RES7019 Becoming an Impactful Researcher Assessment Brief 2026 | Birmingham
RES7019 Assessment Brief
RES7019 Becoming an Impactful Researcher
Assessment Overview
|
Category |
Type |
Word Count |
Weighting |
Submission Date and Time |
|
Coursework |
Portfolio |
3000Â words |
100% |
18th May 2026 12:00 |
Assessment Title: Research impact and me
Assessment Tasks:
This assessment is composed of two tasks:
Task 1: Create an impact plan for a possible research project you might undertake (1000 words)
The impact plan could be for your proposed MRes thesis project but does not have to be. It could be any research project in your specialist area that you could feasibly conduct. The impact plan must also be realistic and plausible for where you are currently as a researcher and the access, skills and pathways to impact available to you at present.
There is no set template for the impact plan, and you can present it however you feel is most effective. You will be encouraged to develop a personal template throughout the module, which you may wish to draw on, or you could use a pre-existing template you find valuable. Tables, figures and diagrams are welcomed but everything counts towards the 1000-word limit.
The content of your impact plan is up to you but possible topics you could consider include:
- An overview of the project
- Your overall impact goal and how your research might contribute to it
- Potential stakeholders and beneficiaries
- Impact plans throughout the research lifecycle
- Indicators and evidence of impact
- Challenges and facilitators of impact
- Development and support needs
You will not have space to detail and consider everything. You will need to be judicious and decide what is most critical to include. If useful, you can include plans or drafts of particular impact activities or outputs featured in the plan as an appendix. This is not required however and does not contribute to the word count.
Task 2: Critically discuss what research impact means to you now and justify your impact plan created in Task 1 (2000 words)
This is an essay task that requires you to discuss research impact in both conceptual and applied manners to explore what ‘impact’ means to you and providing a rationale for how you have planned to enact impact in Task 1. You must engage relevant theory, literature and evidence in these critical discussions to inform and support the ideas raised.
Submission Details
- This assessment will be submitted through Moodle by Monday 18th May 2026 at 12:00.
- Ensure you do not leave your submission as a ‘draft’ but fully submit and tick the Turnitin declaration.
- A Word file is preferred but you can also submit as PDF file if better for your work.
- BCU Harvard referencing style must be used. More information on referencing is available here:Â https://www.bcu.ac.uk/library/services-and-support/referencing/harvard/.
- You must complete a coversheet (available on Moodle) for this assessment and upload it with your submission.
- There are no formatting requirements but please make sure it is legible and easy to read.
Pay & Get Instant Answer of RES7019 Becoming an Impactful Researcher Assessment Before Deadline
Order Non Plagiarized Assignment
Assessment Support
The module is very applied, discursive and reflective. As such, there are multiple opportunities throughout the module to develop draft impact analyses, plans, outputs and activities. You will receive informal feedback on these from both peers and lecturers.
Use of Artificial Intelligence: PROBHIBITED
You MUST NOT use any generative Artificial Intelligence in this assessment. You MAY use non-generative tools such as a spell-check, basic grammar check (non-generative), calculator or similar. If you have any doubts about using an AI tool, please consult the Student AI Guidelines https://www.bcu.ac.uk/library/services-and-support/artificial-intelligence.
Key Information
|
Learning Outcomes |
This assessment addresses all the module’s learning outcomes: 1. Critically analyse and evaluate contemporary debates, theories, and contexts surrounding research impact in modern academia. 2. Identify and analyse potential audiences and stakeholders related to your research area. 3. Design and evaluate strategies for meaningfully engaging diverse audiences in research using a variety of tools, techniques and modes of communication. 4. Create and justify a personalised impact strategy for a project in your research area. |
|
Conditions of Progression |
You must achieve a grade of 50% to successfully pass the module. If you fail at first attempt, there will be one more opportunity to pass the module during the resubmission period, due by 12:00 on 13th July 2026. |
|
Late or Non-Submission/ Attendance |
Failure to submit by the published deadline will result in penalties which are set out in the Late Submissions Policy. |
|
Word Count |
The word count for this module assessment is shown under the assessment task. A +10% margin of tolerance is applied, beyond which nothing further will be marked. Marks cannot be awarded for any learning outcomes addressed outside the word count. The word count refers to everything in the main body of the text (including headings, tables, citations, quotes, lists etc.). Everything before (i.e. abstract, acknowledgements, contents, executive summaries etc.) and after the main text (i.e. references, appendices) are not included in the word count limit. |
|
Academic Integrity Guidance |
Academic integrity means completing and submitting your own original work while properly acknowledging sources that have informed the ideas presented through referencing and citing as explicitly as possible the paraphrases and quotes used in your work. If you include ideas or quotations which have not been appropriately acknowledged, this may be seen as plagiarism which is a form of academic misconduct. If you require support around referencing, please contact Centre for Academic Success. |
|
Use of Artificial Intelligence |
Whilst AI tools can be helpful in assisting learning, when it comes to assessment, the Academic Misconduct Procedure is clear that this should be a student’s own original work and not the work of other people or AI tools. The Use of AI Tools – Student Guidelines follows the same guidelines your lecturers use. |
|
Academic Misconduct |
Academic misconduct is conduct that has or may have the effect of providing you with an unfair advantage by relying on dishonest means to gain advantage and which therefore compromises your academic integrity. The Academic Misconduct Procedure sets out the process we will follow, and the penalties we may apply, in cases where we believe you may have compromised your academic integrity by committing academic misconduct. |
|
Resit Period |
Our aim is for all students to pass the module at first attempt. However, there are occasions where students fail a module are required to resit their assessment. The resit is due on 13th July 2026 at 12:00. It is important that you are available during this period, should you be required to resit the assessment. |
Marking Criteria: Postgraduate
Level 7 Descriptor
This level descriptor describes what is required for a student to pass at the minimum threshold of this academic level.
