Order this Assignment Now: £329 VALID THRU: 17-Feb-2025
Units Only
10-06-2024
Critically evaluate the role and purpose of applied research for strategic management, selecting and deploying action research methods within a specific work context.
Assessment Brief
The Price Qouted is for Complete 8500 Words Work
HRMM082 AUT 23-24
Article with Portfolio
Module Level:
7
Module Code:
HRMM082 AUT 23-24
Credit Value:
40
Module Name:
Major Project (Placement)
Module Leader:
Assessment Code:
AS1
Assessment Type:
Article with Portfolio
Assessment Deliverable(s) as stated in the Module Specification:
“Individual long form feature article for a business publication (4000 words) with portfolio of supporting background research, analysis and references (4500 words).”
Weighting (%):
85%
Submission dates:
Wednesday 5th February 2025
(Resit due: Sunday 6th April 2025)
Feedback and Grades due:
Wednesday 5th March 2025
Please read the whole assessment brief before starting work on the Assessment Task.
Assessment Task Guidance Description
Learning Outcomes aligned to this assessment:
On successful completion of the assessment, you will be able to:
b) Critically evaluate the role and purpose of applied research for strategic management, selecting and deploying action research methods within a specific work context.
c) Design and implement an action research project, identifying ethical and methodological dimensions of work-based research.
d) Select, evaluate and synthesise sources of information associated with a work-based business or management issue.
e) Appraise and apply a recognised method of primary and/or secondary data analysis.
f) Propose recommendations that demonstrate an entrepreneurial mind-set, and that consider stakeholder impact, sustainability, and value.
h) Demonstrate self-direction and originality in tackling and solving problems, and act autonomously in planning and implementing tasks.
i) Structure and communicate a coherent and sustained argument.
The Assessment Task summary
Imagine you are going to publish your own journal article, like the ones you will be reading on NELSON. You are to create an 8,500-word independent piece of work-based research in the form of a journal article for a business journal, which showcases the work-based research project you proposed in your PS1 submission. Your research must focus on an identified ‘problem’ or challenge within your placement organisation and you must have consulted with, discussed and agreed your topic with a person of authority within that organisation (such as your line Manager).
Your research must also have received Ethics Approval and your signed Ethics form and all associated documents must be included in your portfolio.
Your submission will have two key elements that form one submission :
1) The Article: the summarised ‘published’ written element (4,000 words) , and
2) The Portfolio: a supporting portfolio of background evidence (literature research, methodology, results, analysis, Ethics documents and references) (4,500 words) .
Please follow this format when constructing your article and portfolio:
Section
Content
Indicative
word count
Cover page
This page should include the title of the assessment, your name, student number, module code, tutor and final word count.
n/a
Section Header page:
‘Published’ part (the imaginary article that would be ‘published’)
n/a
The ‘public’ element:
Introduction
Main body of the article
Conclusion
Your Introduction must briefly state the purpose of your article (your research question and why it needs to be answered for your organisation) and contents, providing any definitions that the reader would find useful. You must include your aim and objectives (and hypotheses if relevant). You should also briefly describe your placement organisation (anonymously) and your job role within it, for context.
This is your main article which should convey a summary of all the key points about / from your research, in a flowing, chronological style. You should follow the sections of your Proposal from your initial rationale through to your limitations, but your article should not use all the headings: think about how the journals you are reading for your literature review are constructed.
Conclude your article and provide a realistic and robust summary of the recommendations that have emerged from your research. Each recommendation should include some details such as timescales and the resources needed to implement it, but your full recommendations with all of the details will be in the portfolio.
400
3,000
600
Section Header page:
Supporting portfolio (this is the section that includes your supporting evidence.)
n/a
Contents page:
Please provide a list of the evidence you have included in your portfolio section and present it in that order. Include your appendix items, numbered and titled.
n/a
The portfolio of evidence
This section should include all of your supporting work and evidence of your research. Please include the full versions of your:
Rationale (why is this research important?)
Consultation with your employer – how did you decide your project topic with your stakeholders?
Literature review (the key research debates that informed your research design)
Methodology (philosophy behind your choice of approach) and Method (your research design)
Your data collection instrument (if relevant)
Your findings and analysis
Your conclusion
Your recommendations (in full)
Your limitations section
4,500 (excluding your appendix)
Reference List
Your sources should be shown here, in the correct Harvard style.
n/a
Appendix
Your Appendix should include:
Your raw data
Your full, signed Ethics pack of documents.
Your signed Supervision Forms
n/a
Word Limits (where appropriate)
The word limit for this assessment is 8,500 words .
