Investigating the role of Internal

Audit and Internal Control on the

performance of Omani banks
by SHADMAN SIDDIQUE

Submission date: 28-Mar-2020 11:58AM (UTC+0000)

Submission ID: 122489247
File name:
Investigating_the_role_of_Internal_Audit_and_Internal_Control_on_the_performance_of_Omani_banks_12754_1796440798.docx
(257.82K)
Word count: 4007
Character count: 22910
Investigating the role of Internal Audit and Internal Control on the
performance of Omani banks
ORIGINALITY REPORT

14 %
SIMILARITY INDEX
4%
INTERNET SOURCES
3%
PUBLICATIONS
13%
STUDENT PAPERS

PRIMARY SOURCES

1
Submitted to University of London External
System
1%
Student Paper

2
Submitted to Higher Education Commission
Pakistan
1%
Student Paper

3
hdl.handle.net
Internet Source 1%
4
Submitted to Southeast Community College
Student Paper 1%
5
Submitted to CVC Nigeria Consortium
Student Paper 1%
6
Submitted to Kenyatta University
Student Paper 1%
7
Submitted to University of Wolverhampton
Student Paper 1%
8
Submitted to Segi University College
Student Paper 1%
9
pergamos.lib.uoa.gr
Internet Source 1%
10
George Drogalas, Evgenia Anagnostopoulou,
Andreas Koutoupis, Michail Pazarskis.
<1%
"Relationship between internal audit factors and
corporate governance", Journal of Governance
and Regulation, 2018
Publication

11
Submitted to Midlands State University
Student Paper <1%
12
Submitted to Universiti Teknologi MARA
Student Paper <1%
13
Submitted to Kampala International University
Student Paper <1%
14
www.scribd.com
Internet Source <1%
15
Submitted to London School of Commerce
Student Paper <1%
16
Submitted to Inter-Continental University of the
Caribbean
<1%
Student Paper

17
Submitted to Mount Kenya University
Student Paper <1%
18
Submitted to Kwame Nkrumah University of
Science and Technology
<1%
Student Paper

19
Submitted to University of Central England in
Birmingham
<1%
Student Paper

20
Submitted to University of Glamorgan
 Student Paper

<1%
21
Submitted to Napier University
Student Paper <1%
22
Submitted to University of Huddersfield
Student Paper <1%
23
Submitted to Bahrain Institute of Banking and
Finance
<1%
Student Paper

24
Sourour Hazami-Ammar. "Internal auditors’
perceptions of the function’s ability to investigate
<1%
fraud", Journal of Applied Accounting Research,
2019
Publication

25
Submitted to Institute of Graduate Studies, UiTM
Student Paper <1%
26
Submitted to University of Wales Institute,
Cardiff
<1%
Student Paper

27
repub.eur.nl
Internet Source <1%
28
Submitted to Edge Hill College of Higher
Education
<1%
Student Paper

29
Submitted to The University of Manchester
Student Paper <1%
Exclude quotes Off Exclude matches < 4 words
Exclude bibliography On
Investigating the role of Internal Audit and Internal Control on the
performance of Omani banks
GRADEMARK REPORT

FINAL GRADE GENERAL COMMENTS

Instructor

51
Background/Rationale:

Background provides good introduction to the topic but

needs to better articulate the research problem and
why it is worthy of investigation. For instance, it is not

/100
sufficient to state lack of evidence for Omani banking
sector, you need to highlight the peculiar features of
this sector that justifies additional research.

Literature

A good review of a range of studies, though could be

more critical rather than just a description of the
studies. A good attempt is made to situate your
research within the wider literature by identifying the
gap, though you could perhaps provide stronger
justification for why that gap needs addressing. Good to
have also specified relevant hypotheses though you
could make more explicit the rationale behind your
expectations.

Aims and objectives

You have clearly stated the research aims, objectives

and questions while justifying their significance.

Research Philosophy

Here, you have stated your adoption of positivism but

justification needs to be more persuasive and go
beyond just the qualitative/quantitative divide to
consider your assumption about the nature of
knowledge and how it is acquired. You should also
acknowledge alternative philosophies and explain why
they are not appropriate for your research.

