COURSE HANDBOOK BUSINESS RESEARCH METHODS 2 2017-2018

Course name Business Research Methods 2

Course code ZRVM15BRM2
ECTS 5 (140 hours)
Author Niels Faber
Date May 28, 2018
Version 1.0 (release)

INTRODUCTION

This document describes the details of the Business Research Methods 2 (BRM2) course of
the MIBM and MBA Master programs of the International Business School of the Hanze UAS.
It is intended to provide IBS Master students who have enrolled into this course the
information about the course’s planning and what is required to create the expected
deliverables and assessment criteria that will be used. The students whom this may concern
are henceforth addressed directly.

BRM2 succeeds Business Research Methods 1 (BRM1). BRM1 concentrates on supplying basic
research skills, including problem definition, literature (re)search, research design, data
collection, and data analysis. BRM2 extends these skills, focusing on your abilities to translate
the acquired skills into research activities. This is realized in the form of a research proposal,
which you may choose to use for your thesis research at the end of the Master program.

Course prerequisites
Prerequisite for entry into BRM2 is that you have finished Business Research Methods 1, or
any equivalent course on research methodology and analysis techniques. Subsequently, you
are expected to be able to use the Hanze University library system, both physical and
electronic, to search for information required to compose the research proposal.

COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES

Within the context of BRM2, you will develop your academic attitude and ability to translate
that into a research you are able to commit to. Central to shaping this academic attitude are
(1) developing the ability to engage in research, (2) critically reflecting on research (own
research and the research of your peers), and (3) responding to critiques received from peers
and apply this to improve your own research.
At the end of this course, you should have reached the learning outcomes displayed in Table
1.

Table 1 BRM2 Course Learning Outcomes

Course Description
Learning
Outcome
1 Is able to develop an individual research project;
1a Is able to identify a research topic with regards to a business issue;
1b Is able to combine contemporary theoretical and empirical insights to frame the research topic
and establish the research project;
1c Is able to formulate research direction, through setting a research objective and one or more
research question(s);
1d Is able to develop the research methodologically and a planning of time and resources;
1e Is able to formulate the individual research proposal in a written document that is coherent,
convincing to peers, and well-designed.
2 Is able to review research projects of self and / or peers;
2a Is able to assess individual research components and their coherence;
2b Is able to determine weak points of the research project and provide directions for improvement;
3 Is able to revise and improve individual research project, critically using received peer review(s);
3a Is able to appraise the review(s) on own research project;
3b Is able to develop a research improvement plan for the own research project from peer review(s);
3c Is able to apply the improvement plan to own research project.

The course’s learning outcomes develop your knowledge on a topic of your own choosing and
research methodology. Both are required to compose a defendable research proposal. These
outcomes aim to develop your knowledge relating to a variety of skills.

Course learning outcome 1 adheres to your ability to synthesise a research from both
theoretical and empirical insights. These concern insights you have obtained during the
Master program and the explorations of literature and empirical investigations you have
performed during this course. From the theoretical and empirical insights, you develop a
direction for research and piece together a methodological approach that enables you to
obtain the information required to complete the research (i.e., give an answer to the
questions raised). The methodological choices need to be translated into a project planning
of time and resources used during the research execution.

Course learning outcome 2 develops your skills to evaluate research of yourselves and of your
peers. This implies a critical assessment of research considering (1) theoretical and empirical
foundation, (2) methodological soundness, and (3) logical argumentation and coherence. The
assessment results in an overview of weaknesses including explanation, and directions for
improving upon these.

Course learning outcome 3 refines your ability to synthesise. You are required process the
peer reviews you have received from peers and convert these into plans for revision of your
own research. In this process, you will need to first appraise the peer review and determine
which elements will (not) be addressed. Second, this appraisal is translated into a repair plan
of the research. This repair plan addresses all issues raised in the received peer review, and
how it will be handled in the revised research. The repair plan is fully documented in a letter
to the reviewer. Finally, the repair plan is executed, meaning that the changes are applied to
the research.

The instrument used to develop these abilities relating to research is the process of writing a
research proposal. The proposal should be written in academic English, decorated with
appropriate and relevant references to materials used of others. Referencing should meet
IBS-wide criteria.