In accordance with the Assessment and Feedback Policy , as stated in section 4.40 where a submission exceeds the stipulated time limit by more than 10%, the submission will only be marked up to and including the additional 10%. Anything over this will not be included in the final grade for the assessment item. Abstracts, bibliographies, reference lists, appendices and footnotes are excluded from any word limit requirements
In line with section 4.41 of the same Policy, where a submission is notably under the time limit, the full submission will be marked on the extent to which the learning objectives have been met.
Use of Generative AI (Artificial Intelligence) within this assessment:
Some uses of Generative AI may deemed as unethical in your assessment. Further guidance on the conditions for allowable use of Generative AI will be given by the module team.
Please access the following position guidance from University of Northampton on the use of Generative AI within assessments .
Assessment Submission
To submit your work electronically, please go to the ‘Assessment and submission’ area on the NILE site and use the relevant submission point to upload the assignment deliverable. The deadline for this is 11.59pm (UK local time) on the date of submission. Please note that Essays and text-based reports should be submitted as Microsoft Word documents (.doc or .docx), or as guided within the assignment. Please access the following guide to submitting assessments.
Written work submitted to Turnitin will be subject to anti-plagiarism detection software. Turnitin checks student work for possible textual matches against internet available resources and its own proprietary database. Please access the University of Northampton’s Plagiarism Avoidance Course (UNPAC) to learn more .
When you upload your work correctly to Turnitin you will receive a receipt which is your record and proof of submission. If your assessment is not submitted to Turnitin, rather than a receipt, you will see a green banner at the top of the screen that denotes successful submission.
N.B Work emailed directly to your tutor will not be marked.
Grading:
Your grade will depend on the extent to which you meet these learning outcomes in the way relevant for this assessment. You will be assessed on your ability to successfully address specified module learning outcomes, with marks allocated based on what is called a grading rubric.
The rubric is a table which has different statements for how well each learning outcome has been met, and is used as a standard benchmark so that all assignments are marked equally against. Please see the grading rubric on NILE, or see the final page of this document for further details of the criteria against which you will be assessed, presented in the grading rubric.
Further Assessment Guidance:
Please access the following document for more general information about the assessment process, including anonymous marking, submissions, and where to find feedback and grades.
2023 UON Standard Assessment Guidance .
Marking Rubric for HRMM082 AS1 (Article and Portfolio)
Criteria
No Submission/ No Evidence
Fail
Pass
Commended
Distinction
Learning Objective B )
(10%)
B1) The Article:
Critically evaluate the role and purpose of applied research for strategic management, selecting and deploying action research methods within a specific work context. (5%)
Work submitted is of no academic value/ Nothing presented.
The rationale for the research (its role and purpose) is not summarised in the Article and / or the action research method chosen is inappropriate for the specific work context and / or the context is absent or minimal.
The rationale for the research (its role and purpose) is briefly summarised in the Article and the action research method chosen is appropriate for the specific work context, which is provided in a very brief overview of the organisation.
The rationale for the research (its role and purpose) is clearly summarised in the Article. The action research method chosen is appropriate for the specific work context, which has been summarised well to provide a suitable overview of the organisation.
The rationale for the research (its role and purpose) is very clearly summarised in the Article. The action research method chosen is highly appropriate for the specific work context, which has been summarised very well to provide an excellent overview of the organisation.
B2) The Portfolio:
Critically evaluate the role and purpose of applied research for strategic management, selecting and deploying action research methods within a specific work context. (5%)
Work submitted is of no academic value/ Nothing presented.
The rationale for the research (its role and purpose) is not sufficiently explained in the Portfolio and / or lacks supporting sources and / or the action research method chosen is inappropriate for the specific work context which may / may not have been explained in enough detail.
The rationale for the research (its role and purpose) is sufficiently explained and has some literary support in the Portfolio, and the action research method chosen has some academic support and is appropriate for the specific work context, which has been explained to provide some contextual detail.
The rationale for the research (its role and purpose) is explained well, with some justification, and has a good level of literary support in the Portfolio. The action research method chosen has good academic support and is appropriate for the specific work context, which has been explained well, providing a good level of contextual detail.
The rationale for the research (its role and purpose) is explained and justified very well and has an excellent level of literary support within the Portfolio. The action research method chosen has excellent academic support and is appropriate for the specific work context, which has been explained in detail, providing an excellent level of contextual information.
Learning Objective D)
(20%)
D1) The Article:
Select, evaluate and synthesise sources of information associated with a work-based business or management issue. (5%)
Work submitted is of no academic value/ nothing submitted.