Research Design and Ethics

Better justification needful to support research design

choices: e.g. deductive approach should not be
selected based on whether research is qualitative or
quantitative but rather testing or generating theory. You
need to clearly highlight the research strategy, while
acknowledging why others are not suitable. Need to
provide more insight into the sampling approach with
justification, e.g. do you have access to the sampling
frame to enable simple random sampling? You need to
expand more on the nature of the secondary data to be
 used: what type of data needs to be collected from
journals, books, company publications and which
publications; how will these be selected and how will
you collect this data? You have mentioned several
analysis techniques but need to justify why all these is
needed to address the research question. Moreover,
go on to comment on how the variables will be
measured. You need to highlight ethical issues to
consider and how they will be dealt with.

Overall

This started well with a good background and review of

relevant literature. However, it failed to further develop
the research design section in more detail and some of
the requirements of the brief were omitted, limiting the
overall grade.

PAGE 1

PAGE 2

PAGE 3

PAGE 4

PAGE 5

PAGE 6

PAGE 7

PAGE 8

PAGE 9

PAGE 10

PAGE 11

PAGE 12

PAGE 13

PAGE 14
RUBRIC: SFP CWK JAN TO JUN 2020 5.08 / 10

BACKGROUND (6%) 7 / 10
Proposal should provide a good background to and rationale for the research proposed. The nature of the topic
and it's importance/ worthiness for exploration should be conveyed to a reader. Should relate to an organisation
or contribution to society/the context.

MISSING Not there or sparse and minimal and non-relevant.

(0)

UNSATISFACTORY 'Some minimal effort/attempt at inclusion but with no real semblance of understanding in
(2) the area of focus.

POOR 'An attempt/effort at inclusion with some semblance of understanding in the area of focus
(3) but with poor articulation and no understanding of the need for development and wider
considerations.

THRESHOLD 'This covers the core points - which is good - but fails to articulate reasoning, especially in
(4) the context of justification for inclusion.

SATISFACTORY 'This covers the core points and makes an attempt to articulate reasoning, especially in
(5) the context of justification for inclusion. It demonstrates a base understanding of the
requirements, a base put in place but not really built on and developed.

GOOD 'This covers more than the core points and makes a good attempt to articulate reasoning,
(6) especially in the context of justification for inclusion. It will demonstrate a base
understanding of the requirements. It sets a base in place and makes an attempt to build
on it through development and some wider considerations.

VERY GOOD 'This covers many of the key points, supported by sound reasoning, especially in the
(7) context of justification for inclusion. It captures and displays a very good understanding of
the significance of those key points but lacks a 'final roundness'.

HIGHER QUALITY 'This covers 80% or so of key points with sound articulation - is good but with the sense
(8) conveyed that it could be just that little bit better, even though it is of a high standard.

EXCELLENT 'This covers most (90%) of the points that should be made but misses out in one or two
(9) minor areas. Articulation is good but there are one or two missing points and thus not
presenting a picture of the whole.

OUTSTANDING 'This covers just about each and every point and is worthy of being included in a research
(10) proposal to be submitted to a funding body or a sponsoring organisation, requiring no
changes at all.

LITERATURE (22%) 7 / 10
2a) and 2b) Relevant literature should be drawn upon to set the scene and ground the topic area of interest as
well as highlight the importance of the study and the significance to the field. There should be a really clear link
between the literature and the relevance for the study. Should link with Background and Aims/Objectives

MISSING Not there or sparse and minimal and non-relevant.

(0)

UNSATISFACTORY 'Some minimal effort/attempt at inclusion but with no real semblance of understanding in
(2) the area of focus.

POOR 'An attempt/effort at inclusion with some semblance of understanding in the area of focus
(3) but with poor articulation and no understanding of the need for development and wider
considerations.
THRESHOLD 'This covers the core points - which is good - but fails to articulate reasoning, especially in
(4) the context of justification for inclusion.

SATISFACTORY 'This covers the core points and makes an attempt to articulate reasoning, especially in
(5) the context of justification for inclusion. It demonstrates a base understanding of the
requirements, a base put in place but not really built on and developed.

GOOD 'This covers more than the core points and makes a good attempt to articulate reasoning,
(6) especially in the context of justification for inclusion. It will demonstrate a base
understanding of the requirements. It sets a base in place and makes an attempt to build
on it through development and some wider considerations.

VERY GOOD 'This covers many of the key points, supported by sound reasoning, especially in the
(7) context of justification for inclusion. It captures and displays a very good understanding of
the significance of those key points but lacks a 'final roundness'.

HIGHER QUALITY 'This covers 80% or so of key points with sound articulation - is good but with the sense
(8) conveyed that it could be just that little bit better, even though it is of a high standard.

