ENG7200 HRM Individual Master’s Project Guidelines | BCU

Introduction

This Individual Master’s Project provides an opportunity to develop in-depth knowledge in a specialist area relevant to your course, and hence demonstrate your ability to:

• manage your own activities and resources to solve problems
• generate innovative ideas and solutions
• write an academic paper following accepted conventions of style and referencing 

As well as contributing to the MSc award, a successful Project will both enhance your CV and benefit career development.

Please read through this carefully – it describes how to undertake the Project and includes essential assessment information.  However, it is not a substitute for attendance at the scheduled tutorial classes and regular meetings with your Supervisor.  
Before starting, you should also read the assessment criteria, which indicate what the assessors will be looking for and what you should be demonstrating for each of the deliverables.
In addition to attending classes and meeting with your Supervisor, guidance is also available through the web resources on Moodle.  Also, the Centre for Academic Success has texts, tip sheets and offers tutorial support throughout the year on different aspects of undertaking a Project.  

Appendix 1 is a copyright waiver to enable your Project report to be published by Birmingham City University.
Students who progress to the award of M.Sc. will undertake a Master’s Project. The project will carry 60 credits at Level 7. This is a major piece of work of 600 notional study hours. The Master’s Project is assessed as below:

The MSc Project Process Map

The Project Logbook must contain a dated, chronological record of the work of the Project. The logbook must be a record of every significant event in the project.

Log Book

• Identification of Topic area:  Select a topic/theory area and pose a relevant question. A list of possible topics is contained on the appropriate Moodle site, but the student can select their own.
• Project Registration: Student will be expected to register their project via the ‘Project Registration’ link on the appropriate Moodle site and then complete an ethical review questionnaire.
• Proposal 10%: A 6-8 page document covering aim and objectives, initial literature review, methodology and appropriate timing chart
• Viva Presentation: Students will give a presentation and a formal Viva Voce of their work.
• Dissertation: 15,000-word report that is the culmination of the project.

Module Overview

The purpose of the module is to enable you to undertake a sustained, in-depth and research-informed Level 7 project exploring an area that is of personal interest to you. In agreement with your supervisor, you will decide upon your topic, which will take the form of a practical outcome (artefact) with accompanying contextual material. The main consideration when choosing your topic is that it must be aligned with the programme you are studying and informed by the research strategy of your school, and you should consider the relevance of this topic to your future academic or professional development.

At this level, you will be expected to work independently, but you will receive additional one-to-one support from your supervisor, who will be familiar with your chosen topic area. As you progress on the module, extra support will be available, and this may take the form of group seminars, workshops and online materials that will help to develop your project. 
This module is an opportunity for you to further develop not only academically, but it will also help you to extend life-long skills and attributes that identify you as a Master s-level graduate of BCU. These include being a creative problem solver, entrepreneurial, professional, and work-ready, and having a global outlook. 

In the context of technology-related industries, this means:

• developing your ability to create work which demonstrates an advanced awareness of professional standards relevant to your discipline;
• extending your application of successful project planning, which may include budgetary and other relevant constraints;
• being innovative, experimental and pushing the boundaries of your discipline;
• being able to effectively self-evaluate and reflect critically on your work and its potential impact, placing it within the context of relevant debates within your chosen medium.

For the Project, the exact nature of the artefact you create will be agreed in discussion with your Supervisor to ensure its relevance to your subject discipline.  

Learning Outcomes

1.  Plan a research-informed project using appropriate literature and/or professional outputs, including an appropriate risk assessment and ethical review.
2.  Assess the value of theoretical concepts and, where appropriate, consider how they may be applied to the solution of real problems
3.  Design an artefact/data-gathering strategy using appropriate techniques and tools
4.  Implement a design to produce an artefact/gather the data using appropriate techniques
5.  Critically evaluate and reflect on the implementation of the artefact/data collected and the overall project. 

