THE IMPACT OF INDUSTRY PLACEMENT ON STUDENT’S CAREER CHOICE IN HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY

BRH606 Assessment Brief 2_ Research Proposal Page 1 of 6
Context:
This assessment aims to equip students with the ability to formulate, plan and justify a relevant
research project in response to a business-related problem. This research project has already been
established and defended in Assessment 1, with subsequent feedback provided.
For this assessment, students are required to produce a 3,000-word research proposal that discusses
the research context, investigates the research problem, reviews relevant literature, and recommends
a suitable methodology to undertake the project.
ASSESSMENT 2 BRIEF
Subject Code and Name BRH606: Business Research for Hoteliers
Assessment Assessment 2: Research Proposal
Individual/Group Group Proposal
Length 3,000 words
Learning Outcomes This assessment addresses the following unit learning
outcomes:
a) Analyse the various approaches to business and
social research and the difference between
primary and secondary research
b) Critically review extant knowledge in a disciplinary
area for the identification of researchable problems
c) Understand and justify the use of quantitative and
qualitative data collection and analysis
d) Investigate a range of data collection methods and tools
e) Conceptually map the research process,
developing a defensible framework for
proposed research
f) Evaluate the ways management research may be
written and disseminated
Submission By 11:59 pm Friday of Week 10
Weighting 70%
Total Marks 100 marks
BRH606 Assessment Brief 2_ Research Proposal Page 2 of 6
A Research Proposal can be defined as:
“A plan that offers recommendations for conducting research … details the who, the what, the where,
the when and the how of research and the information associated with it”.
Instructions:
SECTION 1: RESEARCH CONTEXT
The research context outlines the background of the study and the research problem established in
Assessment 1 (Note: it is best to approach this section as though the reader is unaware of the preceding
presentation).
SECTION 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Using the research problem established in Assessment 1, students are to conduct a thorough
secondary research and produce a literature review. The purpose of this literature review is to place
the research problem in the context of what is already known and aid in better understanding the issue
at hand. This will also help identify any gap in knowledge (that is, “What Information we still need to
get?”) which will inform the research objectives and proposed primary research.
A minimum of 12 academic resources is expected, with additional supporting industry/professional
references where required. This will reflect depth, breadth and credibility of the literature review.
Correct andcomplete citations should be provided according to the APA 6th edition Academic Writing
Guide available on Blackboard.
Studentsshould avoid copying large amountsof secondary data and information. Rather, students are
encouraged toparaphraseandmodel the concepts to address the specified research objectives.
In this section, students must demonstrate familiarity with the existing body of knowledge and
methods used in the relevant area of research. Additionally, students are required to synthesise and
critique the literature which have been reviewed.
SECTION 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY FOR A PRIMARY RESEARCH PROJECT
In this section, students are expected to present and justify the methodological decisions of the
research project. This section requires the following key points to be addressed:
• The (revised) research objectives linked to the research problem and ‘knowledge gap’ identified in
the previous section (literature review).
BRH606 Assessment Brief 2_ Research Proposal Page 3 of 6
• The research approach to be applied – Specify whether the proposed study will be designed as an
exploratory, explanatory, descriptive or causal research. This section should also provide
justification as to why the recommended approach suits the problem/information requirements
and how using the recommended approach will yield superior information/results.
• Details of methodology to be applied – For example: qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods
• The proposed data collection method(s) – For example: focus groups, interviews, surveys,
experiments and/or observation. Include a justification as to why this technique(s) would be most
appropriate.
• The population of the study, including a discussion on the overall population size.
• The proposed sampling method – For example: simple random sampling, cluster sampling, quota
systematic sampling, purposive sampling, convenience sampling, etc. Provide a justification as to
why this method would be appropriate and aligned with the overall research approach.
• The proposed data analysis method – For example: thematic analysis, content analysis, grounded
theory, descriptive statistics, or inferential statistics. Include a justification as to why this technique
would be most appropriate.
• Implementation plan – Details on how the research design will be administered. This should
include a timeline of the project, as well as details relating to the storage of data and dissemination
of research outcomes.
• Suggested questions/topic areas to be investigated – For example, if the proposed data collection
method is a structured interview, then sample questions to be asked should be provided. These
questions should relate directly to the objectives of your research.
SECTION 4: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
• All research must be conducted in alliance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human
Research (2007, plus amendments). Upon revision of this document, write a description of the ethical
considerations you will take in preparation for and in the process of your proposed study. Be sure to
refer to the specific components of the National Statement that are relevant to your study. Note that
students will not be allowed to conduct research that involves the following:
– minors below the age of 18;
– people with physical, sensory, psychiatric, neurological, cognitive and/or intellectual disability;
– the deception of participants and/or evading the requirement of obtaining informed consent
NOTES:
• Only one copy of the presentation is to be submitted to Turnitin, with names of all group members
listed on the cover sheet.
