Evaluating Published Research Choose an academic article and produce an academic review in which you analyse, criticise, and reflect on the paper, of no more than 1,200 words. The summary should include some definitions and preferably challenging research questions in the field. This task is of a secondary research nature. It is your responsibility to choose an article from the following two high quality academic journals (not a professional journal, e.g. Management Today, The Economist¦etc.). An important objective of the course is to sharpen your skills in evaluating other scholars’ research. ¢ Total Quality: The TQM Journal ¢ Leadership: Leadership & Organization Development Journal The article should be recent (published after January 1st, 2007) and preferably empirical in nature (that is having a section with data). It will be worthwhile considering the following two points: 1- Review and summarise the paper. This should include some definitions and preferably challenging research questions in the field. It might be useful to choose a paper in a thematic area that you are familiar with or have a strong preference and interest in the academic work of other authors. Also, it will assist you in being critical (based on the additional reading) in analysing the paper. You are advised to use the references of the paper as a guide to do further reading which will develop your thinking on the main concepts discussed in the paper. As a result your analysis will be informed by the literature. 2- Critically review the paper evaluating its weaknesses and strengths. Also, you should analyse the paper and must suggest ways and opportunities of improving the paper, i.e. you should analyse, criticise, and reflect on the paper. Additional references might be included. Part 2: Mini Report (60% of Marks) Write a mini academic report in which you œCritically Describe, Analyse and Reflect on the topic/subject of your chosen article (and NOT the article. This task must include evidence of collecting primary data on the same topic. Your task is to produce an academic report of 1,800 words (excluding references and appendices). You should analyse, criticise, and reflect on the topic. In your report, you should discuss and explore the topic that the article addresses. In-depth investigation and analysis are required. Emphasis should be given to the following issues: ¢ Ability to identify a diverse and high quality sources of information (a minimum of 50 references are required from different sources). These should include: academic journals/ books/ trade publications, government and industry data, websites, professional newspapers etc. ¢ Demonstrate clear understanding and synthesise the available information in order to gain an in-depth knowledge and understanding of the industry ¢ Ability to discuss complex information clearly and concisely, and to construct coherent and logical arguments ¢ Ability to present your findings in a professional and well structured report format, including effective use of figures, tables, appendices and referencing (Harvard Style is required). You are expected to include definitions, major research questions that challenge the researched field and identify possible gaps that need to be addressed in the future. Use at least 1.5 line spacing throughout the text. Tables, figures and the references should be single spaced. Use 12 pt Arial or Times Roman fonts. DO NOT use œWikipedia as a reference in your work INDICATIVE MARKING CRITERIA The marking of this Assessment will be guided by the Brunel Masters Grade descriptors. Part 1: Evaluating Published Research (40%) Criterion: Overall level of competence Statement to show the student’s understanding of the scope of the assignment and how it will be answered (15%) Recognition of the key issues/facets of the challenge, debate, conflict or other dilemma arising from the article with a thoughtful discussion and conclusion thereon (20%) Overall standard of communication (5%) Part 2: Mini Report (60%) Criterion: Overall level of competence Statement to show the student’s understanding of the scope of the assignment and how it will be answered Assignment consistently and fully supported by all of the following: An executive summary which summarises concisely the purpose of the report; the approach adopted; the key findings from the analysis; the recommendation; and the competitive advantage to be gained from the recommendation. An introduction setting out the aims and objectives of the report, together with a report œroadmap. A conclusion, which summarises the argument put forward in the report. The report is well written, with good grammar, punctuation, style and presentation. A portfolio of appendices (30%) The degree to which the ASSIGNMENT meets the task specification regarding the œvalue and use of management for practice, and vice versa, in a general sense The creativity and depth of thinking that is evidenced in response to that task specification. The carefulness “ and inspiration “ with which the argument is made. The extent and relevance of literature used. Recognition of the key issues/facets of the challenge, debate, conflict or other dilemma arising from the assignment with a thoughtful discussion and conclusion thereon (20%) Overall standard of communication. (10%) Check List The following list of headings and questions may be helpful in your analysis: Research Problem Formulation Is the research problem sufficiently important? Is it likely to produce new or useful information? Is the problem complex? Are prior theory and empirical work explained clearly? Are the predictions stated clearly? Are the predictions logically justified? Literature Review Does the investigator demonstrate familiarity with pertinent literature? Is the literature review comprehensive and well organised putting forward and clearly the concepts/frameworks the investigator aims to explore? Methodology Is the chosen methodology the most appropriate to address the main research question? Is the proposed research overly involved, with too many elements under simultaneous investigation? Are an unmanageable number of independent or dependent variables included? Is the description of the research design sufficiently clear and specific to permit rigorous evaluation? Does the investigator demonstrate familiarity with pertinent methodological literature and techniques? Are controls adequately conceived and described? Are the data the investigator proposes to collect suited to the research objectives? Data Collection Are data collection plans realistic? Do they raise ethical issues? Are plans offered for ruling out alternative explanations for results? Findings Does the investigator summarise the findings in a concise manner? Are the findings well articulated and discussed within the literature? Recommendations Does the investigator offer recommendations for further research and are they justified adequately? Does the investigator suggest policy recommendations based on the findings? Are they well argued?