As a student on this module, you have been specifically chosen by the UK`s senior management team to research whether and how inpatriate knowledge transfer contributes to subsidiary

2025-03-13 02:35:00

 

Module Title

Advanced Business Research Methods

Module Code:

7BSP1371

Assignment Format & Maximum Word count

Research Plan [2000 words (+/-10%)]

Assignment weighting

   70%  

Coursework Submission:

Time:23: 59

Date: 22nd April 2025
Method: Canvas

Coursework return Date returned to students:


Within 4 weeks

Module Leader 

 

First marker  

Tutorial lead

Internal Moderator

 

Approved ☐
Date:31/01/2025

Module Board name

PG Human Resource Management and Strategy

External Examiner

Approved:
Date:

Module Board date

 

Assessment eligible for an extension on submission date (subject to UPRs)

YES

Retrievable Assessment

YES / NO

 

Assessment Criteria

Learning Outcomes: Knowledge and Understanding assessed in this assignment:
  • Critically examine the range of online sources of business intelligence (using Mintel, Government sources (papers, ONS, Census), trade sources, ‘broadsheet’ articles as well as academic articles)
  • Formulate a complex, ethical research strategy in order to gather primary qualitative research for the workplace

Explore and evaluate quantitative research analysis tools applicability to workplace problems

Learning Outcomes: Skills and Attributes assessed in this assignment:
  • Evaluate case studies of business research in practice from the literature
  •  Relate research findings to theories and concepts from the literature
  •  Present research findings in the workplace: business report writing and presentations

 Produce a personal research skills development plan

Transformational Opportunities:
E.g. Use LinkedIn Learning to improve skills
  • Use of LinkedIn Learning to improve research and writing skills.

 

Feedback /Marking criteria for this Assignment
  • Performance will be assessed using HBS Grading Criteria (Rubric)
  • Feedback for improvement will be given in writing via your Canvas module site within 4 weeks of submission
  • Lateness Penalty: For each day or part day up to five days after the published deadline, coursework relating to modules submitted late will have the numeric grade reduced by 10 grade points until or unless the numeric grade reaches the minimum pass mark (UG 40/PG 50).  Where the numeric grade awarded for the assessment is less than the minimum pass mark no lateness penalty will be applied.  If the coursework is submitted more than 5 days after the published deadline, it will not be marked and a grade of zero will be awarded. Please note: Referred coursework submitted after the published deadline will be awarded a grade of zero (0).
  • Extensions: Students do not have an automatic right to an extension.  If you require an extension, this must be requested in advance of the submission deadline.  Please give your reason(s) for needing an extension. Not all Assessments are eligible for an extension. Please check above.
  • Retrievable Assessment: Students who fail a retrievable assignment have the opportunity to act on the feedback in a timely manner and to resubmit the same assignment within a specified deadline set by the Module Leader. Marks for resubmitted work will be capped at 40% for UG and 50% for PG. Students who resubmit work and go on to Fail the module will still be able to do the referred coursework (capped at 40% UG or 50% PG).
 
 
 

 

 

Detailed Brief for Individual / Team Assignment

Assignment Title: Develop a research plan

As a student on this module, you have been specifically chosen by the UK`s senior management team to research whether and how inpatriate knowledge transfer contributes to subsidiary capability building and the influence on subsidiary performance, drawing on both primary and secondary data. Leveraging your learning from lectures, tutorials, and five LinkedIn learning courses, you are required to provide a comprehensive research plan.

[Word count: 2000 words (+/- 10%)]

Description of the assignment, content and structure:

Students are expected to develop a research plan after reading the case study (Contextual Information). Students will need to leverage on learning from lectures, tutorials, and five LinkedIn learning courses. Your plan should cover the following:

  1. Title for research plan (this should be from the case study)
  2. Brief introduction (clearly state the problem, why it is important to study the problem and what we already know about the problem to highlight knowledge gap)
  3. Aims and objectives/research questions and or hypotheses (questions and or hypotheses should be underpinned by theory)
  4. Literature review (Review the literature to highlight the gap(s) in knowledge)
  5. Methodology (including explaining and justifying the sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques)
  6. Ethical strategy (for collecting and reporting data)
  7. Anticipated outcome (think of how your plan will extend the literature and improve business practice).

Note: Always refer to the case study (contextual information) in order to effectively analyse and respond to the situation with your research plan. Also, justification should be provided for all research decisions following an exploration and appraisal of different research methods, techniques and strategies.

To deepen your knowledge of the contextual information, students must read the following articles on expatriation and adjustments and relevant chapters of the recommended book (Saunders et al. 2023).

1. Moeller, et al. (215). Global talent management and inpatriate social capital building: a status inconsistency perspective, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1052086

2.Kim et al. (2022) How does successive inpatriation contribute to subsidiary capability building and subsidiary evolution? An organizational knowledge creation perspective, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol, 53, 1394-1419.

