ASSESSMENT 3 BRIEF
Subject Code and Title BRH606 Business Research for Hoteliers
Assessment Research proposal
Individual/Group Group (3 max.)
Length 3,000 words (+/-10%)
Learning Outcomes The Subject Learning Outcomes demonstrated by successful completion of the task below include:
a) Analyse the various approaches to business and social research and the difference between primary and secondary research
b) Critically review extant knowledge in a disciplinary area for the identification of researchable problems
c) Understand and justify the use of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis
d) Investigate a range of data collection methods and tools
e) Conceptually map the research process, developing a defensible framework for proposed research
f) Evaluate the ways management research may be written and disseminated
Submission Due by 11.55pm ACST/ACDT/AEST/AEDT Friday of Week 9
Total Marks 100 marks
This assessment aims to equip students with the ability to formulate, plan and justify a relevant research project in response to a business-related problem. This research project has already been established and discussed with your learning facilitator throughout the term, with relevant feedback provided.
For this assessment, students are required to produce a 3,000-word research proposal that discusses the research context, investigates the research problem, reviews relevant literature, and recommends a suitable methodology to undertake the project.
A Research Proposal can be defined as:
“A plan that offers recommendations for conducting research … details the who, the what, the where, the when and the how of research and the information associated with it”.
SECTION 1: RESEARCH CONTEXT
The research context outlines the background of the study and the research problem established in Assessment 1 (Note: it is best to approach this section as though the reader is unaware of preceding discussions regarding your research topic).
SECTION 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Using the research problem established in Assessment 1, students are to conduct a thorough secondary research and produce a literature review. The purpose of this literature review is to place the research problem in the context of what is already known and aid in better understanding the issue at hand. This will also help identify any gap in knowledge (that is, “What Information we still need to get?”) which will inform the research objectives and proposed primary research.
A minimum of 12 academic resources is expected, with additional supporting industry/professional references where required. This will reflect depth, breadth and credibility of the literature review. Correct and complete citations should be provided according to the APA 7th edition Academic Writing Guide available on Blackboard. Students should avoid copying large amounts of secondary data and information. Rather, students are encouraged to paraphrase and model the concepts to address the specified research objectives.
In this section, students must demonstrate familiarity with the existing body of knowledge and methods used in the relevant area of research. Additionally, students are required to synthesise and critique the literature which have been reviewed.
SECTION 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY FOR A PRIMARY RESEARCH PROJECT
In this section, students are expected to present and justify the methodological decisions of the research project. This section requires the following key points to be addressed:
• The (revised) research objectives linked to the research problem and ‘knowledge gap’ identified in the previous section (literature review).
• The research approach to be applied – Specify whether the proposed study will be designed as an exploratory, explanatory, descriptive or causal research. This section should also provide justification as to why the recommended approach suits the problem/information requirements and how using the recommended approach will yield superior information/results.
• Details of methodology to be applied – For example: qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods
• The proposed data collection method(s) – For example: focus groups, interviews, surveys, experiments and/or observation. Include a justification as to why this technique(s) would be most appropriate.
• The population of the study, including a discussion on the overall population size.
• The proposed sampling method – For example: simple random sampling, cluster sampling, quota systematic sampling, purposive sampling, convenience sampling, etc. Provide a justification as to why this method would be appropriate and aligned with the overall research approach.
• Implementation plan – Details on how the research design will be administered. This should include a timeline of the project, as well as details relating to the storage of data and dissemination of research outcomes.
APPENDIX: ETHICS APPLICATION CHECKLIST
An Ethics Application Checklist must be completed and attached as an appendix to your proposal. This checklist will specify the risks associated to your research as well as ethical considerations you will take in the process of conducting your study.
All research must be conducted in alliance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human
Research (2007, plus amendments). Be sure to refer to the specific components of the National Statement that are relevant to your study. Note that students will not be allowed to conduct research that involves the following:
• minors below the age of 18;
• people with physical, sensory, psychiatric, neurological, cognitive and/or intellectual disability;
• the deception of participants and/or evading the requirement of obtaining informed consent
It is essential that you use appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research. Please see more information on referencing here in the Academic Writing Guide found via the Academic Skills website.
Group Contract and Peer Evaluation Instructions
At the beginning of the term/project:
• All students taking part in a group assessment should draw up and sign a group contract using the template provided on Blackboard, in the Assessments section. This step should be completed at least two weeks prior to the assessment due date. Learning Facilitators may ask to review the contracts when deemed necessary (for example, when there is a lack of progress or conflict among group members).
During the project:
• Students should keep records of communication and drafts. Any serious concerns about individual group member’s contribution should be brought to the attention of the Learning Facilitator as soon as they occur or at least two weeks before the due date, whichever is earlier.
At the end of the project/assessment submission:
• When submitting a group assessment, students are required to attach the group contract as an appendix of the submission. Students are reminded not to ‘recycle’ (self-plagiarise) contracts from other assessments. Sections on deliverables, timeline and expectations, in particular, should be unique to each assessment or project. Self-plagiarism constitutes a breach of Academic Integrity and can lead to penalties to the assessment or subject.
• The group contract accounts for 10% of the assessment grade, as indicated in the marking rubric. The group contract will be assessed based on its effectiveness in stipulating targets, plans and expectations. It should be clear, realistic and appropriate for the nature of the project.
