DISSERTATION

COURSE CONVENOR (EUBS): DR EKATERINA SKOLGUND

e.skoglund@eumunich.com

ASSESSMENTS

The student will be assessed by a Dissertation research proposal (15%) and a Dissertation (85%).

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

RESEARCH PROPOSAL (15% of overall grade for dissertation)

The research proposal will be no more than 3,000 words submitted via Moodle, to provide the key information for
supervisors to judge on the extent to which you have a well-developed plan for the research project you aim to
carry out for your dissertation.

Instructions

An MBA/MSc dissertation should report an investigation of a business or management related research question
which:
- reflects the strategic management or international focus of the programme;
- is based on current research literature and current concerns;
- contributes to developing business practice and new knowledge.

The dissertation may be linked to a particular organisation to which you have access, but this is not essential.
Whilst most dissertations are likely to involve the collection of primary data, any combination of primary and
secondary data may be used. Your research proposal must take these requirements into account.

Prepare a research proposal (max 3,000 words) on a theme relevant to the strategic management focus of the
programme. The proposal should include detailed research objectives, a literature review and bibliography,
research strategy and methods, and an outline of the methods of analysis, using pilot survey or simulated data.
The research proposal will be completed by the beginning of the summer term, to allow formal assessment and
to carry forward discussion with your supervisor regarding your project.

You should make good use of the learning and development opportunities provide by the Management
Research Methods module (particularly the private study undertaken) and the discussion(s) with your appointed
supervisor.

Structure of the research proposal

Your research proposal should include the following:

- TITLE

Include a fully descriptive TITLE for the business research to be investigated. The title and scope of
the proposal should have a strategic emphasis. This means that the research objectives should
include a consideration of how the resolution of the problem affects the future development and
direction of the organisation(s) concerned (investigation) and/or of other similar organisations. It may
also include wider considerations in terms of sector, geographic or national policy implications.

- Section 1: INTRODUCTION and CONTEXT (ca. 300-500 words)

This section should introduce the RESEARCH PROBLEM to be investigated; provide an explanation
of why the problem is important and/or interesting (including relevant citations to support the claims
1
 made, both academic and business/professional); provide an explanation of the research context or
organisational background, and your access for data collection; provide a discussion of the
SPECIFIC (albeit tentative) RESEARCH OBJECTIVES, QUESTIONS/HYPOTHESIS to be
investigated.

- Section 2: LITERATURE REVIEW (ca. 800-1,200 words)

1. Outlining the results of the literature search you have carried out and identifying a relevant
theoretical framework. This must go beyond textbook material. Extensive use of academic
publications is more essential and important for your conceptual framework.
2. Synthesising from 15+ credible sources
3. Identifying research/literature gap

- Section 3: INVESTIGATIVE APPROACH and METHODS (ca. 800-1,200 words)

This should cover the following areas, as appropriate:

1. Research approach and research philosophy (with justification);
2. Target population and sampling technique(s), tentative sample size (justified and
explained);
3. Data collection: what data (evidence/ information) you aim to obtain in relation to your research
questions/hypotheses and objectives; what the sources for such data are; how you will obtain
the data (instruments of data collection);
4. Data analysis: how you will analyse the data collected (methods, instruments, tests), specific,
including, when appropriate, draft questionnaire/interview questions, interview schedule, etc. (in
appendices, not included in word count).

- Section 4: ETHICAL ISSUES (ca. 500 words)

Provide a concise but comprehensive discussion of the ethical issues that may arise in respect of your
proposed research study, encompassing all the potential concerns, from the beginning (topic choice,
data collection) till the end (i.e. the write up).

- Section 5: TIME PLAN and RESOURCES (ca. 100-500 words)

An outline of the TIME PLAN (all the milestones and tasks required to reach them) and TIME FRAME
(from the moment you came up with the topic till the thesis submission deadline) for carrying out the
research (best presented in the form of a Gantt chart) and a brief discussion of tall he RESOURCES to
be involved in the successful completion of the research project. You need to demonstrate that your
project is feasible/doable and that you are in a position to manage it effectively and complete it on time.

- Section 6: REFERENCES - unnumbered (not included in word count)

A single list should be given, closely following the HARVARD REFERENCING STYLE for bibliographical
details, including websites, blogs or other digital materials.

NB: Do not include URLs for journal articles accessed via the web (e.g. On ResearchGate) but original
publishing details (journal name, etc.)

- APPENDICES (not included in word count)

Full use should be made of appendices to provide supporting evidence, e.g. sample documents from the
organisation(s) involved, questionnaires, interview outlines, samples of secondary data, etc. However,
you must not use appendices to present key information.

2
DISSERTATION

DISSERTATION (85%)

The dissertation is a substantial piece of written work, with a length of 10,000 to 12,000 words (MBA) or 16,000 to
18,000 words (MSc), excluding bibliography and a modest number of endnotes and essential appendices. The
dissertation must provide a clear link to important and interesting business, strategic, managerial or economic
applications. A range of approaches may be adopted, including the original analysis of existing secondary data,
but it is likely that most students will use a combination of secondary and primary research.

Structure of dissertation and assessment checklist (Please also see the formatting instructions below.)