ASSESSMENT

The assessment of BRM2 is shaped around two deliverables. The core deliverable is your
own research proposal, which you develop in sequential steps. Each step includes (1) an
improved version of your research proposal and (2) a letter in which you address the issues
raised by your reviewer. Additionally, you review the work of your peers several times.
These reviews are the second part of the assessment. In the following, both deliverables are
explained in more detail.

Research proposal
The quality of the research proposal assesses learning outcomes 1 and 3c. The written
research proposal enables you to show your abilities to piece together a relevant and
coherent research project (learning outcome 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e), and his / her abilities to
make necessary improvements based on received peer reviews (learning outcome 3c; note
that learning outcome 3c is assessed as part of the peer review process). As indicated before,
the research proposal consists of at least the six sections mentioned in Table 2.
The sections of the research proposal document assess the learning outcomes 1a, 1b, 1c and
1d. Learning outcome 1a takes shape in the introduction section. There, you need to set the
stage of the research itself, consisting of the choice of topic and the empirical problem that is
recognised in relation to it. Next, you will need to discuss the relevance of the problem, and
the scope of the research you aim to perform. Furthermore, the topic may already be
theoretically framed in order to provide the necessary perspective from which the problem
is addressed. The latter is a stepping stone towards the realisation of learning outcome 1b in
the next section. The theoretical framing in the introduction presents an overview of various
theoretical perspectives on the identified empirical problem.
Learning outcome 1b takes full shape in the theoretical framework section. There, the initial
theoretical perspective is developed further, providing a critical evaluation of contemporary
theoretical insights into the problem at hand. This implies that you explain what theory or
theories are considered relevant in relation to the problem, what these can and cannot
explain, what contradictions between different theories may exist in relation to the problem,
and what choices you make to proceed (and why) in gaining a more comprehensive
theoretical understanding of the problem. Also, you isolate what part(s) of the empirical
problem are not (entirely) explained in current theory. Finally, from the theories discussed
you synthesise a theoretical framework to the empirical problem that requires further
research.
Learning outcome 1c is addressed in the section in which the research questions are
disclosed. From the theoretical synthesis discussed in the previous section, you formulate one
or more concise and precise research questions and underlying subsidiary questoins that
identify the empirical information you require to fill the gap in understanding the empirical
problem. Each question that is formulated needs to be explained in relation to (1) the
empirical problem that is addressed and (2) the theoretical framework that is formulated.

Table 2 Sections of research proposal document

Section name Description Course

Learning
outcome
Abstract Concise, brief display of the research, including its topic, the main 1e
question addressed, relevance of the problem, your contribution,
chosen methodological approach, main conclusion.
Introduction Introduction into the problem, which states the main topic of the 1a, 1e
research, its complexity, and argumentation why research is
needed.
Theoretical framework The theoretical framework forms the backbone of the research 1b, 1e
proposal. This provides at least a critical review of contemporary
insights into the topic, identifies gaps in these insights in relation
to the problem at hand, and concludes with a synthesis of found
and selected theoretical approaches to tackle the problem.
Research question This section sets the direction of the research itself. A question is 1c, 1e
formulated that identifies the information required to gain a
higher level of understanding into the empirical problem.
Methodology The methodological approach taken to obtain empirical data and 1d, 1e
analyse this to answer the research question(s). This contains at
least main methodological choices regarding the research design,
approach, and strategy, sample, and analytical techniques.
Additionally, the research reliability and validity are critically
assessed.
Planning Planning of time and resources for the execution of the research 1d, 1e
itself. This consists of a planning of activities through time, human
and other resources used in these activities, and specification of
deliverables. Deliverables need to include at least (1) instrument
of measurement, (2) tests of measurement instrument, (3)
dataset, and (4) individual chapters of the final thesis.
References A list of all sources referenced in the research proposal, following 1e
the prescribed referencing style (e.g., APA).

