Module No: 300MKT
MODULE TITLE: Advanced Marketing Study (Project)
Coursework 3 of 3 (75% of total module mark): Final Report
Word Length; minimum 7,200 maximum 7,500, excluding word count for references
Submission Due Date: 18 Oct 2019 for FT students and 20 Oct 2019 for PT students
The final report is the culmination of your independent research study. This assessment item follows through from the first piece of assessment, taking the proposal to its logical conclusions with you actually carrying out the research, interpreting and discussing the data collected, and drawing conclusions. It should incorporate your abstract, introduction, updated literature review, methodology, findings, analysis and conclusions. It should be fully and accurately referenced in Coventry University Harvard Style and should include your research instruments (e.g. questionnaire) and other relevant documents.
The aim of Coursework 3 is to produce a ‘mini research thesis’. Thus the final report will include refined versions of material submitted for Coursework 1 and 2. Although these sections would contain similar information, they should NOT be copied and pasted into Coursework 3, albeit improved where necessary according to the feedback provided. However, these sections are not reassessed, and therefore do not count towards the marks for Assignment 3. The content of each project may vary slightly. However, the general structure of all reports will be the same and should adhere to the following guidelines.
Submission of your project will be online via Turnitin on the module web.
This assessment contributes 75% to total module mark (15 credits). The final complete project will incorporate your literature review from CW2 but it is expected that this work will have been developed and refined from the earlier version submitted for this stage. You should incorporate any developments in your topic area right up to your final project submission date and you should also use the feedback you received from CW2 to enhance your submission here.
To pre-empt any misunderstanding the mark awarded for your literature review chapter will contribute towards the 75% of credits available for CW3, it will not change your previous mark for CW2.
Your final complete project should include the following sections:
- Abstract/Executive Summary (~200 words)
- Introduction (~500 words)
- Literature Review (~1700 words)
- Methodology (~2100 words)
- Analysis/ Results (~2000 words)
- Conclusions (~1000 words)
- References (not incl. in word count)
- Appendices (not incl. in word count)
- Might also want to include Acknowledgments, Limitations and Implications for Future Research
More detailed descriptions of each chapter are provided below.
The abstract is a brief overview of what your project is about and to provide a taster of what is to come. You can get an idea of different styles and forms of abstract from any of the journal papers that you have read for your project. Similarly, executive summary is a summary of the problem, your methodological approach to it, your results, and some of the implications. It is crucial that this reads well. One should not reveal everything. It should entice the reader to read more. It should orient the reader as to what the report is about. If done well, it helps the reader enjoy the reading of your report. Note, this should not be longer than one page.
Typically this is framed around the following questions:
- What were my research questions and why were they important?
- How did I go about answering them?
- What did I find out in response to my research questions?
- What conclusions did I draw regarding my research questions?
- Don’t give it all away though!
The introduction should provide a lead into your project including the background of the industry, product, company or issue you are researching, explain the gap in the existing research and guide the reader through the rest of your project. You may find that some of the introduction to your original literature review can be incorporated here now that the lit review forms part of a larger document. Typically this is framed around the following sections:
- Central issue of your research
- Why it was worth researching?
- Background on the theoretical/academic basis of your research
- Brief background about company/market if relevant?
- Brief background of the research setting
- Route map for the rest of the project
- Rationale for your research
- Your research aims and objectives
The literature review should provide the theoretical foundation for your study. It should include all the relevant theories and models relating to your research study and should provide a framework for your methodological design and analysis. As it is now part of a complete project there is less need for a detailed introduction as it will follow on from the chapter before, however the work should still be coherent, well-structured and have a clear storyline. In addition it should be an updated and improved version of the lit review that you submitted for CW2. Any new developments in your topic area should be incorporated and you should also use the feedback you received from CW2 to enhance the quality of your chapter generally. Typically it addresses the following purposes:
- Set your study within the wider context
- How it supplements previous work on the topic.
- May inform research questions
- Develop hypotheses
- Suggest a methodological approach
- Show how the academic theories discussed underpin your research project
- The title should reflect content of chapter.