The sources used in the Article are not from the Portfolio and / or the Article fails to summarise the key sources of literature sufficiently and / or there are significant Harvard referencing errors. There is no / minimal connection between the topics summarised .
The Article sufficiently summarises some of the key sources of literature from the Portfolio and there is some attempt at Harvard referencing, although some errors are present. There is some connection between the topics summarised .
The Article clearly summarises most of the key sources of literature from the Portfolio and they are referenced with Harvard referencing with only minor errors. There is good, logical connection between the topics summarised .
The Article excellently summarises the key sources of literature from the Portfolio, and they are fully referenced with excellent quality Harvard referencing. There is excellent, logical connection between the topics summarised .
D2) The Portfolio:
Select, evaluate and synthesise sources of information associated with a work-based business or management issue. (15%)
Work submitted is of no academic value/ nothing submitted.
The Literature Review in the Portfolio is entirely descriptive and / or poorly written and lacking critical analysis. Sources are of questionable quality and / or there are significant Harvard referencing errors. There is no / minimal connection between the topics discussed .
The Literature Review in the Portfolio is descriptive in places but has some criticality and structure too. Use of some good quality sources with some attempt at Harvard referencing.
There is some connection between the topics discussed .
The Literature Review in the Portfolio is mostly critical: there is evidence of critique and reflection. The Review is structured with headings / subheadings although the order might not be completely logical. Use of good quality sources and fully Harvard referenced with only minor errors. There is good connection between the topics discussed.
The Literature Review in the Portfolio is highly critical and comprehensive with significant evidence of critique and reflection. Headings/subheadings have been used to provide logical and seamless connections between topics/themes. Use of top-quality sources and fully Harvard referenced.
Learning Objective C)
(20%)
C1) Ethics
Identify the ethical dimensions of work-based research and implement an appropriate Ethics plan. (10%)
Work submitted is of no academic value/ Nothing presented.
No / minimal consideration of ethical dimensions of work-based research and / or Ethics documents and / or Ethics approval is absent.
Acceptable consideration of ethical dimensions of work-based research. Ethics documents are included, but may be limited in detail, but Ethics approval is evident.
Clearly articulated consideration of ethical dimensions of work-based research. Ethics documents are robust, and Ethics approval is evident.
Excellently articulated consideration of ethical dimensions of work-based research. Ethics documents are detailed, comprehensive and Ethics approval is evident.
C2) Methodology
Design and implement an action research project, identifying methodological dimensions of work-based research. (10%)
Work submitted is of no academic value/ Nothing presented.
No / minimal understanding of basic methodological concepts in own work context is demonstrated and / or the research question(s) or hypotheses are poorly framed.
Acceptable understanding of basic methodological concepts in own work context is demonstrated, although it may be limited and / or poorly articulated / and / or academically supported. Acceptable research questions / hypotheses are presented.
Clearly articulated understanding of basic methodological concepts in own work context is demonstrated, which has good levels of literary / academic support. Clearly supported research questions / hypotheses are presented.
Excellently articulated understanding of basic methodological concepts in own work context is demonstrated, which has comprehensive levels of academic / literary support. Clearly articulated, robust research questions / hypotheses are presented.
Learning Objective E) Appraise and apply a recognised method of primary and/or secondary data analysis. (10%)
Work submitted is of no academic value/ Nothing presented.
A recognised method of primary / secondary data analysis has not been appraised and applied and / or has been incorrectly appraised and applied and is inappropriate for the research question(s).
A recognised method of primary/secondary data analysis has been appraised and applied and is broadly appropriate for the research question(s). Some supporting academic sources are used.
A recognised method of primary/secondary data analysis has been appraised and applied and is appropriate for the research question(s). A good range of supporting academic sources are used.
A recognised method of primary/secondary data analysis has been appraised and applied and is most appropriate for the research question(s). An excellent range of supporting academic sources are used.
Learning Objective H)
Demonstrate self-direction and originality in tackling and solving problems, and act autonomously in planning and implementing tasks. (10%)
Work submitted is of no academic value/ Nothing presented.
Limited / no evidence of engagement with academic supervisor in the portfolio, and / or little evidence of progression in response to feedback / advice received during supervision meetings, evidenced by inclusion of Supervision Forms, and / or no / minimal limitations are discussed and reflected upon so the student’s response to challenges faced during the project cannot be assessed.