The methodology and planning sections address learning outcome 1d. Methodology relates
to the methodological choices and their foundations, and thus indicates how information is
obtained and analysed such that answers to the research question(s) can be expected to
result from the research. The planning section concerns a translation of the methodological
choices made to (i) a series of activities, (ii) the allocation of resources to realize these
activities, and (iii) a set of milestones and deliverables that will be created during the research
project, which are (iv) plotted on a timeline. Deliverables should at least concern (1) each
individual chapter as partial products, (2) a draft or concept version of the complete thesis,
(3) an initial version of the measurement instrument, (4) a test protocol for the measurement
instrument, and (5) a final version of the measurement instrument.
Finally, learning outcome 1e spans the whole of the research proposal document. It relates
first to the coherence and logic of the individual sections of the proposal and the coherence
between the sections (i.e., the extent to which each section logically follows from previous
sections). Second, the convincingness of the entire argument is assessed. Using the research
proposal document, you should be able to explain your research to gain support from peers
to proceed. Criteria regarding convincingness are its theoretical contribution and practical
necessity. Finally, you should provide the research proposal in a document that is written in
proper, academic English. Hence, the text is checked for errors in spelling and grammar, and
appropriate word usage. Furthermore, the document should have a consistent typesetting
that contributes to its readability.
The assessment of learning outcome 3c principally relates to the various versions of the
research proposal document that will be created over time. How this learning outcome is
assessed, is discussed in detail at the end of the next section on the peer review process,
where the rounds of peer review are discussed.

Peer review process

In addition to the research proposal document, in BRM2 you engage in a peer review process.
During this process, you are first required to assess a research proposal document of one of
your peers and provide a written peer review on this. This way, research proposal documents
of all students participating in BRM2 are peer reviewed. Second, you are required to write a
response to the reviewer, addressing all the issues raised and indicating how you plan to deal
with these in your own research proposal document. The writing of a peer review of a
research proposal is used to assess learning outcome 2 (learning outcomes 2a and 2b). The
writing of a response to the reviewer links to learning outcomes 3a, and 3b.

Table 3 Peer review - the review document

Section Description Course

Learning
outcome
Summary A brief summary of the research proposal under review, 2a
including main question, aim, and approach.
Research importance Assessment of the importance of the research in relation to 2b
theory and practice.
Flaws in argument Identification of flaws in the argument used throughout the 2b
research proposal. This concerns the argumentation within,
as well as the argumentation between sections.
Strengths Overview of strong points of the suggested research in the 2b
research proposal.
Organisation and writing Critique on the organisation of the research proposal in terms 2b
of structure and typesetting, and on the writing and writing
style.
Recommendation Final verdict on how to proceed with the research proposal. 2b

A research proposal peer review is provided in a written document that consists of six
sections, namely, (1) summary, (2) research importance, (3) identification of flaws in the
argument, (4) identification of strengths, (5) critique the organisation and writing, and (6)
formulate a recommendation (also see Table 3 for an overview of all sections of the peer
review document). The summary should in brief tell the whole story of the research proposal.
This means that it should provide the main question, the goals, and approaches of the
document under review. This links to learning outcome 2a.
Subsequently, a series of assessments is made. First, you as a reviewer need to establish the
importance of the intended research. Second, the reviewer needs to pinpoint any flaws and
weaknesses in the line of argumentation. This goes to the coherence of the research proposal
under review. You should include references that are applicable to your review. Third, as a
reviewer you do well to take note of the strong points the research proposal provides. Fourth,
and as a final part of the assessment you are required to assess the organisation and writing
of the research proposal. This relates to the structuring of the proposal into chapters,
sections, et cetera, and to the typesetting applied throughout the document. Also, the style
of writing, and errors in spelling and grammar are to be taken into consideration and
critiqued. At the end of the review you write your recommendation(s) in terms of a go or no-
go as a summary of all of the assessment criteria. All parts of the review are written in a
constructive manner, allowing the original author of the research proposal document to make
necessary improvements to it. The total of the assessments relates to learning outcome 2b.

