ANZAM Best Doctoral

ANZAM Best Doctoral

ANZAM Best Doctoral

Dissertation Proposal Award

Sponsored by: Macquarie University Department of Management and Marketing

Information Package

Award Guidelines and Processes

2011

Award Scope and Aims

The purpose of the ANZAM Best Doctoral Dissertation Proposal Award is to recognise exceptional research potential in the field of Management.

Eligibility

To be eligible, students must be in the first two years (full-time equivalent) of their PhD program (Doctor by research) [at close of nominations] and not have previously submitted their proposal to this competition.

ANZAM Doctoral Representatives (ADRs) on the ANZAM Board are eligible for this award, subject to their withdrawal from all associated administrative processes (including inquiries and judging).

Prizes andSponsorship

AUD$1,000 First Prize sponsored by the Macquarie University Department of Management and Marketing

Runner-up Certificate, and

Finalist Certificates.

Round One: Written Proposal

Formatting requirements

Proposals must be no longer than 15 double-spaced pages in 12-point Times font, 3 cm margins all sides. Up to 3 additional pages of appendices may be included. Formatting for appendices must conform to the aforementioned formatting.References are not included in these limits.

Applications must be submitted in Microsoft Word or pdf format. Late and incomplete applications will not be accepted.

Please include keywords to aid in assigning reviewers. Referencing style should conform to the JMO Guidelines:

*

Judging

During Round 1, proposals are considered by a panel nominated by the ANZAM Research and Research Development Sub-committee. The Chair of this sub-committee (or her/his nominee) is not a member of the voting judging panel as (s)he chairs the overall competition. In case the Chair of the sub-committee nominates a third person to chair the jury, this third person also chairs the jury in Round 2.

Process

  1. Call for nominations will be announced during the Presentation Final at the previous conference. If no final is held, it will be announced during the Doctoral Workshop.
  2. Applications are submitted to the Secretariat. No specific correspondence will be entered into by the Secretariat, ADRs or judging panel in regard to the application. It is up to the applicant to make sure that his/her application conforms to the required formatting.
  3. To be considered for the final, applicants must achieve an average score of not less than 50 on the Written Proposal Evaluation Scoresheet (see attached). In the event that no application receives a score of 50 or higher, the award will not be given.
  4. To be declared an outright winner from the Written Evaluation proposal stage, the applicant must achieve an average score of58 or higher, and be the only applicant with an average score higher than 50.
  5. In the event of an outright winner, no finalists’ presentation round will be held. The winner will receive their award at the conference during the general awards ceremony.

Criteria

In Round 1of this competition, applications shall be judged in relation to the potential contribution of the planed research. Particular attention is to be paid to the potential for publication in leading journals and sound methodological discussion (see Written Proposal Evaluation Sheet). Successful participation in Round 1 qualifies for participation in Round 2.

Round 2: Presentation

Judging

The judging panel will be made up from: Chair ANZAM Research and Research Development Sub-Committee or her/his nominee (no vote), ANZAM President, Conference Keynote Speaker(s) and relevant Conference Stream Chairs. The panel comprises an uneven number of voting judges. None of the voting judges can be nominated for both Round 1 and Round 2 of the competition.

Process

  1. Finalists will be notified not less than one month out from the Conference start.
  2. The ADRs are to invite the judging panel. Should both ADRs participate in the final, the R & RD Sub-committee chair nominates the jury.
  3. Presentations will follow the conference guidelines. Typically this allows for a 15 minute presentation.
  4. Following a finalist’s presentation, the judging panel will be invited to ask questions. No questions from the floor will be taken at this time.
  5. After the final presentation, the judging panel will deliberate (see Presentation Evaluation Sheet). During this time the audience will be invited to question the candidates
  6. Presentation of the award and finalists certificates will be conducted by the Chair and presented by the Conference Keynote Speaker(s).

Criteria

In Round 2 of this competition, finalists shall be judged in relation to their ability to communicate potential contribution of the planned research. The participants of Round 2 are solely to be ranked by thestyle and content of their presentations.

Written Proposal Evaluation Sheet

ANZAM BEST DOCTORAL DISSERTATION PROPOSAL AWARD:
Written Proposal Evaluation
PROPOSAL NUMBER ______
Criteria / Score
- Is this work imaginative? – Does it take a theoretical perspective or use procedures or a research design that departs from those that are usual, typical or traditional? / NO YES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
- Is this work creative? – Does it use theoretical or methodological approaches that are not intuitively obvious to the reader? / NO YES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
- Is this work provocative? – Does it pose questions or arguments that invite discussion and debate / NO YES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
- Is this work methodologically notable? – Does it require a significant amount of effort and/or time to complete; does it use data that are extremely difficult to obtain, and/or does it use methods that may have application in other areas and that may help to answer other questions? / NO YES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
- Does this work involve risk? – Does the completion of the research involve a significant expenditure of effort, money or social capital with little return if the research is not successful? / NO YES
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
- Does this work have impact? – Do the results of the work have significant effects on prominent streams of existing work and/or many streams of existing work; was the research undertaken without the benefit/influence of legitimacy conferred from previous acceptance? / NO YES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
- Does this work have implications for practice? – Does it produce results or interpretations that assist or guide individuals who are involved in the practice of management? / LITTLE MUCH
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
- Does this work have relevance? – Does it produce results or interpretations that would have identifiable value to a variety of knowledge communities? / LITTLE MUCH
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Overall Recommendation - Should this proposalbe nominated for presentation at the ANZAM Conference? / NO YES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Overall Recommendation – I would rank this proposal______of the ______proposals that I reviewed.
Review Comments for Jury Chair:

Presentation Evaluation Sheet

ANZAM BEST DOCTORAL DISSERTATION PROPOSAL AWARD:
Presentation Evaluation
Presenter:
Methodology
Originality / Unimaginative Unique
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Suitability / Not achievable Well considered
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Potential contribution to the field of study
Theory / Insignificant Insightful
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Practice / Insignificant Insightful
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Quality of Presentation
Engagement with audience / Low High
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Clarity and communication of ideas / Low High
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
TOTAL SCORE / /42
Comments:
Top View