COMPARATIVE PERCEPTION OF BOTH GENDERS REGARDING GENDER EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE

Title 6BU013 Independent Project

Module Learning Outcomes:
LO1 Demonstrate a critical appreciation of the nature of the research/consultancy process. √
LO2 Demonstrates the ability to independently plan and structure a piece of investigative work in a business related field. √
LO3 Be able to critically analyse, synthesise and evaluate a wide range of material in a contextually appropriate way. √
LO4 Demonstrate the ability to draw appropriate conclusions and make recommendations (where appropriate) from the research process, which demonstrates L6 abilities in regards to QAA Bench Marks. √
Assessment types Weightings (%)
Dissertation / Project 100% of module assessment marks
Mode of Working: Individual
Presentation Format: Research Project

Method of Submission: Submission via electronic e-submission to Canvas.

Mark required to pass this coursework: 40%

Hand in date & time This will vary depending on your cohort, please obtain the specific date from Canvas menu item. Submission dates (all cohorts).
Date & method by which you will receive feedback Normally your provisional mark/feedback is available 4 weeks from the submission date

Re-sit/retrieval date This will vary depending on your cohort, but you will be expected to submit with the next cohort which runs at your place of study.
Assessment limits (in accordance with UWBS assessment tariff) 8,000 words (8,000 minimum with 11,000 maximum) excluding appendices and reference list. If word count is exceeded beyond 10% then only work within the specified limit will be considered when marking.

Do clearly state your name, student number and supervisor when submitting work.
Always keep a copy of your work.
Always keep a file of working papers (containing, for instance, working notes, copied journal article and early drafts of your work, etc.) that show the development of your work and the sources you have used. You may need to show this to the supervisor at some point so notes should be clear and written in English. This is an important requirement. There may be circumstances where it is difficult to arrive at a mark for your work. If this is so you may be asked to submit your file within 3 working days and possibly meet with your supervisor to answer questions on your submission.
Explanation of submission requirements and further guidance

• Assessments are subject to a word limit to ensure consistency of approach across all modules. Your work should not exceed the limit indicated (excluding appendices). Do not feel that you have to “achieve” this word count in your work. What is important is that the work satisfies the stated learning outcomes which are articulated through the assessment criteria (see following page).
• Care is taken to ensure that work has been marked correctly. Dissertations are double marked and an independent expert from outside the University on batches of work.
• Your work will not be returned to you but you will receive detailed feedback explaining how your mark has been arrived at and how your work could have been improved upon.
• Always use the Harvard style referencing system. The University’s Learning Information Services have produced a series of guides covering a range of topics to support your studies and develop your academic skills including a guide to Harvard referencing http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx
• Expensive or elaborate bindings and covers for submissions are not required please refer to guidelines in the dissertation resources topic on presentation.
• The Business School has a policy of anonymous marking of individual assessments which applies to most modules but not the dissertation for obvious reasons.

Avoid academic misconduct
Warning: Collusion, plagiarism and cheating are very serious offences that can result in a student being expelled from the University. The Business School has a policy of actively identifying students who engage in academic misconduct of this nature and routinely applying detection techniques including the use of sophisticated software packages.

• Avoid Collusion. The Business School encourages group working, however to avoid collusion always work on your own when completing individual assessments. Do not let fellow students have access to your work at any stage and do not be tempted to access the work of others. Refer to your module tutor if you do not understand or you need further guidance.
• Avoid Plagiarism. You must use available and relevant literature to demonstrate your knowledge of a subject, however to avoid plagiarism you must take great care to acknowledge it properly. Plagiarism is the act of stealing someone else’s work and passing it off as your own. This includes incorporating either unattributed direct quotation(s) or substantial paraphrasing from the work of another/others. For this reason it is important that you cite all the sources whose work you have drawn on and reference them fully in accordance with the Harvard referencing standard. (This includes citing any work that you may have submitted yourself previously). Extensive direct quotations in assessed work is ill advised because it represents a poor writing style, and it could lead to omission errors and a plagiarism offence could be committed accidentally.
• Avoid the temptation to “commission” work or to cheat in other ways. There are temptations on the internet for you to take “short cuts”. Do not be tempted to either commission work to be completed on your behalf or search for completed past academic work.