Library & Learning Resources – available through REBUS (Reviewed Annually)

As appropriate to the individual student and discipline. The Supervisor is responsible for advising the student on appropriate material.

Purchase

Students will be directed towards any essential purchases, depending on the area of study.

Essential (Books/Journals/Specific chapters/Journal Articles)

Students will be directed towards essential reading according to the area of study.

The use of Summon and similar Library resources is expected.

Recommended

The following are general resources to guide students in the development of research-based projects.
 
Booth, A., Sutton, A. and Papaioannou, D. (2012) Systematic approaches to a successful literature review, London: Sage.

Creswell, J. (2013). Research Design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th edn. London: Sage. 

Denscombe, M. (2014). The Good Research Guide. 5th edition. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Eco, U. (1977). How to Write a Thesis. Massachusetts: MIT Press
Hart, C. (2001) ‘Doing a Literature Search’, London: Sage. 
Hart, C. (2005) ‘Doing your Master’s Dissertation’. London: Sage.
Oliver, P. (2014). Writing Your Thesis. 3rd edn. London: Sage.
Strunk, W and White,E. (1979) The Elements of Style. 3rd edn. New York: Macmillan

Background

Students will be directed towards background materials according to the area of study

Research Ethics

As part of the Project Registration process an initial assessment of research ethics will be conducted. 

Philosophy & Scope

The Project supports many of the course aims in providing a range of skills needed to develop innovative solutions, strategies and ideas now and in the future. Often, the Project will relate directly to your career and will provide a vehicle for enhancing your professional skills and understanding of the wider issues facing practitioners in your field.

The Project is intended to both integrate as many aspects of the course of study as feasible and to act as a vehicle for you to demonstrate your wider abilities. It will be an individual Project but may be linked to group work where scale and complexity demand. It is the responsibility of the student to select an appropriate topic area in conjunction with consultation with academic staff and reviewing previous Project work conducted. Project topic areas will be posted on the Moodle site. Students undertaking a project-based industry project will liaise with their Project Coordinator to develop the Project details. You may choose a title from the list published on Moodle, or you may propose your own title and discuss it with a member of academic staff who teaches in the area of study.

It is important that the consideration of the problem area or research topic suitably reflects the rationale of your own course. This means the Project must be directly related to topics taught in your course. It should also challenge you both academically and professionally and be useful to the industrial sector or research area in which it resides. 

Supervision

After your Project Aim and Objectives have been agreed with an appropriate member of academic staff, as recorded in the Project Registration Questionnaire and shown in the approved list, Academic Supervisors will be allocated by the School on the basis of staff workloads. 

Please note that the Supervisor’s role is one of general guidance with respect to the overall execution and academic quality of the Project. You may need to discuss details and technical aspects with other members of staff and report your findings back to your Supervisor. The person who originally proposed the Project title and/or with whom you initially discussed it may or may not be allocated as your Supervisor.

You should make frequent and adequate contact with your Supervisor.  It is strongly recommended that you arrange to meet your Supervisor every week at a fixed time.  The length of the meetings will vary depending on the Project activities at the time. All meetings should be recorded in your Log Book.

When attending meetings with the Supervisor, you should keep a record of the meeting in your logbook.  As well as advice and guidance, Supervisors will be able to provide feedback on progress during the meetings.  Note that it is your responsibility to ensure that your Supervisor is kept up to date with progress.  If you encounter any problems, contact your Supervisor immediately.

For part-time and flexible delivery students, there will also be an industrial mentor from their company. There will be regular contact with the Supervisor, and formal meetings will be held where progress will be discussed, and details of the meeting recorded in the logbook.

A Second Marker will also be allocated. Their function is to ensure the University’s Internal Verification process is followed and that all students are treated fairly and equitably via adherence to the marking scheme. The Second Marker is NOT a “Second Supervisor”: you only get one Supervisor for your Project.

