testing the weak form efficiancy
1. Review Assignment
This unit is assessed through a single piece of work – a literature review of the student’s proposed research area. This is for Master of Research and Master of Professional Management students to develop their review questions, then ultimately refine their research questions for later research work.
This is a formal assessment (written assignment) of 5000 words (max – excluding appendices and references) which focuses on a preliminary survey and critical appraisal of the literature related to the context and focus of the student’s research area; demonstrating an understanding of the research field and the key arguments and differing research communities associated with this field. Submission dates to be communicated separately.
It is envisaged that students will demonstrate an understanding of the process of critical analysis and integration of the literature to inform their proposed research question, objectives and thesis. Students must be able demonstrate an ability to critically evaluate literature and show a high standard of presentation, referencing and writing style.
1. The effectiveness of the review and style of writing (i.e. the degree to which the assignment structures and develops a coherent argument).
2. Being able to place the literature review in a broader context.
3. Demonstrates a clear understanding of the value of developing a clear research/review question..
4. Displays comprehension of the need to map out the research field
5. Provides evidence of being able to evaluate relevant literature, in terms of critical analysis, in order to support the discussion/analysis.
6. General presentation and appropriate referencing (Harvard style.
The raison d’etre of the assignment is to provide students with an opportunity to engage with the process of conducting a literature review ‘systematically’. This introduces students to critical issues surrounding the Literature context (e.g. historical, contemporary discipline philosophy), the domain of extant knowledge (e.g. gaps, Doctoral thesis, empirical/secondary research) as well as, of course, an understanding of presentation issues (e.g. writing style, formal requirements, etc.).
Indicative Outline for Assignment:
No. Section Some examples of good practice
1 The INTRODUCTION sets the scene; indicates areas to be covered, and in what order. Has content of essay been outlined?
Is the shape of the ensuing document ½ to 2/3 of a page?
Is it clear, well expressed and focused on the question?
2 The LITERATURE surveyed is relevant and adequate in amount. Has a range of literature, in terms of source and author, been used throughout the essay?
Have relevant and authoritative academic references been used to support the main arguments presented in the essay?
Are references appropriately cited?
3 The WRITING is original: theories are described in the writer’s own words, demonstrating learning and knowledge. Is material copied without proper integration into the text/plagiarised, been cut and pasted from sources or have excessive quotes been used in a manner which demonstrates neither learning nor understanding?
Is there a good, clear description and understanding of the theories used in the essay?
It is written in the student’s own words and has an overall sense of his or her own ‘position’? (i.e. not simply repeating the positions taken by other authors, but demonstrating an understanding of the need to position oneself within the various ‘conversations’ at play in the research field)
4 ANALYSIS is demonstrated by synthesising material from various sources and by the coherent structuring of argument. Does the writing demonstrate an appropriate mastery of the topic?
Are opinions supported by reading and evaluation, rather than subjectivity only (i.e. backed up by evidence from textbooks, journals appropriate literature etc.)?
Are both sides of the arguments mentioned in the essay considered before a conclusion is reached – especially when there are conflicts in the extant literature?
5 The ESSAY STRUCTURE is coherent and is carefully written in good English.
Is the essay as a whole piece logically structured? (e.g. leads the reader through the review questions; mapping the field/ domain; reviewing critical texts; revising the review questions – feeding into future research questions, etc.)
Does it address the subject of the assignment without irrelevant deviation? (i.e. it doesn’t ramble about points irrelevant to the review questions?)
Is it divided sensibly into paragraphs? (i.e. new paragraphs for new points?)
Is the Written English correct, with no errors in spelling, punctuation or grammar (N.B. No text message language or shortened forms are used)?