Assessment 3

This assessment task requires you to write the first three chapters of your honours research
thesis. This assessment tests your achievement of the following Course and Program
Learning Outcomes:
Course Learning Outcomes:
• Identify a research problem
• Systematically undertake a research inquiry which meets established ethical
guidelines and principles
• Analyse and synthesise relevant literature and produce a literature review
• Select and apply an appropriate research methodology
• Plan an approach to primary and/or secondary data collection
Program Learning Outcomes:
• Determine and apply discipline and theoretical knowledge to your professional practice
and/or further study
• Professionally communicate to a range of audiences utilising diverse formats and
strategies, demonstrating in depth knowledge of the discipline and responsiveness to
the needs of diverse stakeholders
• Apply logical, critical and creative thinking to analyse, synthesise and apply theoretical
knowledge, and technical skills, to formulate evidenced based solutions to industry
problems or issues

• Utilise appropriate methods and techniques to design and /or execute a theory-
research based or professionally- focused research project demonstrating capacity for

independent and collaborative learning, addressing real world industry issues
• Collaborate effectively with others and demonstrate intellectual independence and
autonomy to solve problems and/or address industry issues and imperatives
• Critically examine and reflect on the profession, in local and/or global contexts, and
question accepted interpretations and decision making

This assessment task requires you to write the first three chapters of your honours research
thesis. Please follow the structure as provided below:
——-Prescribed Thesis Structure—————————————————————————–
Title Page
• Student name
• Project title and Date
• Academic supervisor and industry mentor
• Name of School and University
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction (~1200 words)
1.1 Introduction and Background
1.2 Problem Statement/Research Rationale
1.3 Aims and Objectives/Research Questions
1.4. Limitations of Research
Chapter 2: Literature Review (~4000 words)
2.1 Introduction
2.2, 2.3, 2.4 At least three subheadings, could be more
2.5 Summary
Chapter 3: Research Methodology (~1200 words)
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research Methodology
3.3 Research Methods and Data Sources
3.4 Summary
References (Harvard Style) (Not included in the word limit)
(*Word count is a guide only and may change based on your particular research and
advice from your supervisor)

You have some flexibility in the required thesis structure above in the sections indicated
through the italic font. For example, you may decide to merge the sub-chapters 1.1, 1.2., and
1.3 and/or you can have further sub-chapters under each subheading as required.

Make sure you review and understand the marking rubric at the end of this document.
• Discuss research and industry context and background information
• Consider terminology: Are there terms you should define for your audience?
Problem statement/Research rationale
• What is the problem?
• Why is it an important problem and how it relates to the industry?
• How does your research address this problem?
Aims and objectives/Research questions
• Clearly state your aims and objectives and/or research question(s)
• Make sure the question cannot be answered with a Yes or No.
Literature review
The key purpose of your literature review is to enable you to identify the existing knowledge
that you can build on and the research gaps and problems that relate to your research topic.
The aim is to situate your topic in the context of current literature. In doing so, you will need to
develop and apply literature searching skills to identify relevant academic publications.
The aims of your literature review are to:
• Provide background information needed to understand and frame your research topic
• Demonstrate familiarity with the important research which has been done in your topic
• Identify how your research can and will build on existing knowledge
• Critically evaluate independently sourced peer reviewed articles and construct a
coherent argument supporting your research topic.
Remember, that when writing a literature review you are not simply listing peer reviewed
articles that have some connection to your research topic. Instead, you are analysing these
articles and discussing their relevance by critically evaluating their content within the context
of your own research topic. Good literature reviews bring articles together to support an
underpinning narrative that justifies the research you are undertaking.
In completing your literature review you will address these aims using an academic writing
style that is clear and concise.
Research methodology
Discuss your overall research methodology that you plan to adopt. For each of the research
methods in your methodology, discuss why you picked it and what data/information sources
you plan and how you plan to analyse the data/information. Ensure you make it clear how your
research methodology will help you answer your research question.
Referencing and formatting
You must use citations (using RMIT’s Harvard format) to acknowledge authorship and include
a complete reference list (using RMIT’s Harvard format) in the reference section.
All sources must be referenced appropriately, and all figures and tables must be numbered,
titled and integrated into the body of the report.


Information Sciences Research Methodology


The purpose of this assignment is to critique the research methodology of a research thesis or journal article or conference paper in order to develop awareness of best practice research in your discipline. A research thesis can be obtained by perusing the Australasian Digital Thesis Program. Journals articles and conference papers are generally available online through the UC library catalogue. Your supervisors may be able to offer suggestions.



Your critique of the research strategy must answer the following questions. You must support your answers with evidence from the thesis/article/paper and relevant literature.