Each of the assessment categories is elaborated below in the form of a checklist of questions. Please study the
checklist as you prepare relevant chapters and sections of your dissertation, and especially when you are editing
the drafts and final version of your dissertation.

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION, CONTEXT, RESEARCH OBJECTIVES (10%)

- Is the research topic or problem clearly stated and shown to be worth investigating?
- Has appropriate background information been provided with special terms and concepts defined?
- Is the overall aim specified? Are the research objectives, research questions and/or hypotheses clear,
relevant, coherent and achievable?
- Do objectives etc. go beyond mere description, i.e. do they involve explanation, comparison, criticism or
evaluation?

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW (25%)

- Has a comprehensive range of RELEVANT and state-of-the art literature been used to discuss relevant
concepts, models and theories?
- Are all the sources up to date and of sufficient academic weight?
- Does the dissertation give evidence of a critical attitude towards the source material?
- Are the key themes and issues surrounding the research questions clearly drawn from the literature?
- Have sources been acknowledged and cited closely and properly, in accordance with the Harvard
format? Are References at the end of the dissertation complete (= matching all the in-text citations) and
in the Harvard format?

Chapter 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY (15%)

- Is there a clear rationale for the research design and methodology adopted?
- Are the research methods fully described and the advantages and disadvantages of chosen methods
discussed?
- Are target population, sampling techniques, and sample size described in detail, i.e. who the
respondents are, how many there are and how they were selected?
- Are the relevant research instruments of data collection addressed and included in the appendices (e.g.
blank questionnaire, interview questions etc.)? Are the research instruments well designed with all
questions, etc. relevant to research objectives? Are the sources of primary/secondary data specified?
- Are data analysis methods discussed?
- Is there evidence of care and accuracy in the data collection process? Are reliability and validity issues
addressed?
- Are any constraints or limitations identified?
- Has the methodology been critically evaluated in retrospect?

Chapter 4: RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF FINDINGS (30%)

- Are all data presented relevant to aims and objectives?
- Is the analysis thorough and appropriate to the data collected? E.g.:
o FOR QUESTIONNAIRES: Do the appendices contain a data matrix, and details of statistical
analysis undertaken? Is statistical analysis correctly performed and interpreted?
3
 o FOR INTERVIEWS, FOCUS GROUPS etc.: Do the appendices contain data collected and
analysed, such as interview transcripts? Has qualitative data been systematically analysed?
o FOR DOCUMENT, ARCHIVE AND OTHER SECONDARY DATA: Has the validity and reliability
of the sources been addressed? Have quantitative or qualitative data been systematically
analysed?
- Are the findings presented clearly and interestingly for the reader, with useful tables and figures
embedded in the text and with the appendices being used appropriately for bulky and/or less
interesting/essential data?
- Have the findings been discussed and evaluated?
- Have the findings of the primary research been compared and contrasted with findings, theories,
models, and concepts derived from the literature review?

Chapter 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (10%)

- Have the research objectives (research questions/hypotheses) been reviewed and addressed?
- Do the conclusions and recommendations follow on from the findings? Are they well-grounded in the
evidence and arguments presented?
- Has the relevance of the conclusions for management been discussed?
- Are the conclusions and recommendations discussed in context and are they more widely applicable?

PRESENTATION, STRUCTURE AND WRITING (10%)

- Is the overall style and presentation of the dissertation in accordance with that specified in the
Assessment Brief, i.e. cover pages, title page, word count, spacing, chapter and section headings,
pagination, appropriate font, font size and font style (bold, italics, etc.).
- Is the title concise and appropriate?
- Is the executive summary a concise (no more than 300 words) summary of the main aims, methodology,
findings, and conclusions?
- Are acknowledgements made as appropriate?
- Is the contents page clear, concise and logically numbered? Are appendices, tables and figures
numbered and listed in the table of contents?
- Are all appendices referred to in the text?
- Are all the tables and figures numbered, captioned, and referred to in the text?
- Is the writing clear and in an appropriate academic style?
- Is the standard of written English acceptable? Has the dissertation been spelling and grammar checked?
- Has the text been appropriately formatted?

4
DISSERTATION FORMATTING

Format of the dissertation

FIRST PAGE
The first (cover) page of the dissertation should be set out as follows:

Title of Dissertation

By

A N Other (Student Number: 000000000)

A dissertation submitted for the Masters in [insert programme title]

The Business School

University of Roehampton
delivered at EU Business School (Campus)
YYYY

SECOND PAGE
The second page should contain the following statement and signed and dated:

DECLARATION FORM

The work I have submitted is my own effort. I certify that any and all the material in this
Dissertation, that is not my own work, has been identified and acknowledged. No
materials are included for which a degree has been previously conferred upon me.

Signed Date
A N Other

5
SUBSEQUENT PAGES
The subsequent pages should include the following sections, each of which must start on a new page:
- An executive summary: This should be a summary of the content of the thesis (in bullet points)
and should not be longer than 300 words.
- Contents page: This should be a listing of the contents of the thesis, giving page numbers for each
section and chapter, and is best presented in tabulated form.
- Acknowledgements: This is where you have the opportunity to thank the people and organisations
who have assisted in your work;
- Chapter 1: Introduction, organisational context and research objectives;
- Chapter 2: Literature review;
- Chapter 3: Research methodology (for secondary sources: account of sources, methods of
analysis, theory to be applied);
- Chapter 4: Findings, analysis and evaluation;
- Chapter 5: Conclusion and, if appropriate, recommendations;
- References;
- Appendices (Including ethics form and schedule of meetings with supervisor).