When you submit your work you will be required to sign an important declaration that the submission is your own work, any material you have used has been acknowledged and referenced, you have not allowed another student to have access to your work, the work has not been submitted previously, etc.

Assessment Brief/ Task
The detailed requirements for this task are as follows:
This final year module requires the completion of an original independent research project (between 8000 and 11,000 words). This can be a ‘traditional’ dissertation, consultancy type project, work based project. It can be case study based and encompass both primary and secondary data sources. As long as it aligns with the remit of independent study there is much flexibility in the approach undertaken. The focus for this module is an independent project, which can be linked to a specific organisation or organisations for which the student has access (many students work whilst they study, and this experience and access can be invaluable). Areas of investigation may take the form of a competitor analysis, an investigation of procedures, a customer satisfaction survey, the computerization of a system, a training needs analysis, the development of a policy statement, employment relations etc… This list is by no means conclusive as there are many business-related areas, which can be investigated. The principle aim however is independence in terms of research and analysis of a business-related topic.

The work should follow the prescribed format as advised by the supervisor and the module material held on CANVAS. The dissertation will be 8,000 words (minimum 8,000 and maximum 11,000)
INTRODUCTION
• LITERATURE REVIEW
• METHODOLOGY
• DISCUSSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (Including where
relevant implications and recommendations)
• REFERENCE LIST

N.B. Candidates will receive further guidance from their supervisor as the specific content/approach may vary depending upon the subject/topic area investigated.

The following information is important when:
• Preparing for your assessment
• Checking your work before you submit it

• Interpreting feedback on your work after marking.

Assessment Criteria
The module learning outcomes tested by this assessment task are indicated on above. The precise criteria against which your work will be marked are as follows:
• INTRODUCTION (Criterion 1)
• LITERATURE REVIEW (Criterion 2)
• METHODOLOGY (Criterion 3)
• DISCUSSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (Including where relevant implications and recommendations) (Criterion 4)
• PRESENTATION (Criterion 5)
Performance descriptors (Specific)
Performance descriptors indicate how marks will be arrived at against each of the above criteria. The descriptors indicate the likely characteristics of work that is marked within the percentage bands indicated.
70% to 100%
Work of an excellent standard. 60% to 69%
Work of a very good standard. 50% to 59%
Work of a competent standard. 40% to 49%
Work of a satisfactory standard. 0% to 39%
Unsatisfactory standard of work
Assessment Criterion 1
The relevance/significance of the issues are clearly established. Either sophisticated working hypotheses formulated OR excellent research questions and objectives clearly articulated. Excellent presentation of the wider context of the research.. Clear understanding of how ideas could be useful for a wider audience. Scope and direction of work clearly indicated. The relevance/ significance of the issues are established. Either perceptive working hypothesis formulated OR very good research questions and objectives articulated. Very good presentation of the wider context of the research. Some understanding of how ideas could be useful for a wider audience. Scope and direction of work indicated. The relevance/ significance of the issues are apparent. Either solid working hypotheses formulated OR appropriate research questions and objectives articulated. Solid attempt to present the wider context of the research. Scope and direction of work is apparent.
The relevance/ significance of the issues implied. Either satisfactory working hypothesis formulated OR satisfactory research questions and objectives articulated. Some attempt to present the wider context of the research. Scope and direction of work is implied. The relevance/ significance of the issues is not apparent. Failure to develop their satisfactory working hypotheses formulated OR research questions. Little or no attempt to present the wider context of the research. Scope and direction of work is unclear.
Assessment Criterion 2
An excellent review; comprehensive and coherently presented in all respects. Excellent critical evaluation of literature.
Fluent writing style synthesising and paraphrasing a range of relevant literature and sources. A very good review; extensive and well presented in most respects. Some critical evaluation of literature.
Good writing style synthesising and paraphrasing relevant literature and sources. A competent review in terms of range and presentation. Work demonstrates a potential for critical evaluation of the literature. Competent writing style synthesising and paraphrasing relevant literature and sources.
A satisfactory effort in terms of range of sources and presentation. Some limited critical evaluation.
Satisfactory writing style with attempts to synthesise and paraphrase relevant literature and sources. Inadequate and /or inappropriate content. Issues not addressed; insufficient evidence of understanding of relevant theory and concepts; only partial understanding shown.
Problematic writing style. Use of extensive quoted passages/reliant on ‘cut & paste’.
Assessment Criterion 3
Convincing research design and methods persuasively presented. Methods of investigation rigorously employed. Excellent methods of data analysis have been employed faultlessly

