M34414 Dissertation – Strategy, Enterprise and Innovation AE1 Assessment Brief (LKCA Jan 2026) | University of Portsmouth
M34414 Assessment Brief
GENERAL ASSESSMENT INFORMATION | |
Module Title: | Dissertation – Strategy, Enterprise and Innovation (LKCA Jan 2026) |
Module Code: | M34414 |
Module Coordinator: | Dr. Jessie Ren |
Level: | 6 |
Assessment Title: | Item 1 – Written assignment including essay (CW) |
Assessment Description (short): | 2000-word proposal |
Assessment Weighting: | 30% |
Word Count/Time: | 2000 words (Maximum word count) Note: • The content within the table(s) is excluded from word account if you use table(s) created by yourself, aiming to provide additional evidence or illustration. • The word count does not include your reference list. • You need to state the total word count for the assignment on the cover page. |
Aggregation: | Must pass |
Individual/Group: | Individual |
Mode of Submission: | to be submitted via WISEflow |
Submission Deadline: | Deadline: 3pm, Saturday, Feb 14, 2026 |
Anonymous Marking: | No |
Planned Feedback timing: | Within one week (Scheduled Feb 23, 2026) |
Learning Outcomes:
On successful completion of this module, students should be able to: | TICK IF ASSESSED IN THIS ASSESSMENT TASK | |
LO1 | Select a topic for investigation that is appropriate in terms of its relationship with current developments in the respective subject area(s) and that is defined through clear research objectives or questions. | x |
LO2 | Access and critically evaluate a range of appropriate literature relevant to the study. | x |
LO3 | Select appropriate research method(s) and systematically organise and interpret data obtained in the course of the research project. | |
LO4 | Derive relevant conclusions and recommendations from the research findings and discuss in relation to the relevant literatures. | |
LO5 | Demonstrate an awareness of research ethics and safeguard the welfare of all subjects potentially affected by the research project. | x |
Assessment Task:
This is your opportunity to demonstrate an in-depth understanding of an element of the course. The focus of the project will be on contemporary international, ethical or sustainability issues in business and management and students need to plan for an independent research project. Students will be supported in the identification of potential areas for investigation.
Your research proposal, which is an individual piece of work, should be structured according to the outline as below.
Format/layout instructions
Your proposal submission must:
- be in “Times New Roman” or “Calibri”, size 12 font
- have 1.5 line spacing, and have margins of 2.5 cm top and bottom, and both sides
- have clear line spaces between paragraphs
- be fully ‘blocked’ (i.e., paragraphs should not be indented)
- be justified to the left-hand margin only
- have all pages numbered except the cover page
- accurately state the number of words on the cover page.
Proposed structure for Research Proposal
1.Title
Provide a title that describes what you are going to research. The title should be related to international, ethical or sustainability issues in business and management.
2.Rationale and Research Aim & Objectives
Introduce the context and background of the research topic / issue, as well as the rationale for undertaking the proposed research. Reference to key literature should be included to strengthen the rationale for conducting the research. This will enable the reader to understand what the
research will be about and why it is worth investigating.
Research is about questions, so you need to pose a question (or a series of questions) that investigate an academic problem worthy of research. To establish this, you need to provide an
academic and applied rationale for the research, a rationale is a justification of why this is a useful
/ interesting problem, then the overall aim and your objectives required to meet the aim.
3.Literature Review
In doing research you include yourself within a community of scholars, each of whom has gone into looking at similar problems, this is then written up by researchers and academics, you need to base your research on their work, almost as ‘proof’ that your research has value. To do this you need to provide a literature review of this past work to show how other researchers have
developed their ideas. The literature review will ‘form the foundation on which your research is built’ (Saunders et al., 2023). It will ‘evaluate’ past research, it will be ‘critical’. (Saunders et al., 2023) and will be structured in such a way as to start wide and narrow down to your research
problem, thereby linking the literature to the methodology.
This section should:
- Provide a literature review that shows relevance to your research idea
- Highlights the main theoretical concepts
- Cover a range of up-to-date sources that present an argument for the research
4.Methodology / Methods / Sample.
Your methodology should outline the theoretical and practical approach to gathering the data. You need to outline your overall approach and then say why you have taken this approach in relation to your actual idea. You should also describe the method by which you are going to gather the data and the channel of gathering the data, which should be explained in relation to research methods texts. You should then say why you are going to use this method in relation to your actual idea.
You then need to outline the sampling strategy; the methodology should be broken down into:
- An overall introduction outlining the philosophical approach
- A section on the methods
- A section on sampling (inclusion/exclusion criteria)
- A section on limitations and credibility of sources and potential bias
Please note you need to justify each choice in relation to the actual idea and then back this up
with reference to research method texts, common sense explanations are not acceptable and will mean you fail.
5.References
Students must reference all sources using the APA 7th Edition (for the Business School). For more information, please visit https://library.port.ac.uk/referencing.