Your methodology should explain and justify your chosen research philosophy (e.g. positivist/interpretivist, inductive/deductive etc…). You should explain why it is your preferred philosophy in terms of the way that you view knowledge and why it is the most appropriate approach for your particular research questions/objectives. The second part of your methodology should outline your research design, sampling approach, research setting, research instrument (e.g. questionnaire, interview questions), any ethical considerations and the validity, reliability and generalizability aspects.
Your findings/analysis/results/discussion can be structured in a number of ways depending on what works best for your particular project. Quantitative and qualitative analysis chapters will tend to differ quite significantly from each other. Again you can get ideas by looking at some of the journal articles that you reviewed in your lit review.
Some general rules are that for quantitative results you should make the best use of tables, charts and diagrams to present your analysis. You are likely to have developed some hypotheses for testing and the results of these are quite often summarised in one overall table as well as individual tables generated from SPSS/Excel. The most important tests/analyses may be included in the body copy of the chapter and less important tests in the appendices. Quantitative analyses often report the findings first and then include a follow-up chapter to discuss the findings (called Discussion). This is sometimes incorporated into Conclusions also.
For qualitative analysis it is usual to present your analyses in themes, outlining the crux of each theme in your own words and supporting your arguments with verbatim quotes (from your participants). You may include full transcripts in your appendices however it is preferred for you to include your analyses output such as ‘large sheet of paper’ in the appendices and it is good practice to include a profile table analysis of your participants. In both qualitative and quantitative you should compare your findings with those of previous studies so refer back to your literature review and reference those comparisons.
As a general rule you should follow the guidelines below:
- Report the facts that your research discovered
- Include tables/graphs
- Include verbatim quotes from participants
- Include narrative accounts of observations
- Purpose is to present facts – not comment
- Structure clearly and logically
– Correspond with research objectives
- Compare to previous research
- Be selective – important parts
This is your final chapter and if you have conducted your study well you should have sufficient knowledge and evidence to express your opinion so finally your chance to put your head above the parapet (although still in the third person). The conclusion should be selective and pull out the most important and significant aspects of your findings. It MUST answer all of your research questions/objectives and it should compare your findings with previous literature and theories and show where you have extended knowledge (found new things).
In comparison to your findings/analysis it should draw implications and make judgments about your study and in some cases make recommendations to the company or industry concerned. You may wish to include a discussion section in here or implications for Marketing Managers, and it is good practice to acknowledge the limitations of your study (e.g. small sample) and to make recommendations for future research.
Your project should be fully and accurately referenced in CU Harvard Style (guides can be found on the 300MKT module web). Ensure that any direct quotes are properly referenced to avoid plagiarism charges and make sure that you reference your paraphrased content too (they are still someone else’s ideas!).
Be selective here. Do not include everything just in case. Consider whether each item is really necessary. Ensure that it is referred to somewhere in the main body of the report otherwise there is no point. Ensure that you do include:
- Research instrument e.g. blank questionnaire, interview questions (discussion guide)
- Ethics documentation
– Participant info, informed consent form, etc
– Proof of ethics approval
- You do not need to include completed questionnaires though!
Intended Learning Outcomes
- Take responsibility for the identification, planning, research and writing of a major written project.
- Apply appropriate research methods in the investigation of a business issue
- Identify and critically review relevant business concepts and theories from the available academic literature
- Draw conclusions based on the analysis of evidence collected
- Communicate research findings in an effective manner.
- Please note that work submitted late (where an extension/deferral has not been granted) will automatically attract a result of 0%. This will count as a failed attempt, and may result in you failing the module overall. You may be eligible to resit the failed assessment(s), subject to the University’s regulations on reassessment. The maximum module mark that can be awarded for resit work is 40%.
- Extensions will be in accordance with University and Faculty policy.
Submission of your project will be online via Turnitin on the 300MKT module web. Submit by to the CW3 icon. You may submit more than one draft in order to check your Turnitin plagiarism score (although only one per day). The submission uploaded at the deadline date and time will be the version marked.
– 7,500 word report (+/- 10%)
– Double/ 1½ line spaced
– Arial/Times New Roman font size 12
– Referenced in CU Harvard style
– Include Cover sheet (Appendix 1), Submission Form (Appendix 2) and Ethics Approval Certificate plus associated documents (if any)
– Include Contents page
– Include page numbers on every page
Students MUST keep copies (electronic file if done on computer) of their assignment.
The electronic version of your assignment will be used to enable checks to be made using antiplagiarism software and approved plagiarism checking websites.
There will be a penalty of a deduction of 10% of the mark (after internal moderation) for work exceeding the word limits by 10% or more.
A copy of the marking scheme and feedback for this coursework is attached. The final report checklist explains what assessors are looking for when they mark your work.
How to submit your assessment
The assessment must be submitted by (given date). No paper copies are required. You can access the submission link through the module web.
- Your coursework will be given a zero mark if you do not submit a copy through Turnitin. Please take care to ensure that you have fully submitted your work.
- All work submitted after the submission deadline without a valid and approved reason (see extenuating circumstances below) will be given a mark of zero.
- Extenuating Circumstances – The University wants you to do your best. However we know that sometimes events happen which mean that you can’t submit your coursework by the deadline – these events should be beyond your control and not easy to predict. If this happens, you can apply for an extension to your deadline for up to two weeks, or if you need longer, you can apply for a deferral, which takes you to the next assessment period (for example, to the resit period following the main Assessment Boards). You must apply before the deadline. You will find information about the process and what is or is not considered to be an event beyond your control at https://share.coventry.ac.uk/students/Registry/Pages/Deferrals-and-Extension.aspx
As part of your study you will be involved in carrying out research and using this when writing up your coursework. It is important that you correctly acknowledge someone else’s writing, thoughts or ideas and that you do not attempt to pass this off as your own work. Doing so is known as plagiarism. It is not acceptable to copy from another source without acknowledging that it is someone else’s writing or thinking. This includes using paraphrasing as well as direct quotations. You are expected to correctly cite and reference the works of others. The Centre for Academic Writing provides documents to help you get this right. If you are unsure, please visit www.coventry.ac.uk/caw. You can also check your understanding of academic conduct by completing the Good Academic Practice quiz available on Moodle.
Moodle includes a plagiarism detection system and assessors are experienced enough to recognise plagiarism when it occurs. Copying another student’s work, using previous work of your own or copying large sections from a book or the internet are examples of plagiarism and carry serious consequences. Please familiarise yourself with the CU Harvard Reference Style (on Moodle) and use it correctly to avoid a case of plagiarism or cheating being brought. Again, if you are unsure, please contact the Centre for Academic Writing, your Academic Personal Tutor or a member of the course team.
Return of Marked Work
Marked work will be available online in Turnitin. You can expect to have marked work available to you by about 2 – 3 weeks after the submission date. If you fail this coursework you must contact your supervisor asap and arrange a meeting to discuss what you need to do to bring your work up to a pass standard.
Please make sure that your name, ID number and the module number appear on the actual coursework assignment as well as on your cover sheet.
In addition indicate on your cover sheet your supervisor’s name to ensure that your assignment goes to the correct person for marking.
300MKT DISSERTATION FINAL REPORT CHECKLIST
The following checklist is for the guidance of students, supervisors and markers in judging the merits of each section of the dissertation report.
Focus on a specific marketing issue.
Formulate a marketing issue into a set of specific research objectives.
Critically analyse the literature relating to a marketing issue.
Apply appropriate research methods in the investigation of a marketing issue.
Analyse valid and reliable evidence to draw valid conclusions.
How well has the complete report been summarised?
How well does the background set the scene?
How clear is the rationale for the project?
How clear and realistic are the research objectives?
Literature Review How widely/deeply has the student read the subject?
Have the key seminal texts been mentioned?
Have the most relevant theories been covered?
Has there been critical analysis of the literature?
Is there a theoretical framework?
Is there a clear and logical need for the research proposed?
To what extent is the text adequately referenced?
Has the student justified their research plan in terms of perspective, design and data collection and
Have the issues of validity, reliability and generalisability been addressed?
Have the data collection methods been fully explained?
How sound is the sampling method and make-up of the sample?
Have ethical issues been fully addressed?
How successful was the data collection?
Has the data been analysed using appropriate techniques?
Is the data clearly and accurately presented in an appropriate format?
Is there a transparent link between the data and the findings?
Has the student attempted to apply the theories discussed to their findings?
Are the research findings synthesised?
How well does the analysis address the research objectives?
Are the conclusions consistent with the analysis?
How closely do the conclusions address the objectives?
Has knowledge been extended?