• A peer evaluation form is available on Blackboard in the Assessment section. This can be used by any student who feels there was unequal or unfair contribution from other group member(s) which they would like to raise with the Learning Facilitator. Students who allege others of not contributing equally or fairly must provide clear supporting evidence (e.g. records of communication and drafts) and email it together with a completed peer evaluation form to the Learning Facilitator by the assessment due date. Otherwise, the allegations will be dismissed.
• Students who have been accused of not contributing equally or fairly to a group assessment will be contacted by their Learning Facilitator and given three working days to respond to the allegation and provide supporting evidence. If there is no response within three working days of contact, the Learning Facilitator will determine an appropriate mark based on the evidence available. This may differ from the mark awarded to other group members and would reflect the contribution of the student in terms of quantity and quality of work.
1. Typed and formatted according to the structure guideline presented above.
2. To be submitted as a Microsoft Word file to Turnitin on Blackboard in Week 9, Friday, no later than 11.55pm.
3. The total word count, excluding references, must be within +/-10% of the assessment word count. Penalties will apply when word count restrictions are not met.
4. Only one copy of the research proposal is to be submitted, with names of all group members listed on the cover sheet.
5. A minimum of 12 academic sources and additional supporting industry/professional references where required. Lecture notes are unacceptable as a form of research.
6. All referencing (in-text referencing and reference list) must be in accordance with the APA 7th edition Academic Writing Guide available on Blackboard.
7. A Torrens University Australia Group Assignment Cover Sheet is to be attached to your submission.
8. See marking rubric attached at the end of this document. You do not need to attach this rubric to your submissions.
All students are responsible for ensuring that all work submitted is their own and is appropriately referenced and academically written according the Academic Writing Guide. Students also need to have read and be aware of Torrens University Australia Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure and subsequent penalties for academic misconduct. These are viewable online.
Students also must keep a copy of all submitted material and any assessment drafts.
Assessment Attributes Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49% Pass
(Proficient) 65-74% Distinction
75-84% High Distinction
Content, audience and purpose (broad and specific content)
10% Demonstrates no awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment.
Demonstrates limited awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment
Demonstrates consistent awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment.
Demonstrates an advanced and integrated understanding of context and/or purpose of the assignment.
Consistently demonstrates a systematic and critical understanding of context and purpose of the assignment.
Analysis and application with synthesis of new knowledge
Limited synthesis and analysis.
Limited application/ recommendations based upon analysis.
Demonstrated analysis and synthesis of existing knowledge with application.
Shows the ability to interpret relevant information and literature. Well-developed analysis and synthesis with application of recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis.
Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and synthesis with application of pretested models and / or independently developed models and justified recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis.
Highly sophisticated and creative analysis, synthesis of existing knowledge.
Strong application by way of pretested models and / or independently developed models. Recommendations are clearly justified based on the analysis/synthesis. Applying knowledge to new situations/other cases.
Knowledge and understanding (technical and theoretical
Limited understanding of required concepts and
Key components of the assignment are not addressed.
Knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline.
Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas.
Often confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by Thorough knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline/s. Supports methodological choices and information with evidence from the research/course materials.
Highly developed understanding of the field or discipline/s.
Supports methodological choices and information with robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.
A sophisticated understanding of the field or discipline/s.
Systematically and critically Supports methodological choices and information with robust evidence from the
evidence from the research/course materials.
Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts.
Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. research/course materials and extended reading.
Mastery of concepts and application to new situations/further learning.
Difficult to understand for audience, no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence.
Audience cannot follow the line of reasoning.
Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical.
Line of reasoning is often difficult to follow.
Information, arguments and evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments.
Line of reasoning is easy to follow.
Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented; the presentation is
logical, clear and well supported by evidence.
Engages and sustains audience’s interest in the topic through a good line of reasoning
Expertly presented; the presentation is logical, persuasive, and well supported by evidence, demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments.
Engages and sustains audience’s interest in the topic through an excellent line of
Effective use of diverse presentation aids, including graphics.
QUALITY OF RESEARCH
Correct citation of key
resources and evidence
Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas. Demonstrates use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed. Demonstrates use of high quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas.
Demonstrates use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and statements. Shows some evidence of wide scope of research extending to a variety of sources Demonstrates use of highquality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and position statements. Shows strong evidence of wide scope of research extending to a variety of sources.
Individual contribution based on peer evaluation
10% The group contract has been poorly completed. Targets, plans and expectations have not been clearly defined and are not achievable. The group has partially completed the contract. Some targets, plans and performance expectations have not been identified and clearly defined. Some targets, plans and performance expectations are The group has completed the contract. The group contract contains somewhat clear, precise and achievable targets and plans. It also stipulates The group has thoroughly completed the contract. The group contract contains well thought out targets, plans and performance expectations. There are clear explanations in relation to performance The group has completed the contract to an exceptional level. The group contract contains clear, precise and achievable targets and plans which are detailed and well justified. There are clear and
The group contract has not been completed or submitted. not achievable. Roles are not always clear.
performance expectations for each group member or role.
expectations for each group member or role.
well- structured explanations in relation to performance expectations for each group member or role.
The following Subject Learning Outcomes are addressed in this assessment
SLO a) Analyse the various approaches to business and social research, and the difference between primary and secondary research
SLO b) Critically review extant knowledge in a disciplinary area for the identification of researchable problems
SLO c) Understand and justify the use of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis
SLO d) Understand and justify the use of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis
SLO e) Conceptually map the research process, developing a defensible framework for proposed research
SLO f) Evaluate the ways management research may be written and disseminated