadly sufficient and
accessible. Further work is
needed to either identify
more focused
material/sources and/or
broaden the evidence base.
If used appropriately, the
evidence base is sufficient to
enable the work to reach a
pass standard.
Basic sources
identified but further
sources are needed to
scope the study.
Unless the sources are
developed, the work is
unlikely to pass.
References
inappropriate/insufficient,
further literature search
needed. As it stands the
evidence base is insufficient to
enable the work to pass.
Not
Evidenced
Structure 12%
Is the proposed
structure logical
and consistent with
the aims and
objectives?
Excellent – no
further
improvements
required
The proposed structure is
consistent with the proposed
approach and follows
conventions. There are only
minor improvements needed.
The proposed structure of the
work is consistent with the
general principles of research.
If the work was presented in
the manner suggested it
would be likely to meet a pass
standard. However, the
proposed structure could be
enhanced in some key
respects.
Structure needs more
work and unless
improvements are
made the final output
is unlikely to pass
Structure flawed in several
respects and unless these issues
are resolved, the dissertation is
highly likely to fail
Not
Evidenced
Schedule 12%

 

Is the proposed
structure of final
output
appropriate? Is the
schedule fully
outlined and
agreed with the
supervisor? Is the
schedule clear and
achievable?
Excellent – the
schedule has
built in
contingency and
is highly likely to
succeed.
The schedule is clear and logical.
However, there are some minor
concerns and/or limited
evidence of contingency
planning.
The workflow is generally
clear and milestones
appropriate, The schedule
may be ambiguous in part and
have limited contingency; or
be inconsistent with some of
the supervisor’s expectations.
However, if all goes according
to plan, the work has a high
probability of being
completed on time.
More work needed to
clarify workflow and
milestones, and more
importantly, the work
is at risk of failing to
meet the deadline
Schedule flawed in several
respects and the work is highly
unlikely to be completed
satisfactorily unless these are
resolved
Not
Evidenced
Ethics 12%
Fully articulated
and all dilemmas
identified and
outlined
Generally well articulated and no
significant issues unidentified.
There may be minor issues
associated with argument and
presentation – but fundamental
issues have been addressed.
There are no reasons to limit
progress of the project.
Generally sufficient to allow
an application to be made but
some minor matters need to
be resolved. Ethical approval
is likely.
Some ethical
dilemmas either need
further argument or
resolutions needed
before the work can
expect to secure
ethical approval.
Ethical approval is
unlikely to be
supported at this stage
Limited awareness of ethical
principles and/or responsible
management. The work cannot
proceed until these are
addressed.
Not
Evidenced