UGB361 Developing the Reflexive Practitioner (2021-2022) Assessment Brief
Submission Date: Friday 12 April 2022
Students are required to submit their coursework through JIRA. Only assessments submitted through JIRA will be marked. Any other submission including submission to your study centre in hard copy will be treated as a non-submission.
If your centre supports Turnitin© , a copy of your Turnitin© originality report (in between 20% and 30%) must be submitted in conjunction with your assignment. The University's Generic Marking Criteria attached will be used to assess the work.
For this module there is one individual research-based assessment which is presented as a ‘Developing Reflexive Practitioner Reflection’.
Increasingly there is recognition of the significance of professional development within the management professions (e.g., HRM, Marketing Management, Financial Management and Management including Leadership). Therefore, this research aims to present you with the opportunity to develop as a reflexive professional and scholar practitioner (Armstrong, 2018b).
Managers today increasingly find themselves facing unexpected problems, needing to learn how to cope with complex environments and to take action in an often chaotic flow of events. This is achieved by creating space for collaborative dialogue between managers and researchers, and supplementing it with the integration of a reflexive writing practice (Ripamonti et al., 2016: 55).
This research is positioned within a critical qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2017) and using a bricolage approach as reflexive digital bricolage (Armstrong, 2018a).
This research consists of TWO parts as follows:
Part A: Introduction and Research Design
1. Research Aim, Research Context and Literature Review (30 Marks)
For this research you choose one of the research aims listed below:
- Making sense of feelings and emotions - Increasing self-awareness
- Understanding and making sense of a trigger (‘A Critical incident’).
The research context is based on which professional identity you feel describes you now and or your future aspirations:
- HRM = CIPD located at https://www.cipd.co.uk/learn/career/profession-map
- Marketing = CIM located at https://www.cim.co.uk/more/professional-marketing-competencies/
- Financial Management = ACCA located at http://www.accaglobal.com/uk/en/member/standards/rules-and-standards.html
- Management = CMI located at https://www.managers.org.uk/policies/code-of-conduct-and-practice
From the professional body to frame your research choose at least 3 behaviours or values or professional standards (this is dependent upon the professional body).
For this part you are required to write at least 1000 words on your choice of research aim, the choice of professional body context and how you will approach this reflection as a literature review using academic citations of the approach to journaling (e.g. writing through the mirror; metaphorical approaches; artistic approaches; critical incident; mirror metaphors; cycles of reflection; experiential approaches; biographical approaches).
2. Research Design, Methodology and Method (40 Marks)
The purpose of this part is for you to critique and justify your research design in terms of
(i) your methodology (e.g. reflexive dialogic action research; reflexivity; auto-ethnographic practices; arts based or a bricolage of methodologies) and
(ii) your method (Cycles of reflection e.g. Gibbs cycle or Gardner Cycle; JOHARI window; your personal cultural texts including your approach to coding these as qualitative data) and
(iii) a critique of the research design (this is where you discuss and evaluate your researcher voice and the challenges you faced completing this critical qualitative inquiry).
This should be at least 1000 words and you are expected to have academic citations to support your critique and evaluation of your research design, methodology and method.
You are required to provide a full bibliographic list of academic citations (all readings which you have cited in text and also read but not cited) using the Harvard referencing system. This does not count towards the word count.
Part B: Digital Storyboard (30 Marks)
This is the presentation of the analysed personal cultural texts in the form of a ‘storyboard’. The storyboard can be presented as either (choose 1 only);
- At least a 1000 word Critical Incident Analysis
- At least a 1000 word Creative Writing
- At least a 500 word Critical Incident Analysis + At least a 500 word Creative Writing
- Video reflection in the form of a vlog (at least 5 minutes and no longer than 10 minutes)
- Audio reflection in the form of a podcast (at least 5 minutes and no longer than 10 minutes) The word limit is set as 3,000 words.