Project Selection

Students will be directed to the Project Moodle site, where several topic areas and suitable members of staff to contact will be posted. You will be encouraged to discuss the Project details with the member of staff proposing the Project, a member of staff nominated or a member of staff who teaches in a particular subject area. You may also propose your own Project title and discuss it with an appropriate member of the academic staff.

Project Registration

As you focus on your Project topic and a potential Supervisor has been identified, you will meet to discuss Project details and formulate the Project aims and scope. You will be expected to register your Project via the ‘Project Registration’ link on the Moodle site. This is normally during the first week.
Please note: only one student may undertake a specific Project; there cannot be more than one person working on the same title. It is therefore vitally important that you meet the member of staff proposing the Project before you consider registering it, otherwise you may find you will have to choose another title.

Project Proposal:

The proposal will be submitted electronically via the appropriate Moodle page. The following will be considered as the minimum requirements for your Project proposal:

• Title Page.
• Executive Summary – A summary of the proposal, typically a single paragraph.
• Table of contents.
• Introduction – Introduction to the project area. A statement of the problem – outline the value and benefits to be derived from the Project, and in particular, who will gain from it apart from you.  What contribution will it make to the function of a company, organisation or other defined set of individuals or groups? Give a clear outline of any background information required; this will depend on the Project topic area.
• Rationale – Why has the topic been chosen? What is the industry or research need for you to study this area?
• Scope – clearly indicate areas that will be considered within the project and those that won’t.
• Research question.
• Aim: What do you ultimately hope to achieve by undertaking this Project?
• Objectives: What steps will you need to take to achieve your Aim?
• Description of planned Project – Provide an outline of how your Aim and Objectives will be achieved. This will be expanded upon when you discuss Project Management.
• Research Methodology – this is particularly associated with how the Project aims are to be achieved.  It covers which methods have been selected, their justification and what the alternatives were.  Depending on the Project subject area, this could include a design process or subject-specific approach.  It could also include the choice of apparatus, equipment, software, etc. Good Project management will increase the validity and reliability of the outcomes. It will also address the area of research philosophies and approaches.
• Resources – Identification of likely resources that will be needed.
• Initial Research, including your preliminary Literature Review. This will help steer your Project and provide initial insights into areas of study, experimentation, analysis and other work.
• Timing plan with key deliverables identified (usually a Gantt chart).
• Safety assessment – Any potential sources of health and safety risk should be identified, and ways of eliminating the hazard discussed with your Supervisor.  This heading must be included.  If you assess there to be no risks, there should be a statement to this effect.
• Conclusions.
• Recommendations for next phases of work.
• References.
• Bibliography.

Once the proposal is submitted, your supervisor will mark and return feedback via the Moodle site, allowing you to refocus where necessary.