• A BMIHMS Peer Evaluation form MUST BE completed and submitted either in person or by email
BRH606 Assessment Brief 2_ Research Proposal Page 4 of 6
to the lecturer during the day of presentation.
• A discretional + or – 10% marks may be awarded or deducted to individual students based on the
outcome of peer evaluation.
Submission Instructions:
1. Typed and formatted according to the structure guideline presented above.
2. To be submitted electronically in Microsoft Word format to Turnitin through Blackboard By 11:59
pm Friday of Week 10
3. The total word count, excluding references, must a maximum of 3000 word count. Penalties will
apply when word count restrictions are not met.
4. Minimum of 12 academic sources and additional supporting industry/professional references
where required. Lecture notes are unacceptable as a form of research.
5. All referencing (in-text referencing and reference list) must be in accordance with the APA 6th
edition Academic Writing Guide available on Blackboard.
6. A Torrens University Australia Group Assignment Cover Sheet is to be attached to your submission.
7. See marking rubric attached at the end of this document. You do not need to attach this rubric to
your submissions.
Assessment Criteria Fail
(Unacceptable)
0-49%
Pass
(Functional)
50-64%
Credit
(Proficient)
65-74%
Distinction
(Advanced)
75 -84%
High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85-100%
Content, Audience and
Purpose (broad and
specific content)
RESEARCH CONTEXT
10%
Demonstrates no awareness
of context and/or purpose of
the assignment.
Demonstrates limited
awareness of context and/or
purpose of the assignment
Demonstrates consistent
awareness of context
and/or purpose of the
assignment.
Demonstrates an advanced and
integrated understanding of
context and/or purpose of the
assignment.
Consistently demonstrates a
systematic and critical
understanding of context and
purpose of the assignment.
Analysis and application
with synthesis of new
knowledge
LITERATURE REVIEW
20%
Limited synthesis and
analysis.
Limited application/
recommendations based
upon analysis.
Demonstrated analysis and
synthesis of existing
knowledge with application.
Shows the ability to interpret
relevant information and
literature.
Well-developed analysis
and synthesis with
application of
recommendations linked to
analysis/synthesis.
Thoroughly developed and
creative analysis and synthesis
with application of pretested
models and / or independently
developed models and justified
recommendations linked to
analysis/synthesis.
Highly sophisticated and creative
analysis, synthesis of existing
knowledge.
Strong application by way of
pretested models and / or
independently developed
models. Recommendations are
clearly justified based on the
analysis/synthesis. Applying
knowledge to new
situations/other cases.
Knowledge and
understanding (technical
and theoretical
knowledge)
METHODOLOGY
40%
Limited understanding of
required concepts and
knowledge
Key components of the
assignment are not
addressed.
Knowledge or understanding
of the field or discipline.
Resembles a recall or summary
of key ideas.
Often confuses assertion of
personal opinion with
information substantiated by
evidence from the
research/course materials.
Thorough knowledge or
understanding of the field
or discipline/s. Supports
methodological choices and
information with evidence
from the research/course
materials.
Demonstrates a capacity to
explain and apply relevant
concepts.
Highly developed understanding
of the field or discipline/s.
Supports methodological choices
and information with robust
evidence from the
research/course materials and
extended reading.
Well demonstrated capacity to
explain and apply relevant
concepts.
A sophisticated understanding of
the field or discipline/s.
Systematically and critically
Supports methodological choices
and information with robust
evidence from the
research/course materials and
extended reading.
Mastery of concepts and
application to new
situations/further learning.
Effective Communication
15%
Difficult to understand for
audience, no logical/clear
structure, poor flow of ideas,
argument lacks supporting
evidence.
Audience cannot follow the
line of reasoning.
Information, arguments and
evidence are presented in a
way that is not always clear
and logical.
Line of reasoning is often
difficult to follow.
Information, arguments
and evidence are well
presented, mostly clear
flow of ideas and
arguments.
Line of reasoning is easy to
follow.
Information, arguments and
evidence are very well presented;
the presentation is logical, clear
and well supported by evidence.
Engages and sustains audience’s
interest in the topic through a
good line of reasoning
Expertly presented; the
presentation is logical,
persuasive, and well supported
by evidence, demonstrating a
clear flow of ideas and
arguments.
Engages and sustains audience’s
interest in the topic through an
excellent line of reasoning
Effective use of diverse
presentation aids, including
graphics.
Quality of researchCorrect citation of key
resources and evidence
15%
Demonstrates inconsistent
use of good quality, credible
and relevant resources to
support and develop ideas.
Demonstrates use of credible
and relevant resources to
support and develop ideas, but
these are not always explicit or
well developed.
Demonstrates use of high
quality, credible and
relevant resources to
support and develop ideas.
Demonstrates use of good
quality, credible and relevant
resources to support and develop
arguments and statements.
Shows some evidence of wide
scope of research extending to a
variety of sources
Demonstrates use of high-quality,
credible and relevant resources
to support and develop
arguments and position
statements. Shows strong
evidence of wide scope of
research extending to a variety of
sources.