HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH TOPIC 15000 WORDS ON A LOGISTICS COMPANY

I NEED A FULL DISSERTATION AT MASTERS LEVEL. 

PLEASE DO NOT BID IF YOU CAN NOT TAKE ON THE TASK AND COMPLETE IT TO A HIGH STANDARD.

I AM A PROMPT PAYER AND WILL  NOT TOLERATE INADEQUATE WORK

HARVARD REFERENCES MUST BE USED AND IN TEXT CITATIONS FROM A WIDE RANGE OF RESOURCES 

  

Guidance on the preparation of the dissertation

Whilst the structure of dissertations may vary according to the nature of the subject matter, the following represents a typical structure of a dissertation which you may find useful to consider. A typical structure is likely to consist of the following chapters:

1.  Introduction

2. Literature review

3. Methodology

4.  Empirical primary research

5.  Conclusions

6.  Recommendations

Bibliography

Appendices

1.

Introduction

This need not be long (say around 4-5 pages), but it performs a number of important functions regarding the Report as a whole.

It is vital that you study the marking criteria (as indeed it is vital that you study the criteria set out for each element of the Dissertation/Management Research Report). These indicate that your Introduction should cover the following issues:

* Clear statement of aims for the research

* Brief but relevant data about the organisational context (further detail can go into the Appendices), with the business rationale for selecting the topic (i.e. the need for the investigation) ‘thoroughly critiqued’

* A set of clear research questions (commencing why?, what?, etc) or research objectives (commencing with an active verb e.g. ‘to investigate’ or ‘to evaluate’, etc); the number of these is likely to be in the range of 3 to 5; hypotheses may alternatively be used, but are not mandatory

* An overview of the theoretical/conceptual framework and primary research methods to be used (a more detailed discussion will appear in the Methodology chapter)

*A summary of the overall structure to be employed in the report.

It is likely that you may wish to revisit the content of the Introduction after you have completed the Management Research Report and make any appropriate amendments in the light of what the research has actually achieved.

The specification of your research questions/objectives is particularly critical. You may initially select these on the basis of your perceptions of the organisational issues. These initial perceptions may, however, change once you have completed your Literature Review and you may wish to revisit and refine your research questions/objectives as part of an iterative and reflexive process that synthesises concepts and practice. The specification of research questions/objectives is also important because they ‘drive’ and give coherence to the remainder of your report. Each research question/objective should be specifically addressed in your Literature Review, possibly by incorporating the themes in sub-headings. How you plan to research empirically your research questions/objectives will also feature in your Methodology chapter. Each of your research questions/objectives will also form the basis of your Primary Research chapter, will be revisited in your Conclusions and addressed in your Recommendations.

2. Literature review

The usual practice in most management research projects is to commence with a literature review: this is known as a ‘deductive’ approach in which the researcher uses theories, concepts, etc to structure their primary research. It is also possible to adopt an ‘inductive’ approach which reverses this process ie primary data are gathered first and then the literature is used to contextualise and integrate the results of the primary research. The latter approach is less frequently used in management research and carries considerable challenges for the researcher: you are strongly advised to discuss the latter option with your supervisor if you are considering adopting this approach. The remainder of the discussion below on the literature review assumes that the ‘deductive’ approach is being used.

The starting point for investigating an issue is to carry out a review of the literature relevant to the topic in hand. This implies that the organisation and the issues specific to it are left to one side and a chapter is presented which consists purely of the findings of an exploration of the relevant published material (e.g. books, articles, databases) relating to the topic. It is therefore highly unlikely that your organisation will even be mentioned in this chapter, except possibly in the introduction to the chapter which might usefully explain the purpose of the literature review for your research. One of the main purposes of the literature review is to address specifically each of your research questions and identify what the literature says about them. Thus, it is a highly focused review and not a summary of everything that the literature has to say generally about a topic area. Your literature review should be structured around your research questions, using each as a sub-heading. Relevant material can be found by consulting the computerised catalogue in the Library, including ‘key word’ searches on the electronic databases, and by ‘key word’ searches on the CIPD’s library catalogue, including its on-line journal service. The CIPD library provides a printout to members of ‘key word’ searches and this can either be requested over the telephone or in person. UWL’s Library also has a leaflet listing other libraries to which you may gain access.

Some of the broad aims of the literature review may be summarised as follows:

· Helps you to refine your research questions

· Increases your knowledge/expertise in your chosen topic area

· Locates your research in the context of what is already known, not in a vacuum

· Aims to ensure that your knowledge on the topic area is up-to-date

· Helps to identify current trends, issues and debates in your chosen topic area

· Helps to identify thinking about ‘best practice’

· Helps to identify relevant theories, models and key concepts for application to your topic area and the leading authors associated with them

· Provides a means of validating criteria to be measured and analysed in your primary research

· May generate themes which will be followed in both the literature review and throughout the rest of the report

The specific marking criteria against which your Report will be marked are set out in the marking guidelines. These indicate that a good critical literature review should:

· Analyse and evaluate alternative theoretical frameworks, concepts and ideas in relation to the research questions/objectives specified, highlighting differences or debates and weighing the arguments

· Be structured (as noted above) tightly around your research questions/objectives

In addition, some other points of good practice should also be noted:

· Rigorous referencing of sources using Harvard conventions (see also below and the Library guide to referencing)

· Avoid regurgitation of large chunks of material from a single source

· Avoid unexplained bullet points

· Use direct quotation sparingly

· Use as up-to-date sources as possible, including up-to-date statistics (where cited)

Students sometimes ask how many literature sources should be referred to in a management research report. There is no definitive answer to this, since it will depend (amongst other things) on how extensive the literature is in a given field. However, a minimum number of is likely to be in the range of 20-30 in order to do some justice to the literature in your chosen subject area, but a more thorough exploration of the literature in a high quality management research report might refer to over 30.