Proposal Marking Criteria

Criterion (Weighting)	0-29%	30-39%	40-49%	50-59%	60-69%	70-79%	80-89%	90-100%
Background and Rationale (0.4)	Complete lack of coherence/logic in aim and objectives suggesting no possibility of the achievement of acceptable dissertation outcomes   Initial review of extant literature not present.	Very limited coherence/logic in aim and objectives suggesting a very low possibility of the achievement of acceptable dissertation outcomes Very limited Initial review of extant literature not present.	Inadequately expressed aim and objectives suggesting the achievement of intellectually limited dissertation outcomes     Initial review of extant literature of insubstantial depth	Adequately expressed aim and objectives suggesting the achievement of intellectually acceptable dissertation outcomes     Initial review of extant literature of adequate depth	Well expressed aim and objectives suggesting the achievement of intellectually good dissertation outcomes       Initial review of extant literature of good depth.	Very well expressed aim and objectives suggesting the achievement of intellectually challenging dissertation outcomes     Initial review of extant literature of substantial depth.	Outstandingly expressed aim and objectives suggesting the achievement of intellectually outstanding dissertation outcomes       Initial review of extant literature of robust depth	Flawlessly expressed aim and objectives suggesting the achievement of intellectually perfect dissertation outcomes     Initial review of extant literature could not be improved.
Research Methodology (0.4)	Complete lack of coherence/logic in the methodology in relation to the project rationale. No consideration of research philosophies and approaches.     Little or no identification of data gathering strategies.	Very limited coherence/logic in the methodology in relation to the project rationale. Very limited consideration of research philosophies and approaches.     Very limited identification of data gathering strategies.	Inadequate coherence/logic in the methodology in relation to the project rationale Poor consideration of research philosophies and approaches.     Inadequate identification of data gathering strategies.	Adequate coherence/logic in the methodology in relation to the project rationale. Limited consideration of research philosophies and approaches.     Adequate identification of data gathering strategies.	Good coherence/logic in the methodology in relation to the project rationale.   Good consideration of research philosophies and approaches.     Logical identification of data gathering strategies.	Good coherence/logic in the methodology in relation to the project rationale.   Robust consideration of research philosophies and approaches.   Strongly linked to the logical identification of data gathering strategies.	Outstanding coherence/logic in the methodology in relation to the project rationale. Robust consideration of a comprehensive range of research philosophies and approaches. Strongly linked to the identification of logical and innovative data gathering strategies.	Flawless coherence/logic in the methodology in relation to the project rationale. Consideration of a comprehensive range of research philosophies and approaches that could not be improved. Perfectly linked to the identification of logical and innovative data gathering strategies.
Schedule   (0.1)	A structured schedule has not been developed.	A schedule has been developed but providing no	A schedule has been developed providing an inadequate	A schedule has been developed providing an acceptable	A schedule has been developed providing a good	A schedule has been developed providing a detailed	A schedule has been developed providing a comprehensive	A flawless schedule has been developed

		clear definition of tasks	definition of tasks	definition of tasks	definition of tasks	definition of tasks	definition of tasks
Structure and Presentation (0.1)	Very poor presentation with numerous and significant grammatical and typographical errors. No referencing practice and completely unstructured.	Inadequate presentation, numerous grammatical and typographical errors with poor referencing practice and inappropriate structure.	Inadequate presentation, many grammatical and typographical errors with Inadequate referencing practice and inappropriate structure.	Adequate presentation with some grammatical and typographical errors with good referencing and appropriate structure.	Good presentation with few grammatical and typographical errors with good referencing practice from a range of sources and appropriate structure.	Excellent presentation with very few grammatical and typographical errors with robust referencing practice from a range of sources and very clear structure	Outstanding presentation with almost no grammatical and typographical errors with robust referencing practice from a range of sources and outstanding structure	Flawless presentation with perfect referencing practice from a range of sources and a structure that could not be improved.

 Project Log Book

The logbook is intended to:

• emphasise the importance of maintaining a contemporary record of work and to develop this skill, and
• ensure that all elements of the dissertation marking can be verified by evidence.
• Students should note that it must be apparent that the log book submitted represents a continuous and contemporaneous account of the work done on the project. It is important that students develop the skill of maintaining traceable records as they work. Students should show their logbooks to their supervisors regularly as a basis for discussing their progress; at these meetings the logbook should be inspected and signed by their supervisor.
  The Project Logbook must contain a dated, chronological record of the work of the Project. The Logbook must be a record of every significant event in the project. Material recorded should include:
• The development of (and any subsequent alterations to) the project objectives with relevant information on background and context.
• Evidence of project planning and of any revisions or adaptations to the intended schedule (with reasons for these).
• Evidence of risk assessment, health and safety issues, etc, which are important to project conception and execution but will not normally be formally reported elsewhere.
• Adequate and traceable records of all sources of information and data (eg papers, textbooks, standards, manuals, personal communications, etc).
• Notes towards a literature review, if required by the project supervisor.
• Outlines of all material taken from papers, textbooks, etc, such as derivations of expressions or calculation procedures, etc, with due emphasis paid to assumptions, limitations, etc.
• Descriptions of all procedures followed to obtain results (experimental, design, computational, statistical, etc), along with the corresponding descriptions of apparatus, etc.
• All experimental or computational results, including raw results as recorded on the apparatus, which would enable independent checking of any test point.
• Details of all calculation, review or evaluation procedures.
• Evidence of how the principal deliverables or conclusions were arrived at. 

