Hello, if you have any need, please feel free to consult us, this is my wechat: wx91due
A2 - Research Report: Compare and Contrast
Start Assignment
· Due Sunday by 23:59 Points 30 Submitting a file upload
Purpose / Inspiration
This task is to be completed individually and submitted as a Word file or pdf only.
Suggested Design thinking readings will be selected for this Report. The stance adopted by the authors may differ or offer alternative perspectives or methods. You will read two prescribed articles, plus one of your own choice. You will critically analyse the articles, then adopt your own stance with regard to the arguments or perspectives raised in the articles. Do you adopt one perspective over the other, or do you concede that both authors may have merit in their own perspectives. You will write up a research report taking a compare and contrast approach to highlight or emphasize key findings, adding your own viewpoints to the conversation. Try not to adopt a 'sit on the fence' approach, where you give a simple tick of approval to both authors.
In taking a compare and contrast approach, this will enable you to develop a deeper understanding of design thinking, so you can construct your own questions/beliefs about the multi-faceted tiers to what generates the benefits of design thinking across industries. You will have a better gauge of what value it offers in business and other environments, and what benefits various stakeholders will derive from the solutions and opportunities that surface out of the focused problem solving methodology.
There are other recommended reading resources provided that will provide further topic depth/breadth, plus use any additional research you undertake to help argue and evidence the points you have chosen to emphasize.
Action
Download and read the articles that will be assigned. These will be provided well before you commence the assignment, and will be available for download from the Readings Tab in MyUni.
The three (3) readings that are to be used for this assignment are compiled as such:
1. Why Design Thinking Works, Liedtka, Jeanne, Harvard business review, 2018-09-01
2. One article of your own choice from the readings listed under the "Course Readings" tab in MyUni.
3. One article of your own choice, from your own search within the library. Select a reading that aligns in some manner with your studies, deepens an interest you have, or broadens your understanding of a topic that falls within the design thinking domain.
Further readings have been uploaded into MyUni to assist you in broadening your knowledge and understanding of the paradigm of design thinking. You can use articles from the list, or explore more widely to find articles that support your thinking.
The points below provide some ideas on how to extract information from journal articles to develop a robust analysis. Please note you do not need to address ALL issues listed below. The items are listed merely as suggestions to think about as you take notes from the readings. The items should not be viewed as headings for the report. Select issues that resonate with you, you strongly agree/disagree with, or you feel may demonstrate a pathway forward to address the intransigent challenges society is faced with in current times.
· Briefly describe the intention of each author’s argument– a couple of sentences is sufficient.
· What does the wider domain literature reveal?
· Evaluate the articles. What is the main line of argument? Is the evidence well presented, sufficient and convincing to support that argument? Make your own judgement on the value of the argument.
· Is the paper directed at a specialized or general audience? Assess the purpose of the writer. Is it to build or alter theory, to inform practitioners, to describe a specific business issue, or to influence the reader one way or another through emotion, logic, etc. Did the authors achieve their purpose accurately and coherently? Is there dissension between the different authors? Which viewpoint do you agree with, and why? Are there alternative lines of argument?
· What are the findings? Are they strong, weak or “sound”? In your opinion, were there any omissions, limitations, or provision of contrary evidence?
· What is the research relevance to business and management practice? How, why and where does design thinking affect communities, business, or society at large?
· What have you personally achieved or contributed in completing this analysis?
What will contribute a better paper is synthesising the material you have covered to write your report, and coming to conclusions that are yours, developed from your reading, analysis and synthesis. Writing this paper in a rush does not give time for the material to percolate and let your insights rise to the surface. Endeavour to come up with your own thinking in relation to what you have read, rather than repeating research you may have identified with. In compiling the conclusions YOU reach, please provide evidence for your line of reasoning.
Note: A simple precis of the papers is deemed to produce only an average paper.
Time
Time involved in this assignment will require reading of assigned articles, recommended reading and/or further research to aid you in producing a more considered opinion than obtained purely from prescribed articles alone. Factor in writing time, and a final edit to produce a polished and professional report.
Length of Report: 2200 words, no 10% allowance beyond this.
Due
Submission date: Sunday, 13 April 2025
Worth 30% of final mark
Marking Criteria
A Marking rubric will be used to grade this assignment. The items listed below give you some factors to consider in thinking about and developing the argument for this professional research report.
· Demonstrate a well-defined and soundly argued compare-contrast perspective
· Demonstrate critical thinking and synthesis through argument, opinion, and application of concept/s
· Quality and depth of analysis and insight, showing reasonable and objective interpretation
· Distinguish between what is fact and fiction, explore reliability of data/scenarios presented by authors
· Use of additional research sources, other than those assigned; sources are specific, detailed and support the argument; sources must be appropriately cited. (This includes use of ChatGPT; this is a checked source so it is in your interests to appropriately cite where you have utilised it. If you are found to have to incorporated ChatGPT results without citation in your work it is deemed to be plagiarism.)