Students will have a deep level of knowledge which demonstrates breadth of understanding and is an authoritative and accurate representation of established, and emerging themes/principles/ideas. They will be able to effectively communicate complex concepts, theories philosophies and arguments, and interconnect ideas coherently, accurately, and persuasively to enhance their own and others learning. Students will be able to apply critical thinking to complex contexts that demonstrates active engagement with the established and emerging themes/principles/ideas, and through independent thought, students will develop, create, and articulate connections between information, to synthesise new understanding. They will also be able to independently search systematically for, and effectively use an advanced array of information sources, using this literature to communicate a deep level of understanding through application of that knowledge within the immediate and broader field of study.
|
Marking Criteria |
Marking Rubric |
||||||
|
 Criterion 1 |
0-19% Fail |
20-39% Fail |
40-49% Fail |
50-59% |
60-69% |
70-79% |
80-100% |
|
Does not address the assignment brief. |
Addresses the Assignment Brief. |
||||||
|
Structure, Organisation, and Communication of Ideas. |
Very poor structure, organisation, and communication of ideas. |
Poor structure, organisation, and communication of ideas. |
Unsatisfactory structure, organisation, and communication of ideas. |
Good structure, organisation, and communication of ideas. |
Very good structure, organisation, and communication of ideas. |
Excellent structure, organisation, and communication of ideas. |
Outstanding structure, organisation, and communication of ideas. |
|
 |
For example: |
For example: |
 |
For example: |
For example: |
For example: |
For example: |
|
 |
 |
 |
For example: |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
No introduction. |
No appropriate |
 |
Has an introduction. |
Introduction connects |
Introduction provides |
Introduction clearly |
|
 |
 |
introduction. |
Introduction is |
 |
to the points in the |
context to the points in |
states the main |
|
 |
Discussions and topics |
 |
superficial. |
Discussions and topics |
main body. |
the main body. |
argument and provides |
|
 |
are not relevant or are |
Discussions and topics |
 |
are complete, relevant, |
 |
 |
context to the points in |
|
 |
incomplete. |
are incomplete, and |
Discussion and topics |
and points are clear to |
Discussions and topics |
Discussions and topics |
the main body. |
|
 |
 |
most of the points are |
are complete and |
follow. |
are complete, relevant |
are complete, relevant |
 |
|
 |
No conclusion. |
difficult to follow. |
mostly relevant, but |
 |
and points have some |
and have a logical |
Discussions and topics |
|
 |
 |
 No appropriate conclusion. |
points are not always clear to follow. Some paragraphs may include conclusions but do not connect to the next paragraph. |
Some paragraphs conclude, with some attempt at connections made between paragraphs. Connections are made to the taught elements of the module and beyond with |
logical order. All paragraphs conclude with some connections made between paragraphs. Connections are made to the taught elements of the module and |
order. All paragraphs conclude with connections made between all paragraphs. Connections are made to the taught elements |
are complete, relevant and have a logical order which aligns to the main argument. All paragraphs flow from one to the next and have conclusions that connect to the main argument. |
|
Marking Criteria |
Marking Rubric |
||||||
|
 Criterion 2 |
0-19% Fail |
20-39% Fail |
40-49% Fail |
50-59% |
60-69% |
70-79% |
80-100% |
|
Does not address the assignment brief. |
Addresses the Assignment Brief. |
||||||
|
Knowledge |
Very poor demonstration of knowledge and understanding. For example: Does not demonstrate an any understanding of the subject area. |
Poor demonstration of knowledge and understanding. For example:  Demonstrates inaccurate knowledge base, with no appreciation of the provisional nature of knowledge. Work is lacking in knowledge and understanding of key concepts and ideas. Work contains misunderstandings and factual errors. |
Unsatisfactory demonstration of knowledge and understanding. For example:  Demonstrates minimal depth of a theoretically informed knowledge base, with little appreciation of the provisional nature of knowledge. Work shows an inadequate knowledge and understanding of key concepts and ideas. Work contains some misunderstandings and few factual errors. |
Good demonstration of knowledge and understanding. For example: Demonstrates depth of a theoretically informed knowledge base, with at times appreciation of the provisional nature of knowledge. Demonstrates an adequate understanding of key theories and philosophies relevant to the subject field and beyond that of the subject field. *Demonstrates minimal accurate knowledge of methodological approaches and how these affect the way the knowledge base is interpreted and applied within the context of the assignment task. |
