© MIT August, 2021 T2 2021 Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines School School of Business Course Name Master of Professional Accounting Unit Code MA619 Unit Title Accounting Research Trimester 2, 2021 Assessment Author Professor Siva Muthaly Assessment Type Group Assessment Title Research Proposal [Group] Unit Learning Outcomes Addressed: b. Critically evaluate and interpret published research in Accounting. c. Demonstrate cognitive, technical and creative research skills to investigate, analyse and synthesise complex information, problems, concepts and theories in the accounting discipline. d. Assess methodologies and choose an appropriate methodology for an identified research problem. e. Plan, execute, prepare and present, a substantive research report communicating research findings with high level personal autonomy and accountability. Weighting 15% Total Marks 100 marks Word Limit 2,500 – 3,000 words Release Date Week 5 Due Date Week 7 Submission Guidelines All work must be submitted on Moodle by the due date (as above) along with a completed Assignment Cover Page. The assignment must be in MS Word format, 1.5 spacing, 11-pt Calibri (Body) font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings. Reference sources must be cited in the text of the Assessment Task, and listed appropriately at the end in a Reference List using APA 6 th edition for the School of Business. https://library.mit.edu.au/referencing/APA Extension / Special Consideration If an extension of time to submit work is required, an Application for Special Consideration and supporting documentation must be submitted online via your Academic Management System (AMS) login: https://online.mit.edu.au/ams. The Application for Special consideration must be submitted no later than three (3) working days after the due date of the specific piece of assessment or the examination for which you are seeking Special Consideration. In the case of serious illness, loss or bereavement, hardship or trauma students may be granted special consideration. Academic Misconduct Academic Misconduct is a serious offence. Depending on the seriousness of the case, penalties can vary from a written warning or zero marks to exclusion from the course or rescinding the degree. Students should make themselves familiar with the full policy and procedure available at: https://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institutepublications/policies-procedures-andguidelines/AcademicIntegrityPolicyAndProcedure. For further information, please refer to the Academic Integrity Section in your Unit Description. MA619 Accounting Research Assessment Cover Sheet Student ID Number/s: Student Last name/s: Student First name/s: Course: School: Unit code: Unit title: Due date: Date submitted: Campus: Lecturer’s Name: Tutor: Student Declaration I/We declare and certify that: 1. the work contained in this assessment is my/our own work/group work, except where acknowledgement of sources is made; 2. this assessment has not been submitted previously for academic credit in this or any other course; 3. I/we have read MIT’s Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedure, and I/we understand the consequences of engaging in plagiarism, collusion and contract cheating; 4. a copy of the original assignment is retained by me/us and that I/we may be required to submit the original assignment to the Lecturer and/or Unit Co-ordinator upon request; I/we have not plagiarised the work of others or participated in unauthorised collaboration or contract cheating when preparing this assessment. MIT ID Signature Date For Assessor Use Only (if not marked on Moodle) Name: Position Date: Signature: Marks/Grades: © MIT August, 2021 T2 2021 Assessment Task Description This assignment requires you to prepare a formal research proposal in an Accounting related topic as per the guidelines appended below. Due Date; Monday, 30th August 2021, at 5 pm GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH PROPOSAL A. Summary of Articles; (Individual Mark, 5 marks) YOU DO NOT NEED TO SUBMIT THIS WITH THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL Each member HAS ALREADY SUBMITTED THESE five articles in a summary EARLIER (5 marks individual) SAMPLE FOR SUMMARY OF ARTICLES Reference APA Style Literature Highlights Methodology Key Findings Variables Used in the Article Limitation & Scope for Future Research Research Gap Pedada, K., Arunachalam, S., & Dass, M. (2020). A theoretical model of the formation and dissolution of emerging market international marketing alliances. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(5), 826–847. https://doi.org/10.10 07/s11747-019- 00641-1 a) Downstream Marketing activities ie, Sales & Distribution; Brand building & CRM are primary proponents of marketing alliances b) International partnerships create a competitive advantage to partner firms c) Stats indicate 50% of partnerships fail in about four year’s time d) Voids of Efficient intermediaries and institutional mechanisms negatively impacts partnerships e) Firms from Emerging markets form alliances with companies from developed markets to Grounded Theory, Interviews, Qualitative Analysis a) Partnerships lead to better market intelligence & Competitive advantage b) Emerging markets contribute to over 65% of the population and 40% of business c) 83% of US firms choose internationalisation as a market strategy with 45% selecting a marketing alliance d) ease of doing business, early mover advantage, moving up ladder chain & restriction of imports are drivers of alliance formation e) relaxation in FDI, Market Turbulence, Ease of Approvals & IV: Awareness, Motivation, Capability DV: Propensity of alliance formation or dissolution a) Metaanalysis on secondary data with hypothesis testing b) Include primary data from multiple emerging countries c) role of a reverse alliance of Emerging countries entering developed markets Reverse Partnerships, Primary data from other emerging countries MA619 Accounting Research access technical expertise and innovations Conflict of interest are the driver of alliance dissolution © MIT August, 2021 T2 2021 B. Development of the Accounting Problem/Opportunity; 150 words (Group Mark; 0.5 mark) (What decision does the management have to make about the Accounting related problem?) Examples: Aspects of Forensic Accounting? C. Development of the Accounting Research Problem; 100 words (Group Mark; zero marks)) What Accounting issue does the management need to solve the Management problem? D. Literature Review & Conceptual Framework (1,500 words) (Individual Mark, 7.5 marks) Each group member needs to write up the review for your 5 articles (300 words for each group member) Review the previous studies that have been carried out from an academic stand point. (Identify the key theoretical constructs so as to build the conceptual model) E. Justification for the study; 150 words (Group Mark, 0.5 marks) Why is it necessary to undertake primary research? Convince the reader that this information cannot be appropriately gathered from secondary research. Justify how your research will benefit both from practical and theoretical context. Theory- Is there a gap in the literature? Practice- How your research will solve the management problem and/or opportunity. CONCEPTUAL MODEL F. Formulation of Objectives and Hypotheses; 100 words (Group Mark, zero marks) G. Methodology; 500 words (Group Mark, 1.5 marks) Exploratory? Descriptive? Or Casual? Justify why you have chosen a particular Design and how it is best suited to address the management problem. They are not Mutually exclusive. Note: This course emphasises descriptive research. Scaling Techniques Organization of the Questionnaire Sampling Issues Total; 15 marks (= 12.5 Individual Marks + 2.5 Group Marks) Total words; 2,500 Appendix Questionnaire 4 demographic questions Not more than 9 Interval scaled questions MA619 Accounting Research Use business writing style with relevant vocabulary. Conduct your independent research and use APA referencing style. Marking criteria: The Research Proposal will have both individual and group mark. The table below provides you a breakdown of the marks. All items highlighted in RED are Individual marks and the others are Group. Detailed Description of the Criteria Word Status Group / Individual Marks ULO A. Summary of Articles Individual 5 b & c B. Development of the Accounting Problem/Opportunity 150 Group 0.5 c C. Development of the Accounting Research Problem 100 Group c & d D. Literature Review (300 words per group member) 1,500 Individual 7.5 c, d, e E. Justification for the study 150 Group 0.5 c F. Formulation of Objectives and Hypotheses 100 Group b & c G. Methodology 500 Group 1.5 d Total 2,500 15 Assessment criteria are shown in the following table. Marks are allocated as follows: Assessment criteria to be met and assessed Detailed Description of the Assessment Criteria Breakdown Marks Criteria 1 Independent thinking skill 60% Criteria 2 External references 10% Criteria 3 English writing skill 10% Criteria 4 Referencing 10% Total 100% Using Technology for Assessment Rationale Activities Technological tools selected reflection on learning feedback on performance practice of critical thinking, independent thinking, autonomous skill Reflective writing check for plagiarism problem-based learning scenario testing Turnitin © MIT August, 2021 T2 2021 Marking Rubric for Individual Assessment: CRITERIA Fail (0-49) Pass (50-59) Credit (60-69) Distinction (70-79) High Distinction (80-100) 1. Introduction and Problem Identification 37% Summary of Articles 33% (Individual) Main structure incorrect in some places, and placement of material in different chapters illogical in many places. Level of detail varies widely (information missing, or irrelevant information given). • Makes frequent errors in, grammar and/or spelling Main structure is correct, but lower