Assignment Remit
|
Programme Title
|
Business Management suite of programmes
|
|
Module Title
|
Management Education and Learning B
|
|
Module Code
|
07 33984
|
|
Assignment Title
|
Coursework 1: Case study analysis
|
|
Level
|
LC
|
|
Weighting
|
80%
|
|
Hand Out Date
|
Week of 15th January 2024
|
|
Due Date & Time
|
15/04/2024
|
12pm
|
|
Feedback Post Date
|
07/05/2024
|
|
Assignment Format
|
Essay
|
|
Assignment Length
|
1,500 words including references
|
|
Submission Format
|
Online
|
Individual
|
Assignment:
Case study analysis
The objective of this coursework is for you to critically engage with the theory and practice of promoting wellbeing or equality, diversity and inclusion (including cultural diversity) for employees within organisations. We want you to think from both an organisational and an individual points of view. As such, we ask that you undertake a case study analysis of an organisation which is promoting one element of EDI in the management of its employees and discuss the implications of your analysis for your own personal and professional development.
For this assignment, you need to do the following tasks:
1. Choose an area related to the promotion of either wellbeing or equality, diversity and inclusion [EDI] in the management of employees within organisations i.e. gender equality, race and diversity recruitment, LGBTQ+ identities and employee experience, disability adjustments, the promotion of cultural diversity, etc. Critically summarise some of the theories and academic debate associated with the area that you chose using academic references on the topic;
2. Choose a case study of an organisation in any type of sectors (i.e. corporations, SMEs, public organisations, social enterprises, NGOs, etc.) to illustrate the promotion of the area that you chose in 1 within that organisation.
3. Critically apply and discuss the academic debate and/or theories that you have summarised in 1 in relation to the practice of this organisation: to what extent does the case study support or illustrate the academic debate?
4. Conclude your work by summarizing the key findings from your analysis and what it means for your own learning and personal and professional development.
In doing this assignment, it is recommended that you build on the material from weeks 1 to 9 of the module and activities from seminars 1 to 4. In conducting your case study analysis, you need to bring together academic references (journal articles, academic books…) for the literature that you discuss in 1 and secondary data about your case as evidence to support your analysis of the case.
The word count for this assignment is 1,500 words maximum including your reference list.
Module Learning Outcomes:
· LO 1. Conduct a case study analysis and discuss, identify and assess responsible business practices (here the promotion of wellbeing or equality, diversity and inclusion in the management of employees within organisations) and ways to enhance them at an individual level within organisations.
· LO 2. Identify appropriate sources of data, start to practice research and analysis using various academic and secondary data sources.
Feedback to Students:
Both Summative and Formative feedback is given to encourage students to reflect on their learning that feed forward into following assessment tasks. The preparation for all assessment tasks will be supported by formative feedback within the tutorials/seminars. Written feedback is provided as appropriate. Please be aware to use the browser and not the Canvas App as you may not be able to view all comments.
Plagiarism:
It is your responsibility to ensure that you understand correct referencing practices. You are expected to use appropriate references and keep carefully detailed notes of all your information sources, including any material downloaded from the Internet. It is your responsibility to ensure that you are not vulnerable to any alleged breaches of the assessment regulations. More information is available at https://intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/as/registry/policy/conduct/plagiarism/index.aspx.
Use of Generative AI:
Unless explicitly stated otherwise, students should assume that the use of generative AI within an assessment or assignment is not permitted. Any assessment submitted that is not a student’s own work, including that written by generative AI tools, are in breach of the University’s Code of Practice on Academic Integrity (https://intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/as/registry/policy/conduct/plagiarism/index.aspx
Wellbeing Extenuating Circumstances:
The process for Extenuating Circumstances is to support students who have experienced unforeseen issues that have impacted their ability to engage with their studies and/or complete assessments. Students should notify Wellbeing of any extenuating circumstances as soon as possible via the online form, following the guidance provided.
https://intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/social-sciences/college-services/wellbeing/index.aspx
Marking criteria & referencing
The assessment for this module is based on the School assessment marking criteria available in Table 1 below. Please study the criteria carefully before you write your assignments, and consult them regularly while you are writing. In particular, writing assignments should concentrate on argument and analysis rather than description, and build on the material discussed in class. Please proof-read your work before submitting it and make sure that you reference properly all the material used in your essay – have a look here on the guidance on how to reference properly any work you use and cite within your essay.
Table 1: Grading Criteria:
|
|
80+
|
70-79
|
60-69
|
50-59
|
40-49
|
30-39
|
Below 30
|
|
Understanding
|
An original argument that shows independence and clarity of thought and is based on an excellent grasp of the subject
|
Develops a consistent, logical argument based on good understanding of the subject
|
Demonstrates a sound grasp of the subject. Arguments are sustained and generally convincing
|
Basic elements of the subject are demonstrated but misses some key points
|
Weak argumentation. Key ideas are unclear in places. Some misunderstanding of the subject is shown
|
Many basic areas of misunderstanding of the subject are shown
|
Virtually no understanding of the subject
|
|
Structure
|
Fluent and readable
|
Clear and easy to follow. Well signposted throughout. Convincing links are made between sections
|
Clear and easy to follow. Well signposted throughout.
|
Somewhat formulaic and repetitive in places. Links between sections unclear.
|
Fragmented in places and difficult to follow
|
Very limited ability to structure an argument, generally difficult to follow
|
Disorganized, fragmented, impossible to follow
|
|
Evidence
|
Excellent synthesis of relevant theories and examples. Demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of the research literature, including classic as well as current debates
|
Based on solid research evidence, including journal articles as well as textbook sources. Very good use of examples
|
Goes beyond textbook sources to engage with relevant journal articles on the topic. Good use is made of examples
|
Some attempt at synthesis and analysis shown but arguments are inconsistent and not fully developed.
|
Very little research evidence to support arguments. Heavy reliance on lecture content and basic textbook sources
|
Predominantly descriptive rather than analytical. Contains numerous sweeping generalisations and unsupported assertions
|
Virtually no research evidence used, very speculative and heavily opinionated
|
|
Reflection
|
The analysis subjects underlying assumptions about the subject to critical scrutiny. Demonstrates a high level of reflexivity, including an ability to analyse personally-held beliefs and values
|
Very good awareness of different perspectives in shaping the subject. Some awareness of the author’s values and experiences in shaping their views on the subject is also shown
|
Some critical analysis of the subject is shown and the role of the author’s values and experiences is mentioned but not developed.
|
Demonstrates some awareness of different approaches and a willingness to go beyond basic managerialist and functionalist approaches
|
Very little awareness of different approaches
|
Uncritical and prescriptive in tone. Predominantly managerialist and functionalist in orientation. No awareness of multiple perspectives on the subject
|
Little or no evidence of critical reflection
|
|
Style
|
Excellent, technically free from errors. Flawlessly referenced using Harvard method.
|
Clearly and fluently written. Very well referenced using Harvard method.
|
Generally well expressed, but with a few errors. Very well referenced using Harvard method.
|
Adequately expressed, but with some grammatical and spelling errors. Referenced using Harvard method but with omissions and errors
|
Unclear, difficult to follow in places. Not adequately referenced.
|
Very unclear, difficult to follow in many places. Poorly referenced.
|
Difficult to understand most points. Spelling, grammar and language weak. Little or no referencing provided
|