Very good demonstration of knowledge and understanding. For example: Demonstrates a breadth and depth of a theoretically informed knowledge base, at times shows appreciation of the provisional nature of knowledge. Demonstrates significant understanding of key theories/ philosophies relevant to the subject field and beyond that of the subject field. *Demonstrates some accurate knowledge of methodological approaches and how these affect the way the knowledge base is interpreted and applied within the context of the assignment task. |
Excellent demonstration of knowledge and understanding. For example: Demonstrates a breadth and depth of a theoretically informed knowledge base, with some appreciation of the provisional nature of knowledge. Demonstrates a commanding understanding of key theories/ philosophies relevant to the subject field and beyond that of the subject field. *Demonstrates accurate knowledge of methodological approaches and how these affect the way the knowledge base is interpreted and applied within the context of the assignment task. |
Outstanding demonstration of knowledge and understanding. For example:  Demonstrates extensive breadth and depth of a theoretically informed knowledge base, with a full appreciation of the provisional nature of knowledge. Demonstrates mastery of understanding key theories/ philosophies relevant to the subject field and beyond that of the subject field. *Demonstrates accurate knowledge of methodological approaches and how these affect the way the knowledge base is interpreted and applied within the context of the assignment task. |
|
Marking Criteria |
Marking Rubric |
||||||
|
 Criterion 3 |
0-19% Fail |
20-39% Fail |
40-49% Fail |
50-59% |
60-69% |
70-79% |
80-100% |
|
Does not address the assignment brief. |
Addresses the Assignment Brief. |
||||||
|
Application of Critical Thinking. |
Very Poor application of critical thinking. For example: Presents ideas as bullet points. No evidence of reading. Content is reduced to student viewpoints and opinions only. No attempt at identifying strengths and weaknesses. No attempt to draw conclusions. |
Poor application of critical thinking. For example: Very descriptive. Inadequate evidence of reading. Content is reduced to mainly student viewpoints and opinions only. Inadequate attempt at analysis. Inadequate attempt to draw conclusions. |
Unsatisfactory application of critical thinking. For example: Little critical thinking evident. Evidence of reading. Content of sources are described, but no attempt to explain. An attempt at analysis that is reduced to strengths and weaknesses. An attempt to draw conclusions. |
Good application of critical thinking. For example: Consistent critical thinking. The literature utilised is interpreted, analysed, and evaluated to develop weak arguments. Viewpoints of authors are interconnected and explored with appropriate conclusions drawn. |
Very good application of critical thinking. For example: Consistent critical thinking. The literature utilised is interpreted, analysed, and evaluated to develop persuasive, arguments. Viewpoints of authors are interconnected and explored with informed conclusions drawn. |
Excellent application of critical thinking. For example: Constant critical thinking. The literature utilised is interpreted, analysed, and evaluated with authority to develop persuasive, arguments. Viewpoints of authors are interconnected and explored with robust informed conclusions drawn. |
Outstanding application of critical thinking. For example: Constant critical thinking. The literature utilised is interpreted, analysed, and evaluated with agency to develop persuasive, authoritative arguments. Viewpoints of authors are interconnected and interrogated with significant informed conclusions drawn. |
|
Marking Criteria |
Marking Rubric |
||||||
|
Criterion 4 |
0-19% Fail |
20-39% Fail |
40-49% Fail |
50-59% |
60-69% |
70-79% |
80-100% |
|
Referencing and Citing of Sources to Support Work. |
Very Poor referencing and citing of sources to support work. For example: No sources are cited. No reference list provided. |
Poor referencing and citing of sources to support work. For example: A limited reference list provided. Quotations used out of context. No paraphrasing. No key authors cited or referenced. No engagement with module reading list. Use of inappropriate sources – all websites. Many sources are missing a citation or a reference list item. Inaccurate use of the BCU Harvard referencing system. |
Unsatisfactory referencing and citing of sources to support work. For example: Sources are cited. Reference list provided. Work relies heavily on using quotations superficially. Attempts at paraphrasing. Few key authors cited or referenced. Little engagement with module reading list. Moderate use of inappropriate sources. Little variety in sources used. Some sources are missing a citation or a reference list item. Few inaccuracies when using the BCU Harvard referencing system. |
Good referencing and citing of sources to support work. For example: Sources are cited. Reference list provided. Paraphrasing demonstrates understanding of reading. Quotations used appropriately. Key authors cited and referenced. Engages with module reading list. Some variety in sources used. Majority sources have a citation and a reference list item. Few inaccuracies when using the BCU Harvard referencing system. *Demonstrates independent, systematic |
|||