3. Methodology

Methodology is defined by Jankowicz (2005: 387) as “the analysis of and rationale for the particular [research] method(s) used in a project”.

The writing of the methodology chapter requires you to read relevant texts on business and social science research methods, weigh and discuss what is contained in these sources about alternative research methods and apply these to the decisions made about your selected methods, their strengths and weaknesses and why certain methods were selected and others rejected, thus providing a rationale for the methods used. Sources of reading are set out in the reading list in Section C below.

The criteria for assessing the Methodology chapter are set out in the marking guidelines. The methodology chapter is likely to include discussion of the following:

(1) Research philosophy; ontology and epistemology; alternative philosophies e.g. qualitative/quantitative, positivist/phenomenological or interpretive; a rationale for methods selected (as noted above)

(2) Research design and its validation e.g. issues in questionnaire design or semi-structured interviewing in theory and in practice and how these issues were addressed; a validation of each question asked, usually by reference to a cited source which has already been discussed in the literature review.

(3) Sampling: information about the sample, and sample size, how was it selected, what roles did respondents have, why were these included, was the sample representative in some way, how many respondents and non-respondents and any implications of the latter, integrating references to the literature and research practice?

(4) Ethics: A discussion of research ethics by reference to the methodology literature and how ethical principles were incorporated into practice.

(5) Limitations: Any concluding comments on weaknesses found in the methods used and their implications.

4. Primary research

The criteria for assessing your Primary Research chapter are set out in the marking guidelines.

A good primary research chapter is likely to:

· Be closely structured around the research questions/objectives

· Report findings clearly, possibly (where appropriate) through the use of tables, charts or other pictorial devices

· Provide a written interpretation and analysis of the findings (i.e. not allow tables, charts, etc to speak for themselves)

· Report all findings faithfully (and not consign important data to Appendices)

· Provide integrating reference to the literature

5. Conclusions

The marking criteria for Conclusions and Recommendations are set out in the marking guidelines.

It is important to note that conclusions precede recommendations, not the other way round. The conclusions should specifically address each of your research questions/objectives, providing a summary analysis of what has been found out from the primary research, with integrated reflections on how the findings either compliment or differ from those reported in the literature. Conclusions also provide a logical bridge between the body of the report and any recommendations. It is important to note that conclusions (and recommendations) should not contain any material or ideas, either from the literature or primary research, which have not already been presented in the body of the report. If you find it necessary to raise something of significance in your conclusions not already discussed in the body, then the body of the report needs adjusting to take account of this: no ideas should appear ‘out of the blue’ at this stage of your report. By implication, your report has ended when the conclusions chapter has been reached and your conclusions simply summarise and integrate what has already been stated. Your conclusions need not be long, but they should do justice to all the important points raised in the body of the report. This is unlikely to be achieved in under 5 pages.

6. Recommendations

Most management research reports finish with recommendations for action. If your report finishes with recommendations for action within your organisation then you should ensure they are clear, precise and pragmatic, with, at minimum, cost implications.

Recommendations need to address all the issues identified in the conclusions, unless they are thought to be impractical or unfeasible in the current organisational context (and if this is the case, this needs to be stated, since it may represent a limitation to what might ideally be achievable). Logically, the recommendations should address the research questions/objectives that have been the drivers of the report as a whole. Recommendations should contain a clear action plan, stating what should be done, by whom, in what timescale (if appropriate) and, if further investigation is thought necessary, this should be explicitly stated. Where recommendations have cost implications (as they usually will), they should contain costings and, ideally, some estimates of potential cost benefits (though it is recognised that the latter may not always be possible). In many organisations, uncosted proposals are unlikely to be acceptable. It is also important to note that recommendations never appear ‘out of the blue’. Only issues specifically addressed and data specifically generated in the primary research and summarised in the conclusions can legitimately appear in the recommendations.

Bibliography

This should appear after the recommendations and before, not after, the appendices (if there are any). It should contain all the published sources referred to in the report, no more and no less. It should not consist of a list of sources of reading which you have picked up during the course of the project which you may have browsed, but have not actually referred to specifically in your report. Following the ‘Harvard’ convention, referred to earlier, your references to books consulted should ideally be presented in alphabetical order by author or first author surname as follows:

M Saunders, P Lewis and A Thornhill (2012), Research Methods for Business Students, 6th ed, Harlow, FT Prentice Hall

The convention, therefore, is author(s) name(s), date of publication in brackets, title of publication underlined, place of publication and publisher name. If, however, you have omitted to record place of publication and publisher name, then these may be dropped.

If you have quoted from an authored chapter in a book of edited readings, the convention is as follows:

S Wilkinson (2003), ‘Focus groups’, in JA Smith, ed, Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods, London, Sage, pp 184-204

In this case, the named chapter author comes first, then date of publication, then chapter title in inverted commas, then name of editor of the book of readings, book title underlined, place and name of publisher If known).

If you have quoted from an article, the convention is slightly different eg

C Fletcher and R Williams (1992), ‘The route to performance management’, Personnel Management, October, 42-44, 47

Here, the article title is put in inverted commas, the journal title is underlined, the date (e.g. month or volume or edition number) is quoted and the page numbers (if known).

For references to web-based material, follow the conventions for articles, but underline the web site name and add the date on which it was downloaded; look for an author name, but if there isn’t one, use website name as author; for example

A Evans (2004), ‘The history of the CIPD’,

www.cipd.co.uk/about/history.htm

, downloaded on 14 January 2013.