FONT AND FORMATTING

The dissertation should be bound using comb binding and a dark blue cover. This can be done in the
University’s Learning Resource Centre but a charge will be made. A single font style and size should be used for
main text throughout. The font size may be increased (slightly) for headings. The preferred font is one of, Calibri
11 or 12 point; Arial 10 point or Times New Roman 12 point. Line spacing should be 1.5. All pages should be
numbered consecutively. Each chapter must be started on a new page.

SUPPORT DURING THE COURSE

The main form of supervisory support will be four hours (normally) of face-to-face individual supervision
supplemented by an appropriate amount of support via e-mail and/or other electronic communication media. The
mix of face-to-face and electronic modes of communication may be varied to fit the circumstances of supervisor
and student. You will be provided with the opportunity for guidance at all key stages of the project, including:
agreement of suitability topic; approach to the study; choice of methodology; literature review; design of
fieldwork and presentation of findings and conclusions. You are expected to make effective use of the
opportunities for guidance, taking responsibility for the progress of your project at all times.

On one of the first meetings two forms have to be completed (see the appendix):
1. the agreed meeting schedule and
2. the ethics discussion and agreement.

In regards to form 1: It is important to agree on a series of meetings at the beginning of the process. Please
consider that there might be weeks during the summer period in which your supervisor is not available or only
available via email. Please make sure you bring a hardcopy version of those two forms to the first meeting, so
that you and the supervisor can sign them. You are expected to maintain contact with your supervisor and to
make regular contact/appointments. A supervisory record should be completed after every meeting (see form in
the appendix).

You should produce regular written work, word-processed but cannot expect supervisors to assess the work
before it is formally submitted. The supervisor will oversee extracts submitted and make constructive comments.
You should ascertain from the supervisor the last opportunity for sending a draft version of the dissertation for
comment. Normally, this will be at least 10 days before the deadline. Any feedback should be taken as indicative
of areas for improvement; it is your responsibility to apply such guidance across the whole of the dissertation.

6
SUBMISSION, REFERENCING AND PLAGIARISM

Submission
Both the research proposal and dissertation must be upload to the appropriate location on Moodle provided to
you by the administration. The file format must either be a Word or PDF file and must not include scanned-in text
or text boxes. The title of the file should contain the following information:
Student Name - Student ID - Brief work title

Submission within a week after the deadline will be capped at 50%. Submission 8 days and more after the
deadline will receive a zero (F). The submission date is given in the course outline and on Moodle.

Referencing
Students will be expected to refer to all relevant and available secondary sources, online databases, electronic
journals and subject resources available in the Library and Learning services as a source of ideas for exercises
and projects. The referencing should follow the Roehampton Harvard Referencing guidelines.

Plagiarism
Academic honesty is one of the guiding principles and this means that students need to acknowledge all their
sources through correct citation and acknowledgment by using the Harvard referencing system.

OTHER PROCEDURES

Mitigating Circumstances
In case the student cannot attend an assessment or submit it on time, the student can fill in at the office a mitigating
circumstances document with a proof (medical or else) to receive a chance to submit or attend the exam at another
date.

Marking and Feedback Process

Between you handing in your work and then receiving your feedback and marks, there are several quality
assurance processes that we go through to ensure that students receive marks which reflects their work. A brief
summary is provided below.
1. Your supervisor and one other subject expert will mark your work using the criteria provided in the
assessment brief. The marks given at this stage are provisional and can still change.
2. A moderation meeting takes place where the members of the marking team will each review the marking
of other and agree the mark and feedback
3. Work then goes to an external examiner who will review a sample of work to confirm that the marking
between different staff is consistent and fair
4. Your mark and feedback is processed by the Office and made available to you.

Re-sit Instructions
For students who are offered a resit, you will be reworking your original submission. You must resubmit your work
on Moodle through a link provided to you by the administration.

7
APPENDIX

The appendix includes the following forms, 1 to 5 of which need to be filled in by the student:
1. Agreed meeting schedule. This form needs to be completed by every student at the beginning of the
supervisory process. Supervisor and the student should retain a copy.
2. Supervision record. This form should be completed by every student at each supervisory meeting.
Supervisor and the student should retain a copy.
3. Ethics discussion and agreement. This form needs to be completed by every student after the
agreement with the supervisor (see above) and bound into your thesis that is handed in.
4. Letter of access. This letter is optional and depends on the methodology of your thesis. The sample
letter relates to interview methodology. Students are required to discuss their letter of access with their
supervisor before contacting any organisations.
5. Research participant agreement form. This letter is optional and depends on the methodology of your
thesis. Students are required to discuss their letter of access with their supervisor before contacting any
organisations.
6. Marking grid for dissertation research proposal. This rubric is used to evaluate dissertation research
proposals.
7. Marking grid for dissertation. This scheme is used to evaluate dissertations.

8
 AGREED MEETING SCHEDULE

This form should be completed at the beginning of the supervisory process. Supervisor and the
student should retain a copy.

Students are normally entitled to FOUR of face-to-face individual supervision supplemented by an

appropriate amount of e-mail support.