It should also include dated records of meetings with supervisors, advisors, colleagues, etc..The project logbook must be used by the student as the basis for the final report and oral presentation. Material appearing in any of these that does not appear in the log book will not count towards the assessment and may be penalised as suggesting plagiarism. 

Viva Voce 

Students will give a presentation and a formal Viva Voce of their work. The student will present their findings and conclusions to the project supervisor(s) and, where appropriate, invited external supervisors. External Examiners may also be invited.

The Viva Voce will be assessed on evidence of thorough planning and design of work carried out: coordination of resources, enthusiasm and motivation for the work, extent of investigation and pursuit tenacity. Ability to argue issues relating to the methodology adopted and the analysis of the results, as well as justification of the conclusions and recommendations made to the company or organisation as appropriate.

When preparing for the viva voce, students must include the following as a focus for the presentation:

i) Introduction to the project, aim, setting the scene and the methodologies being adopted.

ii) Formulation of results obtained or the implementation of the chosen solution.

iii) Analysis and verification of data and design process.

iv) Outcome of the project and benefit(s).

v) Student recommendation regarding implementation and possible further works.

vi) Conformance of the project outcome with original aim(s) and objectives

Viva Voce Marking Criteria

Criterion (Weighting)	0-29%	30-39%	40-49%	50-59%	60-69%	70-79%	80-89%	90-100%
Project scope and overview 0.25	Complete lack of coherence/logic in aim and objectives. A lack of definition of the project’s rationale.	Very limited coherence/logic in aim and objectives. Very limited definition of the project’s rationale.	Inadequately expressed aim and objectives.   An inadequate definition of the project’s rationale	Adequately expressed aim and objectives.   An adequate definition of the project’s rationale	Well expressed aim and objectives.   A good definition of the project’s rationale	Very well expressed aim and objectives.   An excellent definition of the project’s rationale.	Outstandingly expressed aim and objectives.   An outstanding definition of the project’s rationale.	Flawlessly expressed aim and objectives.   Definition of the project’s rationale could not be improved.
Presentation Skills 0.25	No / very poor   ·         verbal delivery. ·         use of visual aids   ·         use of time   Very hard to follow and understand	Very limited   ·         verbal delivery. ·         use of visual aids   ·         use of time   Monotonous and boring	Inadequate   ·         verbal delivery. ·         use of visual aids   ·         use of time   Uninteresting and unengaging.	Adequate   ·         verbal delivery. ·         use of visual aids   ·         use of time   Interesting and moderately engaging.	Good   ·         verbal delivery. ·         use of visual aids   ·         use of time   Interesting and engaging	Excellent   ·         verbal delivery. ·         use of visual aids   ·         use of time   Interesting and very engaging	Outstanding   ·         verbal delivery. ·         use of visual aids   ·         use of time   Interesting and highly engaging	Flawless   ·         verbal delivery. ·         use of visual aids   ·         use of time   Interesting and completely engaging
Academic References & Critical Analysis   0.25	No or very poor referencing practice and sources.         No comparison of relevant theory in relation	Poor referencing practice inadequate range of sources.       Very little comparison of	Inadequate referencing practice from a limited range of sources.       Inadequate comparison of	Adequate referencing practice an adequate range of sources.       Adequate comparison of	Good referencing practice from a good range of sources.     Good comparison of relevant theory in relation to	Robust referencing practice from a wide range of sources.       Rigorous comparison of	Outstanding referencing practice from an extensive range of sources.   Rigorous comparison of relevant challenging. theory in relation	Flawless referencing practice from an extensive range of sources.   Perfect comparison of relevant challenging. theory in relation

	to irrelevant research findings	relevant theory in relation to irrelevant research findings	relevant theory in relation to inadequate research findings	relevant theory in relation to limited research findings	credible research findings	relevant challenging. theory in relation to extensive research findings	to comprehensive research findings	to comprehensive research findings
Discussion / Defence 0.25	No / very poor justification of research ·         question   ·         methodo logy ·         analysis   ·         conclusi ons   in relation to questions, demonstrating no / very poor knowledge and understanding	Poor justification of research ·         question   ·         methodo logy ·         analysis   ·         conclusi ons in relation to questions, demonstrating a poor knowledge and understanding	Inadequate justification of research ·         question   ·         methodo logy ·         analysis   ·         conclusi ons   in relation to questions, demonstrating limited knowledge and understanding	Adequate justification of research ·         question   ·         methodo logy ·         analysis   ·         conclusi ons   in relation to questions, demonstrating adequate knowledge and understanding.	Good justification of research ·         question   ·         methodo logy ·         analysis   ·         conclusi ons in relation to questions, demonstrating good knowledge and understanding	Robust justification of research ·         question   ·         methodo logy ·         analysis   ·         conclusi ons   in relation to questions, demonstrating extensive knowledge and understanding .	Outstanding justification of research ·         question   ·         methodo logy ·         analysis   ·         conclusi ons   in relation to questions, demonstrating a comprehensive knowledge and understanding	Flawless justification of research ·         question   ·         methodo logy ·         analysis   ·         conclusi ons   in relation to questions, demonstrating a complete knowledge and understanding

The Dissertation

At the conclusion of the project, the student will prepare for the submission of a 15,000-word dissertation.

An electronic version of the dissertation must be loaded to the appropriate Moodle site. The Dissertation will be submitted via the TurnItIn plagiarism detection system.
The requirements for the dissertation MUST be adhered to. Failure to comply with these requirements may lead to failure of the project or a delay in the publication of the results.

The following will be considered as the base requirements for the dissertation structure:

• Abstract
• Introduction – The definition of the problem including the project aim and objectives
• Literature review.
• Research methodology  
• Presentation and Analysis of primary and/or secondary data 
• Discussion and interpretation of Results
• Conclusions, 
• Recommendations and proposals for further work
• References – The Harvard Style MUST be used (this refers to work cited in the report)
• Bibliography (this is different to references and refers to background reading)
• Appendices

Dissertation format

The following requirements must be adhered to in the format of the final dissertation.

i) The main body of text of the dissertation should not exceed 15,000 words. 

ii) A full electronic version (including all diagrams figures and appendices) of the final report must be submitted to Moodle along with the written dissertation.

iii) The dissertation should be written in l2pt Arial type. 

iv) One-and-a-half spacing must be used in typescript except for indented quotations or footnotes where single spacing may be used. Top, bottom and right margins should be set at 25mm and the left margins at 40mm.

v) Pages shall be numbered consecutively through the main text including photographs and/or diagrams that are included as whole pages.

vi) The title page shall give the following information:

1. The full title of the dissertation:
2. The full name of the author;
3. The award for which the degree is submitted in partial fulfilment of its requirements.
4. The faculty and University title plus the Collaborating Establishment, if any;
5. The month and year of submission.

vii) The dissertation must acknowledge published or other sources of material consulted (including an appropriate bibliography) and any assistance received.

vii) There shall be an abstract (of approximately 300 words) in the dissertation, which provides a synopsis of the dissertation stating the nature and scope of the work undertaken and of the contribution made to the knowledge of the subject treated. 

The Centre for Academic Success will be able to advise on the appropriate use of references.

