Posted: April 13th, 2023

Marketing Essay

Assessment B: Individual Essay (70%)
Deadline: 28 April 2021 (Wednesday) at 15:00 via Turnitin on Blackboard
Wordcount: 3000 words (+/-10%) excluding references, appendices, charts, diagrams, etc.

Assignment Brief B: Individual Essay (September Cohort)

In this module, you will work on a live project developed by the module leader in conjunction with a third party organisation, The Social Impact Team (SIT). Assignment B will take the form of a 3000 words (+/-10%) essay. In response to the Social Impact Team’s client brief (see Appendix I below), you are asked to develop EITHER a (1) qualitative research instrument OR (2) quantitative questionnaire survey to address the following topic: Consumer’s Perception of Greenwashing and Eco-Anxiety (see client’s brief below for further details).

In this assignment, you should focus your discussion on the process of developing either a qualitative or a quantitative instrument. In your essay, you must provide clear rationale to justify your methodological choices by drawing on relevant research theories and readings introduce to you in your module. Explain the research procedures involved in operationalising your research design. Lastly, reflect on the limitations of your research design and discuss the ethical issues that may arise in your study. You are expected to cite academic references to support your arguments.

Note: Please do not conduct fieldwork/collect primary data as part of this assignment. This assignment asks that you pitch your research design by taking on the role of a researcher at a market research agency. You are not expected to conduct fieldwork for this assessment as this would require ethics approval from the module leader.

Guidance on Essay Preparation and Writing

Prior to writing your essay, please follow the guidance below on how to prepare for your essay.

Preparation prior to writing your essay:
• Read the client’s brief below and note down the research need highlighted by the Social Impact Team. What information does SIT require?
• Conduct a brief literature search on the topic stipulated in the client’s brief. I have provided a number of readings on the topic, which you can consult as a starting point. You are not expected to do extensive reading on the topic. Rather the literature should be used only to identify: suitable topic areas for developing an interview guide (qualitative research) or relevant variables that inform the development of hypothesis, which in turn shape the design of a questionnaire (quantitative research).
• List 1-2 broad research aim(s), and no more than 4-5 research objectives for the topic.
• Based on your research aim and objectives, consider whether qualitative (Option A) or quantitative (Option B) research should be used to address these research objectives.
• If you propose to conduct quantitative research, outline a list of hypotheses for testing.
• On a piece of paper, outline your research design. First, decide which data collection method is best suited to address your research aim/objectives and/or hypotheses you have outlined above. As part of your preparation, outline or sketch a plan on how your data collection method can address them.
• For example, if you propose to conduct quantitative research, design a questionnaire, making sure you utilise different types of measures (nominal, ordinal, interval, ratio) that will allow you to address the listed hypotheses above.
• If you propose to conduct qualitative research, focus on developing a research instrument for ONE qualitative data collection method only: focus group, in-depth interview or ethnography.
• If you propose to conduct qualitative research, design an interview/observation guide making sure you utilise different interviewing techniques (e.g. projective techniques) and different types of questions/observations that will allow you to address your research objectives above.

Suggested Essay Structure:

Below is a suggested structure to writing the essay. Please note that the word-counts indicated in each section should be treated as suggested guidance.

Section 1: Introduction (app. 400 words):
• Begin your essay by briefly introducing the SIT research topic stipulated in the client’s brief. Briefly discuss the information gap related to this topic and why addressing this gap is important for SIT to address.
• If you are designing qualitative research, outline (in bullet points) your research objectives for this study.
• If you are designing a quantitative survey, outline a series of hypothesis you wish to test.
• Briefly explain who your target population is for this study. There is no need to discuss your sampling plan here.

(please note that your research objectives and hypothesis are not included in the wordcount)

Section 2: Critical evaluation of methodology (app. 800 words)
• Explain whether you have chosen a qualitative or a quantitative research design. Justify your reasons. Specifically, explain how your chosen methodology enables you to address the research objectives outlined in your introduction.
• Critically explain which research philosophy your methodology is grounded in. Is your research design positivistic or interpretivist in nature? Is your research exploratory or conclusive? Why?
• Is your research cross-sectional or longitudinal? Why?
• What data collection method do you intend to use? In this essay, you must choose only ONE data collection method. If you have chosen a qualitative research design, do you intend to use focus group, in-depth interviews or ethnography? Why? If you have chosen a quantitative research design, do you intend to conduct a questionnaire survey? Why? How will your chosen data collection method enables you to address your research objectives?