level hierarchy of sections is not logical in some places. Some sections have overlapping functions leading to some ambiguity in placement of information. Level of detail varies widely (information missing, or irrelevant) Spelling and grammar errors present but at acceptable quantities Most sections have a clear function. Hierarchy of sections is correct. Ordering of sections is partially logical. All information occurs at the correct place, with few exceptions. In most places level of detail is appropriate. Minor grammar errors an some spelling errors. Moderately structured: each section has a clear and unique function. Hierarchy of sections is mostly correct. Ordering of sections is mostly logical. All information occurs at the correct place. Level of detail is appropriate.. Few linguistic and typographical errors.. Well-structured: each section has a clear and unique function. Hierarchy of sections is correct. Ordering of sections is logical. All information occurs at the correct place. Level of detail is appropriate throughout. Good grammar and extremely few linguistic and typographical errors, and almost no rectifications are required. Discussion of the background and problem to be considered 2% (Group) The title/topic of the proposal is poorly defined Lacks a proper introduction and background Provides vague descriptions of context of problem and does not situate it in larger context. Provides very little or no evidence that the problem exists The title/topic of the proposal is defined but need further correction. Introduction is not well constructed or does not lead clearly into the research proposal. Vaguely identifies the problem and its boundaries/literature gap. Provides minimal evidence that the problem exists The title/topic of proposal fairly well defined and original. A fairly well formulated introduction with some evidence to support the topic leads into the research proposal. Identifies the problem and its boundaries/literature gap. Generally describes the existence of the problem The title/topic of proposal very clearly defined and original An introduction based on facts leads clearly into the research proposal. Identifies the problem and its boundaries/literature gap with clarity. The title/topic of proposal very clearly defined and original An exemplary introduction based on facts leads clearly into the research proposal. Clearly identifies the problem and its boundaries/literature gap. Draws upon multiple sources of info. to substantiate the existence of the problem MA619 Accounting Research Clearly defined Aims/Objectives , Significance, Scope and Framework of Project 2% (Group) Did not identify the research questions, purpose and objectives OR the questions, purpose and objectives have not been fully considered. Demonstrates very low knowledge and depth in presenting scope, limitations and significance of the study Demonstrates inadequate knowledge and application of presenting the conceptual framework of the study The research questions, purpose and objectives have been specified but may lack detail and focus. The focus of the project will need to be reconsidered Demonstrates minimal knowledge and lacking depth in presenting the scope, limitations and significance of study. Demonstrates minimal knowledge and application of presenting the conceptual framework of the study. The research questions, purpose and objectives of the project have been clearly set out and are reasonably focused at this early stage of the project process. Demonstrates adequate competence and depth in presenting significance, scope and limitations of the study The candidate is reasonably clear in describing and illustrating the conceptual framework for the study. The research questions, purpose and objectives of the project have been clearly set out and are partially focused. Demonstrates competence and depth in presenting significance, limitations and scope of the study. Demonstrates competence of presenting the conceptual framework of the study The research questions, purpose and objectives of the project have been clearly set out and are fully focused. Demonstrates exemplary competence and depth in presenting significance, limitations and scope of the study. Demonstrates an exemplary level of competence of presenting the conceptual framework of the study 2. Literature Review 50% (Individual) Inadequate knowledge, interpretation and application in presenting the literature. Obvious areas of consideration have been left out. Use of irrelevant literature. Poorly organized, haphazard. Does not discuss status in current research literature. Demonstrates basic knowledge and application in presenting the review of the literature. Some key areas identified but may lack some depth of review. Some coherent structure. Limited discussion of status and gaps in current research literature The candidate’s performance is adequate in reviewing, describing, summarizing, and evaluating the relevant literature; fairly