Demonstrated level of engagement with, and understanding of, key module themes, including use of relevant academic literature, concepts and frameworks

MGT9203 Business Governance and Ethics

Assessment: Individual Pre-Recorded Narrated Presentation (100%)

Submission Deadline: Friday 19 July 2024 at 11.59pm (UK Time)

Key Requirements

·The assignment for the BGE element of the module requires you prepare a 13-to-15 minute long, pre-recorded narrated presentation critically analysing ONE of a choice of four contemporary cases through the 3 lenses of business ethics, governance, and social responsibility (as covered in the module).

·Students must focus their presentation on ONE of the FOUR contemporary cases proposed by the module coordinator (see choices below). Any submission that uses a different case example (i.e. not one of those on the recommended list) is likely to receive a mark of zero.

·Your recorded presentation should use visual materials, e.g. slides prepared using presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint, Prezi, Canva, etc.), and have an accompanying audio narration.

·The recommended method of creating your presentation is to use Microsoft PowerPoint, which is available to all QUB students. See further guidance below. PowerPoint includes easy-to-use functions that enable you to record audio narration onto your slideshow. PowerPoint also makes it easy for you to ‘export’ your narrated presentation as a video file (which is the required file type for submission).

·An alternative method that would be acceptable is to record your presentation “live” in Teams, then download the recording as a video file for submission. However, the preferred PowerPoint method has certain advantages.

·Presentations should be uploaded to Canvas as a video file (.mp4, .mov, .wmv or similar), using the relevant submission point, which can be found under the ‘Assignments’ section of the MGT9203 Canvas page.

·You must draw upon relevant academic literature in your presentation. This may include more general literature (for example, in relation to business ethics, governance or social responsibility issues - including items from the module reading list) or topic specific literature (i.e. literature relating to the subject matter of the assigned cases).

·Presentations should adhere to Harvard referencing conventions. Citations (author, date) should be included on each slide to indicate the sources of all academic ideas and supporting evidence. A reference list should be included at the end of presentation on the final slide(s). You must make sure the reference list slides are visible to the viewer for a few seconds each at the end of your presentation (but you obviously do not need to narrate these slides).

Suggested Structure and Content Requirements for the Presentation

It is expected that your presentation will include the following elements:

·Introduction and Case Overview

Introduce yourself, the case you have selected, and establish the broad focus and structure of the presentation (i.e., what you are going to address and in which order). A table of contents slide is good practice and helps guide the viewer.

Provide a brief overview of the case for the audience (e.g., what has happened (and why does it matter), who are the key individual and organisational actors (stakeholders) involved, etc.). It is recommended that you spend no more than 2 minutes on this section.

·Main Body: Critical Analysis of the Chosen Case through the lenses of (1) Business Ethics, (2) Governance, and (3) Social Responsibility

It is expected that the main body will be divided into sub-sections based on the 3 analytical lenses. There should be a clear distinction between each sub-section. The use of numbered section headings and subheadings is highly recommended to help guide the viewer.

Define/explain all key terms, such as business ethics, corporate governance, etc.

Integrate relevant academic theories, frameworks, concepts and ideas and apply these to evidence to critically analyse the case selected.

Remember, while some description is important, critical/analytical content should be the main focus (and this should supported by good quality academic sources).

Note: Your presentation must provide some analysis of the chosen case from each of the 3 lenses covered in the module.

The suggested balance of effort and time attached to the 3 lenses is: Business Ethics (~40- 50%); Governance (~30%); and Social Responsibility (~20-30%).

This is the main section of your presentation and would be expected to account for around 75% of the total duration.

·Conclusion and Tailored Recommendations

Briefly summarise the main points arising from your analysis of the case.

Offer one to three tailored recommendations (for example, directed towards one or more of the key individual or organisational actors).

The recommendations should be informed and logically follow from your preceding analysis.

If you support your suggestions with good quality evidence, this will help to make your submission more robust.