Section 3: Developing Research Instrument (app. 1200 words)

Option A: Qualitative Research Instrument

• Design an interview guide (suitable for either a focus group or in-depth interview) or an ethnographic observation guide to address the research objectives and/or hypotheses identified above. You are encouraged to be creative and use different interviewing techniques and questions (e.g. projective techniques, photographs etc). Attach the interview/observation guide and supporting prompts in Appendix A.
• In the essay, provide an explanation of the research process involve – i.e. how do you intend to carry out your research study. For example,
o Focus Group: if you are conducting a focus group, how do you design your focus group? Is your group composition homogenous or heterogeneous? Why? What is the duration of your focus group? How many people will you be recruiting per group? How many groups do you intend to conduct? Who will be the moderator? Justify your focus group design choices.
o In-depth Interview: What type of interviews do you intend to conduct? Semi-structured or unstructured? What topic areas do you intend to cover? How do you probe for richer answers? Justify your interview design choices.
o Ethnography: What type of observation do you intend to carry out? Is your observation overt or covert? Do you intend to participate in the activities of your participants or would observe from a distant? Why? Would you be interviewing your participants on-site? Justify your ethnographic design choices.
• How did you develop your interview/observation guide? What interviewing techniques do you intend to employ? Why? What type of questions do you design for your interview? How do you probe for further answers? Are you using any projective techniques? If so, which projective techniques do you intend to use and why? Do you intend to use any prompts such as photographs, videos, diaries? If you are conducting observation, what would you be observing? Do you intend to engage in a descriptive, focused or selective observation? Why?
• Where possible, provide examples by illustrating your research instrument (interview/observation guide) to support your explanation above.
Option B: Quantitative Survey

• Design a questionnaire to test the hypotheses outlined in the introduction above. Attach the interview/observation guide and supporting prompts in Appendix A.
• In the essay, you need to explain how you develop your questionnaire.
• Explain and justify the types of measures (e.g. nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio) you intend to use. Justify and illustrate how these measures address the hypotheses above.
• How does the design of your questionnaire motivate participants to participate and complete the survey in a way that minimize response error?
• Discuss the statistical analyses (e.g. descriptive, inferential, association, differences and predictive) you intend to use to address your research hypotheses.
• Where possible, provide examples by illustrating your research instrument (interview/observation guide) to support your explanation above.

Section 4: Critical Reflection: Limitations of the Study (app. 600 words)

Conclude your essay by critically reflecting on the limitations of your research design and instruments. Discuss how you intend to mitigate these limitations. Or if these limitations cannot be addressed in the current study, consider how future researchers who intend to carry out similar study could address these limitations.

See below for more information regarding the use of appendices

Use of appendices

In this essay, you MUST include your research instrument (i.e. questionnaire, interview guide or observation guide) in Appendix A. You may also include other appendices that you are unable to include in the main body of the essay. Appendices are not included in the wordcount.

However, with the exception of Appendix A, you are advised to be cautious when including other appendices in this assignment. There are no specific criteria for marking or mark allocation available for appendices, so the assessment process focuses on the appropriate use of appendices. When deciding whether or not to include other appendices, consider the following points:

• Appendices should add value or detail to the discussion and analysis undertaken in the main body of the assignment.
• They offer students the opportunity to give greater relevant and appropriate detail to support the main analysis and discussion.
• Models, theory and discussion that demonstrate critical evaluation and analysis of issues related to the module being assessed should always be presented within the main body of the text. This discussion should make sense without referring to the appendices.
• Using bullet points in the text (which does not constitute analysis) and putting the detailed analysis in the appendices is not acceptable practice and could result in failure.
• The inclusion of appendices should not be viewed as an opportunity to include anything that cannot fit in the word count.
• Assignments that make excessive use of appendices suggest inappropriate use. As a guide, we would not normally expect appendices to exceed one third of the length of the assignment.
• Appendices should always be referenced at the appropriate point within the discussion in the main body of the text.

