8. Griffin, M.A., & Neal, A., 2000. Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 347 -- 358.

9. Neal, A., Griffin, M.A., & Hart, P.M., 2000. The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior. Safety Science, 34, 99 -- 109.

10. Hechanova-Alampay, R.H., & Beehr, T.A., 2001. Empowerment, span of control and safety performance in work teams after workforce reduction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 275 -- 282.

11. Kaminski, M., 2001. Unintended consequences: Organizational practices and their impact on workplace safety and productivity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 127 -- 138.

Turner, N., & Parker, S.K., 2004. The effect of teamwork on safety processes and outcomes. In J. Barling & M.R. Frone (Eds.), The psychology of workplace safety (pp. 35 -- 62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

12. Section 6: Timetable of Activity. You should complete the GANTT chart below.

Part-time students will undertake the dissertation over 30 weeks, full-time students over 18 weeks.

Make sure you know your final hand-in date.

It may make sense to work backwards from that.

(You may wish to alter this timetable of activity to reflect your activity over weeks rather than months -- this is entirely up to you.)

Task

Month 1

Month 2

Month 3

Month 4

Month 5

Month 6

Month 7

Scheme briefing

Taught support

Complete proposal

Submit proposal

Allocated supervisor

Contact supervisor

Literature review

Methodology chapter

Data collection

Data analysis

Findings chapter

Discussion chapter

Conclusion

Recommendations

Introduction

Abstract

Complete first draft

Rewrites

Complete final draft

Printing / binding

Submission

Section 7: Ethical considerations. Explain what implications your primary research may have regarding ethical issues. This section is designed to ensure that ethical issues in your proposed research have been fully considered. The following questions are based on University guidelines and should be answered in full by ticking either Yes, No, or not applicable (N/A).

Question

Yes

No

N/A

1. Does the aim and method of your research respect the independence of your participants?

2. Are measures in place to ensure confidentiality for participants?

3. Are participants clearly asked to give consent...

Can participants withdraw at any time if they chose?
If you ticked NO to any of the above questions, you should indicate below how you intend to address these ethical concerns.

Question

Yes

No

N/A

5. Do the objectives of your research lead participants to break confidentiality or otherwise engage in deceit?

6. Will your respondents be in a position where they might feel coerced into taking part in the research?

7. Will the data be used in ways not fully explained to the participants or respondents?

8. Is your research at all likely to cause physical or psychological harm or stress to participants?

9. Is the impartiality of the research at risk of being compromised by dependence upon the support of a particular sponsor or organization?

If you ticked YES to any of the above questions, you should indicate below how you intend to address these ethical concerns.

Section 8: Please select proposed subject area by ticking the box below:

Accounting & Finance

Strategy

Professional Effectiveness & CPD

Marketing

HRM & Organisational behaviour

Enterprise / Economic Development & Leisure / Tourism

Purchasing and supply

Business information systems

Section 9: Student Signature

I declare that the above questions have been answered correctly, and that if ethical issues emerge in the course of my research then I will notify my supervisor immediately.

Student Name (Print):

PART C: MARKER'S FEEDBACK

All marks are subject to confirmation by the Board of Examiners

Identification of topic area (@ 250 words)

Acceptable

Unacceptable: requires more focus

Unacceptable: requires more explanation

Unacceptable topic

Comment (where necessary):

Identification of aim (@ 50 words)

Acceptable

Unacceptable: requires more focus

Unacceptable: requires more clarity

Unacceptable: not suitable for award

Comment (where necessary):

An initial literature review (@ 1,000 words)

Acceptable

Unacceptable: lacks quality

Unacceptable: lacks depth

Unacceptable: requires more clarity

Poor referencing

Comment (where necessary):

An initial research method assessment (@ 200 words)

Acceptable

Unacceptable: lacks quality

Unacceptable: lacks depth

Unacceptable: requires more clarity

Poor referencing

Comment (where necessary):

Lecturer's signature:

Second marker:

Mark awarded: