In the first few paragraphs of any December 17, 2018 postadmin Post in Uncategorized MGMT617 – Research Methods Guidelines for Assessment Task 1: Topic identification and relevance. Optional draft deadline: 10 Dec 2018, 10:55pm. Email to [email protected] Final submission deadline: 23 Dec 2018, 10:55pm. Submit on LEO via TurnitIn. In the first few paragraphs of any research study, the researchers must describe their substantive topic, and make a persuasive case for its relevance to organizations, workers, society, and knowledge/theory. Your task for the first assessment is to (1) comprehensively describe your topic of interest; (2) persuade your reader that the topic has broader impacts to orgs, workers, society, and theory; and (3) justify your specific choice of topic using the principles described in the unit’s readings. These three elements of your assessment map onto the first three criteria in the assessment rubric (shown on pp. 3-4 of the document, pp. 13-14 of the unit outline). Recommended structure: Use the first section (1-2 paragraphs) to describe your research topic comprehensively. Define the phenomenon of interest (and note if people seem to disagree meaningfully on the definition). Describe the phenomenon to us so your readers can understand and visualize what’s going on. Share trustworthy statistics on the prevalence and importance of the phenomenon. Tell us about what the research says are the causes or antecedents of the phenomenon, as well as the established effects of the phenomenon for people, organizations, and stakeholders. Tell us about contexts in which the phenomenon is more (or less) common. Use the second section (1-2 paragraphs) to explain the broader impacts of your research topic. Sell us on the importance of the topic. Show us the economic impact of the phenomenon ($$ values are always highly compelling!). Are lives at stake? How many lives might be lost because of the phenomenon? What are the impacts on people’s livelihoods and/or well-being? In what way is the topic especially timely today—how is it relevant to the big, hairy, audacious problems that face society today? Sell us on the idea and why it matters. Use the third section (1-2 paragraphs) to link your choice of topic back to principles in the unit’s readings. For example, Colquitt and George identify 5 criteria for a good topic: significance, novelty, curiosity, scope, and actionability. Persuade us that your chosen topic fulfills most (if not all) of these criteria. You may draw on criteria from the other readings on topic choice as well (Grant & Pollock, 2011; Waldman, 2008; Ashford, 2013; Suddaby, 2010; all of these can be found in the EUO and on LEO for Week 2). Whenever you draw on criteria from the readings, please be explicit. For example, you might say that “this topic relates to the ‘scope’ criterion by Colquitt and George, which refers to …. This topic relates to scope because …” General guidelines Use at least 10 recent, high-quality scholarly journal articles on the substantive topic of interest (alongside other trustworthy sources, like government statistics and policy reports). Please review the unit guidelines on high-quality sources (on LEO). The 10 articles may be a mix of mostly journal articles with a few non-academic trustworthy sources—in addition to the course readings on topic choice. Word limit is 500-750 words. 500 words should be more than enough. You may use fewer than 500 words; that’s not an issue. However, you should certainly not go over 750 words. Generally speaking, if you find yourself going over 750 words, you are probably doing something wrong. The word limit excludes references. High-quality writing is important. Researchers need to be understood by the general public. The most important thing is that the writing is organized logically. A few grammatical errors will not be too bad. However, writing with no logical structure or sense will earn poor marks. If you have any questions, clarifications, or concerns at all, please feel free to get in touch with me (Rajiv) on LEO. I typically respond within the business day, or within 1-2 business days at latest. Description in EUO: Assessment task 1: Topic identification and relevance The purpose of this assessment task is to identify a research topic and make a compelling case for its relevance. The assessment task consists of two parts: First, you will need to identify a research topic. This involves clearly defining the nature of the phenomenon/problem you wish to focus on, and its conceptual demarcations, and how it is similar or distinct from related phenomena. Those studying OHSE must choose an OHSE related topic or problem; Besides clearly articulating the nature of the phenomenon/ problem, you need to also provide compelling arguments for why this topic should be studied, using the characteristics of good research topics from the prescribed literature. This may involve highlighting its (increased) pervasiveness, its scope (e.g., local, global), its timeliness, and possibly also growing recognition by scholars and practitioners of the need for more research on this topic. Personal relevance may be a contributing factor too (although it should not be the only factor). If you frame your topic as a problem, then clearly discuss why it is a problem, how big the problem is, to whom it is a problem, and why the problem should be solved now (rather than later), how research could contribute to solving this problem, and the extent to which the solutions/ knowledge from this research would be actionable and relevant to practitioners. This assessment task requires you to use the prescribed literature on characteristics of good research topics, as well as a using a minimum of 10 recent, high-quality scholarly journal articles on the substantive topic of interest (alongside other trustworthy sources, like government statistics and policy reports) in order to provide a clear description of your topic of interest and compelling case about its relevance. The