Dissertation for Marketing (BUSM106)

Marking Criteria and Scoring

This document sets out dissertation marking criteria (based on the module outline documentation) and specifies the weighting for these criteria for both types of Dissertation – Type A: Critical Review and Type B: Empirical Study.

Type A: Systematic Literature Review

The Systematic Literature Review (Type A) rubric is based on the following marking criteria and their % weighting:

Each of the criteria is further specified in the table below, which will form the basis of the dissertation marking process.

Type A: Turnitin Marking (Systematic Literature Review)

Introduction and Theoretical Background 20%

• The rationale and justification for the research are clearly articulated.

• The research objectives and questions are explicitly stated and logically derived from the background.

• The scope of the review (e.g., topics, time frame, and geographic focus) is well-defined.

• The theoretical background is clearly presented.

• Research gaps are clearly articulated.

• The introduction highlights the significance of the research in marketing theory and practice.

• The structure of the dissertation is clearly outlined for the reader.

Methodology 15%

• The rationale and justification for choosing a systematic literature review to address the research objectives are clearly explained.

• The search strategy, including databases, keywords, and filters, is clearly explained and justified.

• Inclusion and exclusion criteria are defined and aligned with the research scope.

• The screening process, including the use of frameworks like PRISMA, is systematically described.

• The chapter critically reflects on the limitations of the methodology and their potential impact on findings.

Findings and Analysis 40%

• Relevant literature has been selected, and its selection process is clearly linked to the methodology.

• There is evidence of the competent use of specific techniques.

• Descriptive findings (e.g., publication trends, methodologies used) are presented clearly with appropriate visual aids.

• Themes and patterns are identified and discussed in depth and linked to the research questions.

• The chapter provides critical insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the existing body of research.

• Findings are logically organised, ensuring clarity and coherence throughout.

• There is evidence of the ability to draw effective inferences or conclusions from the analysis.

• There is an effective use of summaries, tables, diagrams, thematic maps, or other appropriate data presentation devices.

Conclusion and Discussion 25%

• The key findings are summarised concisely and aligned with the research objectives.

• The results/findings explicitly answer the original research question(s).

• Findings are discussed, and comparisons (i.e. similarities and differences) with previous reviews/studies are drawn to contextualise the research within the broader field.

• The theoretical and managerial contributions of the review are clearly articulated.

• Limitations of the review are acknowledged, and their implications are discussed.

• Future research directions are well-grounded in the identified gaps and findings.

Type B: Empirical Research

The Empirical Research (Type B) broadly covers both Qualitative and Quantitative studies. The rubric is based on the following marking criteria and their % weighting:

Each of the criteria is further specified in the table below, which will form the basis of the dissertation marking process.

Type B: Turnitin Marking (Empirical Research)

Introduction 15%

• The research objectives and questions are well-defined, focused, and directly aligned with the topic.

• The chapter provides a clear and concise overview of the research area, demonstrating its relevance to the field.

• The rationale and significance of the research are clearly explained.

• A clear outline of the dissertation's structure is provided, ensuring a logical roadmap for the reader.

Literature Review 20%

• The review includes a wide range of relevant, high-quality sources, demonstrating depth and breadth of research.

• The review displays sufficient competence in summarising the literature.

• The literature is analysed critically, identifying trends, gaps, and debates.

• The chapter is logically structured, with themes or sections that flow well and support the research objectives.

• Theoretical or conceptual frameworks are appropriately discussed and integrated into the analysis.

Methodology 15%

• The philosophical underpinning (e.g., positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism) is clearly articulated, and its relevance to the research design and objectives is critically justified.

• There is an adequate explanation of the research strategy/approach.

• The rationale and justification for the chosen research design to address the research objectives and questions are clearly explained.

• Appropriate methods have been used to tackle the research question(s)/problem(s).

• The data collection and analysis methods (e.g. sampling, instruments) are described in detail and critically justified in relation to the research objectives.

• There is an explanation of any problems encountered and how these were overcome.

• Ethical issues are identified, and appropriate steps are outlined to address them.

• Methodological limitations are acknowledged, with a discussion of their potential impact on findings.

Findings and Analysis 35%

• Results are presented clearly and systematically, using appropriate visuals (e.g., tables, charts) to enhance understanding.

• The data have been analysed sufficiently using appropriate techniques to meet the research question(s)/objective(s).

• There is evidence of the competent use of specific techniques.

• Findings are analysed in depth, demonstrating insight and critical engagement with the data.

• The results are interpreted in the context of the literature, theoretical frameworks, or practical implications.

• There is evidence of the ability to draw effective inferences or conclusions from the analysis.

Conclusion and Discussion 15%

• The main findings are succinctly summarised, clearly answering the research questions.

• There is an attempt to discuss the findings and relate them to the literature reviewed.

• Contributions to existing knowledge or theory are clearly articulated.

• The practical relevance of the findings is discussed, particularly for professionals in the field.

• The limitations of the study are explicitly stated, with a reflection on how they impact the results.

• Suggestions for further research are clearly articulated, specific, feasible, and well-grounded in the study's findings.