MARKET RESEARCH CLIENT BRIEF

To: Selected research agencies

From: Ai-Ling Lai on behalf of The Social Impact Team, University of Leicester

Social Impact Team: Dr. Sandra Lee and Ms. Hannah Seller (Social Impact Lead)

Date: 28 September 2020

We are pleased to invite you to design a research instrument for a study to be initiated by The Social Impact Team at the University of Leicester. The enclosed brief highlights the research topic we wish you to address. We have approached your agency due to your affinity with the university student body.

Your tender will be evaluated on the basis of a sound research instrument. We are open to innovative methods and suggestions. We have provided information we think is relevant to your response.

This study is important to us and we hope that it will give us valuable insights into how we can encourage and enhance student’s continual engagement with sustainable practices during and after their studies at the University of Leicester.

We look forward to receiving your response.

Yours Sincerely
Ai-Ling Lai
Dr. Ai-Ling Lai
On Behalf of The Social Impact Team

BACKGROUND

The Social Impact Team (SIT) is a strategic arm of the University of Leicester, who play a significant role in developing, enhancing and delivering the institution’s sustainable and social responsibility agenda. As a global university, our vision is to enhance our position as:

“an engaged and socially aware institution, renowned for producing graduates with the skills and knowledge that not only allow them to succeed, but also to enrich and sustain the world”. (Source: Social Impact Strategy

(https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/estates/environment/Strategy/social-impact-strategy)

Our team members engage, monitor and audit the operational practices of the university, ensuring that they are run in a way that efficiently minimises its impact on the environment. More recently, The Social Impact Team has widened its remit to include social responsibility alongside its sustainable programmes. Our plans and policies include waste management, travel, sustainable procurement, energy efficiency and biodiversity. The Social Impact Strategy adopted by the team is based on the seventeen UN Sustainable Development Goals, as illustrated in the diagram below:

(https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/estates/environment/news/2017-news/who-are-the-social-impact-team)

The Social Impact Team is particularly keen to engage the student body by embedding sustainable development into the curriculum and courses taught at the University. Through the Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) scheme, the Social Impact Team envisions higher education that:

“gives the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values necessary to empower every human being to assume the responsibility of creating a sustainable future.” (https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/estates/environment/teaching)

RESEARCH TOPIC

As part of the ESD initiative, the Social Impact Team would like to invite your market research agency to design a research instrument to gauge the perception of UOL students the following topic:

a) Consumer’s Perception of Greenwashing and Eco-Anxiety

In an attempt to empower students to skilfully engage in green consumption, The Social Impact Team wanted to understand the extent to which students are aware of practices of greenwashing by marketers. Greenwashing is a deceptive practice involving the use of green marketing to ‘promote the perception that a firm’s products, aims, and/or policies are environmentally friendly (Greenpeace USA 2013 cited in Du 2015: 548). However, such a practice obscures the firm’s deviation from green policies through disinformation and selective disclosure (Ramus and Montiel, 2005). The Social Impact Team is particularly interested in UOL student’s perceptions of Greenwashing and how this is shaped and/or associated with eco-consciousness and eco-anxiety. It raises the following questions:

• To what extent are students worry about issues of climate change (eco-anxiety)? To what extent does eco-anxiety lead to purchase intention of eco-friendly product?
• What are student’s current perception and attitude towards eco-friendly consumption? What factors shape student’s eco-consciousness?
• To what extent is student’s eco-consciousness associated with awareness of greenwashing? Similarly does a lack of eco-consciousness contribute to lack of awareness in greenwashing?
• To what extent does student’s awareness of greenwashing shape their attitude towards eco-anxiety? Do students consider environmental issues to be the responsibility of individuals, businesses, government and/or systemic changes? To what extent do students consider their individual responsibility to be prominent vis-à-vis other stakeholders?
• What roles do social media play (if any) in shaping perceptions of eco-consciousness and greenwashing?
• Are there any differences in gender, age, cultural background, educational (types of degree and courses) in how students perceive greenwashing, eco-consciousness and perceived individual responsibility?

