A detailed analysis of a set of three academic journal papers related to Agile project management 2.  Three papers must be core paper. Core papers must be peer review

1

MSc Management of Projects (MoP) Group of Programmes 2022/23

PROJECT MANAGEMENT RESEARCH METHODS (ENGM 60050) PMRM Coursework A: Critical Analysis of Academic Journal Papers (70% Unit)

Submission Deadline: 10am TUESDAY 21st March 2023 (Week 8)

Coursework Aim The purpose of “PMRM Coursework A” is to assess your ability to:

 Conduct a literature search – finding and selecting relevant, appropriate academic sources;

 Summarise and critically evaluate a selection of academic journal papers and draw appropriate conclusions;

 Correctly reference academic sources of information using standard Harvard referencing. In addition, through background reading to support the preparation of the coursework, students are expected to develop relevant knowledge of the published academic literature relevant to their allocated dissertation topic area. This enables you to identify specific research questions to investigate in your own dissertation project research.

Coursework Overview

 Coursework A must be based on your allocated dissertation topic area. You will be informed of your dissertation topic area early in Semester 2.

 At the start of your report you define the focus and scope of your mini-literature review and present a fully-referenced introduction to this specific topic.

 You then describe your methodology for searching and selecting appropriate academic literature sources (peer reviewed journal papers).

 You then summarise and critically analyse a carefully chosen set of three academic journal papers that are relevant to your dissertation topic, comparing each of these “core papers” with each other and with other related academic papers.

 Finally, using your analysis you must draw insights and present appropriate conclusions from critiquing your selection of three “core papers” and other supporting literature.

In Coursework B, which is submitted later and separately after Coursework A, you will be required to create an outline proposal for your dissertation project, based on your allocated topic area and background reading.

Summary of Contents and Page Allocation for Coursework The Coursework is divided into required content sections, each with a set page limit. Please note that marks will not be awarded for any content on pages exceeding the maximum number of pages stipulated for each section. You must comply exactly with the presentation and formatting instructions described in this briefing document. The requirements for each section are outlined below (It is advisable to start each section on a new page):

Page 1 Introduction: Focus, Context and Scope 10 Marks

Page 2 Methodology: Strategy for Literature Search and Selection 10 Marks

Pages 3-7 (5 pages)

Critique of Core Paper 1: Summary, Critical Analysis & Conclusions 60 Marks

Critique of Core Paper 2: Summary, Critical Analysis & Conclusions

Critique of Core Paper 3: Summary, Critical Analysis & Conclusions

Page 8 Discussion and Overall Conclusions 20 Marks

Page 9 + Harvard style Reference lists: (1) References of 3 Core papers, (2) List of additional references cited in your coursework

TOTAL 100 Marks

2

Preparatory Work – Selecting Three Peer-Reviewed Journal Papers for Analysis Coursework A requires a detailed analysis of a set of three academic journal papers. These three “core papers” must be relevant to your allocated dissertation topic area, and should be in some way related so as to form a coherent mini review of the literature on a specific subject. Core papers must be peer reviewed journal articles (not conference papers or books). Using any other types of sources will result in zero marks being awarded for that part of the assignment. Please note that “Procedia” publications are compilations of conference papers so must NOT be chosen as core papers. (These are peer-reviewed, but are not full journal articles). “Harvard Business Review” articles are also not eligible as core papers. These may be cited elsewhere in your coursework and in your dissertation. First you must choose three “core papers” to critique. This selection process requires researching the literature and spending substantial time carrying out background reading about your topic before selecting core papers.

 You are required to draw conclusions from your analysis of the literature presented in this coursework so,

when selecting which three journal papers to review in detail, it makes sense to select papers that are in

some way related rather than focusing on completely different and unrelated aspects of the topic. You

should only draw up your shortlist of review papers after reading through a wide selection of papers.

 You may find it easier to comment on research studies that have involved empirical data rather than being

purely “review articles”. Choosing papers describing different research methods or approaches can

sometimes be useful to show different perspectives, but this depends on your own project area.

 Each core paper should be compared with other papers as part of your critique, so you would normally cite

10 or more papers in total about your chosen topic to carry out your whole review. Marks are awarded for

quality rather than quantity so make sure all the sources you cite are relevant to your review. The same

“supporting paper” can be used in more than one core paper review if you wish.

