44-710481-AF International Marketing Strategy Task Two – Dissertation Article 2026 | SHU

Word Count	6,500 (+/- 10%)

44-710481-AF Task Two – Dissertation Article:

Module Leaders: Dr Ellen Bennett, Dr Tony Lynn and Dr Emily Moorlock		Level: 7
Module Name: Dissertation		Module Code: 44-710481-AF
Assessment Type (e.g. portfolio/presentation etc.): Portfolio		Module Credits: 60
Individual/Group: Individual	Weighting: 80%	Wordcount or equivalent: 6,500 (+/- 10%)
Final submission date and time: please see the assessment schedule on the module Blackboard site	Online submission: Yes	Format: Microsoft Word
Assessed Module Learning Outcomes 1. Develop clear and appropriate research objectives that address a contemporary disciplinary issue. 2. Review and critically appraise relevant disciplinary literature in relation to the dissertation topic. 3. Develop, justify and apply an appropriate research approach and design for the project,considering both its limitations and compliance with the required research ethics process.

The dissertation article submission has two components:

1. Dissertation article:

You must prepare your dissertation article for submission using the structure below. Please do not deviate from this format. Your final article for submission should be 6,500 words (+10/-10%) – your supervisor will stop reading if you exceed this and the remainder will not be marked.

2.Supporting appendices and associated anonymised data:

You should be guided by your supervisor as to what to include here but, if would be usual for this to include:

• the final (signed) version of your SHUREC (ethics form) – including any associated documents (participant information sheet, final consent form template [unfilled/ blank], recruitment materials) and any data collection tools (such as questionnaires), the final (signed) version of your risk assessment (if applicable)
• associated anonymised data as agreed by your supervisor (e.g. transcripts or anonymised SPSS raw data codebooks; copies of anonymised analysis/outputs (e.g. SPSS tests/outputs, thematic analyses or similar); DO NOT include any data that are not anonymised.
  oYour supervisor will also verify your raw data, such as the audio-recording of interviews, if this data is not verified you will receive a mark of zero for this task. 

Dissertation article structure

The first page should include:

1.Title of paper*
2.Author Name, Student Number and Supervisor’s Name*
3.Abstract (maximum 150 words). This should include areas such as background, method, findings and conclusion*
4.Keywords (3 to 5 keywords)*
* These sections are not included in the word count. 

1.Title*

Aim for no more than 12 words in the title. The title should be short and relevant to the main objectives of your study. Ensure the title is specific and reflects the scope of your study. 

2.Author Name and Supervisor’s Name*

On the same page as the title page make sure you include your full name, student number, course name using the following format:

Student Name: ……….
Student Number: ……….
Course: ……….
Supervisor: ……….

3.Abstract

This should be 100-150 words that provide a top-line overview of your dissertation article, including areas such as the background, method, key findings and conclusion. 

4.Introduction

Introduce the research focus/problem you are seeking to address, including the aim and objectives, providing relevant context to your research. Aim for around 500 words.

5.Literature review

Building on from the literature review in task one and the associated feedback, as a starting point, you should produce around 2000 words of academic background to your work.  Start by presenting the broad context, working towards an increasingly narrow focus specifically to address your research focus.  You should write in the style of a literature review, incorporating clear critical evaluation, and use meaningful subheadings.  

6.Methodology

Build on the method from task one and the associated feedback, as a starting point to produce 1000-1500 words summarising your method with a clear rationale (i.e. underpinning) as to why this is the best approach for you to have taken. You should carefully structure this work using subheadings.  The method should be described with enough clarity and specificity that readers can understand how the study was conducted and how the analytical approach was applied to the data, in a way that is appropriate to the study’s philosophical and methodological orientation.

7.Findings and Discussion

We recommend blending these sections unless your discipline is better suited to a separate findings and discussion section. Depending on your research approach, your raw data should be transformed (e.g. into graphs or tables, or presented in a meaningfully summative way). Where appropriate you should apply appropriate qualitative or quantitative data analysis techniques and appropriately report these outputs. You results should be described in free-text, structured to aid meaning. You shouldn’t duplicate the content presented in tables/ graphs in free-text but your writing should aid the interpretation of the data summaries that have been included.

Considerable time and effort should be put into interpreting what your findings mean in the context of the associated academic field/ literature base. A discussion section should present a clear ‘so what?’ – i.e. why- does what you have found matter? You should compare and contrast your findings with those that have been published by other authors/ research groups.
You should draw this section to a close by considering:

• the limitations of your work and the effects these might have had on your findings;
• recommendations for future research based on where gaps remain in the literature.

Together this should be around 2000-2500 words.

8.Conclusion

This is not a summary – it should be interpretive and explain how your findings add to or change current thinking in your discipline area or if not, why that might be the case and what we should do next. You might consider how the findings conform to/verify existing theory? If they differ, explain why and the implications of this (practical and/or theoretical). Aim for around 500 words.

9.Acknowledgements* 

This section is optional and an opportunity to thank those who supported you through the dissertation process. This typically would be 1-2 sentences. 

10.References*

These should follow APA7 format. Please note: the final references list does not count towards the word count, but in text citations, tables/figures/schematics etc. do.