Useful Reading:

de Jong, Menno D.T ; Harkink, Karen M ; Barth, Susanne (2017), Making Green Stuff? Effects of Corporate Greenwashing on Consumers, Journal of business and technical communication, Vol.32 (1), p.77-112 (link)

Zhang, Lu ; Li, Dayuan ; Cao, Cuicui ; Huang, Senhua (2018), The influence of greenwashing perception on green purchasing intentions: The mediating role of green word-of-mouth and moderating role of green concern, Journal of cleaner production, Vol.187, p.740-750. (link)

Nam, Su-Jung (2020), Moderating effects of consumer empowerment on the relationship between involvement in eco-friendly food and eco-friendly food behaviour, International Journal of Consumer Studies.Vol. 44 (4): 297-305 (link)

Barbarossa, Camilla; De Pelsmacker, Patrick (2014), Positive and Negative Antecedents of Purchasing Eco-friendly Products: A Comparison Between Green and Non-green Consumers, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 134, 229-247 (link)

Du, Xingqiang (2014), How the Market Values Greenwashing? Evidence from China, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.128 (3), p.547-574 (link)

PREFERRED RESEARCH DESIGN AND SCOPE

We are open to research designs that are best suited to gathering information needed for the above topic. While we believe that qualitative and quantitative research designs are well suited to the topic, due to budgetary constraint, we are keen to receive a research design that focuses on a single method study (i.e. either a qualitative or a quantitative research). If the initial phase of the research is successful, we are opened to commission further research with your agency.

EVALUATION OF TENDERS

The tenders will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

• Clear understanding of the Social Impact Team’s research requirements.
• Clear research aim and objectives.
• Effective research methodology, which address the research aim(s) and objectives.
• A well-designed research instrument that is appropriate for the study.
• Clear justification must be provided for the proposed methodology.
• Ethically informed research design.
• Reflection on the limitations of the research design.

Marking criteria for Assessment B

You will be assessed on your ability to demonstrate understanding of relevant research theories as well as to critically reflect on their applications. The following are criteria against which you will be assessed:

Appropriate Research Instrument: Research instrument (interview guide and/or questionnaire) MUST be included in the appendix. The marker will use this to assess the design of your research instrument. You are assessed on your ability to develop a research instrument that can be used to collect data in relation to the research aim and objectives. Innovative use of techniques will be rewarded so long as the essay can demonstrate how they can be implemented to address client’s research need.

Understanding and application of research theories: The essay should demonstrate an understanding of the research process, and design an appropriate data collection and analysis instruments that are solidly grounded in an understanding of research theories. A good essay will draw on marketing research theory to justify the use of data collection and analysis instruments. Avoid simply describing theory – you need to show clear understanding and provide rationale for your methodological choices. You need to justify how your methodological choices allow you to address the research aim(s) and objectives. You will also be rewarded when you demonstrate creativity in the design of your research instrument.

Reflection: You are expected to provide a sound reflection on the limitations of your research design. A good essay will discuss how the limitations pertaining to the research design can be addressed.

Coherence and progression: A sound essay would identify clear research objectives or questions; design data collection instruments that are consistent with the focus of the research. A good essay will present a coherent argument that justifies decisions at each stage of the research process.

Presentation, writing style and structure: A good essay presents the information in a comprehensible form, expressing your ideas in a style that is appropriate to an academic essay. A sound essay will have a clear structure with clear signposting and where appropriate, the essay should be written in a way that enables the reader to access key information easily. Marks will be deducted if you fail to use Harvard Referencing.

MARKING CRITERIA

Mark Postgraduate Grade Descriptor
85-100%
Viability of Research Instrument: Sophisticated and innovative design of research instrument, one that brilliantly address the research focus. Outstanding attentions are paid to the employment of interviewing techniques, measures and/or observations in relation to the research objectives. Excellent justification provided throughout.

Reflection: Sophisticated reflection on the merits and limitations of the research instruments. Excellent considerations on how the limitations of the study can be addressed.

