+1 862 207 3288 Learning outcomes:
1. Appreciate the role of Case Study Research in the context of Business Research.
2. Critically evaluate Case Study Research as a method of research through the analysis of contemporary case study research articles.
Introduction
Produce a 2000 word written assignment
Submission date
The written assignment must be submitted via Moodle before 2pm Friday 8th May 2015. Please include pages 3 and 4 of this document at the front of your assignment and complete the shaded parts of the electronic submission sheet.
Rules regarding assessment
These can be found in the module handbook.
• You are required to make and keep a copy of your assignment prior to submission.
• Late submissions are subject to penalties unless supported by acceptable evidence.
• Rules regarding late submissions are outlined in the module handbook.
• You must complete all pieces of assessment to pass the module.
• Work not submitted electronically via Moodle by the due date and time will be considered a late submission and capped at 40. Your attention is drawn to the rules on plagiarism in the module handbook.
• This assignment must be word processed using Microsoft Word and submitted as a Word file using double line spacing, 12 pitch and Times New Roman font.
ASSESSMENT DETAILS
Required:
Using your knowledge and research write a report which critiques two articles which have used case study methodology in carrying out the research.
Your report should
1. Critical discussion on the role of Case Study Research in the context of Business Research.
2. Produce a critical evaluation in the form of short case study on chosen topic using secondary data.
Assessment
A 2000 written assignment.
Assessment Criteria and Grading Descriptors
3BM220: Introduction to Case Study Research: Written assignment
NSA
(0-19) F
(20-39) D
(40-49) C
(50-59) B
(60-69) A
(70-79) A
(80-100)
Presentation / Structure of the assignment No or insignificant attempt to present information in correct format. Poor presentation
Poorly structured
No evidence of proof reading
Lacks clarity and fluency of language
Many spelling errors Inconsistent presentation.
Structure mostly satisfactory
Little evidence of proof reading
Acceptable clarity & fluency of language. Spelling & syntax fair only Fair level of presentation
Structure satisfactory
Some evidence of proof reading
Satisfactory clarity & fluency of language
Spelling & syntax Well presented
Well-structured and planned
Care in proof reading
Good clarity & fluency of language
Good spelling and syntax
Referencing style
generally sound but may be inconsistent. Very well presented
Logical, very well structured approach
Very good clarity and fluency of language
High-quality spelling and syntax.
Excellent presentation in correct format. Very well presented
Logical, very well structured approach
Excellent clarity and fluency of language
High-quality spelling and syntax
Critical discussion on case study strategies/types Little or no evidence of reading or research on topic with no evidence of theory and principles Limited reading and research on topic with little evidence of theory and principles Some research and reading on topic and evidence of theory and principles but mostly describing discussion Good explanation and reading and a good attempt to critical discussion of topic with clear evidence of theory and principles Very good explanation and reading of topic with good evidence of theory and principles, higher level of critical discussion. Excellent explanation and reading of topic related to evidence of theory and principles,
High level of critical discussion. Comprehensive explanation and reading of topic related to evidence of theory and principles, outstanding critical discussion
Critical evaluation No or insufficient sign of case study research, no evaluation of secondary data, no discussion on methodology Limited review of published research and limited understanding. Work largely descriptive, limited evaluation of secondary data, no methodology Some issues identified and some valid conclusions, minor mistakes in evaluating secondary data, limited methodology Evaluates data but interpretation is descriptive or insufficient/incorrect. Good critical evaluation, structure of case study, supporting conclusions, critical evaluation of results. Very good critically review results, supporting conclusions, very good structure Excellent critically review results supporting conclusions
Excellent structure
Citing and referencing using the Harvard System Absence of referencing. Plagiarism Very low frequency of referencing.
No attempt to use the Harvard style. Low frequency of referencing.
Limited/ inaccurate use of the Harvard style. Most work referenced. Range of sources used .Generally accurate use of the Harvard style. Very few references omitted. Wide range of sources used Accurate use of the Harvard style. Appropriate, accurate use of the Harvard style. Wide range of sources used. Completely correct citation and referencing in the Harvard style.