You need to fully reference throughout the work; both in-text and the reference list need to be in the APA style (7th Edition). Work lacking academic sources will be penalised. This could mean (in extreme cases) that poor referencing results in a failure. Detailed advice on referencing is
available from the library.
6.Appendices – Provide a detailed Gantt Chart and the signed Ethics Approval form (and other relevant documents if needed).
Guidance
Academic Skills & Support
If you need additional assistance, you can ask your lecturer, your personal tutor, or Student Services.
If you are concerned about your mental well-being, please contact our Well-being service.
The Extenuating Circumstances procedure supports you if you have had any circumstances (problems) that have been serious or significant enough to prevent you from attending,
completing or submitting an assessment on time. If you complete an Extenuating Circumstances Form (ECF) for this assessment, it is important that you use the correct module code, item number and deadline (not the late deadline) given above. Click here for more info.
ASDAC
ASDAC are available to any students who disclose a disability or require additional support for their academic studies with a good set of resources on the ASDAC moodle site
Academic Integrity
The University takes any form of academic misconduct (such as plagiarism or cheating) seriously, so please make sure your work is your own. Please ensure you adhere to our Code of Student Behaviour and watch the video on Plagiarism.
Assessment Criteria
The grade marking criteria will assess how well reports explain and analyse the organization’s strategic position and choice, in the context of relevant strategic management theory and the sector within which the organization operates. To achieve this, it will be expected that appropriate secondary published sources (such as Mintel, KeyNote, journal articles and other relevant sources) will be identified and applied.
Learners will be exposed to a range of strategic management theories throughout the Module. The individual that selects and applies the most appropriate models to highlight and demonstrate the effectiveness of a recommendation, is likely to achieve the highest grades. The individual that simply ‘repeats’ theoretical models without attempting to relate it to the organization in question, and / or their related issues / problems will not achieve maximum grades.
Please ensure formal business report format is adhered to and in keeping with university preferences, font should be Arial, size 12 with 1.5 spacing.
ASSESSMENT MARK SCHEME -Research Proposal
| Criteria | Excellent (70–100%) | Good (60–69%) | Satisfactory (50–59%) | Adequate (40–49%) | Fail (0–39%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rationale | Excellent outline of what the research is about and why – both academic and applied rationale | Good outline of what the research is about and why – both academic and applied rationale | Reasonable indication of why this research is being done; weak in either applied or academic area | Adequate indication of why this research is being done; weak in either applied or academic area | No clear rationale why this topic has been chosen; no applied or academic rationale offered |
| Research Question, Aim & Objectives | Clear RQs that closely relate to the rationale; extremely clear aim with very clearly stated objectives | Coherent RQs related to rationale but may need more thought; very good aim with clear objectives | RQs need refinement and are loosely connected to rationale; relatively clear aim with stated objectives | RQs provided but need more thought; weak link to rationale; may be too wide/vague; somewhat clear aim with limited scope | Very unclear RQs; fail to justify what/why; no link to rationale; unclear aims and missing objectives |
| Literature Review | Excellent review; highlights key theoretical concepts; extensive sources; strong critical argument | Good review; highlights key concepts; good range of sources; sound critical argument | Satisfactory review; some concepts covered; reasonable sources; some critical evaluation but needs improvement | Adequate review; few concepts; loosely focused; needs better structure and argument | No clear structure; vague, unfocused; little relevance; very few sources |
Methodology | Excellent explanation of methodology both theoretically and practically. Excellent links to the proposed research | Good explanation of methodology both theoretically and practically. Sound links to the proposed research | Satisfactory explanation of methodology, some elements might need further work. Sound links to the proposed research | Adequate explanation of methodology but lacking in some elements. | Confused or confusing explanation of methodology. No clear links to the proposed research. |
Methods | Excellent explanation of methods chosen and how they will answer the RQ’s | Good explanation of methods chosen and how they will answer the RQ’s | Satisfactory explanation of methods chosen and how they will answer the RQ’s. Some elements might fail to link or need more thought | Adequate explanation of methods chosen but needs further explanation to justify why. | Very little explanation of methods – further elaboration of how and why needed. |
Sampling | Excellent explanation of sampling – good on who, how many, how chosen and why. Strong technically as well as practically – all elements considered | Good explanation of sampling – good on who, how many, how chosen and why. Strong technically as well as practically – most elements considered | Satisfactory explanation of sampling – OK on who, how many, how chosen and why. Some elements might need further explanation or thought – most elements considered | Adequate explanation of sampling – some elements might need further explanation such as who, how many, how chosen and why | No clear sampling strategy – lacking in most elements |
Ethics | Excellent consideration of issues, reference to ethical principles | Good consideration of issues, reference to ethical principles | Satisfactory consideration of issues | Adequate consideration of issues | Little or no consideration |
Referencing and References | Excellent throughout | Good throughout | Satisfactory throughout, some minor errors or wider reading needed | Adequate but need to improve either scope (wider reading) or technical skills | Very poor |
Overall Coherence | Excellent links between sections | Good links between sections | Satisfactory links between sections | Adequate links between sections |