Scholarship: Excellent application of a rigorous and extensive knowledge of subject matter; perceptive; demonstrates a critical appreciation of subject and extensive and detailed critical analysis of the key issues; displays independence of thought and/ or a novel and relevant approach to the subject; reveals both breadth and depth of understanding, showing insight and appreciation of argument.

Independent learning: Work draws on a wide range of relevant literature and is not confined to reading lists, textbooks or lecture notes; arguments are well supported by a variety of means.

Writing skills: Proficient use of language conducive to an academic essay. Writing skills are excellent; writing is clear and precise; arguments are logical, well-structured and sustained, and demonstrate thorough understanding; conclusions are reasoned and justified by evidence.

70-84% Viability of Research Instrument: Excellent design of research instrument, one that clearly address the research focus. Detailed attentions are paid to the employment of interviewing techniques, measures and/or observations in relation to the research objectives. Excellent justification provided throughout.

Reflection: Excellent reflection on the merits and limitations of the research instruments. Thorough considerations on how the limitations of the study can be addressed.

Scholarship: Very good application of a rigorous and extensive knowledge of subject matter; demonstrates a critical appreciation of subject; displays detailed thought and consideration of the subject; reveals very good breadth and depth of understanding.

Independent learning: Work draws on a range of relevant literature and is not confined to reading lists, textbooks or lecture notes.

Writing skills: Proficient use of language conducive to an academic essay. Writing skills are well-developed; writing is clear and precise; arguments are logical, well-structured and demonstrate thorough understanding; conclusions are justified by evidence.

60-69% Viability of Research Instrument: Very good design of research instrument, one that has addressed the research focus well. Good employment of interviewing techniques, measures and/or observations in relation to the research objectives. Good justification provided throughout.

Reflection: Good reflection on the merits and limitations of the research instruments. Well thought-out considerations on how the limitations of the study can be addressed.

Scholarship: Good application of a rigorous and extensive knowledge of subject matter; demonstrates an appreciation of subject; displays thought and consideration of the subject; reveals good breadth and depth of understanding.

Independent learning: Sources range beyond textbooks and lecture material and are used effectively to illustrate points and justify arguments.

Writing skills: Good use of language conducive to an academic essay. Arguments are presented logically and coherently within a clear structure and are justified with appropriate supporting evidence; capably written with good use of English throughout; free from major errors; complex ideas are expressed clearly and fluently using specialist technical terminology where appropriate.

50-59% Viability of Research Instrument: Adequate design of research instrument, one that sufficiently address the research focus of the study. Reasonable employment of interviewing techniques, measures and/or observations in relation to the research objectives. The range of technique used is appropriate but lack ambition. Reasonable justification provided throughout though this may at times be descriptive.

Reflection: Sufficient reflection on the merits and limitations of the research instruments. Considerations are paid to discuss how the limitations of the study can be addressed though this may at times be descriptive.

Scholarship: Sufficient application of knowledge of subject matter; demonstrates some appreciation of subject; displays thought and consideration of the subject; though there is a lack of breadth and depth of understanding.

Independent learning: Sources restricted to core lecture material with limited or no evidence of wider reading.

Writing skills: Use of language conducive to an academic essay. The question is addressed in a reasonably clear, coherent and structured manner but some sections may be poorly written making the essay difficult to follow, obscuring key points or leading to over-generalisation; competently written with a good use of English throughout (few, if any, errors of spelling, grammar and punctuation). Answers that have merit class qualities may fall into this category if they are too short, unfinished or badly organised.

45-49%
Minimum requirements have not been met.
Viability of Research Instrument: Basic design of research instrument, one that does not fully address the research focus of the study. Limited employment of appropriate interviewing techniques, measures and/or observations in relation to the research. Generalised justification is provided and at times, these may not be supported by a solid understanding of research theories.

Reflection: Basic reflection on the merits and limitations of the research instruments. Some considerations are paid to discuss how the limitations the study though these are rudimentary.

Scholarship: Inadequate understanding of key issues and concepts; some material may be used inappropriately; uninspired and unoriginal; relies on limited knowledge; analysis poor or obscure, superficial or inconsistent in places; arguments incomplete, partly irrelevant or naive.