It is recommended that you spend no more than 2 minutes on this section.

List of Assigned Case Choices

You must choose one of these four contemporary cases as the focus for your presentation:

• The English Premier League and (Illegal) Sports Betting Sponsorships
• Meta, Social Media and the Teen Mental Health Crisis
• Blood Money? Metro AG Continues to Do Business in Russia, Despite the Ukraine War
• WeWork: From “Future of the Office” to Bankruptcy

Further information and links to suggested background readings on each case will be provided on the Canvas site. Note, however, that you will be expected to conduct additional research on your chosen case using relevant quality online sources, to supplement the initial materials provided. 

Assessment Criteria

The video presentations will be marked against the following 5 assessment criteria, using a marking rubric (see Appendix A). Levels of attainment for each criteria will be informed by the QMS postgraduate conceptual marking scale (see Appendix B). Each criterion is equally weighted.

1.Demonstrated level of engagement with, and understanding of, key module themes, including use of relevant academic literature, concepts and frameworks;

2.Evidence of relevant research on the chosen case and effective use of supporting evidence and citations;

3.Effective analysis of the chosen case through the lenses of business ethics, governance, and social responsibility (via application of relevant concepts/frameworks to evidence);

4.Quality of slide design: e.g. variety of layouts, appropriate style and balance between text and visuals, attractive and visually engaging, supporting clear communication of key ideas and arguments;

5.Quality of delivery of presentation: e.g. clarity, flow, and authority of audio narration. 

Some Mistakes to Avoid

·Merely describing examples or evidence without any analysis. Description/explanation of the chosen examples and evidence is necessary but not sufficient. Academically informed analysis is required to pass the task. Good analysis tries to determine why things are as they are. Analysis usually requires an in-depth look at the constituent parts of a phenomenon and how these relate to each other. Analysis usually results in clear arguments.

·Ignoring academic ideas and simply offering opinions. Good presentations will show evidence of engagement with the recommended topic readings and use relevant academic theory, frameworks and concepts to the guide and inform the analysis of the chosen examples.

·Using poor quality or unreliable data sources. Reputable and trustworthy data sources should be used to inform your explanation and analysis. You should be cautious about online data sources, especially when they can be edited by a user community (like Wikipedia) or when the publisher is unknown.

·Too much information or text on your presentation slides. You will need to strike the right balance here. Try to limit the amount of data or text on each slide. Your spoken narrative can elaborate on the visual information, but make sure your key arguments and ideas are clear from the slide.

·Too many slides and/or trying to cover too much. The guidance indicates that your narrated presentation should last 13-15 minutes and have a maximum of 20 slides. It is recognised that this limits the number of points you can cover. Focus on selecting the most relevant points and on clearly communicating them, in a visually engaging way, within the available time.

Primary Data Collection is Not Permitted

You are forbidden from collecting primary data, for example, via interviews or questionnaires, as part of this assignment. The collection of primary data is subject to strict University procedures and failure to adhere to these constitutes a serious academic offence. Instead, information should be derived from secondary sources, such as books and journal articles, government publications, industry statistics, organisational websites, company reports, quality news outlets, etc. 

Late Submission Penalties

·For continuous assessment/coursework submitted beyond the set deadline, without an approved extension, a late penalty will be applied as per Study Regulation 3.2 Late Submission of Continuous Assessment/Coursework. Effectively, this regulation mandates a -5 mark penalty for each calendar day late, up to a maximum of 5 days late (and, thereafter, a mark of zero).

·If you fail to submit a piece of work without approved Exceptional Circumstances (see below), you will be marked as Absent, which may mean you cannot pass the module.

Exceptional Circumstances

·If something unexpected happens near a coursework deadline or examination (such as illness or some other unforeseen circumstance) that has a negative impact on your ability to complete your assessment, you should submit an application for Exceptional Circumstances (EC).

·Students are responsible for ensuring that they inform the University of any circumstance that they consider is affecting their ability to undertake assessment as early as possible.