Problem: What is the research problem addressed by the paper?


Theories: What theory/theories/framework/ model or development methodology have been used in the research project?

How have theory/theories/framework, model or development methodology been used to guide the research in the paper? e.g. theory is being tested, theory is being developed, etc.?


Methods: What research design has been adopted in the paper?

What methods have the researcher(s) adopted to conduct the research project?

Has the researcher(s) clearly explained and justified the chosen design and methods?

Do you think that the researcher(s) has selected appropriate design and methods to their problem?

Do you think the research in the paper is relevant to other researchers and/or practitioners e.g. IS, ICT, IT or Software Engineering professionals? How so?


Contribution: What is the contribution of the study (e.g. to theory (knowledge) or practice)? How so?


Quality: Has research quality been discussed? Explain.


Ethics Are any ethical issues raised in the research strategy? What are they?

Have they been addressed or resolved by the researcher(s)? How so?

Project Management

1. Explain what “Project Management” is to someone close to you – your Mum, Dad,

siblings, family and/or friends. You will report back to your group on how that went for you . were you successful in making the role/job clear? What questions did they ask of you? etc.

2. I introduced PMI’s most influential projects of the past 50 years -see this article The background for the project Why was it needed? What problem is it solving? o Why was it deemed a success? What new thing did it deliver?

o Who were the beneficiaries?

o Any other key point that attracted you to this project!

3. You will need to upload your notes on your experience of explaining PM and the overview of

each of the two projects (a Word or PPT slides with simple notes addressing each bullet point above) as part of Week2’s activities under the Assignments menu in Canvas (see here if logged in) and each workshop group will have a different deadline – although we will be flexible in these early weeks.

Individual analysis and reflection

Each member of your group should submit a written self-analysis and reflection (approx. 1500 words). This should build on the initial group analysis (submitted with the first part of the assessment above). You should focus on your individual role(s) within and contribution to the group as a whole.


You must draw on relevant organizational theory in your analysis and reflection. All individual submissions must include at least four quality research sources (see lecture one for guidance here).


There is some flexibility to your content and approach. For example, you could focus on the cultural/subcultural differences among your group member and how you managed any differences that did or could have interfered with the smooth running of your group. Alternatively you could analyse your own leadership qualities and role(s), identifying any specific challenges you faced and overcame during the planning/operation of the group. So you need to decide which OB theories are most useful to you, personally. Do not try to include too many topics and theories here – depth of analysis is often preferable to breadth. Perhaps you could focus on a small number of experiences, problems or high-points during group work and seek to better understand them by applying relevant theories.


You are required to engage in reflective self-analysis; in particular, how YOU contributed to this your group exercise and what YOU learnt as a result and how YOU can apply this learning to improve YOUR performance in future groupwork. This should be presented critically (ie exploring how your learning during this project could contribute to possible interactions with colleagues in future collaborations); you are likely to find learning theory and/or theories relating to teamwork particularly useful here, though you can draw from other topic areas if you prefer.


You must support your analysis with appropriate references. Any submission that does not include a MINIMUM OF 4 QUALITY RESEARCH REFERENCES (EG JOURNAL ARTICLES), will receive a grade of no more than 50%. If you have any doubts about your sources you should check with your tutor. Please note, student textbooks, unrefereed websites, magazines or newspapers SHOULD NOT be considered quality research references. These may present interesting and relevant opinions and can be included as ADDITIONAL sources, but not as your four quality references.


Self-evaluation Peer Assessment

As explained above, being able to offer useful and constructive feedback on a colleague’s performance is an essential skill when collaborating in organizational settings. It is not easy to assess the quality of someone’s work fairly and objectively – especially if you know that person well, whether you like or dislike them. Neither is it easy to point out weaknesses or advise of improvements sensitively; it is actually easy to offend, upset or disincentivise someone with criticism. We will spend some tutorial time exploring this sort of feedback.


Can you think of any undesirable human behaviors that could be shaped with rewards to lessen them or to make them go away? Explain in detail.


How does the scientific method point towards truth? What is truth, and how do you know when you have found it? Access and read the GCU Statement on Integration of Faith and Work. How might a person with the Christian worldview recognize when they have found truth?


Compare What are the similarities between Northerners and Southerners that

Lincoln outlines in the speech? What are their differences? Why does Lincoln

highlight these similarities and differences in the speech?

Social Science

After so many centuries, what is your opinion on why outside countries have continued to be successful in exploiting the sugar cane fields and workers in the Caribbean?


Assume you are on a search committee to replace the project manager for the failing complex project we have been discussing. One of the problems with the project manager was a lack of leadership. Recommend a leadership style (charismatic, transformational, coalitional, or Machiavellian) you would recommend, and why.