Student’s Name:

Supervisor:

Proposed Dates of Meeting and Research Progress Monitoring:

1st Meeting Date: ______________________ Estimated Duration: _________

2nd Meeting Date: _____________________ Estimated Duration: _________

3rd Meeting Date: ______________________ Estimated Duration: _________

4th Meeting Date: ______________________ Estimated Duration: _________

5th Meeting Date: ______________________ Estimated Duration: _________

Agreed submission date of final draft: _____________________________

Student’s signature Date:

Supervisor’s signature: Date:

 SUPERVISION RECORD

Student’s Name:

Supervisor:

Date of Meeting: Time: From ______________ to ______________

Written work submitted or other purpose of meeting:

Main topics/issues discussed and action points agreed:

Time, date and location of next meeting:

Actions and agenda topics for next meeting:

Student’s signature Date:

Supervisor’s signature: Date:

This form should be completed at each supervisory meeting. Supervisor and the student should retain
a copy.
 Ethics Discussion and Agreement
I have discussed the ethical considerations associated with my proposed research with my supervisor.
The following points were covered:

1. Rights of participants: what participation involves, right to withdraw

2. Confidentiality of findings: who has access to the findings, anonymity of
participants/organisation.
3. Data protection: making it clear how the data will be gathered, stored and destroyed.
4. Institutional reputation: ensuring that the research is conducted in a professional manner,
including all written communication.

If my research methods change in any way, I will re-discuss any ethical issues with my supervisor.

Name of Student: .....................................................................................................................................

Name of supervisor: .................................................................................................................................

Signed (student) .......................................................................................................................................

Date ..........................................................................................................................................................

Signed (supervisor) ...................................................................................................................................

Date ..........................................................................................................................................................
 EXAMPLE ACCESS LETTER

Date

Dear Ms/Mr/Dr

I am undertaking a Dissertation as part of my Masters programme in [insert

programme name] at the Business School at University of Roehampton My project is
entitled [insert project title] and it has the aim of [insert key aims].

I am writing to ask if you could spare the time to be interviewed for the project. The
interview would last approximately [insert time commitment].

I assure you that any information you give me will be treated with complete
confidentiality, if you so wish. In addition, if you wish, the name of your institution and
those of any individuals will be changed. The final report will be seen by two examiners
from University of Roehampton and one from another university, but will not be
publicised further. If you would find it useful, I am happy to provide you with a
summary of the findings.

In order to get as much detail as possible, I would like to record the interview, but I am
happy to take notes if you would prefer. Any transcripts and notes will be destroyed
at the end of the project and will be kept securely until that time. I will offer you the
opportunity to see the interview transcripts and to correct any details.

Unless I hear to the contrary, I will phone you in a few days’ time to arrange a
convenient time for the interview. My email address is [email address] and my phone
number is [number].

Yours sincerely

[signature]
Your name
Student of XY
Contact details
 RESEARCH PARTICIPANT AGREEMENT FORM

Title and brief description of the research project:

Name and contact details of researcher:

Name:
Address:
Email:
Telephone:

Statement of Agreement:

I agree to take part in this research and am aware that I am free to withdraw at any point. I understand
that the information provided will be treated in confidence and that the Dissertation will be seen by
two examiners from University of Roehampton and one from another university, but will not be
publicised further.

I have been informed that I will have the opportunity to check the contents of my interview and any
material attributed to my organisation before it is included my Dissertation.

I agree to the interview being recorded. I understand that the data will be kept securely and that it
will be destroyed after the examination process is completed.

Name…………………………………………….

Signature……………………………………….

Date…………………...

If you have any concerns about this research or any aspect of your participation in it please contact
my supervisor:

Name:
Email:
Direct telephone number:
Marking grid

MARKING GRID FOR DISSERTATION RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Marginal Fail Fail

Outstanding Not done
(80-89) (70-79) (60-69) (50-59) (40-49) (30-39) (20-29)
100 0
85 75 65 55 45 35 25
Topic, Outstanding and Presents excellent Presents very Presents good Rationale for Humdrum; Banal; objectives Insufficient Missing. Wholly
flawless. rationale for good rationale for rationale for choice presents objectives show are not clearly rationale provided; incorrect or not
objectives,
choice of topic in choice of topic in choice of topic in topic of average some confusion; formulated and unclear or absent attempted.
research terms of current terms of interest terms of interest interest or the research presented; objectives;
question interest and and importance and importance importance; question clarified research question research question
(10%) importance for for policy and/or for policy and/or objectives barely sufficiently not enough clear so unclear that it’s
policy and/or practice within a practice within a appropriate and for some empirical for some empirical difficult to
practice within a business-related business-related clear enough for a or library work to or library work or anticipate a
business-related field and field, although not direction to be proceed without to proceed without structured
field; objectives contemporary; particularly discerned; problems; some problems; several argument
clear, ambitious research question current; research research question ‘circling round’ ‘circling round’ supported by
but achievable; neat, relevant, and question neat and makes for various issues various issues empirical or library
research question central to the relevant without sensible empirical likely. likely. work to be
reflects the most topic. necessarily being or library work possible.
current the one that gets without
developments and to the heart of the necessarily being
conversations on topic. central.
the topic.
Discussion of Outstanding and Excellent Very well- Well-presented Presents Presents rather Present Present totally Missing. Wholly
flawless. discussion of key presented discussion of key adequate inadequate inadequate inadequate incorrect or not
concepts,
concepts, discussion of key concepts, discussion of key discussion of key discussion of key discussion of key attempted.
theory, literature theories, and concepts, theories, and concepts, concepts, concepts, concepts,
(25%) frameworks; very theories, and frameworks; theories, and theories, and theories, and theories, and
clear indication of frameworks; clear rather clear frameworks; frameworks; frameworks; some frameworks; little
systematic search indication of indication of literature search somewhat gaps in the fields effort to think
for relevant systematic search systematic search appears to have unbalanced and aspects that a through where the
literature; for relevant for relevant not been discussion topic like this ideas are coming
appropriate and literature; literature; mostly completely indicating that should draw on; from; central fields
thoughtful appropriate appropriate systematic; literature search some obvious or aspects not
selection of selection of selection in reasons for appears to have ideas missed; mentioned, few of
research question research question relation to selection been rather some but not all the authors /
and objectives; and objectives; research question somewhat unclear unsystematic; key authors / concepts / models
very clear clear evidence of and objectives; in relation to reasons for concepts / models basically important
evidence of critical critical approach has mostly research question selection unclear present; to this topic
approach to to literature adopted a critical and objectives; in relation to unsystematic mentioned;
literature discussed; approach to tendency to research question search for unsystematic
discussed; provides clear literature; provides present key ideas and objectives; literature and search, if any, for
provides very rationale for an rationale an etc. from literature presents key absence of critical literature and total
clear rationale for empirical empirical with little ideas etc. from approach; several absence of critical
an empirical investigation that investigation but indication of literature without significant errors approach; citation
investigation that is likely to somewhat unclear critical orientation; indicating critical in Harvard style and referencing

14
Marking grid

Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Marginal Fail Fail

Outstanding Not done
(80-89) (70-79) (60-69) (50-59) (40-49) (30-39) (20-29)
100 0
85 75 65 55 45 35 25
is likely to generate some how likely to rather unclear how orientation; for citations and not fully compliant
generate useful useful knowledge; generate useful an empirical unclear how an references. with Harvard style.
knowledge; full mostly full and knowledge; investigation may empirical
and appropriate appropriate generally be warranted on investigation may
adoption of adoption of appropriate basis of be warranted on
Harvard style for Harvard style for adoption of discussion of basis of
citations and citations and Harvard style for literature; discussion of
references. references. citations and reasonable literature; some
references. attempt at significant errors
adoption of in Harvard style
Harvard style for for citations and
citations and references.
references.
Design of Outstanding and Provides very Provides clear Provides rather Attempts to Lacks clear Demonstrates Demonstrates no Missing. Wholly
flawless. clear indication of indication of what clear indication of indicate what indication of key limited real understanding incorrect or not
empirical
what empirical empirical data/ what empirical empirical data/ elements of understanding of of how an attempted.
investigation data/ material will material will be data/ material will material will be empirical project how an empirical empirical research
25% be sought, from sought, from what be sought, from sought, from what design: data/ research project project may be
what sources, sources, using what sources, sources, using material to be may be designed; designed; very
using what what methods; using what what methods, but sought, sources, issues of limited indication
methods; appropriate methods; mostly somewhat methods; some sampling, validity, of what data/
effectively justifies justification of appropriate problematic in discussion of reliability, material will be
choice in relation choice in relation justification of some areas; gives reasons for representative- sought, from what
to overall research to overall research choice (in relation some justification choice, but ness poorly sources, by what
question/ aims question/ aims to overall research of choice (in unclear why discussed; if methods; issues
and objectives; and objectives; question/ aims relation to overall deemed attempt has been of sampling,
issues of issues of and objectives); research question/ appropriate; made to discuss validity, reliability,
sampling, validity, sampling, validity, issues of aims and issues of research representative-
reliability, reliability, sampling, validity, objectives) but not sampling, validity, philosophy this is ness very poorly
representativenes representativenes reliability, completely reliability, rather abstract discussed; very
s discussed in an s discussed very representativenes appropriate; representative- and general. limited attempt, if
excellent manner; well; very good s discussed well issues of ness poorly any, to discuss
comprehensive and relevant but with minor sampling, validity, discussed; some research
and critical discussion of problematic reliability, attempt at philosophy.
discussion of research issues; good representativenes discussion of
research philosophy for discussion of s partly discussed research
philosophy for taught Masters research but with some philosophy for
taught Masters student at this philosophy for problematic taught Masters
student at this stage. taught Masters issues; student at this
stage. student at this reasonable stage, but is rather
stage. discussion of abstract and
research general and not
philosophy for clearly relevant to
taught Masters project.

15
Marking grid

Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Marginal Fail Fail

Outstanding Not done
(80-89) (70-79) (60-69) (50-59) (40-49) (30-39) (20-29)
100 0
85 75 65 55 45 35 25
student at this
stage.
Plan and Outstanding and Eminently Achievable by the Mostly doable with Generally doable Possible doubts Several doubts Unrealistic listing Missing. Wholly
flawless. achievable by the deadlines stated, few amendments with some about doing it in about doing it in of sequence; incorrect or not
timetable
deadlines and in order appropriate; likely by the tutor; amendments likely time as stated; time as stated; deadline points attempted.
15% the order stated, chapter headings chapter headings by the tutor; chapter titles over- chapter titles over- trivial or
possibly more show that the show that the chapter headings general, and do general and uninformative;
done than one presentation of the requirements for show that the not clearly indicate unclear. chapter titles
would have whole argument presentation of the requirements for the argument in trivial.
expected; chapter has been thought argument have presentation of the sufficient detail.
headings tackle all through. been grasped. argument have
the issues clearly been generally
and succinctly. grasped.
Discussion of Outstanding and Identifies all key Identifies most Identifies some Indicates some Rather general General but Has paid very little Missing. Wholly
flawless. issues, those issues, those issues that are awareness of discussion of unfocused attention to actual incorrect or not
ethical issues
actually actually actually ethical issues, but ethical issues, not discussion of or potential ethical attempted.
15% identifiable now identifiable now identifiable now; rather generalised clearly related to ethical issues not issues.
and some that are and some that are indicates how and lacking specific project; related to specific
potential; clearly potential; indicates these will be specificity; limited quite limited project; limited
indicates how how these will be addressed. discussion of how discussion. discussion.
these will be addressed. issues will be
addressed. addressed.
Presentation: Outstanding and Concise and Very good control Good control of Length Presentation is too Poorly presented Very poorly Missing. Wholly
flawless. effectively argued, of length; skilled length; skilled use requirements long or too short in work; presentation presented work, incorrect or not
clarity,
within the length use of academic of academic observed; relation to content; is either too short presentation much attempted.
structure, allowed; skilled conventions; conventions; appropriate use of several errors in or too long too short so
layout, use of academic nearly all errors accurate spelling, academic application of (waffling); missing missing key
grammar, conventions; eliminated in grammar etc.; conventions; academic several elements elements or too
accurate proof- proof-reading. careful proof- some errors in conventions; or parts; several long; major errors
spelling
reading. reading. spelling, grammar several errors in major errors in in spelling,
10% etc.; some spelling, grammar spelling, grammar grammar etc.; no
indication of proof- etc.; little etc.; very little indication that the
reading. indication of indication of proof- work has been
adequate proof- reading. proof-read.
reading.

16
Marking grid

MARKING GRID FOR MSC/MBA DISSERTATION

Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Marginal Fail Fail

Outstanding Not done
(80-89) (70-79) (60-69) (50-59) (40-49) (30-39) (20-29)
100 0
85 75 65 55 45 35 25
Introduction, Outstanding and Context and Context and Context and Context and Some indication of Poor discussion of Very poor Missing.
flawless. rationale very rationale clearly rationale stated rationale context and context and discussion, if any, Wholly
context, research
clearly stated, stated, indicating but could be more discussed, but rationale for the rationale; of context and incorrect or
objectives indicating relevance to both clear and explicit relevance to both project but not lack of clarity on rationale; not
(10%) relevance to both arena of policy/ in indicating arena of policy/ clearly indicating the nature of the complete lack of attempted.
arena of policy/ practice and the relevance to both practice and the relevance to both empirical clarity on the
practice and the research field; arena of policy/ research field not arena of policy/ investigation nature of the
research field; clearly set up as a practice and the explicit and clear; practice and the undertaken, empirical
very clearly set up worthwhile research field; set set up as an research field; tending to be little investigation
as a worthwhile investigative up as a worthwhile investigative some lack of more than a topic undertaken,
investigative project; provides investigative project, but limited clarity on nature of rather than tending to be little
project; provides clear explanation project; key terms indication of how it the investigative research project; more than a topic
clear and of key terms; key mostly explained; may be regarded project; unclear as little use of key rather than
comprehensive issues and overall key issues and as worthwhile; key to why it may be terms; little research project;
explanation of key aim of the project overall aim of the terms used but not considered worth indication of key very little or no use
terms; key issues explicitly indicated; project mostly fully explained; undertaking; tends issues; research of key terms; very
and overall aim of research well-indicated; key issues and the not to explain key objectives, as little indication of
the project objectives clearly research overall aim of the terms; key issues presented, only key issues;
explicitly and stated and objectives mostly project not fully and the overall partially constitute research
effectively indicating overall clearly stated and clear and explicit; aim of the project research objectives, as
indicated; depth of analysis indicating some research explicitly stated; objectives. presented, do not
research to be undertaken. degree of depth of objectives stated research constitute
objectives very analysis to be but lacking in objectives partially research
clearly stated and undertaken. clarity and/ or indicated. objectives.
indicating a analytical depth.
thorough and in-
depth of analysis
to be undertaken.
Literature review Outstanding and All material Material selected Material mostly Material selected Material selected Very few sources Only non- Missing.
flawless. selected from from appropriate, selected from mainly from from a mix of that may be appropriate and Wholly
(25%)
appropriate, authoritative appropriate, appropriate, sources, many regarded as non-authoritative incorrect or
authoritative sources; authoritative authoritative that are not appropriate and sources are not
sources; sufficiently sources; mostly sources; selection appropriate and/or authoritative; key selected; no attempted.
comprehensive, comprehensive, comprehensive in of materials is authoritative; references on the indication of how
clear evidence of evidence of selection of generally relevant rather limited topic are missing; materials selected
systematic search; systematic search; materials relevant to project but selection of little indication of are relevant to
systematically systematically to project; insufficiently materials relevant how materials project; key
presenting cogent, presenting cogent, presents for the indicative of to project, with selected are themes/ issue not
structured analysis structured analysis most part a cogent systematic search; notable absences; relevant to project; identified; total
of key themes of key themes structured analysis identifies relevant review presents key themes/ absence of
and/or issues and/or issues of key themes key themes and/or limited cogent issues only cogency and