·Detail guidance on the QUB EC procedure can be found here (follow embedded link).

·All Exceptional Circumstances requests should be submitted via the Queen`s Portal. Decisions will be communicated via the Portal once your request has been reviewed by the EC committee.

Academic Conduct Warning

·Academic integrity is “the commitment from students, faculty, and staff to demonstrate honest, moral behaviour in their academic lives” (https://academicintegrity.org/). Without academic integrity, university qualifications lose their value for students and the wider society. Academic

integrity is taken seriously on this module and will be enforced via the relevant processes, where necessary.

·You are strongly encouraged to familiarise yourself with the university expectations and procedures on academic conduct. Useful student-focused guidance on these issues can be found here:

1.Student guide to University procedures for dealing with academic offences: https://www.qub.ac.uk/directorates/AcademicStudentAffairs/AcademicAffairs/Appeals ComplaintsandMisconduct/AcademicOffences/Student-Guide/

2.Advice video on understanding plagiarism and how to avoid it via good referencing:

https://www.qub.ac.uk/directorates/sgc/learning/LearningResources/Plagiarism/

·Turnitin software, plus tutor judgement, will be used to identify potential academic offences.

·Suspected offences will be referred to an academic offences panel, which may result in a sanction. Sanctions can range from repeating the assignment for ‘capped’ mark to failure in the module.

·This is an individual assessment, so you must NOT collaborate with any other student. Collusion (e.g. working with another student on an individual assessment) and plagiarism (e.g. copying from another student or allowing your own work to be copied) are academic offences.

·Other forms of plagiarism include ‘passing off’ the ideas of others without proper acknowledgement (i.e. not citing your sources) and ‘cutting & pasting’ text from a book/journal/online source; Self-plagiarism (e.g. submitting all or part of an assignment that you have previously submitted for assessment by Queen’s or any other institution); and Contract cheating (buying or obtaining an assignment online or elsewhere and submitting it as your own work). This is consider a very serious offence. 

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Assessment

·The University has developed some guidance relating to the use of AI in assessments.

·Some useful resources on how to use AI in assessments, created by QUB students, for students can be found here: Artificial Intelligence (sharepoint.com)

·The University position is not to impose a blanket restriction on the use of generative AI, but rather to:

1.Emphasise the expectation that assignments should contain students’ own original work;

2.Highlight the limitations of generative AI and the dangers of relying on it as a source of information;

3.Emphasise the need to acknowledge the use of generative AI where it is permitted to be used.

·You should understand that:

1.Each programme, module and individual assessment may have a different approach and stance on whether you can, should, or how you use new technologies like generative AI.

2.Markers are likely to award low marks for low-energy or unreflective re-use of material generated by AI tools, and assign zero marks for merely reproducing the output from AI tools.

3.Any use of generative AI may increase the risk of being exposed to academic integrity issues and offences like contract cheating, plagiarism, commissioning, fabrication etc.

· You are expected to be aware of, and consider, the capabilities and limitations of generative AI, including its unreliability as a source of rigorous/comprehensive material for academic work.

·There is an expectation that students will complete and submit their own original work. AI- generated content is unlikely to satisfy the specific task requirements or score highly against the assessment criteria.

·If you do make any use of AI tools, like ChatGPT or Google’s Bard, it is expected that this would be clearly acknowledged with a declaration appended to your work, covering the following points:

1.Brief description of precisely which AI tools were used;

2.Brief explanation of how the AI tools were used (e.g. to generate ideas, turns of phrase, lines of argument, illustrations of key concepts etc.);

3.Brief account of why AI tools were used (e.g. to save time, to stimulate thinking, to handle mounting stress, to clarify prose, to translate text).

·If you have any concerns about this issue, please discuss them with the module coordinator.

Note: Grading of the presentation on each criterion will be informed by the descriptors in the QUB postgraduate conceptual scale (Appendix B)