A key purpose of reading the literature is to discover what aspects of your topic are already well researched and well documented and to identify where there are still gaps in knowledge that would benefit from new research. This enables you to devise your own research questions for your dissertation project, which you will be requires to describe in Coursework PMRM B, the dissertation proposal. Remember that your research proposal and dissertation must clearly lie within the area of project management/ management of project studies. Therefore, it is advisable that the papers you choose and discuss are related to or relevant for the study of project management.

Section 1: Introduction: Review Focus, Context and Scope (1 page maximum, 10 marks)

Under the section heading you should state the allocated project topic area. This could very simply be a line/ statement such as “Allocated dissertation project topic area: MOP99 Salt and Pepper” Your introduction section describes and justifies the main focus and context of your study of the academic literature for Coursework A, citing academic references for all facts stated. You must provide enough information to ensure your mini-review will make sense and be meaningful to someone who is unfamiliar with this specific topic. There is no restriction on the type of source or number of references that you may cite in this section. You must describe the scope of your mini-literature review and explain the reasoning for your choice of scope. Justify why you have chosen this particular area to focus on. If your dissertation topic is broad, with many papers are published about your topic, then your ‘mini-literature review’ presented in this report should have a tighter focus, examining only one aspect or part of your allocated

3

dissertation topic. For example, if your dissertation concerned ‘Sustainable Construction’, the scope of your mini- review could be restricted to researching applications of BREEAM and BIM for environmental improvement in the UK construction industry over the last 10 years. In section 1, you describe and justify this chosen narrower scope.

Section 2: Methodology – Search and Selection Strategy

(1 page maximum, 10 marks)

In this section you should explain the search strategy used to find appropriate academic journal papers for this coursework assignment. This section must include the following aspects and as part of your discussion you must justify your choices as well as describing your literature search methods:

i. Selection of appropriate key words/phrases and description of why these are relevant to your topic; ii. Search engines/tools used, or library databases or other electronic resources searched and an

explanation of why these are appropriate to your particular search; iii. Strategy and Criteria used to select appropriate literature sources. For example, how did you judge

their importance and relevance? On what basis did you choose or reject papers for this assignment? Whilst this section is largely descriptive, students who cite relevant literature to support/ justify their choices tend to score better.

Section 3: Critical Analysis of Three Academic Journal Papers (5 pages in total, 60 marks in total) You must summarise each of the three chosen “core” papers demonstrating “critical engagement”. Critical engagement means that you are actively engaging with what you are reading and with the way in which you report the information you have gathered to the reader. Your critical review of each paper must be structured as follows, including all five sections listed below for every core paper that you review, showing sub-headings if you wish. Each review should be approximately the same length and should also reference supporting academic literature sources.

a. Title/Reference: The Full Harvard Reference of the Academic Journal Paper must be the Title for each review.

b. Justification for Selection: Comment briefly on your reasons for selecting this particular paper for review as

one of your “core” journal papers. From all the papers available about this topic, why did you select this one?

How does it help you identify a ‘niche’ for your own future research project?

c. Summary (of Context, Method, Results and Conclusions): Briefly explain the purpose, context and scope of

the paper and the topic area that it addresses. Describe the particular issue that the study addresses and the

research methods used to generate and analyse the data. Summarise the main findings and conclusions as

documented in the paper.

d. Critique and Comparison with related papers: This section should examine each research paper and address

questions such as: Does the study/ paper achieve its aim? Examining the methodology, why was this

approach selected? Is the methodology similar to that which others researchers in this field have used and

do these conclusions agree or disagree with other work in this area? Are the findings justified and/or valid in

your view and how well did these relate to the authors’ aim and objectives? Was the evidence the authors

used to back up their findings robust? You should compare the core paper with at least one additional

academic source (supporting literature), and ideally more, to draw out relevant insights and different points

of view.

e. Conclusions: You should end your review of each core paper with a few sentences summarising the

conclusions that you have drawn from critical analysis of this research paper. This must go further than

simply summarising the conclusions that are stated in the research paper itself.