11.Use of AI (AI Transparency Scale)*

You must include a statement of how you have used AI, including all prompts used. You are able to use AI on this task to support you with an outline structure and to prompt thinking. For your dissertation AI tools should not be used for concept development. This is a core part of the learning on the module, and the use of AI in this manner will undermine your development and the integrity of your work. You cannot take any content directly from AI to include in the dissertation article – it must be refined and reviewed by you. If any of your raw data is inputted into AI this will result in an automatic failure of the module as this goes against the University’s ethics policy. Do not use AI to generate entire sections, draft arguments, analyse data or create literature reviews. Submitting AI-generated text as your own is considered academic misconduct.

Statement examples: 

3.I confirm that no AI tools were used in the preparation or completion of this assessment. This submission aligns with AITS 1 of the Artificial Intelligence Transparency Scale (AITS).   or
4.I used AI at AITS 2 (AI for Shaping) of the Artificial Intelligence Transparency Scale (AITS). I acknowledge the use of AI to….

Formatting

You must use the following formatting and font/font sizes:

Fonts: Calibri, Times New Roman or Arial. 
Font size non-headings: 12 point font
Font size headings: 14 point font in bold
Font size sub-headings: 12 point font, italics 
Line Spacing: Double spaced 

All figures and tables must be numbered, have a title and be referred to in the main body of your dissertation article. 

44-710481 Assessment Criteria – Task Two

Assessment Criteria	Distinction (96-74)	Merit (69-52)	Pass (58-52)	Fail (45-0)
Introduction (LO1) Clearly identify and justify the research focus within your field/discipline	Excellent and insightful articulation of the research focus. The focus is exceptionally well justified, tightly aligned with research aim, objectives and/or research questions and context.	A clear and well-articulated research focus. The focus is well justified and aligned with the research aim, objectives and/or research questions and context.	A research focus is identified and generally relevant to the topic area, though broad or underdeveloped.	No or limited clarity on project focus, no clear aim/objectives/research questions. Focus is overly broad, contradictory, inappropriate, or work is not submitted.
Literature Review (LO2) Demonstration of rigorous and critical understanding of relevant theory and literature	Exceptional breadth and depth of engagement with literature, critical appraisal and strong synthesis of relevant literature.	Good appraisal and evaluation of relevant literature with wider reading and appropriate critical evaluation.	Satisfactory appraisal and evaluation of literature with reasonable engagement with wider reading. Limited critical evaluation.	Little evidence of reading and engagement with relevant literature. Lack of wider reading.
Methodology (LO3) Ability to select, justify and apply an appropriate research methodology	Research approach is highly appropriate, critically justified and demonstrates advanced methodological understanding. Design and analytical strategy are rigorous and tightly integrated with research focus.	Research approach is clearly articulated, well aligned with aims and logically explained. Methodological choices reflect good understanding and limitations are appropriately discussed.	Research approach is appropriate and broadly aligned with research focus. Some justification provided, though limitations discussion is generic.	Research approach absent, inappropriate or poorly articulated. Methodology lacks coherence, justification and alignment with research focus.
Findings and Discussion Demonstrate rigorous analysis and interpretation of findings	Rigorous, systematic and critical analysis. Exceptional integration of theoretical frameworks. Excellent identification of limitations and future research directions.	Rigorous and systematic analysis with good integration of theoretical frameworks and clear future research recommendations.	Basic but adequate analysis. Some attempt to integrate theoretical frameworks in interpreting findings.	Inadequate analysis with no meaningful interpretation linked to research objectives.
Conclusion(s) Recognition of significance of findings	Outstanding conclusions that effectively pull together implications of findings.	Strong conclusions that bring together key implications of findings.	Basic conclusions that build on findings and discussion.	Conclusions absent or not clearly linked to findings and discussion.
Structure and Presentation Appropriate dissertation structure, academic writing, referencing	Dissertation follows structure exceptionally well. Academic writing demonstrates outstanding clarity, coherence and rigour. Referencing is comprehensive and accurate throughout.	Dissertation follows appropriate structure. Good clarity, coherence and rigour. Referencing is accurate and consistently applied.	Appropriate structure with reasonable clarity and coherence. Some academic weaknesses and referencing errors.	Structure not followed. Poor clarity, coherence and academic rigour. Inaccurate or inconsistent referencing.
Engagement Constructive engagement with supervisor throughout project	Highly proactive, consistent and professional engagement. Feedback actively sought and applied. Demonstrates exceptional project knowledge.	Regular and constructive engagement. Feedback thoughtfully considered and applied. Good project knowledge demonstrated.	Basic engagement with supervisor. Feedback acknowledged and partially acted upon.	Minimal or absent engagement. Feedback ignored. Lack of project knowledge. Failing this element means the task cannot receive a pass mark.
Supporting Appendices Complete and organised appendices evidencing originality and ethical procedures	Comprehensive evidence showing adherence to health, safety and ethical requirements. Strong evidence of originality and rigour.	Logically presented evidence demonstrating ethical compliance and originality of research.	Adequate evidence showing ethical compliance and originality of work.	Poorly organised, inadequate or missing appendices. Insufficient evidence of originality or research process.
Ethics Approval Research conducted ethically and in line with approval	Pass – Ethics approval received and adhered to.	Pass – Ethics approval received and adhered to.	Pass – Ethics approval received and adhered to.	Fail – Ethics approval not received and/or not adhered to. Assessment cannot receive a pass mark.
Data Verification Supervisor has seen original/raw data	Pass – Raw data seen and verified.	Pass – Raw data seen and verified.	Pass – Raw data seen and verified.	Fail – No raw data seen or verified.