Dissertation Marking Criteria

Criterion (Weighting)	0-29%	30-39%	40-49%	50-59%	60-69%	70-79%	80-89%	90-100%
Presentation of dissertation (0.05)	Very poor presentation with numerous and significant grammatical and typographical errors. No referencing practice and completely unstructured.	Poor presentation, numerous grammatical and typographical errors with poor referencing practice and inappropriate structure.	Inadequate presentation, many grammatical and typographical errors. Inadequate referencing practice or structure.	Adequate presentation with some grammatical and typographical errors. Good referencing and appropriate structure.	Good presentation with few grammatical and typographical errors Good referencing practice and appropriate structure.	Excellent presentation with very few grammatical and typographical errors. Robust referencing practice and very clear structure	Outstanding presentation with almost no grammatical and typographical errors. Robust referencing practice and outstanding structure	Flawless presentation with perfect referencing practice and structure
Introduction; clarity of research question, scope, aim(s), objectives (0.05)	Complete lack of coherence/logic in aim and objectives	Very limited coherence/logic in aim and objectives leading to the achievement of intellectually unacceptable dissertation outcomes	Inadequately expressed aim and objectives leading to the achievement of intellectually limited dissertation outcomes	Adequately expressed aim and objectives suggesting the achievement of intellectually acceptable dissertation outcomes	Well expressed aim and objectives suggesting the achievement of intellectually good dissertation outcomes	Very well expressed aim and objectives suggesting the achievement of intellectually challenging dissertation outcomes	Outstandingly expressed aim and objectives suggesting the achievement of intellectually outstanding dissertation outcomes	Flawlessly expressed aim and objectives suggesting the achievement of intellectually perfect dissertation outcomes
Literature review: critical understanding of relevant literature/theor y (0.2)	Little or no consideration of literature.     No theoretical framework.                 No / few references cited.	Very limited consideration of literature.     Very limited theoretical framework.               References from a very limited range of sources.	Inadequate consideration of literature.     Leading to a theoretical framework lacking logical consistency and intellectual depth.       References from a limited range of sources.	Adequate consideration of a limited range of literature.   Leading to a logical theoretical framework of limited intellectual depth.       References from an adequate range of sources.	Good consideration of a wide range literature.     Leading to a theoretical framework of logical consistency and intellectual depth.   References from a good range of sources.	Comprehensive and critical review of relevant literature. Leading to an imaginative theoretical framework of logical consistency and considerable intellectual depth. References from a wide range of sources.	An outstanding critical review of relevant literature.   Leading to an innovative theoretical framework of logical consistency and outstanding intellectual depth.   References from an extensive range of sources.	A flawless critical review of relevant literature.   Leading to an innovative theoretical framework of logical consistency and perfect intellectual depth.   The range of sources referenced could not be improved.

Research methodology: (0.20)	Complete lack of coherence/logic in the methodology in relation to the project rationale.   No consideration of research philosophies and approaches.     Little or no identification of data gathering strategies.	Very poor coherence/logic in the methodology in relation to the project rationale.   Very poor consideration of research philosophies and approaches.     Very poor identification of data gathering strategies.	Inadequate lack of coherence/logic in the methodology in relation to the project rationale   Inadequate consideration of research philosophies and approaches.     Inadequate identification of data gathering strategies.	Adequate coherence/logic in the methodology in relation to the project rationale.   Limited consideration of research philosophies and approaches.     Adequate identification of data gathering strategies.	Good coherence/logic in the methodology in relation to the project rationale.   Good consideration of research philosophies and approaches.     Logical identification of data gathering strategies.	Excellent coherence/logic in the methodology in relation to the project rationale.   Robust consideration of a range of research philosophies and approaches.   Strongly linked to the logical identification of data gathering strategies.	Outstanding coherence/logic in the methodology in relation to the project rationale.   Robust consideration of a comprehensive range of research philosophies and approaches. Strongly linked to the identification of logical and innovative data gathering strategies.	Flawless coherence/logic in the methodology in relation to the project rationale.   Perfect consideration of a complete range of research philosophies and approaches. Completely linked to the identification of logical and innovative data gathering strategies.
Presentation and Critical Analysis of results: (0.20)	No or very few results presented. No critical analysis, lacking any logical links to the chosen theoretical framework.	Incomplete presentation of results. Limited critical analysis, lacking logical links to the chosen theoretical framework.	Inadequate presentation of research findings. Inadequate critical analysis, inadequate logical links to the chosen theoretical framework.	Adequate presentation of research findings. Adequate critical analysis, showing some logical links to the chosen theoretical framework	Good presentation of research findings. Good critical analysis, showing some depth of logical links to the chosen theoretical framework	Excellent presentation of research findings. Excellent critical analysis, showing real depth of logical links to the chosen theoretical framework	Outstanding presentation of research findings. Outstanding critical analysis, showing rigorous depth of logical links to the chosen theoretical framework	Flawless presentation of research findings. Perfect critical analysis, showing perfect links to the chosen theoretical framework
Discussion: (0.15)	No discussion and interpretation of results. No attempt to set results into context with reviewed literature.	Lacking relevant discussion and interpretation of results. Very limited attempt to set results into context with reviewed literature.	Inadequate discussion and interpretation of results. Limited attempt to set t results into context with reviewed literature.	Adequate discussion and interpretation of results. Some attempt to set t results into context with reviewed literature.	Good discussion and interpretation of results. Logical attempt to set results into context with reviewed literature.	Excellent discussion and interpretation of results. Results clearly set into context with reviewed literature.	Outstanding discussion and interpretation of results. Results fully set into context with reviewed literature.	Flawless discussion and interpretation of results. Results perfectly set into context with reviewed literature.