Table 4 Peer review - letter to reviewer

Section Description Course

Learning
outcome
Notification to reviewer General acknowledgement of the effort invested by the -
reviewer
Summary 1. Appraisal of understanding of reviewer; 3a
2. Course of action for further improvement (if needed) 3b
Research importance 1. Appraisal of reviewer judgement; 3a
2. Course of action for further improvement (if needed) 3b
Flaws in argument 1. Appraisal of identified flaws, each individually; 3a
2. Course of action for further improvement (if needed) 3b
Strengths 1. Appraisal of strong points; 3a
2. Course of action for further improvement (if needed) 3b
Organisation and writing 1. Appraisal of critiques on organisation and writing; 3a
2. Course of action for further improvement (if needed) 3b

Upon reception of the peer review on his / her research proposal document, you as the
original author of th research proposal, will need to write a letter to the reviewer. This letter
comprises the last part of the peer review process and assesses learning outcomes 3 and 3b.
In the letter to the reviewer, in your role of original author, you provide a concise reply to the
provided critiques and indicates how you will incorporate these in the next version of the
research proposal document. In the reply, the letter to reviewer needs to start with a general
acknowledgement for the effort invested by the reviewer. Next, it should address all parts of
the peer review document, including (1) summary, (2) research importance, (3) identification
of flaws in the argument, (4) identification of strengths, and (5) critique on the organisation
and writing. The reply should consist of two parts, namely (i) an appraisal of the issue raised
by the reviewer (learning outcome 3a) and (ii) a course of action to resolve the issue in the
research proposal (learning outcome 3b). See Table 4 for an overview of all parts of the letter
to reviewer.

Four rounds of peer review are planned for. These follow the distinct sections of the research
proposal document. Reviews are provided on the sections (1) introduction, (2) theoretical
framework and research question, and (3) methodology and planning. The fourth round of
review focuses on the research proposal as a whole. In each consecutive round of review, a
new section of the research proposal is added to the review process. This means that e.g., a
reviewer considers the introduction, theoretical framework, and research questions sections
simultaneously in review round two. Because the research proposal takes shape in a series of
stages, learning outcome 3c links to the improvements made between consecutive version of
the research proposal. To make assessment practical, learning outcome 3c is assessed
through comparison of the improvement plan as suggested in the letter to reviewer and how
these improvements have taken shape in the final research proposal (see also appendix C).
Table 5 provides an overview of the entire peer review process planning.

Table 5 Rounds of peer review

Round Research proposal review Course

Learning
Outcome
1 Introduction, References -
2 Introduction, Theoretical framework, Research question, References 3c
3 Introduction, Theoretical framework, Research question, Methodology, Planning, 3c
References
4 Abstract, Introduction, Theoretical framework, Research question, Methodology, 3c
Planning, References

The review process that is applied in BRM2 will be open. This implies that authors and
reviewers will know each other. This is done to simplify the review process, and to be able
to connect proposals and reviews to individual students for assessment, a process of open
reviewing is instantiated.

Finally, a poster presentation will be part of the complete review process. This will take place
around course week 11. The poster presentation is used to obtain reviews from faculty
members in a plenary session. Also, here a transcript of the received review and a response
to that (shaped as a letter to reviewer) need to be provided. Note that the poster itself is not
part of the assessment.

Grading
The total assessment of BRM2 consists of the quality of (1) the research proposal and (2) the
peer review process. All students are assessed individually.

During the course, you produce a series of documents. These are (1) the research proposal in
various stages of development, (2) reviews to research proposals of peers, and (3) letters to
reviewers. You will collect all these in one single document: the research proposal with a
series of appendices attached. The BRM2 teacher is able to access the complete document
throughout the course, in order to keep track of progress and provide feedback. In the end,
the complete document (i.e., final research proposal including all reviews and all letters to
reviewer) is submitted for final assessment. In this assessment, the final research proposal
document is assessed, as well as the series of reviews and letters to reviewers provided.

Research proposal
1. product: quality of the final product (see appendix A)

Assessment of the research proposal takes place based on the evaluation of the individual
components and their coherence, as indicated in Table 2. For evaluation, rubrics and criteria
are used as provided in appendix A.

Review process
1. reviews: quality of reviews 2, 3, and 4 (see appendix B)
 2. letters to reviewer: quality of letters to reviewer 2, 3, and 4 (see appendix C)

Finishing BRM2
The final result of BRM2 is determined by a pass / fail on each of the two assignments. The
assignment ‘research proposal’ receives a pass / fail. On the assignment ‘review process’,
students are required to receive a pass on two out of three reviews and two out of three
letters to reviewer in order to receive a pass on the whole. Both assignments require a pass
in order to finish BRM2.