17
Marking grid

Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Marginal Fail Fail

Outstanding Not done
(80-89) (70-79) (60-69) (50-59) (40-49) (30-39) (20-29)
100 0
85 75 65 55 45 35 25
relevant to overall relevant to overall and/or issues issues but structure around partially identify; structure to
research project; research project; relevant to overall somewhat tending key themes/ absence of review; no
presents presents critical research project; to lack cogency; issues; mostly re- cogency and conclusions
thoughtful and evaluation of valid presentation tends to re-present presents ideas/ structure to drawn; fails to
critical evaluation issues, arguments, and discussion but ideas/ arguments arguments of review; mere re- adopt Harvard
of issues, and claims; logical somewhat lacking of selected texts selected texts, presentation of format.
arguments, and and persuasive as critical with minimal level with almost no material, with no
claims; logical and discussion; draws evaluation; mostly of critical critical discussion; critical discussion;
persuasive explicit logical and discussion; discussion lacks very limited
discussion; draws conclusions linked persuasive generally logical logic and conclusions
explicit to empirical discussion; draws discussion, not persuasiveness; drawn; several
conclusions very project; mostly full conclusions linked always limited or no significant errors in
well linked to and consistent to empirical persuasive; conclusions drawn using Harvard
empirical project; adoption of project; mostly conclusions relating to format for citations
full, consistent Harvard format for follows Harvard tending to be empirical project; and references.
adoption of citations and format but few rather banal and adopts Harvard
Harvard format for references. errors in citations limited in links to format but
citations and and/ or references. empirical project; significant errors in
references. adopts Harvard citations and/ or
format but some references.
errors in citations
and/ or references.
Research design Outstanding and Design of Design of Design of Design of Design of Design of No effective Missing.
flawless. empirical empirical empirical empirical empirical empirical presentation of Wholly
and methodology
investigation fully investigation investigation investigation investigation investigation not design of incorrect or
(15%) and clearly mostly well- generally well- adequately presented but not clearly elaborated investigation; not
presented and presented and presented and presented and very clear; design or presented; sampling issues attempted.
appropriately justified; sampling justified; most justified; sampling not well-justified; limited justification not appropriately
justified; sampling issues addressed sampling issues issues adequately sampling issues of design; addressed; data
issues addressed appropriately; addressed addressed; data inadequately sampling issues collection
appropriately and appropriate data appropriately; collection methods addressed; data addressed in methods not
effectively; collection methods generally with some collection limited manner; appropriate; no
appropriate data (presented with appropriate data appropriateness methods limited in data collection indication of
collection methods examples); data collection methods (with few appropriateness methods very appropriate data
adopted and analysis methods adopted (with examples); (poor or limited limited in analysis methods;
indicating a explained and some examples); explains data examples); data appropriateness very limited
degree of creative appropriate; explains data analysis methods analysis methods (very poor or awareness of
thinking indicates analysis methods adopted, but not not explained or limited examples); constraints and
(presented with awareness of adopted, but not always clearly not fully data analysis limitations when
examples); constraints and always clearly and/or appropriate; methods not designing
appropriate data limitations when and/or appropriate; limited awareness explained and not investigation; lacks
analysis methods designing appropriate; indicates some of constraints and appropriate; very retrospective
clearly explained; investigation; indicates general awareness of limitations when limited awareness evaluation.
indicates clear provides critical awareness of constraints and designing of constraints and