essay has to be coherent, logically structured, clear, well-argued and precise. Due date: Week 4, by June 24, 10.55pm Weighting: 20% Length and/or format: 500-750 words (max.) Purpose: To introduce students to the decisions that need to be made when commissioning research. Learning outcomes assessed: 1 How to submit: Students will submit this assignment via turnitin in Leo. Return of assignment: Assignments will be returned 2 weeks after submission. Assessment criteria: Marking rubrics are appended to this outline Rubric – Assessment task 1: Topic identification and relevance ILOs Criteria Standards Below Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations Level 1 (e.g. F) Level 2 (e.g. P) Level 3 (e.g. C) Level 4 (e.g. D) Level 5 (e.g. HD) 1 Comprehensive description of research topic (5 Marks) A description is either lacking almost entirely, or there is a description, but it’s very slim, incomplete, and unclear. Most of the elements (e.g., definition, conceptual demarcations) are missing. Clearly indicates an insufficient, superficial understanding of the phenomenon. There is a reasonable description, but it’s still far from complete. Some elements are included in the description, but others are still missing. Indicates adequate but not in-depth understanding of the phenomenon. There is a good description, and it’s fairly complete. Many elements are included in the description, but some are still missing. Indicates adequate and fairly in-depth understanding of the phenomenon. The description is comprehensive and complete, covering most (if not all) elements, and highlighting nuances and complexities. Indicates an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon. The description is very comprehensive and complete, covering all elements, clearly highlighting nuances and complexities. Indicates a remarkably in-depth understanding of the phenomenon. 1 Persuasive case for topical relevance (5 Marks) A case for topical relevance is either missing almost entirely, or a case is made, but it’s very slim, incomplete, and unclear. Most of the elements (e.g., significance, scope, pervasiveness, timeliness) are missing, and relevance is only highlighted from a single perspective. Clearly indicates insufficient persuasiveness for the need to study this topic. A reasonable case for topical relevance is made, but it’s far from complete and/or convincing. Some elements are included, but others are still missing, and highlighting its relevance from a single perspective. Indicates an adequate, but not full persuasiveness for the need to study this topic. Quite a good case for topical relevance is made, and it’s fairly complete and convincing. Many elements are included, but some are still missing. Highlights its relevance predominantly from a single perspective. Indicates good persuasiveness for the need to study this topic. Quite a convincing case for topical relevance is made, covering most (if not all) elements, and highlighting its relevance from some but not all perspectives. Indicates high persuasiveness for the need to study this topic. A very convincing case for topical relevance is made, covering all elements, and highlighting its relevance from multiple perspectives. Indicates very high persuasiveness for the need to study this topic. 1 Systematic application of concepts and frameworks from the unit’s literature (5 Marks) Does occasionally draw on the concepts/frameworks from the prescribed literature, but uses them in an haphazardous and eclectic manner and/or uses them incorrectly. Clearly indicates insufficient understanding of the prescribed literature. Makes no use of recommended literature. Regularly draws on the concepts/frameworks from the prescribed literature, but it’s still far from ideal. Uses them in some places but not others, and applies them incorrectly in several places. Indicates sufficient understanding of the prescribed literature. Makes no use of recommended literature. Regularly draws on the concepts/frameworks from the prescribed literature. Uses them consistently in many (but not all) places, but applies them incorrectly in several places. Indicates a good understanding of the prescribed literature. Makes no use of recommended literature. Frequently draws on the concepts/frameworks from the prescribed literature. Uses them consistently and in a systematic manner, but still applies them incorrectly in a few places. Indicates in-depth understanding of the prescribed literature. Makes some use of recommended literature. Heavily draws on the concepts/frameworks from the prescribed literature. Uses them consistently and in a systematic manner, and applies them in the correct manner. Indicates remarkably in-depth understanding of the prescribed literature. Complements this with recommended literature. 1 Structure, clarity of expression, and referencing (5 Marks) Text is chaotic and fails to follow a logical structure. There are many issues with sentence formulation, grammar, spelling and/or punctuation. Referencing is incomplete, is inconsistent and does not follow established guidelines. The text is adequately (but not optimally) structured. There are some issues with sentence formulation, grammar, spelling and/or punctuation. Referencing is fairly complete, but is somewhat inconsistent and does not always follow established guidelines in all places. The text is logically structured. There are still some issues with sentence formulation, grammar, spelling and/or punctuation. Referencing is complete, fairly consistent and tends to follow established guidelines in most places. The text is logically and well-structured. There are only a few issues with sentence formulation, grammar, spelling and/or punctuation. Referencing is complete, consistent and follows established guidelines. The text is highly logically and well-structured. There are virtually no issues with sentence formulation, grammar, spelling and/or punctuation. Referencing is complete, consistent and follows established guidelines.