Sufficient evidence of engagement with academic supervisor in the portfolio, and progression in response to feedback / advice received during supervision meetings, evidenced by inclusion of Supervision Forms, and some limitations are discussed and reflected upon in relation to challenges faced during the project, although the discussion or reflection may be limited.
Good evidence of engagement with academic supervisor in the portfolio, and progression in response to feedback / advice received during supervision meetings, evidenced by inclusion of Supervision Forms, and a good range of limitations are discussed and reflected upon, indicating the student’s response to challenges faced during the project.
Excellent evidence of engagement with academic supervisor in the portfolio, and progression in response to feedback / advice received during supervision meetings, evidenced by inclusion of Supervision Forms, and an excellent and thoughtful range of limitations are discussed and reflected upon, indicating the student’s response to challenges faced during the project.
Learning Objective F)
Propose recommendations that demonstrate an entrepreneurial mind-set, and that consider stakeholder impact, sustainability, and value. (15%)
Work submitted is of no academic value/ Nothing presented.
Summary in Article, full detail may be absent in Portfolio:
Recommendations are not SMART and / or do not clearly emerge from the findings and / or are unclear and / or are absent. No / minimal entrepreneurial creativity and no / minimal consideration of stakeholder impact, sustainability and / or value. No action plan that includes costs / resources / timescales is presented.
Summary in Article, full detail in Portfolio:
Recommendations have minimal connection to the findings and / or a minimal attempt at SMART has been made. There is limited evidence of entrepreneurial creativity and consideration of stakeholder impact, sustainability and / or value. An action plan that includes costs / resources / timescales may be presented.
Summary in Article, full detail in Portfolio:
Recommendations are clearly linked to the findings and a good attempt at SMART has been made. There is evidence of entrepreneurial creativity, and consideration of stakeholder impact, sustainability, and value. An action plan that includes costs / resources / timescales is presented.
Summary in Article, full detail in Portfolio:
Recommendations are thoroughly justified and clearly linked to the findings, analysis and discussion. An excellent attempt at SMART has been made. There is evidence of entrepreneurial creativity, and consideration of stakeholder impact, resource implications, sustainability, timescales, and value which may be presented in the form of a detailed action plan.
Learning Objective I)
Structure and communicate a coherent and sustained argument. (10%)
Work submitted is of no academic value/ Nothing presented.
There is no / minimal connectivity between the key sections and / or the results and findings are poorly presented with no / minimal analysis of findings and / or the findings are not / barely integrated with the literature review. The article and portfolio do not relate well to each other.
Conclusions have limited relevance to the analysis and discussion and may be just a summary.
There is sufficient connectivity between the key sections, and the results and findings are presented in an acceptable manner. There is some analysis of findings and there is an attempt to link them back to the literature review. The article and portfolio relate to each other.
Conclusions have some relevance to the analysis and discussion.
There is effective connectivity between the key sections, and the results and findings are presented clearly and appropriately. There is some detailed analysis of findings, and they are firmly synthesised with the literature review. The article and portfolio clearly relate to each other.
Conclusions are logical, emerging from the analysis and discussion and suggestions for future research / theory construction may be discussed.
There is seamless connectivity between the key sections, and the results and findings are presented clearly and appropriately. There is some excellent, critical analysis of findings, which are securely synthesised with the literature review. The article and portfolio relate seamlessly to each other.
Conclusions are insightful and logical, emerging from the analysis and discussion, and suggestions for future research / theory construction are discussed.
Academic/ Professional Quality (5%)
Absent or poor command of academic / professional conventions appropriate to the discipline
Unsatisfactory command of academic / professional conventions appropriate to the discipline. In the context of this assessment, this may mean: the portfolio of evidence is missing / minimal / incomplete and / or the written article is inappropriate / unprofessional / has key elements of the research process missing and / or the format is poor.
Satisfactory command of academic / professional conventions appropriate to the discipline. In the context of this assessment, this may mean: the portfolio of evidence is appropriate and complete but may be disorganised and/or minimal; the article format is suitable and includes the key elements of the research process.
Sound command of academic / professional conventions sufficient and appropriate to the discipline. In the context of this assessment, this may mean: the portfolio of evidence is appropriate, complete and structured in a coherent manner and the article format is suitable and well written in a professional manner, relating firmly to all the key elements of the research process.
Authoritative command of academic / professional conventions appropriate to the discipline. In the context of this assessment, this may mean: the portfolio of evidence is appropriate, complete and structured in a coherent manner, forming a solid foundation for the professionally written and structured article. The article summarises the research excellently and relates to all the key elements of the research process.
Order this Assignment Now:£329
100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions