The Literature Review And Finding The Gaps

Assessment Information

Subject Code: BUS606

Subject Name: Literature Review for Master of Business Research Project

Assessment Title: Assessment 2 – Literature review

Weighting: 35 %

Total Marks: Length:

35 2500 (not including reference list)

Due Date: Submission due Week 9 – Sunday at 11.59 pm

COURSE: Master of Business (Research)

Unit: Business Research Proposal and Literature Review

Unit Code: BUS606

Type of Assessment:

Assessment 2 – Literature review

Unit Learning Outcomes addressed:

(a) Demonstrate an advanced ability to initiate and prepare an original research proposal.

(b) Demonstrate an advanced ability to prepare a literature review based on the support of an original research proposal.

(c) Demonstrate a critical appreciation of the ethical issues associated with an original research proposal and their implications for the research and the acceptability of the research by an ethics review committee.

(d) Critically evaluate the coherence, relevance and methodological merits of a given body of literature.

(e) Demonstrate a critical understanding of the theoretical, practical and professional contexts and significance of the research.

(f) Prepare a literature review that identifies and discriminates between concepts, issues, key findings and relevant theories most pertinent to the research proposal which the review supports.

Criteria for Assessment:

 Knowledge and understanding  Content and exploration of theories and ideas  Analysis, synthesis and critical engagement  Technical skills and referencing

Assessment Task:

Students are required to submit a literature review for their chosen project Your literature review should be shaped by your argument and should seek to establish your theoretical orientation, along with your methodological choices. Your literature review needs to conclude with what you have demonstrated as a ‘need for research’ in the area. This is the primary statement for the justification of the research project. The literature review needs to be organized with sub-headers in a meaningful manner based on your research topic. The language used in a literature review is often evaluative and demonstrates your perspectives of the literature in relation to your research question. Your ‘voice’ or your perspective, position or standpoint, should be identifiable in the literature review. It is important that, firstly, your theoretical position is clearly and strongly stated and that your critical evaluations are an integral part of this document. Secondly, it important that your language indicates your own or other writers’ attitudes to the research question. The literature review always ends with a research question that will be the focus of the Master of Business Research thesis. You should follow the outline below: Title of literature review: In not more than 12 words state the title of your proposed research project and literature review Research Cluster: Identify the Research Cluster aligned to your research project

 Cluster 1: Leadership and Management of Large Corporations

 Cluster 2: Leadership and Management of Not-for Profit Organisations

 Cluster 3: Leadership and Management of Start-ups, SMEs and Family Business

 Cluster 4: Leadership and Management of Technological and Digital Transformation Cluster 5: Leadership and Management of Sustainable Business Operations

 Cluster 6: Leadership and Management of Government and Multilateral Organisations

 Cluster 7: Leadership and Management of Tourism and Hospitality Organisations

Introduction Provide an overview of the literature review. Indicate the objectives of the literature review.

Literature review Use relevant headings and sub-headings to organize your literature review. Conclusion Your conclusion should provide a summary of the literature and show the gaps in the literature to be addressed by the research project, the proposed methods to be used and the expected contribution to the field of research from undertaking the research project.

Submission Date: Week 9 (online submission).

Total Mark & Weighting:

35 marks | 35%

Students are advised that any submissions past the due date without an approved extension or approved extenuating circumstances incur a 5% penalty per

calendar day, calculated from the total mark e.g. a task marked out of 15 will incur a 1.75 mark penalty

per calendar day.

Marking rubrics Criteria

HD (High Distinction) 85%-100%

DN (Distinction) 75%-84%

CR (Credit) 74%-65%

P (Pass) 50%-64%

F (Fail) 0%-49%

Knowledge and

understanding

5 marks

Command of the

topic, unusual

creat ivity,

perception and

insight, all

suggesting that

work should be

published in an

academic forum.

Demonstrates

command of the

topic by showing

creativity,

perception and

insight — a

serious

contribut ion to

the academic

debate.

Demonstrates a

well- informed

understanding of

the topic by

showing

creativity and

insight — a

serious

contribution to

the academic

debate.

Understanding

of contemporary

academic

debate, with

some

creative input and

insight, with a

tendency toward

description.

Limited/poor

understanding

demonstrated. Any

creative input is

somewhat off the

point.

Content and

exploration of theories

and ideas

10 marks

Outstanding

selection that

makes a

substantial

contribution to

academic

debate.

Outstanding

select ion from a

wide relevant and

innovative range

of perspectives

and sources.

Selection from a

wide and

relevant range

of perspectives

and sources

that draws

upon

contemporary

academic

debate.

Relevant selection

from a range of

perspectives

and sources.

Sources are

mostly

integrated into

the overall

argument.

Narrow selection,

minimal use of

sources, to support the

argument.

Analysis,

synthesis and critical engagement 15 marks

Outstanding use

of source

material.

Excellent

argument that is

of the highest

academic quality.

Sources very

well integrated

into the overall

argument. Clear

well

structured

argument that is

well crafted and

Sources well-

integrated into

the overall

argument.

Clear, cogent

and well-

structured

Mostly clear,

cogent and well-

structured

argument.

Demonstrates

crit icality and

Sources are not

properly integrated

into the argument.

Absence of clear

and cogent

argument.

Incomplete analysis

Critical distance

and outstanding

analysis of the

question, to a

high degree of

excellence.

cogent. Crit ical

distance and

outstanding

analysis of the

question.

argument.

Critical

distance and sound

analysis of the question.

general ly good

analysis.

with a tendency to

accept the source

material at face

value.

Technical skills

and referencing

5marks

Referencing

impeccable

using

appropriate

conventions.

No errors in

grammar or

spelling.

Referencing clear

and accurate using

appropriate

conventions.

Virtually no errors in

grammar or

spelling.

Referencing

clear and

accurate

using

appropriate

conventions. Good grammar and spelling.

Referencing

sufficiently clear

and using an

appropriate

convention.

Adequate

grammar and

spelling.

References

limited/inappropriate.

Many errors in

grammar and

spelling, making it

difficult or impossible

to read.