3. Kiessling et al. (2023) Managing global knowledge transfer: Inpatriate manager embeddedness and firm innovation, International Business Review, Vol 32, No. 2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2021.101868

4.Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2023). Research methods for business students (9th edn.). Harlow: Pearson. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/herts/detail.action?docID=7219451

Additionally, students will also need to complete the following five LinkedIn courses and gain certificates:

  1. Narrow your idea to research topic
  2. Primary and secondary research
  3. Qualitative Vs Quantitative: when to use each research methods
  4. Analysing qualitative data
  5. Quantitative tools for data analysis

Please note:  

  • The deadline for submission is 22nd April 2025 23:59  
  • Word or PDF documents only. Pages documents are not acceptable.
  • Submissions should be made on Canvas.   

Any specific instructions:
The HBS Grading Criteria (rubric) will evidence how marks are awarded for individual parts of the assignment i.e. Communication and Structure; Content; Referencing; Discussion and Analysis; and Justification.

Mark scheme 

e.g.  

Weighting 

Communication and Structure (This involves communicating your ideas clearly following a clear and coherent structure) 

10% 

Content (Demonstration and explanation of your aims, objectives/research questions, methodology including sample, data collection and analysis techniques, ethical strategy and expected outcomes)

40% 

Referencing (including all the recommended articles and relevant chapters of the recommended textbook)

10% 

Discussion & Analysis (Line of argument and, development of discussion with clear alignment between case, literature and anticipated outcomes)

20% 

Justification for research decisions (This involves providing justifications for method, techniques, approaches and strategies)

20% 

Total 

100% 

 PGGrading Criteria for HBS Research Plan 

PG 

Communication skills and structure  

          Content

      Referencing

Analysis /Critical evaluation/ Discussion of outcomes

 Justification   

Task details  

This involves communicating your ideas clearly following a clear and coherent structure

Demonstration and explanation of your aims, objectives/research questions, methodology including sample, data collection and analysis techniques, ethical strategy and expected outcomes.

 

  

Reference (including all the recommended articles and relevant chapters of the recommended textbook) to key literature and listing of the literature used.

Line of argument and, development of discussion with clear alignment between case, literature and anticipated outcomes

Explanation for techniques and methods

90 - 100 

 

Outstanding 

Outstanding: exceptional communication skills. Extremely articulate and fluent; language is clear, concise and appropriate without grammatical errors. 

Outstanding exploration of topic/question showing excellent knowledge and understanding through thorough and appropriate research. 

Impressive choice and range of appropriate content. 

 

Outstanding business insight and application. 

Breadth, depth and integration of extremely wide variety of vital literature/data into work.  

 

Outstanding level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation. Highly developed/ focused work with original and realistic recommendations for the future. 

Outstanding level of thorough in-depth reflection undertaken and extremely valuable insights into the process of learning recorded. Clearly linked relevant future action plan included. 

80 - 89 

 

Excellent 

Excellent: extremely articulate and fluent; language is clear, concise and appropriate.  

Only a couple of minor errors. 

Excellent level of knowledge and understanding of topic/question demonstrated.  

Evidence of appropriate research 

Covers all relevant points and issues. 

 

Excellent business insight and application. 

Breadth, depth and integration of very wide variety of appropriate literature/data into work.  

Excellent level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation clearly developing points in the appropriate way with thorough consideration of all possibilities. 

Excellent reflective narrative with clear understanding of the process of learning. Clearly linked relevant future action plan included. 

70 - 79 

 

Very Good 

Very good: fluent and clear communication with very few grammatical errors/ hesitations/ mistakes. 

Very good level of knowledge and understanding of topic/question demonstrated.  

Covers most relevant points and issues. Few errors / omissions in content/calculations. 

 

Very good business insight and application. Breadth, depth and integration of a wide variety of literature/data into work.  

 

Very good level of discussion/ analysis/ critical evaluation and appropriate recommendations. Few points need further development or evaluation/comparison. 

Very Good reflective narrative, showing a clear level of understanding of the process of learning. Clearly linked relevant future action plan included. 

60 - 69 

 

Good 

Good, clear competent communication with mainly logical progression of thoughts but with some grammatical errors/hesitations /mistakes.  

Good grasp of topic/question and some of its implications presented.  

Knowledge and understanding is demonstrated. Minor errors / omissions in content/ calculations. 

 

Good business insight and application.  

Some variety of breadth, depth and integration of literature/data into work.  

Good level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation and appropriate recommendations but more ideas/points could be addressed /developed further. 

Good reflective narrative with understanding of the process of learning. A good level of reflection and changes/actions planned. 

50 - 59 

 

Clear Pass  

Satisfactory: Basic appropriate communication skills in evidence but not always clearly expressed – in terms of correct grammar or use of words or delivery. 