The relevance of research design and methods well established. Appropriate methods of investigation employed. Very good methods of data analysis have been employed well overall.
The relevance of research design and methods established. Solid methods of investigation employed. Solid methods of data analysis have been employed.
Some justification for research design and methods. Satisfactory methods of investigation employed. Satisfactory methods of data analysis have been employed.

Little or no justification for research design and methods. Unsatisfactory methods of investigation employed. Methods of data analysis have limitations and significant errors. Limited or no data analysis
Assessment Criterion 4
The work is of an excellent standard and clearly possesses depth, focus and direction.
Excellent articulation of how the dissertation builds upon existing work. Extremely clear findings and wholly valid and insightful conclusions emerge naturally from the work. Uses evidence to support convincing, coherent arguments. Purposeful implications of the findings been fully explained and relevant areas for future investigation identified
The work is of a very good standard and exhibits depth, focus and direction. Careful articulation of how the dissertation builds upon existing work. Very clear findings and valid conclusions emerge from the remainder of the work. Evidence presented to support coherent arguments.
Main implications of the findings been well explained and relevant areas for future investigation identified

The work is of a solid standard and there is evidence of some depth, focus and direction. Some articulation of how the dissertation builds upon existing work. Clear findings and appropriate conclusions emerge from the remainder of the work. Some evidence presented to support coherent arguments.
Main implications of the findings been explained and areas for future investigation identified.
The work is of a satisfactory standard with limited evidence of some depth, focus and direction. How the dissertation builds upon existing work is implicit. Findings and conclusions bear a relationship to the remainder of the work. Limited use of evidence to support arguments.
Main implications of the findings and areas for future investigation alluded to.
The work is of a unsatisfactory standard with little or no apparent depth, focus and direction. Possibly confused arguments. No apparent relationship between the dissertation and existing work. Findings and conclusions presented in isolation to the remainder of the work. Little or no use of evidence to support arguments.
Main implications of the findings and areas for future investigation unclear or poorly articulated
Assessment Criterion 5
Develops thinking and takes account of previous feedback. Work is of an excellent quality; logical, well sequenced, clear and concise with some originality. Excellent range of sources. Relevant, appropriate and comprehensive bibliography. All references complete and accurate. Develops thinking and takes account of previous feedback. Shows independent planning and execution of work. Evidence of wide reading. . Relevant, appropriate and comprehensive bibliography. References complete and accurate

Develops thinking and takes account of previous feedback. Competent structure and sequencing. Evidence of accessing appropriate source material. Bibliography is relevant, appropriate and comprehensive. Referencing present and accurate.
Develops thinking and takes account of previous feedback. Adequate presentation and structure that allows the reader to follow thinking. Some appropriate sources. Bibliography is relevant, and comprehensive. Referencing present and accurate
Fails to develop thinking, takes no/little account of previous feedback. Lacks structure and organisation. Badly laid out, poor proof reading. Little evidence of meaningful reading. Bibliography is inappropriate and/or incomplete. Incomplete and/or inaccurate referencing.

