Students must submit a 2500-word individual essay/report on the following topic:

1. ‘First, you are required to review the academic literature pertaining to Kirzner’s theory of opportunity [approx. 1000 words].
2. Second, choose a successful entrepreneur (contemporary or historical), then, apply Kirzner’s theory of opportunity to your chosen successful entrepreneur and detail their opportunity management abilities [approx. 1000 words]’.

Consider pp224-226 in Chapter 8, Kirzner’s (1973, 1979, 1997) seminal writings and other scholarly articles that address Kirzner.

Indicative Structure:

• Introduction. Map-scope the study – put another way, set the boundary of the study, including specifying the research context and background, overarching theory and key concepts, overview of the structure of the remainder of the writing (approx. 250 words).
• Main body – sub-section 1. Writings pertaining to relevant theory and informed by what is already known e.g. where you demonstrate your research and understanding of theory and concepts. There is a systematic identification and presentation of theories and key concepts. Being critical means considering previous studies and offering definitions, explanations and examination (approx. 1000 words).

† Tip – organise sub-section 1 of the main body in distinct-identifiable ‘opportunity’ paragraphs that clearly refer to relevant theoretical/conceptual labels. Integrate Kirzner’s seminal writings and other relevant academic research from the Web of Science [see Library].

• Main body sub-section 2. Practical examples and illustrations pertaining to the opportunity management of your chosen entrepreneur should be integrated in a coherent manner. That is, integrate and analyse coherent entrepreneurial/company related statements, reports, press releases, statistics and/or other secondary sources pertaining to the opportunity management of your chosen entrepreneur (approx. 1000 words).

† Tip – In sub-section 2 of the main body, ensure that you integrate practical examples and illustrations that logically corroborate theory and concepts already discussed in sub- section 1 of the main body.

• Conclusion. Short synthesis-summary of the writings, in particular, reconsidering the topic-background and main presentation of theories, concepts and arguments (approx. 250 words).
• References. list all your references.

The essay/report should be around 2500 words long (within 10% range is acceptable). Numbered points and bullet points are acceptable in moderation only. The report should be written mostly in a continuous prose. Please use a 12 point front and use double spacing for your report.

1

Marking rubric

See page 3 for details.

Plagiarism

Never use someone else’s work as your own. Even if you use someone else’s argument to support your own, always remember to rephrase it using your own words and to cite the original work as a reference. There are serious penalties for plagiarism. You can find useful information here:

https://intranet.royalholloway.ac.uk/politicsandir/documents/pdf/pirplagiarismandreferencing guideplusinstructionsforelectronicessaysubmission2012-13.pdf

The use of generative Artificial Intelligence tools, please see here, is not allowed in the production of your submission for this assessment. Using such a tool(s) will be considered an assessment offence, please see here.’

There may be circumstances where you allow, encourage, or require the use of such tools, in which case your assessment brief should clarify this as appropriate.

Penalties for late submission of work and exceeding word limit

The standard College Policy as regards late submissions and exceeding the word limit applies to all students. This will be enforced by UG administration.

References

Please read the School “Essay Writing & Referencing Guide” for how to cite references. The document is available on Moodle the module site.

Deadline

Submission deadline of the assessment is Tuesday 5 Dec 2023 at 12 noon. The electronic system could get very busy near the deadline. It is advised that you well plan your submission to avoid any last minute panic.

2

MN3615 Assessment 2 Marking Rubric

Element	High first (82,85,88,92,95,98)	First (72,75,78)	Upper second (62,65,68)	Lower second (52,55,58)	Third (42,45,48)	Condonable fail (32,35,38)	Fail (2,5,8,12,15,18,22,25,28)
1.Intellectual quality of introduction	Establishment of central topic and key issues is outstanding, overview of structure of the writing and coverage is outstanding.	Establishment of central topic and key issues is excellent, overview of structure of the writing and coverage is excellent.	Establishment of central topic and key issues is very good, overview of structure of the writing and coverage is very good.	Establishment of central topic and key issues is good, overview of structure of the writing and coverage is good.	Establishment of central topic and key issues is satisfactory, overview of structure of the writing and coverage is satisfactory.	Establishment of central topic and key issues is weak, overview of structure of the writing and coverage is weak.	Establishment of central topic and key issues is poor, overview of structure of the writing and coverage is poor.
2.Use of theory	Outstanding consultation, review and understanding of appropriate theories/frames/conc epts.	Excellent consultation, review and understanding of appropriate theories/frames/conc epts.	Very good consultation, review and understanding of appropriate theories/frames/conc epts.	Good consultation, review and understanding of appropriate theories/frames/conc epts.	Satisfactory consultation, review and understanding of appropriate theories/frames/conc epts.	Weak consultation, review and understanding of appropriate theories/frames/conc epts.	Poor consultation, review and understanding of appropriate theories/frames/conc epts.
3.Analysis of entrepreneur	Outstanding interpretation, integration and coverage of relevant entrepreneurialopportunity examples.	Excellent interpretation, integration and coverage of relevant entrepreneurialopportunity examples.	Very good interpretation, integration and coverage of relevant entrepreneuropportunity examples.	Good interpretation, integration and coverage of relevant entrepreneurial opportunity examples.	Satisfactory interpretation, integration and coverage of relevant entrepreneurialopportunity examples.	Weak interpretation, integration and coverage of relevant entrepreneurial opportunity examples.	Poor interpretation, integration and coverage of relevant entrepreneurial opportunity examples.
4.Intellectual quality of conclusion	Summary of central topic and key issues is outstanding.	Summary of central topic and key issues is excellent.	Summary of central topic and key issues is very good.	Summary of central topic and key issues is good.	Summary of central topic and key issues is satisfactory.	Summary of central topic and key issues is weak.	Summary of central topic and key issues is poor.
5.Academic writing style	Attention to grammar, punctuation, spellingand syntax is outstanding.	Attention to grammar, punctuation, spellingand syntax is excellent.	Attention to grammar, punctuation, spellingand syntax is very good.	Attention to grammar, punctuation, spelling and syntax is good.	Attention to grammar, punctuation, spellingand syntax is satisfactory.	Attention to grammar, punctuation, spelling and syntax is weak.	Attention to grammar, punctuation, spelling and syntax is poor.
6.Quality of references and sources	Outstanding evidence of consulting academic journals, books and other relevant secondary sources, presentation of references according to Harvard format is outstanding.	Excellent evidence of consulting academic journals, books and other relevant secondary sources, presentation of references according to Harvard format is excellent.	Very good evidence of consulting academic journals, books and other relevant secondary sources, presentation of references according to Harvard format is very good.	Good evidence of consulting academic journals, books and other relevant secondary sources, presentation of references according to Harvard format is good.	Satisfactory evidence of consulting academic journals, books and other relevant secondary sources, presentation of references according to Harvard format is satisfactory.	Weak evidence of consulting academic journals, books and other relevant secondary sources, presentation of references according to Harvard format is weak.	Poor evidence of consulting academic journals, books and other relevant secondary sources, presentation of references according to Harvard format is poor.

3