EXCELLENT 'This covers most (90%) of the points that should be made but misses out in one or two
(9) minor areas. Articulation is good but there are one or two missing points and thus not
presenting a picture of the whole.

OUTSTANDING 'This covers just about each and every point and is worthy of being included in a research
(10) proposal to be submitted to a funding body or a sponsoring organisation, requiring no
changes at all.

AIMS & OBJS (5%) 8 / 10

3) This should leave the reader in no doubt as to precisely what your research seeks to achieve. There should be
clear links with and, indeed, be informed by 1 and 2 above i.e. background and literature. Use of Hypotheses
should match with the nature of the research being proposed and vice versa where the nature of the proposal
design warrants hypotheses testing.

MISSING Not there or sparse and minimal and non-relevant.

(0)

UNSATISFACTORY 'Some minimal effort/attempt at inclusion but with no real semblance of understanding in
(2) the area of focus.

POOR 'An attempt/effort at inclusion with some semblance of understanding in the area of focus
(3) but with poor articulation and no understanding of the need for development and wider
considerations.

THRESHOLD 'This covers the core points - which is good - but fails to articulate reasoning, especially in
(4) the context of justification for inclusion.

SATISFACTORY 'This covers the core points and makes an attempt to articulate reasoning, especially in
(5) the context of justification for inclusion. It demonstrates a base understanding of the
requirements, a base put in place but not really built on and developed.

GOOD 'This covers more than the core points and makes a good attempt to articulate reasoning,
(6) especially in the context of justification for inclusion. It will demonstrate a base
understanding of the requirements. It sets a base in place and makes an attempt to build
on it through development and some wider considerations.

VERY GOOD 'This covers many of the key points, supported by sound reasoning, especially in the
(7) context of justification for inclusion. It captures and displays a very good understanding of
the significance of those key points but lacks a 'final roundness'.
HIGHER QUALITY 'This covers 80% or so of key points with sound articulation - is good but with the sense
(8) conveyed that it could be just that little bit better, even though it is of a high standard.

EXCELLENT 'This covers most (90%) of the points that should be made but misses out in one or two
(9) minor areas. Articulation is good but there are one or two missing points and thus not
presenting a picture of the whole.

OUTSTANDING 'This covers just about each and every point and is worthy of being included in a research
(10) proposal to be submitted to a funding body or a sponsoring organisation, requiring no
changes at all.

PHILOSOPHY (20%) 4 / 10
4) research philosophy relates to your view about the devlopment of knowledge and the nature of that
knowledge in relation to research. The specified philosophy will be selected from positivism, realism,
interpretivism, pragmatism, and the slection should be justified. In a good to outstanding answer some
explantion would be expected of not just which philosophy is adopted and why, but why it is preferred to other
philosophical stances.

MISSING Not there or sparse and minimal and non-relevant.

(0)

UNSATISFACTORY 'Some minimal effort/attempt at inclusion but with no real semblance of understanding in
(2) the area of focus.

POOR 'An attempt/effort at inclusion with some semblance of understanding in the area of focus
(3) but with poor articulation and no understanding of the need for development and wider
considerations.

THRESHOLD 'This covers the core points - which is good - but fails to articulate reasoning, especially in
(4) the context of justification for inclusion.

SATISFACTORY 'This covers the core points and makes an attempt to articulate reasoning, especially in
(5) the context of justification for inclusion. It demonstrates a base understanding of the
requirements, a base put in place but not really built on and developed.

GOOD 'This covers more than the core points and makes a good attempt to articulate reasoning,
(6) especially in the context of justification for inclusion. It will demonstrate a base
understanding of the requirements. It sets a base in place and makes an attempt to build
on it through development and some wider considerations.

VERY GOOD 'This covers many of the key points, supported by sound reasoning, especially in the
(7) context of justification for inclusion. It captures and displays a very good understanding of
the significance of those key points but lacks a 'final roundness'.

HIGHER QUALITY 'This covers 80% or so of key points with sound articulation - is good but with the sense
(8) conveyed that it could be just that little bit better, even though it is of a high standard.

EXCELLENT 'This covers most (90%) of the points that should be made but misses out in one or two
(9) minor areas. Articulation is good but there are one or two missing points and thus not
presenting a picture of the whole.

OUTSTANDING 'This covers just about each and every point and is worthy of being included in a research
(10) proposal to be submitted to a funding body or a sponsoring organisation, requiring no
changes at all.