Format
All deliverables need to meet specific criteria regarding layout and total size. All deliverables
may be outlined as you see fit. The final document, comprised of (1) research proposal, (2)
series of reviews obtained and (3) letters to reviewers needs to have a cover page that
includes the title of your research proposal, your name, your student number, your e-mail
address, and the name of your reviewer. Table 6 shows the size limitations of the various
deliverables and their compounding parts. The maximum word count indicated as total
should be considered the absolute maximum size of the various deliverables and should not
be exceeded.

Table 6 Size limitations of deliverables

Document Section Maximum size

Research proposal Abstract 250 words
Introduction 500 words
Literature review 1,500 words
Research questions 300 words
Methodology 2,000 words
Planning 800 words
References No upper limit
Total (excluding references) Maximum 4,000 words (appr. 9 pages)
Peer review Summary 250 words
Research importance 100 words
Flaws in argument 500 words
Strengths 100 words
Organization and writing 300 words
Recommendation 100 words
References 800 words
Total Maximum 4 pages
Letter to reviewer General acknowledgement 200 words
Summary 250 words
Research importance 250 words
Flaws in argument 800 words
Strengths 250 words
Organization and writing 500 words
Total Maximum 4 pages
PLANNING

Table 7 provides the planning of workshops for 2017-2018.

Table 7 Workshop planning 2017-2018

Workshop Planning Title Topics covered

1 Semester 1, period 2
2 Semester 2, period 3
3 Semester 2, period 3
4 Semester 2, period 4
Setting the stage 1. What is research?
2. Managing expectations
3. Necessary skills (argumentation and
critical thinking)
4. Writing round one (short): writing–
choose your topic and state the problem
(1 page max.); reviewing; responding to
review
5. Preparing your research and writing
environment
6. Assignments
Writing the proposal I 1. Instruction on how to write an
introduction
2. Writing round – introduction section
3. Reviewing round – review introduction
4. Recap on literature search process
5. Recap on referencing
Writing the proposal II 1. Refining literature review
2. Formulating research questions
3. Writing methodology
4. Reflecting on reviewing
Preparing poster 1. Presenting research proposal to peers
presentation and faculty
2. Receiving reviews of peers and faculty

Table 8 provides the planning of deadlines and expected deliverables.

Table 8 Planning of deadlines and deliverables

Deadline Deliverable
March 9, 2018 Research proposal V2
March 16, 2018 Review of proposal V2
April 20, 2018 Research proposal V3 + Letter to reviewer V2
April 26, 2018 Review of proposal V3
May 29/30, 2018 Poster presentations
June 7, 2018 Research proposal V4 + Letter to reviewer V3
June 16, 2018 Review of proposal V4
June 21, 2018 FINAL RESEARCH PROPOSAL + REVIEWS + LETTERS TO REVIEWER
APPENDIX A – ASSESSMENT FORM RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Name student
Student number
Supervisor
Core Team assessor

Form ☐ supervisor ☐ core team assessor ☐ joint form

Preconditions Yes No
Passed word count ☐ ☐
Passed plagiarism check ☐ ☐
Academic sources used (> 50%) ☐ ☐

Components and weights Standard Criteria (PASS/FAIL) Remarks

1. Problem statement

- Relevance of (international) Topic focused on business 1. The topic is focused on

business topic issue a business issue
2. The relevance of the
topic is clearly articulated
- Description of research problem Clear description of research 3. The description of the
and context problem and its context research problem and its
context is comprehensible
for Academia/ peers
- Line of reasoning why research is Clear line of reasoning why 4. The line of reasoning
needed research is needed why research is needed is
comprehensible for
Academia/peers

- Scope / focus of problem Appropriate scope / focus of 5. Scope/focus of the

statement problem statement problem statement the
demarcation of the study
at hand
- Formulation of research aim Specific and unambiguous 6. Specific and clearly
research aim that fits with articulated research aim
problem statement that fits with problem
statement
2. Theoretical framework

CHECK PRECONDITION USE OF

ACADEMIC SOURCES
- Relevance of theories and models Presented theories and models
for research topic and objective. are related to the research
topic and support the
understanding of the problem
- Insight in contemporary thinking Reasonable review of relevant
on relevant areas contemporary theories and
models based on academic
sources
- Discussion and critical reflection Some discussion and critical
on literature reflection on the existing
literature
7. Well-argued relation
between the used
theories and models and
the research aim
8. Well-argued choice of
used theories and models
9. Critical review of
relevant contemporary
theories and models
based on academic
sources
10. The outcome of the
review is an explanation
of the key concepts used
in this study and, if
applicable, how they
relate or how they are
expected to be related
Components and weights
3. Research questions
- Connection between research
problem, theoretical framework
and research question(s)
- Formulation of main research
question
- Formulation of series of subsidiary
questions
4. Research Design and methods of
data collection and analysis
- Choice of research type
- Operationalisation of key
concepts.
- Explanation of primary data
collection methods and analysis
techniques for all subsidiary
questions
- Discussion of precautions taken in
order to enhance reliability and
validity of data.
5. Feasibility and Academic writing
- Feasibility of the proposal
Standard
There is a logical connection
between research questions
and (1) theoretical framework
and (2) research objective(s).
Specific and unambiguous
main research
Logical series of subsidiary
questions that will together
answer the main research
question.
Appropriate choice of research
type.
Clear operationalization of key
concepts.
Detailed explanation of
primary data collection
methods and analysis
techniques for all subsidiary
questions.
Appropriate precautions taken
to enhance reliability and
validity.
Objective can be reached with
proposed research set-up, and
planning is realistic
Criteria (PASS/FAIL) Remarks
11. There is a logical
connection between
research questions and (1)
theoretical framework and
(2) research objective(s).
12. Specific and clearly
articulated main research
question
13. Provided indication of
rationale of main research
question
14. Logical and well-
argued series of subsidiary
questions that will
together answer the main
research question.
15. The alignment of
problem statement,
research objective,
research question,
subsidiary questions is
explained.
16. Well-argued choice of
research type.
17. Operationalization of
key concepts is
comprehensible for
Academia/peers
18. Detailed explanation
of data collection
methods.
19. Detailed explanation
of analysis techniques per
subsidiary research
question, or hypothesis or
proposition
20. At least one data
collection method is a way
of collection primary data.
21. Well-argued
precautions are taken to
enhance reliability and
validity (in this study)
22. Objective can be
reached with proposed
research design
23. Planning constructed
around relevant
milestones and
deliverables
24. Thesis outline
provided at chapter and
section levels, including
summary per section
Components and weights Standard Criteria (PASS/FAIL) Remarks

25. Duration of activities is

- Level of complexity
Sufficient level of complexity
(complexity is determined by
context and work to be done)
well-argued
26. A sufficient number of
components of the
problem, and relations
and interactions between
them are considered in
the research
27. Research findings can
be generalized or
extrapolated at industry
level

- Structure Well-structured chapters, 28. Structured according

sections and paragraphs with
clear messages.
- Coherence of argumentation Reasonably clear and coherent
line of reasoning.
- Use of American Psychology Referencing is according to
Association (APA) Referencing APA referencing standards.
Style (www.apastyle.org)
- Readability and command of English is clear and contains
English few errors in spelling and
grammar. Style of writing
meets academic standards.
to the given format
29. Logical line of
argumentation, with
sufficient evidence to
support
30. Referencing is
according to APA
referencing standards
31. Use of academic
English

Norm setting research proposal

The research proposal is assessed with a pass / fail. In case the indicated preconditions are
not met, the research proposal is assessed as a fail. In case the preconditions are passed,
the assessment results in a pass or fail based on the proposal’s contents. In order to pass
receive a pass on the research proposal, minimally the 19 criteria indicated in Table 9 need
to be assessed with a pass, and at least 24 out of 31 criteria need to be assessed with a pass.
Provided remarks need to be addressed during the thesis project in case the research
proposal at hand is used as its basis.

Table 9 Minimum criteria for research proposal

Criteria requiring a pass

Introduction
2. The relevance of the topic is clearly articulated
3. The description of the research problem and its context is comprehensible for Academia/peers
4. The line of reasoning why research is needed is comprehensible for Academia/peers
5. Scope/focus of the problem statement the demarcation of the study at hand

Theoretical framework
7. Well-argued relation between the used theories and models and the research aim
10. The outcome of the review is an explanation of the key concepts used in this study and, if applicable, how they relate or how they are
expected to be related

Research questions
12. Specific and clearly articulated main research question
14. Logical and well-argued series of subsidiary questions that will together answer the main research question.

