Systematic Literature review question – “The success of capital investment appraisal tools in the process of evaluating and selecting long-term investments”
Welcome to the Literature Project module.
This module is intended to be both challenging and rewarding. It is designed to equip you with the knowledge and skills needed to conduct efficient and effective searches for literature on a given topic; to maintain careful records of that literature; to summarise the content of that literature; and then to analyse and synthesise the literature to produce a written literature review.
You will be supported and directed through the process of producing your literature review, first by means of some introductory online presentations/lectures and tutorials covering each step of the process, and second by a supervisor who will be allocated to you to provide guiding feedback.
On completion of this module, students are expected to be able to:
Conduct a comprehensive subject specific literature search;
Communicate effectively within a well structured literature review;
Synthesise arguments and ideas in a manner which displays critical appraisal of their chosen topic;
Demonstrate the ability to work independently with minimal supervision.
Producing your literature review: the process
To produce your literature review on your allocated topic, you will be required to follow this process:
Liaise with your allocated supervisor to agree the specific scope and purpose of your review.
Identify appropriate literature to include in your review by undertaking a structured search (using relevant keywords and search strings) primarily in databases such as those available via the University Library website (e.g. ScienceDirect, Business Source Complete and Emerald.
Summarise the literature identified in your search.
Analyse and synthesise the literature to draw out, for example, key themes, arguments or debates, and/or developments in the topic over time.
Write up your literature review.
As a guide, you will need to cite between 30 to 40 literature sources in your review.
Structuring your literature review
Your literature review should double spaced throughout and structured as follows:
Title page.
Abstract (maximum 200 words).
Acknowledgements.
Table of contents.
List of tables and/or figures (if applicable).
Introduction (including a clear indication of the purpose of the review and an outline of the contents of the remainder of the review).
Analysis and synthesis of the literature (including details of your literature search strategy). This section is the main body of the document and may be subdivided into subsections.
Conclusions and/or recommendations.
References.
Appendices (if applicable).
Referencing
Referencing should follow the University Harvard system. Links to guides on this can be found on the module Moodle page.
Assessment format
Your literature review should comprise no more than 4000 words (+/- 10%). Please state the word count of your literature review on the title page.
The table below stipulates what is included in the word count, and what is excluded from it.
Literature review element
Included in
word count
Excluded from
word count
Title page
√
Abstract
√
Acknowledgements
√
Table of contents
√
List of tables and/or figures
√
Introduction
√
Analysis of the literature (main body of literature review with subsections)
√
Conclusions
√
References
√
Appendices
√
Assessment Grid 2020-2021 (BELOW)
Grade A (Excellent)
Grade B
(Very Good)
Grade C
(Good)
Grade D
(Pass)
Grade E (Marginal Fail)
Grade F
(Clear Fail)
Literature search strategy and identification of sources
20%
Evidence of excellent literature search strategy to produce a very comprehensive reference list of highly relevant authoritative literature.
Evidence of very good literature search strategy to produce a comprehensive reference list of relevant authoritative literature.
Evidence of good literature search strategy to produce a good reference list of some authoritative literature, but with some reliance on other material such as non-academic articles and web pages.
Evidence
some effective literature searching to produce an adequate reference list of some authoritative literature, but with considerable reliance on other material such as non-academic articles and web pages.
Little evidence of an effective literature search strategy to produce an acceptable reference list. This could either be through insufficient material being identified or too much reliance on non-academic sources.
No evidence of an effective literature search strategy to produce an acceptable reference list. Insufficient and/or inappropriate material identified.
Analysis and synthesis of literature
60%
Demonstrates excellent understanding of the topic. Analysis of the literature is rigorous, coherent, appropriate and in depth.
Excellent use of references to develop a cohesive discussion and analysis of the key issues.
Demonstrates very good understanding of the topic. Clear evidence of analysis but could be in more depth. Very good use of references to develop a coherent discussion and analysis of some of the key issues.
Demonstrates good understanding of the topic. Some evidence of analysis but other parts rather descriptive. Good use of references to develop a discussion of a few issues but some aspects slightly superficial and/or fragmented.
Demonstrates satisfactory understanding of the topic. Limited attempt at analysis and limited depth. Needed to use references more to develop a discussion of the issues. Superficial in places, and/or fragmented.
Weak understanding of the topic with very limited attempt at analysis. Descriptive rather than analytical. Limited utilisation of references to generate a discussion.
No clear understanding of the topic and no attempt at analysis. Very descriptive rather than analytical. Very limited utilisation of references to generate a discussion.
Referencing and citations 10%
Appropriate use of the Harvard system throughout.
Citations thorough and correct.
Appropriate use of the Harvard system in most areas.
Citations were mostly included and correct.
Some errors with application of the Harvard system. Citations were missing in a few areas.
Several errors with the application of the Harvard system. Some citation errors. Some citations missing.
Very weak application of the Harvard system. Very limited attempt to cite work.
Harvard system not applied. No attempt to include citations.
Structure, presentation and clarity of expression
10%
Very logical and appropriate structure. Highly professional presentation with excellent clarity of expression.
Structure is logical and appropriate. Professional presentation with very good clarity of expression.
Structure is logical and appropriate in parts. Generally professional presentation with reasonable clarity of expression.
Structure and presentation are acceptable but with some weaknesses. Some problems with clarity of expression.
Structure and presentation are weak. Poor clarity of expression.
Structure and presentation very weak. Very poor clarity of expression.
The post Systematic Literature review question – “The success of capital investment appraisal tools appeared first on PapersSpot.