5A) APPROACH (5%) 5 / 10

5a) Explanation and justification of deductive or inductive or both approaches being adopted.
MISSING Not there or sparse and minimal and non-relevant.
(0)

UNSATISFACTORY 'Some minimal effort/attempt at inclusion but with no real semblance of understanding in
(2) the area of focus.

POOR 'An attempt/effort at inclusion with some semblance of understanding in the area of focus
(3) but with poor articulation and no understanding of the need for development and wider
considerations.

THRESHOLD 'This covers the core points - which is good - but fails to articulate reasoning, especially in
(4) the context of justification for inclusion.

SATISFACTORY 'This covers the core points and makes an attempt to articulate reasoning, especially in
(5) the context of justification for inclusion. It demonstrates a base understanding of the
requirements, a base put in place but not really built on and developed.

GOOD 'This covers more than the core points and makes a good attempt to articulate reasoning,
(6) especially in the context of justification for inclusion. It will demonstrate a base
understanding of the requirements. It sets a base in place and makes an attempt to build
on it through development and some wider considerations.

VERY GOOD 'This covers many of the key points, supported by sound reasoning, especially in the
(7) context of justification for inclusion. It captures and displays a very good understanding of
the significance of those key points but lacks a 'final roundness'.

HIGHER QUALITY 'This covers 80% or so of key points with sound articulation - is good but with the sense
(8) conveyed that it could be just that little bit better, even though it is of a high standard.

EXCELLENT 'This covers most (90%) of the points that should be made but misses out in one or two
(9) minor areas. Articulation is good but there are one or two missing points and thus not
presenting a picture of the whole.

OUTSTANDING 'This covers just about each and every point and is worthy of being included in a research
(10) proposal to be submitted to a funding body or a sponsoring organisation, requiring no
changes at all.

5B) TYPE (4%) 5 / 10

5b) specifying whether exploratory or descriptive or explanatory, and explaining/justifying why.

MISSING Not there or sparse and minimal and non-relevant.

(0)

UNSATISFACTORY 'Some minimal effort/attempt at inclusion but with no real semblance of understanding in
(2) the area of focus.

POOR 'An attempt/effort at inclusion with some semblance of understanding in the area of focus
(3) but with poor articulation and no understanding of the need for development and wider
considerations.

THRESHOLD 'This covers the core points - which is good - but fails to articulate reasoning, especially in
(4) the context of justification for inclusion.

SATISFACTORY 'This covers the core points and makes an attempt to articulate reasoning, especially in
(5) the context of justification for inclusion. It demonstrates a base understanding of the
requirements, a base put in place but not really built on and developed.

GOOD 'This covers more than the core points and makes a good attempt to articulate reasoning,
(6) especially in the context of justification for inclusion. It will demonstrate a base
 understanding of the requirements. It sets a base in place and makes an attempt to build
on it through development and some wider considerations.

VERY GOOD 'This covers many of the key points, supported by sound reasoning, especially in the
(7) context of justification for inclusion. It captures and displays a very good understanding of
the significance of those key points but lacks a 'final roundness'.

HIGHER QUALITY 'This covers 80% or so of key points with sound articulation - is good but with the sense
(8) conveyed that it could be just that little bit better, even though it is of a high standard.

EXCELLENT 'This covers most (90%) of the points that should be made but misses out in one or two
(9) minor areas. Articulation is good but there are one or two missing points and thus not
presenting a picture of the whole.

OUTSTANDING 'This covers just about each and every point and is worthy of being included in a research
(10) proposal to be submitted to a funding body or a sponsoring organisation, requiring no
changes at all.

5C) STRATEGY (6%) 2 / 10

5c) Justification of the strategy in the context of being suited to enable answering the research Qs and meeting
the research objectives. Specifically, reference should be made to the case(s)/setting(s)/population(s) of focus.

MISSING Not there or sparse and minimal and non-relevant.

(0)

UNSATISFACTORY 'Some minimal effort/attempt at inclusion but with no real semblance of understanding in
(2) the area of focus.

POOR 'An attempt/effort at inclusion with some semblance of understanding in the area of focus
(3) but with poor articulation and no understanding of the need for development and wider
considerations.

THRESHOLD 'This covers the core points - which is good - but fails to articulate reasoning, especially in
(4) the context of justification for inclusion.