See CASE with feedback 

Satisfactory: Basic content / level of knowledge of topic/question.  Addresses part of the task - some errors / omissions/ misconceptions in content/ calculations. May benefit from further research. 

 

Satisfactory business insight and application.  

Limited integration with literature/ data.  Use of literature/data but limited in breadth OR depth. 

See Information Managers (LRC) with feedback 

Satisfactory: Basic evidence of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation and some recommendations. More development and comment needed on superficial points.  

See CASE with feedback 

Satisfactory: Simple record of content with some basic reflection. Some evidence of understanding of the process of learning having taken place and actions planned. 

40 - 49  

 

Marginal Fail 

Weak: poor communication skills with a number of errors, hesitations and / or poor exchange of ideas. 

Must see CASE with feedback 

Weak: Limited content / knowledge/ calculations. Limited or muddled understanding of the topic/question. Does not meet all the learning outcomes. 

Weak: Unsatisfactory evidence of business application and insight. 

Work needs to show better links between practical application and theory.  

Must see Information Managers (LRC) with feedback 

Weak: Limited evidence of discussion/analysis/critical evaluation and/or recommendations. Development and comment needed rather than description. Must see CASE with feedback 

 

Weak: Poor record of content or a simple diary with insufficient reflection or action planning. 

20 – 39 

 

Clear Fail 

Inadequate communication skills. Very poor use of language, little fluency or logical progression of thought. Rambling speaking style. 

Must see CASE with feedback 

Inadequate: Lacking in relevant content/ knowledge/calculations. Content irrelevant / inaccurate. Does not meet all the learning outcomes. 

Inadequate: Lacks evidence of business application and insight. Some literature irrelevant to topic. 

Must see Information Managers (LRC) with feedback 

Inadequate: Lacking / inadequate level of discussion/ analysis/critical evaluation and recommendations. Too anecdotal or descriptive. 

Must see CASE with feedback 

Inadequate or incomplete reflective work, or a descriptive diary without reflection on learning and/or action planning. 

0 – 19 

 

Little or Nothing of merit 

Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory, incomprehensible incomplete or inappropriate communication.       

Must see CASE with feedback 

Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory level of knowledge demonstrated. 

Content irrelevant / not appropriate to the topic. Does not meet the learning outcomes. 

Nothing of merit: No evidence of appropriate business application and insight or use of literature. 

Must see Information Managers (LRC) with feedback 

 

Nothing of merit: No evidence of appropriate discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation and/or recommendations. 

Must see CASE with feedback 

Nothing of merit: Little or no attempt to submit appropriate log with reflection.  

 

KEY ACTIONS 

To achieve a higher grade, next time you need to… (Where to go?) Who can help?) 

 

 

1. 

2. 

3. 
             

 

 

 

Academic Integrity, Plagiarism, Essay Mills and other Academic Misconduct Offences
  • You are NOT allowed to copy any information into your assignment without using quotation marks and a reference – this is ‘plagiarism’ (a type of academic misconduct). 
  • You are NOT allowed to copy from other students (or allow other students to copy from you) – this is ‘collusion’. 
  • You are NOT allowed to copy from your own assignments on other modules – this is ‘self-plagiarism’. 
  • You must NEVER buy assignments from websites (essay mills) – this is called ‘contract cheating’ and it is now illegal in the UK. 
  • Contract cheating is a serious academic misconduct offence and also includes arranging for help with an assessment such that there is also reasonable doubt as to whose work the assessment represents.  It extends to input from a fellow student, friend, relative, or any other person, artificial intelligence with or without payment of any kind. 
  • For all references use Cite Them Right
  • Unauthorised use of artificially generated material (AI) in researching or presenting material for an assessment is an academic misconduct offence if you use AI tools in producing your assessment unless the use of AI tools is expressly permitted. However, even if expressly permitted, where you do not declare that you have used an artificial intelligence tool(s) in the production of your assessment, or you are dishonest about the extent to which such tools have been used, you will have committed academic misconduct.
  • If you commit academic misconduct, your mark will be reduced, or, depending on the severity of the offence you may get 1% for the assignment in question or 1% for the module, and get a disciplinary warning. Repeat offenders normally face disciplinary action.

 

  

Student Support and Guidance
  • Contact academic-skills@herts.ac.uk if you are unsure of the rules or how to avoid academic misconduct, and you will receive help.
  • Please see the UPRs relating to Academic misconduct here.
  • Ask Herts information on the use of artificial intelligence tools https://ask.herts.ac.uk/ai-tools. 
  • For further help on module content and assignment details, contact your Module Leader in his or her  drop-in / office hours or by email.
  • Use the Learning Outcomes and HBS Grading Criteria (Rubric) to help inform you of the expectations of the assessment.

The relevant HBS Grading Criteria (Rubric) for your assignment should be added as a table immediately below the assignment description.  If you are unable to find the Grading Criteria (Rubric), please contact your Module Leader.

 

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions