You are to write critical literature based on a current business problem/issue. You will need to select a topic, preferably in your discipline area, and develop a literature review based on your selected topic. You will need to critically analyse the current body of literature and demonstrate your ability to compare and contrast different perspectives. Your critical literature review should offer an overview of significant literature available in your chosen topic, including relevant peer-reviewed academic articles, books and other sources.
The structure of your literature review should consist of a 1) title, 2) abstract, 3) body, 4) conclusion and 5) references.
• Word Count: 2000 +/- 10% (excluding abstract and references)
• Formatting: Times New Roman/Calibri/Arial, 12pt, 1.5 spacing, Justified
Critical Literature Review (30%)
(Individual Assessment)
Assessment brief
Assessment brief:
You will need to write a critical literature review based on a topic of your choice. The selected topic needs to be suitable and it is an essential component of good literature review. Once you have chosen your topic, you will need to refine it further and find a suitable context to address for your literature review.
Your critical literature review should cover the following:
- Title
- Develop a suitable title to your literature review.
- Abstract
- Abstract should have between 350-400 words.
- It should consist of an overview of your literature review. It needs to summarise the purpose of your work, main content of your literature review, research implications and industry implications
- Body (you should NOT use the heading ‘body” in your literature review. Please use more meaningful headings/sub-headings)
- Introduction
- Describe the background of the research. Why is your topic relevant to business organizations?
- Describe the purpose of your critical literature review. What business issue does your literature review seek to better understand or solve? What is your overall research question?
- Describe the methods you used for finding the literature. This includes details about your article selection process such as the databases you have used, search terms, as well as your inclusion/exclusion criteria
- Topic development
- Identify and use suitable headings and sub-headings.
- Organize the information that you have found about your chosen topic. What were the key themes that have emerged from existing literature?
- Discuss and objectively critique the existing knowledge in your chosen topic area. What have existing scholars in the area found? Are they inconsistencies or disagreements between specific issues?
- You should include key theories relevant to your topic, and how have various scholars in the area applied/used them
- Please note that your writing style may have negative/positive implications to this section of the report. Please refer to the link below for some information related to academic writing.
https://libguides.library.curtin.edu.au/c.php?g=915343&p=6596965
- Conclusion
- Summarize the main themes you identified and how it relates back to answering your research question
- Identify the academic and industry relevance of your literature review
- Identify the research gaps. What has existing research not explored, or adequately addressed yet?
- References
Word count, formatting and references:
- Word Count: 2000 +/- 10% (excluding abstract and references)
- Formatting: Times New Roman/Calibri/Arial, 12pt, 1.5 spacing, Justified
- References: Chicago referencing style (http://libguides.library.curtin.edu.au/referencing/chicago). A minimum of 10 academic references. If you are unsure what an academic reference is, please check with your tutor/instructor.
Submission:
- Assessment to be submitted via the TURNITIN link on Blackboard that can be found in the respective assessment folder
- Please refer to Blackboard and the unit outline for specific date & time for submission
Checklist to help you prevent plagiarism in your work: Click here
Critical Literature Review
Marking Rubric
|
Below Expectations (Fail)
0-49 |
Meets Expectations (Pass)
50-59 |
Meets Expectations (Credit)
60-69 |
Exceeds Expectations
(Distinction) 70-79 |
Exceeds Expectations (High Distinction)
80-100 |
|||
| Title
5% |
· Inaccurately indicates the subject and scope of the study
· Title is difficult to comprehend
|
· Indicates the subject and scope of the study
· Title meets readers’ expectations |
· Title indicates the subject and scope of the study
· Title is somehow interesting and informative |
· Title indicates the subject and scope of the study very well
· Title is interesting and informative |
· Title indicates the subject and scope of the study extremely well
· Title is interesting and informative |
|||
| Abstract
10% |
· Abstract does not properly summarises the purpose, main content research implications and/or industry implications of the literature review | · Abstract properly summarises the purpose, main content research implications and/or industry implications of the literature review | · Abstract summarises the purpose, main content research implications and/or industry implications of the literature review well. | · Abstract summarises the purpose, main content research implications and/or industry implications of the literature review very well. | · Abstract summarises the purpose, main content research implications and/or industry implications of the literature review extremely well. | |||
| Research background
10% |
· Background to problem is vague and not clearly articulated | · Minimal information provided about the background of the problem | · Some information provided about the background of the problem
· Information demonstrates importance of the understanding the problem statement |
· Background information provided was described well
· Information provided good justification to the problem statement. |
· Background information is highly detailed
· Information provided strong justification to the problem statement. |
|||
| Research Purpose/ Problem statement
10% |
· Research question and purpose is unclear and not identifiable
· No connection to the content of the literature review |
· Research question and purpose is discussed but needs to be stated more clearly
· Minimal connection to the content of the literature review |
· Research question and purpose is sufficiently described and stated.