18
Marking grid

Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Marginal Fail Fail

Outstanding Not done
(80-89) (70-79) (60-69) (50-59) (40-49) (30-39) (20-29)
100 0
85 75 65 55 45 35 25
awareness of retrospective constraints and limitations when investigation; limitations when
constraints and evaluation. limitations when designing limited designing
limitations when designing investigation; retrospective investigation; very
designing investigation; some evaluation. limited
investigation; provides overall retrospective retrospective
provides retrospective evaluation. evaluation.
thoughtful and evaluation.
critical
retrospective
evaluation.
Presentation and Outstanding and Clearly and fully Clearly and fully Presents empirical Findings Findings Findings Poorly presented Missing.
flawless. presents empirical presents empirical findings mostly presented but presented but presented but very findings, lacking in Wholly
analysis of
findings, findings, with clarity and some parts lack in limited in clarity limited in clarity clarity and incorrect or
empirical findings appropriate to appropriate to completeness, clarity and and completeness, and completeness, completeness; not not
(30%) methodology; methodology; mostly appropriate completeness, not partially only marginally really appropriate attempted.
analysis analysis to methodology; fully appropriate to appropriate to appropriate to to methodology;
undertaken undertaken Analysis methodology; methodology; methodology; clear inaccuracies
accurately using accurately using undertaken mostly some questions several questions inaccuracies in in analysis and/or
appropriate generally accurately using about accuracy of about accuracy of analysis and/or techniques not
analytical appropriate analytical analysis and/or analysis and/or appropriateness of appropriate; very
methods/ analytical methods/ appropriateness of appropriateness of techniques used; shallow analysis;
techniques; methods/ techniques that techniques used; techniques used; shallow level of absence of focus
analysis techniques; are mostly quite shallow level rather shallow analysis; very on key issues/
undertaken in analysis appropriate; of analysis; some level of analysis; limited focus on questions relating
considerable undertaken in somewhat limited lack of focus on limited focus on key issues/ to research
depth; focuses depth; focuses on depth to analysis; key issues/ key issues/ questions relating objectives.
clearly on key key issues/ generally focuses questions relating questions relating to research
issues/ questions questions relating on key issues/ to research to research objectives.
relating to to research questions relating objectives. objectives.
research objectives. to research
objectives. objectives.
Conclusions, Outstanding and Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Conclusions fairly Conclusions Rather unclear Unclear what Missing.
flawless. conclusions conclusions conclusions clearly presented; presented but not what conclusions conclusions are Wholly
implications, and
accurately drawn accurately drawn accurately drawn conclusions mostly very clearly; are being being presented; incorrect or
recommendations from findings and from findings and from findings and appropriate and conclusions presented; conclusions not
(10%) very clearly clearly presented; mostly clearly accurately drawn somewhat lacking conclusions presented attempted.
presented; conclusions presented; from findings; in appropriateness presented not disconnected from
conclusions drive substantiate the conclusions conclusions and/or accuracy in appropriately findings;
the argument argument/ test largely related to the relation to findings; drawn from conclusions do
onwards, thesis, and are substantiate the argument, but conclusions findings; very little, if
completely and comprehensive argument/ test without deep patchy, and conclusions do anything, to
fairly; where and fair; general thesis, and are awareness of presented without little to progress progress the
relevant, contrary awareness of generally fair; limitations in progressing the the argument; argument;
findings used to potential contrary occasional lack of supporting/ argument; tends to unwarranted unwarranted

19
Marking grid

Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Marginal Fail Fail

Outstanding Not done
(80-89) (70-79) (60-69) (50-59) (40-49) (30-39) (20-29)
100 0
85 75 65 55 45 35 25
illuminate or conclusions awareness of progressing the assert rather than assertions rather assertions only;
extend the arising from potential contrary argument; draws present evidential than evidence; presents very
argument; draws findings; draws conclusions limited, but support; presents limited limited, if any,
appropriate and appropriate arising from justifiable implications and/or implications and/or implications and/or
implications and/or implications and/or findings; draws implications and/or recommendations recommendations recommendations
recommendations recommendations mostly appropriate recommendations for policy/ practice for policy/ practice, for policy/ practice,
for policy/ practice, for policy/ practice, implications and/or for policy/ practice; not justified on justifiable on basis justifiable on basis
justified on basis mostly justified on recommendations Implications/ basis of of conclusions of conclusions
of conclusions basis of for policy/ practice, recommendations conclusions and/or and/or evidence and/or evidence
drawn from conclusions drawn mostly justified on presented quite evidence and and analysis. and analysis.
analysis; from analysis; basis of clearly. analysis;
implications/ implications/ conclusions drawn implications/
recommendations recommendations from analysis; recommendations
very clearly clearly presented. implications/ not presented
presented. recommendations clearly.
generally clearly
presented.
Presentation, Outstanding and Fully documented Very well Well documented Adequately Poorly Incompleteness of Documentation Missing.
flawless. and styled documented and but few documented but documented with documentation, seriously at fault: Wholly
structure, and
according to the styled according to inaccuracies, e.g. some several e.g. abstract/ missing, incorrect or
writing brief; text (almost the brief; accurate abstract/ executive inaccuracies, e.g. inaccuracies, e.g. executive misplaced, difficult not
(10%) completely) free spelling, grammar, summary, TOC, abstract/ executive abstract/ executive summary, TOC, to find one’s way attempted.
from spelling, and punctuation; appendices; few summary, TOC, summary, TOC, appendices; around; persistent
grammatical, or appropriate and inaccuracies in appendices; some appendices; carelessness in errors in spelling,
punctuation errors; competent use of spelling, grammar, degree of limited spelling, grammar, grammar, and
vocabulary vocabulary; and punctuation; carelessness in carelessness in and punctuation; punctuation;
appropriate to illustrations and vocabulary and spelling, grammar, spelling, grammar, very limited writing style and/or
topic with all tables well- style lacking polish and punctuation; and punctuation; vocabulary and vocabulary
specialist terms prepared; data but vocabulary and limited vocabulary style; several data, significantly
defined; generally understandable; style and style; some illustrations and problematic in
illustrations and integrated into good illustrations uncomfortable but data, illustrations, tables missing. conveying
tables well discussion. and tables; data on balance and tables meaning;
prepared; data occasionally acceptably missing. typescript messy
presentation misplaced without conveying with uncorrected
logically integrated detracting from the meaning; few errors; key data,
into discussion in thrust of the data, illustrations, illustrations, and
body of text/ argument. and tables tables missing.
appendices; missing.
appendices
relevant.

20
Marking grid

21