4

Section 4: Discussion and Overall Conclusions (1 page maximum, 20 marks)

In the discussion and conclusions section you must summarise and draw together (synthesise) the findings from the analysis of all three papers, plus supporting material, to draw out deeper insights and comment on the application to your area of research. You should aim to use the whole page to explain the conclusions you have drawn from conducting this review of the literature. No new sources (references) can be introduced in the conclusions section but you can reference any sources that you have already cited.

a) Short Summary: First, summarise your conclusions from each of your three core paper reviews.

b) Further Insights: Discuss what conclusions you have you been able to deduce from reviewing all

the data together, about the topic itself or about research in this subject area, drawing together all

three paper reviews and comparisons with each other and with other supporting literature.

c) Suggested Application(s): In what ways could this study of the literature have potential uses or

consequences for professional practice in Project Management? Explain your thinking.

d) Proposed Future Research: How could this study of the academic literature be useful in guiding

the planning of future research in this subject area (e.g. your dissertation)? Explain your thinking.

Reference Lists Using the Harvard Style

Two Reference lists are required, in Harvard format, on one or more pages at the end of your coursework report. You must provide a full Harvard reference for all of the sources cited (not just the url/weblink). These must be presented as two separate lists on the References page using Harvard Referencing.

1. List of Core Paper References (three in total)

2. List of all other References (supporting literature cited in the introduction and paper reviews)

Whilst there are no marks for this section, up to 10 marks may be lost for poor presentation and referencing errors.

Coursework Instructions on Presentation and Formatting The coursework must be presented, structured and written following the instructions below. You must clearly communicate your meaning whilst being careful to avoid directly replicating any of the source text without appropriate citation. Text must be written in formal academic English using the third person, with font size 11. Start each section on a new page. Large blocks of text should be avoided – divide the content into separate paragraphs and use sub- headings. Apply careful editing to avoid spelling, grammar, syntax and other errors. A good standard of written English is particularly important in this coursework, as you will only be awarded marks if your assessor can clearly understand the points that you are making. Check your spelling and keep sentences short and simply structured if you are concerned about your correct use of grammar and syntax. You must not plagiarise from the papers you are reviewing. Any direct quotes must be enclosed in “ ” marks and other content that you use from your source papers must be written entirely in your own words. Any material (including part-sentences) reproduced directly from source papers and not enclosed in “ ” marks will be penalised as poor academic practice, even if the paragraph cites the original source as a reference. If using direct quotations, please remember to include the page number where that quote was taken from.

5

Coursework A Submission

The submission must be made through the ENGM60050 Project Management Research Methods unit on Blackboard before the deadline date and time shown in the coursework header. Late submissions will receive a marks penalty, so you are strongly advised to submit early. The submission time recorded is when submission is

completed, not when you click “submit”. Click on the Assessment tab and read the Turnitin Submission Instructions for more information. You must complete the Turnitin Assignment Declaration to confirm this is your own work before you can upload your file.

Please either use the PMRM Discussion Board in Blackboard or speak to your lecturer at the end of any Semester

2 PMRM lectures if you have any questions about this coursework assignment.

1

Marking Criteria – PMRM Semester 2 Coursework A (ENGM60050) REVIEW OF ACADEMIC JOURNAL PAPERS

1 2 3 4 5 6 Missing Poor Fail Fail Pass Merit Distinction Introduction (10 Marks)

0 Marks (0%)

1-3 Marks (1–39%)

4 Marks (40-49%)

5 Marks (50%-59%)

6 Marks (60-69%)

7-10 Marks (70- 100%)

Required Content  Introduction: Focus,

Context and Scope of Review

Missing or content doesn’t match allocated dissertation topic.

Most elements missing. Content incoherent, very unclear or superficial. Lacking references.

Some key elements are missing. Mainly unclear. Superficial description but lacks sufficient clarity. Many statements unsupported with references.

Key elements included, though would benefit from more detail or clarity. Description of review focus, context and scope provide an adequate overview. Justification may be missing. Sources referenced.

Provides a good level of detail and clarity. Explanation of review focus, context and scope provide a meaningful overview and shows some justification. Sources mostly referenced.

Provides a clear and reasoned explanation and overview of the study, justifying chosen focus, explaining the context and scope and indicating deeper critical engagement. Sources fully referenced.