SATISFACTORY 'This covers the core points and makes an attempt to articulate reasoning, especially in
(5) the context of justification for inclusion. It demonstrates a base understanding of the
requirements, a base put in place but not really built on and developed.

GOOD 'This covers more than the core points and makes a good attempt to articulate reasoning,
(6) especially in the context of justification for inclusion. It will demonstrate a base
understanding of the requirements. It sets a base in place and makes an attempt to build
on it through development and some wider considerations.

VERY GOOD 'This covers many of the key points, supported by sound reasoning, especially in the
(7) context of justification for inclusion. It captures and displays a very good understanding of
the significance of those key points but lacks a 'final roundness'.

HIGHER QUALITY 'This covers 80% or so of key points with sound articulation - is good but with the sense
(8) conveyed that it could be just that little bit better, even though it is of a high standard.

EXCELLENT 'This covers most (90%) of the points that should be made but misses out in one or two
(9) minor areas. Articulation is good but there are one or two missing points and thus not
presenting a picture of the whole.

OUTSTANDING 'This covers just about each and every point and is worthy of being included in a research
(10) proposal to be submitted to a funding body or a sponsoring organisation, requiring no
changes at all.
5D, 5E +5F) (8%) 5 / 10
5d) and 5e) Justification of the nature of the data (primary, secondary) being intended to be collected.
Importantly, there should also be justification as to why other data are not appropriate for this study. 5e) And
where appropriate, negotiation for successful access to data should be covered. 5f) sampling if relevant to their
proposal and type of design and

MISSING Not there or sparse and minimal and non-relevant.

(0)

UNSATISFACTORY 'Some minimal effort/attempt at inclusion but with no real semblance of understanding in
(2) the area of focus.

POOR 'An attempt/effort at inclusion with some semblance of understanding in the area of focus
(3) but with poor articulation and no understanding of the need for development and wider
considerations.

THRESHOLD 'This covers the core points - which is good - but fails to articulate reasoning, especially in
(4) the context of justification for inclusion.

SATISFACTORY 'This covers the core points and makes an attempt to articulate reasoning, especially in
(5) the context of justification for inclusion. It demonstrates a base understanding of the
requirements, a base put in place but not really built on and developed.

GOOD 'This covers more than the core points and makes a good attempt to articulate reasoning,
(6) especially in the context of justification for inclusion. It will demonstrate a base
understanding of the requirements. It sets a base in place and makes an attempt to build
on it through development and some wider considerations.

VERY GOOD 'This covers many of the key points, supported by sound reasoning, especially in the
(7) context of justification for inclusion. It captures and displays a very good understanding of
the significance of those key points but lacks a 'final roundness'.

HIGHER QUALITY 'This covers 80% or so of key points with sound articulation - is good but with the sense
(8) conveyed that it could be just that little bit better, even though it is of a high standard.

EXCELLENT 'This covers most (90%) of the points that should be made but misses out in one or two
(9) minor areas. Articulation is good but there are one or two missing points and thus not
presenting a picture of the whole.

OUTSTANDING 'This covers just about each and every point and is worthy of being included in a research
(10) proposal to be submitted to a funding body or a sponsoring organisation, requiring no
changes at all.

5G) TECHNIQUE (9%) 5 / 10

5g) Set out and justify the techniques to be used to collect and analyse the data. Importantly, here there should
also be consideration of why other techniques are not suitable for your study. Or rather including why the
techniques selected are more appropriate than those not selected.

MISSING Not there or sparse and minimal and non-relevant.

(0)

UNSATISFACTORY 'Some minimal effort/attempt at inclusion but with no real semblance of understanding in
(2) the area of focus.

POOR 'An attempt/effort at inclusion with some semblance of understanding in the area of focus
(3) but with poor articulation and no understanding of the need for development and wider
considerations.
THRESHOLD 'This covers the core points - which is good - but fails to articulate reasoning, especially in
(4) the context of justification for inclusion.

SATISFACTORY 'This covers the core points and makes an attempt to articulate reasoning, especially in
(5) the context of justification for inclusion. It demonstrates a base understanding of the
requirements, a base put in place but not really built on and developed.

GOOD 'This covers more than the core points and makes a good attempt to articulate reasoning,
(6) especially in the context of justification for inclusion. It will demonstrate a base
understanding of the requirements. It sets a base in place and makes an attempt to build
on it through development and some wider considerations.