How appropriate/feasible are any recommendations made?
Has the need for any further research been addressed?
How structured, presented, integrated, logical and coherent is the dissertation?
How clear and persuasive is the dissertation?
How well does the dissertation flow?
How well are issues argued?
Quality of references, accuracy and format
UG Dissertation Assessment Criteria
|PASS-distinction (70-100)||PASS-merit (60-69)||PASS-good (50-59)||PASS-adequate (40-49)||Marginal FAIL (35-39)||FAIL-Very poor (34-0)|
|Introduction, research aims and objectives
|Mark:||⎕ Explicit and feasible objectives.
⎕ Fully justified research topic.
⎕ Research set in context, with comprehensive rationale provided.
⎕ Scope clearly set/identified for the study.
All aspects of the study are clearly outlined.
|⎕ Clear and feasible research objectives.
⎕ Justification for research topic.
⎕ Research set in context, with a good rationale provided.
⎕ All main areas of introduction included but minor improvements could still be made.
|⎕ Clear research objectives.
⎕ Some attempt to justify research topic.
⎕ Research set in context, with a clear rationale provided.
⎕ Outline of dissertation structure is detailed.
|⎕ Research objectives show limited clarity.
⎕ Basic attempt to justify research topic.
⎕ Attempts to provide a rationale for the study but limited organisational context included and may need further explanation/refining. Shows reasonable understanding of the topic area.
⎕ Dissertation content is outlined.
|⎕ Unclear research objectives.
⎕ Limited and poor attempt to clarify research topic.
⎕ The report does not develop a rationale for the project.
⎕ Many elements missing or need attention.
|⎕ Very poor or no choice of research topic area and objectives needs to be revised/changed.
⎕ No understanding shown.
⎕Large amount of elements are missing.
|Mark:||⎕ A current and comprehensive review of literature using primarily journal based sources.
⎕ Research question(s) excellently articulated and reviewed within literature.
⎕ Literature critically analysed and evaluated.
⎕ Excellent discussion and summary of main themes/issues of the review is provided with explicit links to the research methods.
⎕Theoretical framework well developed to underpin the entire study.
|⎕ Literature review based upon a good range of material.
⎕ Research question(s) reflect a good knowledge of literature.
⎕ Critical awareness in the discussion
⎕ Good discussion and summary of some key theories and arguments and included as a link to the methods employed.
|⎕ A review of main literature using relevant material.
⎕ Research question(s) demonstrate some knowledge of literature
⎕ Some attempt at critical analysis within literature discussion.
⎕ Relevant discussion of related theories and arguments.
|⎕ A review of main literature using some basic material.
⎕ Research question(s) demonstrate basic knowledge of literature
⎕ Limited demonstration of critical analysis.
⎕ Some relevant description of related theories and arguments.
|⎕ Flawed and narrow view of literature based upon limited material.
⎕ Research question(s) reflect limited knowledge of literature.
⎕ Lack of critical analysis.
⎕ Limited discussion of related theories and arguments.
|⎕ Sources used are largely irrelevant or not relevant and mainly based on textbooks.
⎕ Lacks understanding of what is required.
⎕ Review does not relate to research objectives.
|Methods & Ethical Issues (20 %)||Mark:||⎕ An excellent and critical review of research methods.
Critical and excellent justification of chosen research design option.
⎕ For primary data collection approach, highly detailed description of all aspects of the design (e.g. sampling) and the practical implementation.
For secondary data collection, detailed information on how and from where the data has been extracted.
⎕ Substantial and appropriate data collected.
⎕ Excellent discussion about reliability and validity.
Limitations acknowledged and well addressed.
⎕ Excellent awareness and appreciations of ethical issues. Evidence of university ethics application and approval.
|⎕ Very good research design chosen and clearly justified.
⎕ Detailed description of the research process is provided covering all stages.
⎕ Sufficient and useful data collected.
⎕ Good discussion about reliability and validity.
Limitations acknowledged and addressed.
⎕ Thorough awareness of ethical issues.
Evidences of university ethics application and approval.
|⎕ Good and appropriate research design chosen and justification provided.
⎕ A description of the research process is provided.
⎕ Sufficient data collected.
⎕ Reliability and validity are mentioned, but not discussed in detail.
Key limitations acknowledged and addressed.