· Some connection between content of the literature review |
· Research question and purpose is described and stated well.
· There is a clear connection to the content of the literature review |
· Research question and purpose is clearly described, concise and well stated.
· This are clear linkages to the content of the literature review |
|||
|
Research methods
5% |
· Details about the article selection process to develop the literature review was poorly described. | · Details about the article selection process used to develop the literature review was sufficiently described. | · Reasonable amount of detail provided around the article selection process used to develop the literature review. | · A good amount of detail provided around the article selection process used to develop the literature review. | · Details provided around the article selection process used to develop the literature review was comprehensive and well-documented. | |||
| Topic development
30%
|
· Did not use appropriate and relevant content to develop and explore ideas within the context of the discipline. | · Generally uses appropriate and relevant content to develop ideas within the context of the discipline. | · Uses appropriate and relevant content to develop and explore ideas within the context of the discipline. | Uses appropriate and relevant content to fully explore ideas within the context of the discipline. | · Uses appropriate, relevant, and compelling content to illustrate mastery of the subject. | |||
| Conclusions, identification of research gaps and opportunities
15% |
· Conclusions were not logically supported by evidence from the main body of discussion.
· Research gaps lack any clear justification or relevance to what was discussed. |
· Few conclusions were logically supported by evidence from the main body of discussion.
· Research gaps provide some justification and relevance to what was discussed. |
· The conclusions are sound and described relatively well
· Some conclusions were logically supported by evidence from the main body of discussion. · Research gaps were justified and were relevant to what was discussed. |
· The conclusions were relevant and well organised
· Most conclusions were logically supported by evidence from the main body of discussion. · Research gaps are described well and highly relevant to what was discussed. |
· The conclusions were robust, comprehensive and well organised
· All conclusions were logically supported by evidence from the main body of discussion · Research gaps are described well and highly relevant to what was discussed. |
|||
| Sources and Evidence
10% |
· Inconsistent use of credible, relevant sources and/or data to support ideas that are situated within the discipline and genre of the writing.
· Did not meet the minimum of 10 academic references |
· Demonstrates some use of credible, relevant sources and/or data to support ideas that are situated within the discipline and genre of the writing.
· Met the minimum of 10 academic references |
· Demonstrates consistent use of credible, relevant sources and/or data to support ideas that are situated within the discipline and genre of the writing.
· Met the minimum of 10 academic references |
· Demonstrates consistent use of a range of credible, relevant sources and/or data to support key ideas that are pertinent to the discipline and genre of the writing.
· Exceeded the minimum of 10 academic references |
· Demonstrates skilful use of high-quality, credible, relevant sources and/or data to develop in depth ideas that are appropriate for the discipline and genre of the writing.
· Exceeded the minimum of 10 academic references |
| Formatting and language
5% |
· Did not use language that conveys meaning to readers with sufficient clarity and includes some errors.
· Document has numerous formatting errors relating to spacing, fonts etc.
|
· Uses language sufficiently well to convey basic meaning although errors reduce effectiveness of communication.
· Document has multiple formatting errors relating to spacing, fonts etc.
|
· Uses language that generally conveys meaning to readers with clarity and writing is virtually error free.
· Document has some formatting errors relating to spacing, fonts etc.
|
· Uses language that effectively conveys meaning to readers with clarity. Any errors which occur do not reduce effectiveness of communication.
· Document has little to no formatting errors relating to spacing, fonts etc.
|
· Uses language that skilfully communicates meaning to readers with clarity and fluency, and is error-free
· Document is virtually error free around formatting issues relating to spacing, fonts etc.
|
"Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, guaranteeing you "A" results."