Formative Assessment: Each student may submit ONE draft outline structure (in point form) for my comments by the last session. The draft would be commented around 3 working days.
Whichever method of presentation you choose you should include a list of sources which have been used to create the storyboard (not counted in word count).
Remarks: Students are encouraged to communicate with the Module Tutor during the process of planning, preparing and completing the individual assignment. Useful Formative Feedback on assignment writing will be given upon request from students.
Generic Assessment Criteria – Undergraduate
These should be interpreted according to the level at which you are working and related to the assessment criteria for the module
Grade Relevance Knowledge Analysis Argument and Structure Critical Evaluation Presentation Reference to Literature
86 – 100% The work examined is exemplary and provides clear evidence of a complete grasp of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also ample excellent evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are fully satisfied. At this level it is expected that the work will be exemplary in all the categories cited above. It will demonstrate a particularly compelling evaluation, originality, and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse.
76-85% The work examined is outstanding and demonstrates comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also excellent evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are fully satisfied. At this level it is expected that the work will be outstanding in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse.
70 – 75% The work examined is excellent and is evidence of comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also excellent evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are satisfied At this level it is expected that the work will be excellent in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse.
60 – 69% Directly relevant to the requirements of the assessment A substantial knowledge of strategy material, showing a clear grasp of themes, questions and issues therein A good
strategic analysis, clear and orderly Generally coherent and logically structured, using an appropriate mode of argument and/or theoretical mode(s) May contain some distinctive or independent thinking; may begin to formulate an independent position in relation to strategic theory and/or practice. Well written, with standard spelling and grammar, in a readable style with acceptable format Critical appraisal of upto-date and/or appropriate literature. Recognition of different perspectives.
Very good use of source material. Uses a range of sources
50 – 59% Some attempt to address the requirements of the assessment: may drift away from this in less focused passages Adequate knowledge
of a fair range of relevant strategy material, with intermittent evidence of an appreciation of its significance Some analytical treatment, but may be prone to description, or to narrative, which
lacks clear analytical purpose Some attempt to construct a coherent argument, but may suffer loss of focus and consistency, with issues at stake stated only vaguely, or theoretical mode(s) couched in simplistic terms Sound work which expresses a coherent position only in broad terms and in uncritical conformity to one or more standard views of strategy. Competently written, with only minor lapses from standard grammar, with acceptable format Uses a variety of literature which includes some recent strategic texts and/or appropriate literature, though not necessarily including a substantive amount beyond library texts. Competent use of source material.
40 – 49% Some correlation with the requirements of the assessment but there are instances of irrelevance Basic understanding of the strategy but addressing a limited range of material Largely descriptive or narrative, with little evidence of analysis A basic argument is evident, but mainly supported by assertion and there may be a lack of clarity and coherence Some evidence of a view starting to be formed but mainly derivative. A simple basic style but
with significant deficiencies in expression or format that may pose
obstacles for the reader
Some up-to-date and/or appropriate literature used. Goes beyond the material tutor has provided. Limited use of sources to support a point.
35 – 39% Relevance to the requirements of the assessment may be
very intermittent, and may be reduced to its vaguest and least challenging terms A limited understanding of a narrow range of strategic material. Heavy dependence on description, and/or on paraphrase, is common Little evidence of coherent argument: lacks development and may be
repetitive or thin Almost wholly derivative: the writer’s contribution rarely goes beyond simplifying paraphrase Numerous deficiencies in expression and presentation; the writer may achieve clarity (if at all) only by using a simplistic or repetitious style Barely adequate use of literature. Over reliance on material provided by the tutor.
The evidence provided shows that the majority of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied – for compensation consideration.
30 – 34% The work examined provides insufficient evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence provided shows that some of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in some of the indicators.
15-29% The work examined is unacceptable and provides little evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence shows that few of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in several of the indicators.
0-14% The work examined is unacceptable and provides almost no evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence fails to show that any of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in the majority or all of the indicators.