Search strategy (10 Marks)

0 Marks (0%)

1-3 Marks (1–39%)

4 Marks (40-49%)

5 Marks (50%-59%)

6 Marks (60-69%)

7-10 Marks (70- 100%)

Required Content  Keywords  Search Tools  Search / Selection

Strategy

Missing or content doesn’t match allocated dissertation topic.

Most elements missing. Either keywords or description of search/selection process are absent. Content incoherent, very unclear or superficial.

One or two key elements are missing. Mainly unclear. Superficial description of search and selection process but lacks sufficient clarity.

Basic keywords, search tools and search strategy all described superficially, but would benefit from more detail or clarity. Justification may be missing.

Explanations of keywords, search tools and search strategy are all described clearly and in sufficient detail, with some justification given.

Explanations of keywords and tools and search strategy give clear and reasoned explanation, indicating deeper critical engagement.

Critical Analysis of 3 Academic Journal Papers (60 Marks)

0 Marks (0%)

1-23 Marks (1–39%)

24-29 Marks (40-49%)

30 – 35 Marks (50%-59%)

36 – 41 Marks (60-69%)

42 – 60 Marks (70- 100%)

Required Content  Title/Reference  Rationale  Summary  Critique and

Comparison with Related Papers

 Conclusions

Missing or content doesn’t match allocated dissertation topic.

Many of the required elements are missing. Content is incoherent, very unclear or superficial. Poor quality writing – difficult to comprehend. Poor or absent referencing. No or minimal reference to additional sources. Generally includes assertions rather than referenced evidence.

Summary of the key findings of the papers given but content lacks clarity and lacks any critical analysis. Some key elements may be missing. Minimal reference to additional sources. Partly coherent. Frequent errors in spelling, grammar, structure, formatting or referencing. Includes some poor paraphrasing or pasted in sentences.

All required content is included OR if some elements are missing, others are good quality. Some use of additional sources. Adequate summary of the papers but reviews may be lacking in critical analysis. Comparison of papers may be superficial rather than adding further insight. Some evidence is referenced. Mostly coherent. May lack clarity occasionally. Minor errors in spelling, grammar, structure, formatting or referencing, but adequate.

All required elements are included and explained. Clear summary of the papers and authors’ approaches. Good use made of additional sources. Some useful comparison of papers and/or critical engagement leading to a meaningful conclusion. Most evidence is referenced. Generally good spelling, grammar, structure, formatting and referencing is correct. No instances of poor paraphrasing.

All required elements are included and fully explained. Excellent summary and critique of the papers and authors’ approaches. Comparison of papers is logical and clear with appropriate and insightful use of additional sources leading to a meaningful conclusion. Evidence is fully referenced. Excellent standard of writing. Spelling, grammar, structure, formatting, referencing are all accurate. No pasted in content or poor paraphrasing.

Conclusions (20 Marks)

0 Marks (0%)

1-7 Marks (1–39%)

8-9 Marks (40-49%)

10-11 Marks (50%-59%)

12-13 Marks (60-69%)

14-20 Marks (70- 100%)

Required Content  Overall

conclusions from all paper reviews

 Further implications, e.g. for professional practice or research

Missing

Conclusions are unclear or extremely brief, or statements are unrelated to the previous reviews of academic papers.

Conclusions presented are either a very superficial summary of previous points or they are not clearly drawn from the previous reviews of academic papers. May be only partially coherent.

Key points from the paper reviews are summarised with some attempt at further insight or synthesis of ideas and suggestions. Writing is mostly coherent.

Clear summary of synthesised key points, showing some deeper analysis or new insights (applications or research gaps). Good use of academic language.

Clear, comprehensive and insightful summary of synthesised key points. Excellent use of academic language (content publishable with only minor edits).

2

 Whilst there are no marks for referencing, up to 10 marks may be lost for poor presentation and referencing errors.  Core papers do not have to be from project management-related journals or strictly about project management/ management of projects, but the student must demonstrate the relevance of the papers chosen for the

study of project management/ management of projects/ project studies. Core papers must also be peer-reviewed journal articles. HBR and “Procedia” articles are not allowed.