wellorganized; related to the research questions. Fairly good depth Adequate coherent discussion of the status and gaps in current research literature but could be further developed. Demonstrates performance in presenting a comprehensive grasp of the topic by reviewing, describing, summarizing, and evaluating the relevant literature; well organized and related directly to the research questions. Exemplary depth Developed, coherent discussion of the status and gaps in current literature. Demonstrates excellent performance in presenting a comprehensive grasp of the topic by reviewing, describing, summarizing, and evaluating the relevant literature; well organized and related directly to the research questions. Exemplary depth Well-developed, coherent discussion of the status and gaps in current literature. 3. Research Design 10% (Group) No description or inappropriate or very low level description of the relevant research approach, research strategy. Unable to identify the study population, sampling frame, Vague or lack detail in the description of the relevant research approach, research strategy. Vague or lack detail in the identification of the study population, sampling frame, sampling method & sample Adequate description of the relevant research approach, research strategy. Fairly well identifies the study population, sampling frame, sampling method & sample size. Adequate description of the relevant research approach, research strategy Clearly identifies the study population, sampling frame, sampling method & sample size. Excellent description of the relevant research approach, research strategy Very clearly identifies the study population, sampling frame, sampling method & sample size. MA619 Accounting Research sampling method & sample size. Several errors. No or incorrect description of the method for data collection, data collection instruments & detailed steps & procedures taken to collect data. Unable to describe or no description of the steps of data preparation & data analysis procedures, including details of coding methods & statistical analysis. Many errors to be rectified. size. Some correction required. Lack of depth in the description of the method for data collection, data collection instruments & detailed steps & procedures Lack of details in the description of the steps of data preparation & data analysis procedures, including details of coding methods & statistical analysis. Some errors to be rectified. Adequate description of the method for data collection, data collection instruments & detailed steps & procedures taken to collect data. Fairly well describes steps of data preparation & data analysis procedures, including details of coding methods & statistical analysis, Describes the method for data collection, data collection instruments & detailed steps & procedures taken to collect data. Clearly describes steps of data preparation & data analysis procedures, including details of coding methods & statistical analysis, if appropriate. Fully describes the method for data collection, data collection instruments & detailed steps & procedures taken to collect data. Very clearly describes steps of data preparation & data analysis procedures, including details of coding methods & statistical analysis, if appropriate. 4. , Referencing 3% (Group) No in-text citations and no references. A large number of citations and references not tallying. Generally not using appropriate format There are minimal in-text citations and References. The citations and reference were tallying. Some References were not using appropriate format. There are adequate in-text citations and References. The citation and reference were tallying. References were using appropriate format. There is a partially comprehensive list of clear in-text citations and references. The citations and reference were tallying. References were using appropriate format. There is a complete comprehensive list of clear in-text citations and references. The citations and reference were tallying. References were using appropriate format. Total Comments Individual Marks (12.5 Marks or 83%) Group Mark (2.5 Marks or 17%) MA619 Accounting Research *Types of plagiarism or academic misconduct: Sham Paraphrasing Material has been copied exactly from the source and has been acknowledged with an in-text citation but has not been quoted; There is a reference list. Illicit Paraphrasing Material has been paraphrased from the source without any in-text citation; There is a reference list. Exact Copying Material has been copied exactly from the source without any in-text citation; There is a reference list. No Referencing There is no in-text citations nor a reference list. Collusion Material has been copied from another student’s work; Recycling The same assignment submitted in more than one unit; Contract Cheating The assignment has been written by a third party and the students is claiming it as their own work. Mark: Overall Feedback