Performance descriptors (Generic)
Performance descriptors indicate how marks will be arrived at against each of the above criteria. In addition to the specific criteria above we also use our generic level 6 performance descriptors as set out below: –
Grade Level 6
90 – 100%
Exceptional level of analysis, showing deep critical engagement with a comprehensive range of contextual material. Demonstration of independent thought resulting in highly original or creative responses to the assignment. Provision of clear evidence of understanding of current scholarship and research based on an extensive range of relevant sources. Extreme clarity of structure demonstrating complete focus of argument. No obvious errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
80 – 89% Excellent links between relevant ideas, theories and practice. Evidence of clearly independent scholarship and the ability to engage critically and analytically with a wide range of contextually relevant resource material. Demonstration of original insights, supported by extremely well structured overall argument. Very few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
70 – 79%
Very good links between a range of different ideas and theories. Places issues in a wider context. Evidence of clear understanding of a range of relevant theories and application of these appropriately. Independent ideas, well-argued and supported. Few errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
60 – 69% Clear links between theory and practice. Good coverage of assignment issues. Full understanding of core issues.
Evidenced level of understanding of appropriate theory and concepts. Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate
50 – 59% Identifies main issues and relevant theory. Coverage of most of assignment issues. Competent application of relevant theory and states obvious links to practice. Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
40 – 49% 40% Pass mark Demonstration that the learning outcomes have been met. Makes few links between theory and practice. Answers question in a very basic way. Describes relevant theory accurately, and some relevant ideas offered. Limited coherence of structure.
30 – 39% Compensatable Fail Some learning outcomes and / or assessment criteria not met. Inadequate content with issues not addressed; insufficient evidence of understanding of relevant theory and concepts and only partial understanding shown. Very limited application of theory. Use of extensive quoted passages is evident. Evidence of sufficient grasp of learning outcomes to suggest that the student will be able to retrieve the module on resubmission.
20 – 29% Fail No learning outcomes fully met.
No demonstration of adequate knowledge or understanding of key concepts or theories. There is no recognition of the complexity of the subject.
10 – 19% Fail Little attempt to engage with assignment brief and has not met learning outcomes. Inadequate demonstration of knowledge or understanding of key concepts, theories or practice.
0 – 9% Fail No real attempt to address the assignment brief or learning outcomes.

To help you further:
• Refer to the CANVAS topic for contact details of your module leader/tutor, tutorial inputs, recommended reading and other sources, etc. Resit details will also appear on CANVAS.
• The University’s Learning Information Services offer support and guidance to help you with your studies and develop your academic skills http://www.wlv 4HR017 – Diversity Management in a Global Context – happy to agree. An idea would be to add an additional 200 words where students explain what they have changed and reworked and their learning from the original feedback.
• \
• • 4HR018 – Organisational Structures for Effective Management – happy to agree. An idea would be to add an additional 500 words where students explain what they have changed and reworked and their learning from the original feedback.
•

• • 6BU013 – Independent Project – happy to agree alhtough the fomrat of this was slihglty different ot ohter projects and it may be worthwhile following the structure of either 7MG001/2 to enahcne this as it took a whle to be able to see what the assessment is.
•

• •
• 7HR001 – Investigating a Business Issue from an HR Perspective – happy to agree.
•
• •7HR003 – Leading, Managing & Developing People agree the PT delivery. The FT delivery shows two questions, but it is unclear if students need to answer both of these in the essay? Could the module leader clarify please?
•
•
• •7HR004 – Organisational Change & Development – case study is an innovative idea for assessment. I wondered whether the assessment could ask students to draw on relevant theory to support the case study?
•
• •7HR005 – HRM in Context – this is an interesting assignment. The first sit and resit are identical – Are students being asked to rewrite the original to meet the learning outcomes and criteria and a reflected account of what they have changed and learned?
•

• •7HR006 – Leading Transformation & Change – happy to agree.
•

• •7HR007 – Contemporary Issues in International HRM – happy to agree. Is there a requirement to have a separate resit assessment form as there wasn’t one for this module?
•

• •7HR008 – Perspectives on Leadership – happy to agree and an interesting assessment. Is there a requirement to have a separate resit assessment form as there wasn’t one for this module? The 750 words seemed rather long in addition to the 6000 words – an idea could be to reduce this to 500 words.
•

• •7HR010 – The Reflective Practitioner – happy to agree. An idea would be to add an additional 500 words where students explain what they have changed and reworked and their learning from the original feedback.
•

• •7HR012 – Key Issues in Employee Relations & Employment Law – happy to agree. interesting assessments. I noticed that the total word count requests to 5000 words. Should this be 6000 words? Can’t see credit values on the assessments.
•

• •7HR016 – Learning & Talent Development – for the exam I cold not see what weighting this is given or any suggested responses for the first sit and resit?
•

• •7HR017 – Leading in an Organisational Context – nothing in this folder to moderate
•