Independent learning: Restricted to a basic awareness of course material and textbooks; meagre use of material to support assertions.

Writing skills: Use of language is not appropriate for an academic essay. Poor use of English exhibiting errors. Answer may be poorly focussed on the question, lack rigour and/or consist of a series of repetitive, poorly organised points or unsubstantiated assertions that do not relate well to one another or to the question, although some structure discernible.

40-44% Viability of Research Instrument: Poor design of research instrument, one that fails to address the research focus of the study. At times, the design of the research instrument contradicts the research aim and objectives stipulated. Limited employment of appropriate interviewing techniques, measures and/or observations in relation to the research. Justification is sketchy and when provided, they are not grounded in a solid understanding of research theories.

Reflection: Generic reflection on the merits and limitations of the research instruments. Limited or no considerations are paid to discuss how the limitations of the study.

Scholarship: Inadequate understanding of key issues and concepts; some material may be used inappropriately; uninspired and unoriginal; relies on limited knowledge; analysis poor or obscure, superficial or inconsistent in places; arguments incomplete, partly irrelevant or naive.

Independent learning: Restricted to a basic awareness or no awareness of course material and textbooks; very meagre use of supporting material or unsupported assertions; use of irrelevant or unconvincing material.

Writing skills: Unacceptable use of English (i.e. comprehension obscured by significant and intrusive errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar); poor and unclear, or totally incoherent, structure. Answers that ‘run out of time’ or miss the point of the question may fall into this (or a lower) class.

20-39% Viability of Research Instrument: Very poor design of research instrument, one that fails to address the research focus of the study. Poor employment of interviewing techniques, measures and/or observations in relation to the research. Justification of research design shows confusion. The design of the research instrument is not grounded in a solid understanding of research theories.

Reflection: Poor reflection on the merits and limitations of the research instruments. Limited or no considerations are paid to discuss how the limitations of the study.

Scholarship: Rudimentary understanding of key issues and concepts; some material may be used inappropriately; uninspired and unoriginal; relies on limited knowledge; analysis poor or obscure, superficial or inconsistent in places; arguments incomplete, partly irrelevant or naive.

Independent learning: Restricted to a limited awareness of basic course material; unsupported assertions; use of irrelevant or unconvincing material.

Writing skills: Minimal structure, though may only list key themes or ideas with limited comment or explanation.
Analysis: Analysis has very significant omissions demonstrating little understanding of problem or underlying principles. Analysis may be ill suited to problem. Very little interpretation of meaning of the analysis.
0-19% Viability of Research Instrument: No understanding of designing an appropriate research instrument. Failure to address the research focus of the study. Justification of research design is absent.

Reflection: Very limited or no reflection on the merits and limitations of the research instruments. No considerations are paid to discuss how the limitations of the study can be addressed.

Scholarship: No understanding of key issues and concepts; some material may be used inappropriately; uninspired and unoriginal.

Writing skills: No structure; comprehension may be completely obscured by poor grammar, spelling, punctuation.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is to take the work of another person and use it as if it were one’s own in such a way as to mislead the reader. Whole pieces of work can be plagiarised (for example, if a student put his or her name on another student’s essay), or part pieces, where chapters or extracts may be lifted from other sources, including the Internet, without acknowledgement. Sometimes plagiarism happens inadvertently, where students fail to read instructions about or do not understand the rules governing the presentation of work which require sources to be acknowledged. In such cases, the problem is usually identified very early in the course and can be put right through discussion with tutors. Deliberate attempts to mislead the examiners, however, are regarded as cheating and are treated very severely by boards of examiners. Any plagiarism in assessments which contribute to the final degree class are likely to lead, at the very least, to the downgrading of the degree class by one division. In the worst cases, expulsion from the University is a possibility.

Referencing

Please ensure that you have read the advice on assignment writing and referencing which is available at:
https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/business/forms/DL/assignment-writing-guidelines/view

You are required to use the Harvard Referencing System for your work, and you MUST stick within the word limit given.
-research paper writing servic

Check Price Discount

Study Notes, Research Topics & Assignment Examples: Discussion Healthy Eating Approach Essay »MKT00720 – Marketing Assignment 2: Report