Business research literature review

HI6008 Business Research Project – Assignment 2
Literature Review Brief (2026-style)

Unit and Assessment Overview

Trimester: T1 2026
Unit code: HI6008
Unit title: Business Research Project
Assessment number and type: Assignment 2 – Group Literature Review Report with authorship statement
Assessment title: Literature Review
Group size: 2–3 students per group. Individual option by prior approval only
Weight: 30% of total unit assessment
Total marks: 30
Word limit: Minimum 2,500 words for the literature review excluding reference list and authorship appendix
Due date: Friday of Week 8, 11:59 pm, AEST or campus local time

---

Purpose and Unit Learning Outcomes

This assignment strengthens your capacity to locate, evaluate and synthesise high-quality academic and professional literature that is directly aligned with your approved business research topic and research questions. You are expected to build a coherent body of knowledge that frames your research problem, identifies key debates, and highlights gaps that justify your subsequent methodology in the capstone project.

The task is mapped to Unit Learning Outcomes 1, 2, 3 and 5, including your ability to formulate a viable research problem, critically review scholarly sources, and communicate research in a structured and academically rigorous way.

Submission Guidelines

• Submit one group report via Blackboard using the Assignment 2 link by 12:00 midnight on the due date.

• Attach a fully completed Holmes Assignment Cover Page. Absence of a cover page attracts a 20% penalty as per unit policy.

• File format must be Microsoft Word in .doc or .docx format only.

• Formatting requirements include single spacing, 12-point Arial font, 2 cm margins on all sides, automatic page numbers, and clear section headings.

• Referencing must follow Holmes-adapted Harvard style for all in-text citations and the final reference list.

• Only groups formally registered on Blackboard may submit. Ensure your group is correctly set up before Week 6.

Assignment 2 Task Description

Context

Your group has an approved research topic, research problem and preliminary research question or questions from earlier in the trimester. Assignment 2 requires you to conduct a systematic and critical literature review that establishes the conceptual and empirical foundation for your Business Research Project.

You must use academic search portals such as ProQuest, Scopus, and Google Scholar, together with other reputable databases, to identify current and relevant peer-reviewed sources and high-quality secondary data.

Task Requirements

1. Restated research problem and research questions

   • Begin with a concise but more fully developed statement of your research problem than in your topic approval.

   • Present your primary research question and any secondary or sub-questions that guide the review.

   • Clarify how the problem is situated in a specific business context such as industry, function, geography, or organisational setting.

2. Theoretical and conceptual foundations

   • Identify and discuss the major theories, models, frameworks or streams of thought relevant to your topic.

   • Explain how these perspectives inform the way your research problem is defined and how they shape your research questions.

   • Show evidence that you have moved beyond initial textbook or web summaries to engage with primary academic sources.

3. Critical synthesis of prior research

   • Organise your review around themes, constructs, or relationships that are central to your research questions rather than summarising articles one by one.

   • Compare and contrast authors’ findings, arguments and methods, highlighting points of convergence as well as disagreement or inconsistency.

   • Draw attention to contextual boundaries in prior work and discuss how these influence the applicability of findings to your own project.

   • Use clear topic sentences and linking statements so that the narrative reads as a cohesive argument rather than a list of summaries.

4. Contrasting views, gaps and directions

   • Identify areas where the literature reports conflicting evidence, competing explanations or unresolved debates relevant to your topic.

   • Explain how these contrasts can be reconciled or integrated in a way that advances your research questions.

   • Explicitly identify gaps, limitations or under-researched areas that your project can reasonably address.

5. Progress toward answering your research questions

   • Conclude with a section that explains how the literature you have reviewed brings you closer to answering your research questions.

   • Indicate which aspects of the problem are now well understood from prior studies and which aspects remain open, thereby motivating your proposed methodology in the next assignment.

6. Referencing and academic integrity

   • Ensure all in-text citations match entries in your reference list and adhere to Holmes-adapted Harvard conventions.

   • Use a minimum of 12 high-quality academic sources including journal articles, scholarly books or book chapters.

   • Include only sources you have actually read and do not copy references from other students or from commercial sites.

7. Authorship statement in Appendix

   • Add an appendix stating clearly which sections were drafted by each group member.

   • Use a simple table listing student names, student IDs and the sections they primarily authored.

   • Failure to include this statement will attract a 20% penalty on the assignment mark.

Assignment Structure

Use the following structure as a minimum guide:

1. Title page with unit code, unit name, assignment title, group members’ names and IDs, and word count.

2. Introduction with brief overview of the topic, research problem and research questions.

3. Body of literature review including theories, models and key concepts, themes and sub-themes from prior research, and contrasting viewpoints and limitations.

4. Synthesis and implications for your study including summary of what is known and unknown.

5. Conclusion stating how the review informs and narrows your research questions.

6. Reference list using Holmes Harvard style.

7. Appendix with statement of who wrote which sections.

Marking Rubric – HI6008 Assignment 2 Literature Review (30 marks)

1. Identification of appropriate body of knowledge – 5 marks
Excellent responses show current, highly relevant sources clearly aligned with the research problem. Lower level responses demonstrate limited alignment or outdated material.

2. Depth of literature search and contextual understanding – 5 marks
Higher marks require evidence of extensive searching across multiple databases and strong contextual understanding.

3. Quality and quantity of literature sourced – 5 marks
At least 12 additional peer-reviewed sources of excellent quality are required for the highest level of performance.

4. Structure of the literature review – 5 marks
An excellent review is well structured with clear sub-headings, logical sequencing and coherent paragraphs.

5. Design, content and flow of discussion – 5 marks
High quality submissions demonstrate a strong narrative arc and persuasive argumentation.

6. Referencing – 5 marks
Accurate and consistent use of Holmes Harvard style is required to achieve full marks.

Academic Integrity and Use of External Help

Holmes Institute expects all students to uphold academic integrity. Your lecturer may request draft work, search histories or notes to verify authorship.

Do not copy text, structure or references from commercial assignment sites or sample solutions. Using such material constitutes academic misconduct and can lead to a mark of zero and formal reporting.

Groups found sharing, buying or selling assignments will face penalties in line with institutional policy.

A strong HI6008 literature review starts with a precise research problem that links a real organisational challenge to a focused set of research questions. Anchor theories provide a lens for explaining how firms convert strategic decisions into performance outcomes. Recent empirical studies show that organisational context often explains why similar practices produce different results across firms. Contradictions in findings can be used to argue that industry, national culture or work design act as important contingencies that your project will need to account for. Clear thematic sections help readers follow how you move from broad debates to the specific gap you intend to address. A concluding synthesis then states directly which relationships are well supported and which remain uncertain, thereby justifying your planned research design. Using high-quality, recent sources from recognised databases signals that the review is grounded in current scholarship and meets capstone-level expectations.

Effective literature reviews also require students to demonstrate methodological awareness by evaluating how previous studies were designed and conducted. Attention should be paid to the research approaches, sampling strategies, data collection methods and analytical techniques used in earlier work, since these elements directly influence the credibility and transferability of findings. Recognising methodological strengths and weaknesses enables students to justify the research design they will adopt in later stages of the project (Creswell and Creswell 2018).

 Recent References

Easterby-Smith, M, Thorpe, R & Jackson, P 2021, Management and business research, 7th edn, SAGE, London.

Saunders, MNK, Lewis, P & Thornhill, A 2019, Research methods for business students, 8th edn, Pearson, Harlow.

Palmatier, RW, Houston, MB & Hulland, J 2018, ‘Review articles: purpose, process, and structure’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 1–5.

Tranfield, D, Denyer, D & Smart, P 2003, ‘Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review’, British Journal of Management, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 207–222.

Snyder, H 2019, ‘Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 104, pp. 333–339.

Creswell, JW & Creswell, JD 2018, Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches, 5th edn, SAGE, Thousand Oaks.