⎕ Good awareness of ethical issues.
Evidence of university ethics application and approval.
|⎕ Research design mentioned and some justification provided.
⎕ Limited description of the research process is provided.
⎕ Some data collected.
⎕ Some limitations acknowledged and addressed, but with room for improvement.
⎕ Awareness of ethical issues.
Evidence of university ethics application and approval.
|⎕ Limited information on research design and justification of data collection method.
⎕ Crucial details relating to the research process are missing.
⎕ Insufficient data collected.
⎕ Limitations ignored.
⎕ There may be serious issues regarding the ethics procedures-breaches of the University Ethical guidelines. (Note: Dissertation without gaining the timely ethics approval will be automatically marked as a fail.)
|⎕ No justification for data collection methods or unsuitable methods.
⎕ Very patchy description of the research process.
⎕ Insufficient or inappropriate data is collected.
⎕ Limitations ignored.
⎕ Very serious breaches of University Ethical Guidelines. (Note: Dissertation without gaining the timely ethics approval will be automatically marked as a fail.)
|Analysis & Findings & Discussion (25 %)||Mark:||⎕ Outstanding approach to analysis and interpretation of results demonstrating critical insights consistent with findings.
⎕ Discussion and implications reflecting a deep and critical understanding of theories and methods used
|⎕ Detailed and clear analysis with some critical evaluation of findings.
⎕ Discussion and implications of findings and literature clearly understood and discussed within context.
|⎕ A clear but basic analysis with discussion of findings.
⎕ Logical discussion and implications supported by evidence of reflection upon literature.
|⎕ Basic analysis with some discussion of findings.
⎕ Discussion and implications roughly in line with, and some evidence of reflection upon, the literature.
|⎕ Unsubstantiated analysis in either findings or relevant literature.
⎕ Limited and illogical discussion and implications with little evidence of reflection upon literature.
|⎕ Serious and fundamental errors in the data analysis section, leading to invalid findings.
⎕ No/irrelevant discussion provided with no evidence of reflection upon literature.
|Conclusion and recommendation (15 %)||Mark:||⎕ Critical and detailed summary of research aims, objectives and research contribution.
⎕ Realistic and feasible recommendations for both theoretical and practical development.
⎕ Ideas for future research are identified and discussed thoroughly.
|⎕ Detailed summary of research aims, objectives and research contribution.
⎕ Clear and logical recommendations for both theoretical and practical development.
⎕ Ideas for future research are identified and discussed with some good details.
|⎕ Clear summary of research aims, objectives and research contribution.
⎕ Clear recommendations for both theoretical and practical development.
⎕ Ideas for future research are identified and discussed briefly.
|⎕ Basic summary of research aims, objectives and research contribution.
⎕ A few recommendations for both theoretical and practical development, but these could be more specific with stronger links to the research undertaken.
⎕ Ideas for future research are indicated.
|⎕ Limited or no summary of research aims, objectives and research contribution.
⎕ Limited recommendations for both theoretical and practical development.
⎕ There are inadequate relevant ideas for further research.
|⎕ A complete lack of clarify regarding how the conclusions are drawn from the findings.
⎕ No recommendations provided.
⎕ No ideas for further research.
|Presentation and referencing (10 %)||Mark:||⎕ A substantial and quality piece of work. Demonstrates well-structured and coherent arguments and lines of thoughts throughout.
⎕ Correct reference style.
⎕ Few grammatical and typing errors.
|⎕ Clear and logical presentation with fluent layout and sound structure. All sections clearly linked into overall arguments.
⎕ All literature and information referenced with correct and consistent format.
⎕ Minimal grammatical and typing errors.
|⎕ Clear structure and coherence of arguments demonstrated.
⎕ Literature and information mainly referenced to requisite standard.
⎕ A few grammatical and typing errors.
|⎕ Some clear structure and coherence of arguments demonstrated.
⎕ Literature and information mainly referenced to requisite standard but with some inconsistency.
⎕ Some grammatical and typing errors.
|⎕ Poor structure with inconsistent arguments.
⎕ Literature and information not referenced to requisite standard and poor expression
⎕ Poor presentation and some major grammatical and typing errors.
|⎕ Unstructured work and poorly presented throughout. Irrelevant arguments.