VERY GOOD 'This covers many of the key points, supported by sound reasoning, especially in the
(7) context of justification for inclusion. It captures and displays a very good understanding of
the significance of those key points but lacks a 'final roundness'.

HIGHER QUALITY 'This covers 80% or so of key points with sound articulation - is good but with the sense
(8) conveyed that it could be just that little bit better, even though it is of a high standard.

EXCELLENT 'This covers most (90%) of the points that should be made but misses out in one or two
(9) minor areas. Articulation is good but there are one or two missing points and thus not
presenting a picture of the whole.

OUTSTANDING 'This covers just about each and every point and is worthy of being included in a research
(10) proposal to be submitted to a funding body or a sponsoring organisation, requiring no
changes at all.

ETHICS (5%) 0 / 10
6) There should be consideration of any ethical issues that may arise in the course of research and ways of
dealing with them. If there are no apparent ethical issues this must be stated and explained and justified. It
cannot simply be omitted.

MISSING Not there or sparse and minimal and non-relevant.

(0)

UNSATISFACTORY 'Some minimal effort/attempt at inclusion but with no real semblance of understanding in
(2) the area of focus.

POOR 'An attempt/effort at inclusion with some semblance of understanding in the area of focus
(3) but with poor articulation and no understanding of the need for development and wider
considerations.

THRESHOLD 'This covers the core points - which is good - but fails to articulate reasoning, especially in
(4) the context of justification for inclusion.

SATISFACTORY 'This covers the core points and makes an attempt to articulate reasoning, especially in
(5) the context of justification for inclusion. It demonstrates a base understanding of the
requirements, a base put in place but not really built on and developed.

GOOD 'This covers more than the core points and makes a good attempt to articulate reasoning,
(6) especially in the context of justification for inclusion. It will demonstrate a base
understanding of the requirements. It sets a base in place and makes an attempt to build
on it through development and some wider considerations.

VERY GOOD 'This covers many of the key points, supported by sound reasoning, especially in the
(7) context of justification for inclusion. It captures and displays a very good understanding of
the significance of those key points but lacks a 'final roundness'.
HIGHER QUALITY 'This covers 80% or so of key points with sound articulation - is good but with the sense
(8) conveyed that it could be just that little bit better, even though it is of a high standard.

EXCELLENT 'This covers most (90%) of the points that should be made but misses out in one or two
(9) minor areas. Articulation is good but there are one or two missing points and thus not
presenting a picture of the whole.

OUTSTANDING 'This covers just about each and every point and is worthy of being included in a research
(10) proposal to be submitted to a funding body or a sponsoring organisation, requiring no
changes at all.

OVERALL (10%) 5 / 10
Structure, clarity, communication content, Thrust, flow, integration, cohesion of the research proposal to a reader
based upon academic judgement.

MISSING Not there or sparse and minimal and non-relevant.

(0)

UNSATISFACTORY 'Some minimal effort/attempt at inclusion but with no real semblance of understanding in
(2) the area of focus.

POOR 'An attempt/effort at inclusion with some semblance of understanding in the area of focus
(3) but with poor articulation and no understanding of the need for development and wider
considerations.

THRESHOLD 'This covers the core points - which is good - but fails to articulate reasoning, especially in
(4) the context of justification for inclusion.

SATISFACTORY 'This covers the core points and makes an attempt to articulate reasoning, especially in
(5) the context of justification for inclusion. It demonstrates a base understanding of the
requirements, a base put in place but not really built on and developed.

GOOD 'This covers more than the core points and makes a good attempt to articulate reasoning,
(6) especially in the context of justification for inclusion. It will demonstrate a base
understanding of the requirements. It sets a base in place and makes an attempt to build
on it through development and some wider considerations.

VERY GOOD 'This covers many of the key points, supported by sound reasoning, especially in the
(7) context of justification for inclusion. It captures and displays a very good understanding of
the significance of those key points but lacks a 'final roundness'.

HIGHER QUALITY 'This covers 80% or so of key points with sound articulation - is good but with the sense
(8) conveyed that it could be just that little bit better, even though it is of a high standard.

EXCELLENT 'This covers most (90%) of the points that should be made but misses out in one or two
(9) minor areas. Articulation is good but there are one or two missing points and thus not
presenting a picture of the whole.

OUTSTANDING 'This covers just about each and every point and is worthy of being included in a research
(10) proposal to be submitted to a funding body or a sponsoring organisation, requiring no
changes at all.