Rubric
Research Report: Compare and Contrast
Research Report: Compare and Contrast
|
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
|
|
|
|
3 pts |
|
|
|
|
10 pts |
|
|
|
|
10 pts |
|
|
|
|
5 pts |
|
|
|
|
2 pts |
|
|
|
|
-- |
|
|
|
|
-- |
|
|
Total points: 30 |
|
|
|
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome Purpose & Contribution |
|
3 to >2.25 Pts Exemplary Interesting title; introduces and presents paper effectively and clearly; purpose is readily apparent to the reader. |
2.25 to >1.5 Pts Competent Predictable title; introduces and presents the paper competently; purpose may not be consistently clear throughout. |
1.5 to >0.75 Pts Satisfactory Straightforward title; introduces and presents paper adequately; writing has a clear purpose, but may digress. |
0.75 to >0 Pts Developing Misleading title; introduces and presents paper in a weak manner; purpose is somewhat unclear |
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome Literature Discussion |
|
10 to >7.5 Pts Exemplary Engages reader with thought-provoking argument; Robust, accurate analysis in discussing articles; Connects 2/more articles in a meaningful way; In-depth analysis including many specific, detailed references/examples; Maintains clear, consistent focus throughout, with no repetition. |
7.5 to >5.0 Pts Competent Engages reader with mainly predictable argument; Mostly full and effective analysis in discussing articles; Connects two articles in a relatively straightforward manner; Competent, supported analysis pertaining specifically to articles; Maintains consistent focus with occasional irrelevant or repetitive segments. |
5 to >2.5 Pts Satisfactory Argument is under developed; Falls short of accurate or effective analysis as more descriptive in nature; Under developed connection between articles; Analysis of articles is one-dimensional or rudimentary with few specific references to or examples from articles; Focus not fully maintained throughout, with irrelevant or repetitive segments. |
2.5 to >0 Pts Developing Naive argument or lacks argument stance; Paper is undeveloped; Ignores or misunderstands the premise; paper does not fully relate to the assignment; Two articles are treated separately or little or no connection made between articles; Provision of vague or largely unsupported discussion rather than analysis; Minimal specific references/examples from articles; Fails to maintain a perceptible focus throughout. |
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome Summary of Research, Reaction to Research, Insights, Provision of Supporting Evidence |
|
10 to >7.5 Pts Exemplary Produces powerful parallels with readings undertaken/course content; Effectively introduces many sources of additional research; Strong, balanced and critical assessment; Judicious, insightful connections/recommendations; Ideas supported effectively and sources clearly attributed. |
7.5 to >5.0 Pts Competent Produces competent parallels with course content/readings undertaken; Effectively introduces several sources of additional research; Effective assessment with rational connections/recommendations; Ideas generally supported with clear attribution. |
5 to >2.5 Pts Satisfactory Produces some parallels with course content/readings; Introduces a few sources of additional research; Assessment makes reasonable connections: Recommendations are feasible; Attribution is present, but may not fully meet requirement; Some statements unsubstantiated or source of some ideas is unclear. |
2.5 to >0 Pts Developing Produces little/no parallels with course content/readings; Minimal/no attempt to bring in wider research, or uses additional research ineffectively; Vague/minimal provision of assessment of articles; Statements provide nominal argument of concepts; Recommendations missing or unrelated; Attribution is missing, or poorly chosen sources used. |
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome Conclusion and Implications |
|
5 to >3.34 Pts Exemplary Original well-supported commentary that goes beyond the obvious and pertains specifically to the articles; Clearly relates each major point back to the principal concept; Demonstrates clear understanding of technical terms and effectively incorporates such where appropriate. |
3.34 to >1.66 Pts Competent Competent, supported commentary that pertains specifically to the articles; Most major points relate back to principal concepts; Demonstrates understanding of technical terminology and incorporates where appropriate. |
1.66 to >0.84 Pts Satisfactory Standard supported commentary that mostly pertains specifically to the articles; Demonstrates basic understanding of technical terms and occasionally incorporates this into the paper. |
0.84 to >0 Pts Developing Contains largely unsupported analysis that does not always pertain to the articles; Demonstrates a level of understanding of technical terms, but provides minimal use where appropriate. |
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome Structure, Flow of document, Presentation, Writing mechanics, Spelling, Etc. |
|
2 to >1.5 Pts Exemplary Clear and logical arrangement of ideas to support purpose of argument; Ideas flow smoothly with effective linkages; Reader comfortably follows line of reasoning; Writing demonstrates a sophisticated clarity, conciseness and contains minimal or no errors. |
1.5 to >1.0 Pts Competent Ideas competently arranged to support purpose of argument; Links between ideas generally clear; Reader easily follows the line of reasoning; Accomplished writing in terms of clarity and conciseness, but contains a few errors. |
1 to >0.5 Pts Satisfactory Arranges ideas adequately, though some ideas fail to produce good flow to the argument; Reader remains fairly clear about the writer's intentions; Writing lacks some clarity and conciseness; Contains several errors. |
0.5 to >0 Pts Developing Arrangement of ideas lacks consistency; Ideas frequently not taken through to conclusion; Line of reasoning is not always clear; Writing is unfocused, occasional rambling due to poor structure, and contains numerous errors. |
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome CLO1 Understand and interpret design thinking theories, concepts and processes. threshold: 3.0 pts |
|
5 Pts Exceeds Mastery |
3 Pts Mastery |
0 Pts Does not meet expectations |
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome CLO2 Identify the relationship between design thinking, innovation and entrepreneurship and the value of innovation to organisations, economies and society. threshold: 3.0 pts |
|
5 Pts Exceeds Mastery |
3 Pts Mastery |
0 Pts Does not meet expectations |