⎕ Literature not referenced to a passable standard.
⎕ Major grammatical and typing errors.
Assessment Grading Guidelines for Undergraduate Marketing
90 – 100%
80 – 89%
70 – 79%
In addition to that for 70 – 79% below, an outstanding answer that could hardly be bettered. High degree of understanding, critical/analytic skills and original research, where specified. Outstanding in all respects.
In addition to that for 70 – 79% below, the answer will demonstrate an excellent level of understanding, presence of clear description, critical/analytical skills or research, as appropriate.
Answer entirely relevant to the assignment set. Answer will demonstrate clear understanding of theories, concepts, issues and methodology, as appropriate. There will be evidence of wide-ranging reading and/or research, as appropriate, beyond the minimum recommended. Answers will be written/presented in a clear, well-structured way with clarity of expression. At level 3, evidence of independent, critical thought would normally be expected.
Class II : I
65 – 69%
60 – 64%
Answer demonstrating a very good understanding of the requirements of the assignment. Answer will demonstrate very good understanding of theories, concepts, issues and methodology, as appropriate. Answer will be mostly accurate/appropriate, with few errors. Little, if any, irrelevant material may be present. Reading beyond the recommended minimum will be present where appropriate. Well organised and clearly written/presented.
A good understanding, with few errors. Some irrelevant material may be present. Well organised and clearly written/presented. Some reading/research beyond recommended in evidence.
Class II : II
55 – 59%
50 – 54%
Answer demonstrating a good understanding of relevant theories, concepts, issues and methodology. Some reading/research beyond that recommended may be present. Some errors may be present and inclusion of irrelevant material. May not be particularly well-structured, and/or clearly presented.
Answer demonstrating a reasonable understanding of theories, concepts, issues and methodology. Answer likely to show some errors of understanding. May be significant amount of irrelevant material. May not be well-structured and expression/presentation may be unclear at times.
45 – 49%
40 – 44%
An understanding demonstrated, but may be incomplete and with some errors. Limited use of material with limited reading/research on the topic. Likely to be poorly structured and not well-expressed/presented. Irrelevant material likely to be present.
Basic understanding demonstrated, with some correct description. Answer likely to be incomplete with substantial errors or misunderstandings. Little use of material and limited reading/research on the topic in evidence. May be poorly structured and poorly expressed/presented. Some material may be irrelevant to the assignment requirements.
35 – 39%
Some relevant material will be present. Understanding will be poor with little evidence of reading/research on the topic. Fundamental errors and misunderstanding likely to be present. Poor structure and poor expression/presentation. Much material may not be relevant to the assignment.
30 – 34%
20 – 29%
0 – 19%
Inadequate answer with little relevant material and poor understanding of theories, concepts, issues and methodology, as appropriate. Fundamental errors and misunderstandings will be present. Material may be largely irrelevant. Poorly structured and poorly expressed/presented.
Clear failure to provide answer to the assignment. Little understanding and only a vague knowledge of the area. Serious and fundamental errors and lack of understanding. Virtually no evidence of relevant reading/research. Poorly structured and inadequately expressed/presented.
Complete failure, virtually no understanding of requirements of the assignment. Material may be entirely irrelevant. Answer may be extremely short, and in note form only. Answer may be fundamentally wrong, or trivial. Not a serious attempt.
The work contained within this document has been submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement of their course and award
300MKT Advanced Marketing Study (Project) Submission Form
Submit to Turnitin by
Student’s Family Name: ………………………………………………………
First Names: ……………………………………………………………………
Student ID No.: …………………………………………………………………
Email address: …………………………………………………………………
BA Marketing Management □
BA Business and Marketing □
BA Marketing and Accounting □
BA Advertising and Business □
BA Advertising and Marketing □
Other (please specify): ……………………………………………………………
Supervisors Name: ……………………………………………………………….
I certify that this project is my own work and has not been copied in part or in whole from any other source. Any short quotations have been clearly marked up in inverted commas with their exact source, including page number provided. This project complies with Coventry University’s regulations on plagiarism, which I have read and understood.
I am/am not* willing to allow Coventry University to use my project as a sample for future students (* please delete as appropriate).
Signed: ………………………………………Date: ……………………………
Please submit this form with the electronic version of your project to Turnitin by 11.55pm on