Conclusions (0.10)	No meaningful conclusions.   Little or no academic reflection of the chosen research methodology.	Very limited conclusions shown by little or no logical links to research findings or to the chosen theoretical framework.   Very limited academic reflection of the chosen research methodology.	Inadequate conclusions with inadequate logical links to research findings and to the chosen theoretical framework.   Inadequate academic reflection of the chosen research methodology.	Adequate conclusions logically linking research findings and to the chosen theoretical framework.     Adequate academic reflection of the chosen research methodology.	Good conclusions logically linking research findings and to the chosen theoretical framework.   Good academic reflection of the chosen research methodology	Excellent conclusions with deep logical links to the research findings and to the chosen theoretical framework.   Robust academic reflection of the chosen research methodology	Outstanding conclusions with profound logical links to the research findings and to the chosen theoretical framework.   Robust and comprehensive academic reflection of the chosen research methodology	Flawless conclusions with perfect logical links to the research findings and to the chosen theoretical framework.   Perfect academic reflection of the chosen research methodology
Recommendati ons (0.05)	Little or no recommendation s made.	Very limited recommendation s made; not logically linked to conclusions	Inadequate recommendation s made; Inadequate logic in links to conclusions	Adequate recommendation s made; adequate logic in links to conclusions	Good recommendation s made with some depth of logical links to conclusions	Excellent recommendation s made of real depth with logical links to conclusions	Outstanding recommendation s made of profound depth with logical links to conclusions	Recommendatio ns made could not be improved.

Project Marking Outcomes

The overall mark is considered when referring to the pass marks. The project ratings are as follows:

Outcome	Description
Acceptable and subject to final grading	The Supervisor and second marker grade the project and submit to the Examination Board for approval.
Unacceptable with a project mark of less than 50% and where attendance is not required	The specified major corrections should be undertaken and the project report resubmitted within a time advised by the Examination Board. If the project report has been passed but the student has failed other elements, it is these which will need to be retaken by the date advised. Attendance at the University is not required to recover failing elements.
Unacceptable with a project mark of less than 50% and where attendance is required	As above but due to the nature of the work to be undertaken attendance at the University is required.

Students will be advised of the requirements for resubmission in their results letter sent by the Faculty Registry. If a student fails a project the resubmission will be capped at 50% 

The University will retain one copy of each project. The other copy will be returned to the student.

The student should ensure that all work and the dissertation is completed and submitted within the allocated time. Any unapproved submission of work beyond the deadlines will not be accepted. Standard university procedures for late or non submission of work will be in force regarding extensions and Exceptional Extenuating Circumstances (EEC)