Methodology
16. Well-argued choice of research type.
17. Operationalization of key concepts is comprehensible for Academia/peers
18. Detailed explanation of data collection methods.
Criteria requiring a pass
19. Detailed explanation of analysis techniques per subsidiary research question, or hypothesis or proposition
20. At least one data collection method is a way of collection primary data.
21. Well-argued precautions are taken to enhance reliability and validity (in this study)

Feasibility and academic writing

23. Planning constructed around relevant milestones and deliverables
28. Structured according to the given format
29. Logical line of argumentation, with sufficient evidence to support
30. Referencing is according to APA referencing standards
31. Use of academic English
APPENDIX B – ASSESSMENT FORM PEER REVIEW

AUTHOR PASS/FAIL
Name student
Student number

REVIEWER
Name student
Student number
Date of review (DD/MM/YY)

Preconditions Yes No
Passed word count ☐ ☐

Components and weights Standard Criteria (PASS/FAIL) Remarks

1. Summary
- Summarising the core elements of
the research proposal
2. Research importance
- Identification of research
importance
3. Flaws in argument
- Identification of flaw sin
argumentation
4. Strengths
- Identification of strong points
5. Organisation and writing
- Organisation and structure
- Command of English
6. Recommendations
- Constructive feedback
(Inspired on the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) by van Rooyen, 2001)
Provides a concise and clear
summary of the research
proposal containing the aim,
main question, and approach
Indicates importance of the
research in relation to theory
and practice
Indicates flaws in the line of
argumentation of the research
proposal
Brings forth strong points of
the research proposal
Provides critical reflection on
the organisation and
typesetting of the research
proposal
Provides critical reflection on
the use of academic English
Provides constructive
directions on how to proceed
with the development of the
research proposal
1. Summary is concise and
contains aim, main research
question, and approach
2. Importance of research in
relation to theory and practice is
assessed
3. Flaws in line of argumentation
are indicated
4. Strong points of the research
proposal are indicated
5. Reflects on the organisation
and typesetting of the research
proposal
6. Reflects on the use of language
and style of writing
7. Comments are constructive and
target improvement of the
research proposal

(CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE)

Norm setting
Each of the peer reviews submitted will be assessed. In order to obtain a pass for a single
peer review, the three criteria indicated in Table 10 need to be passed as a minimum, and at
least five out of seven criteria require a pass.

Table 10 Minimum criteria for peer review

Criteria requiring a pass

Research importance
2. Importance of research in relation to theory and practice is assessed

Flaws in argumentation
3. Flaws in line of argumentation are indicated

Recommendations
7. Comments are constructive and target improvement of the research proposal
APPENDIX C – ASSESSMENT FORM LETTER TO REVIEWER
AUTHOR
Name student
Student number
Date of review (DD/MM/YY)
Preconditions
Passed word count
Components and weights
1. Notification to reviewer
- Acknowledgement of efforts
invested by the reviewer
2. Appraisal of reviewer comments
- Addressing the comments of the
reviewer
3. Course of action for
improvement
- Improvements indicated based on
review
4. General quality
- Organisation and structure
- Command of English
5. Implementation of course of
action
- Realisation of course of action in
research proposal
Norm setting
Each of the letters to the reviewer submitted will be assessed. In order to obtain a pass for a
single letter to reviewer, all criteria need to be passed.
Yes No
☐ ☐
Standard
Recognition of the efforts
taken by the reviewer
Argued reply to the reviewer
comments
Indicates the improvements
that are applied to the
research proposal based on
reviewer comments
Letter to reviewer is well-
structured
English is clear and contains
few errors in spelling and
grammar. Style of writing
meets academic standards.
Indicated improvements and
changes are reflected in the
research proposal
PASS/FAIL
Criteria (PASS/FAIL) Remarks
1. Short letter acknowledging the
efforts by the reviewer
2. Critical reflection on all
reviewer comments provided
3. Improvements for each
comment indicated where
appropriate
4. Structured according to
provided format
5. Use of academic English.
6. Indicated improvements and
changes for research proposal are
effectuated