Masters Dissertation Module Handbook Level 7 Semester 1 2024-25 | LBU

Assessment Method:

Research proposal

Re-assessment Method:

Research proposal

Word Count

Maximum of 4,000 words

Word Count

No re-assessment

Assessment Deadline

09/01/2024

Re-assessment Deadline

N/A

Feedback Method:

Online through Turnitin

Feedback Method:

N/A

Feedback Date:

06/02/2024

Feedback Date:

N/A

Course Title(s):

Various

Module Title:

Masters dissertation

Level:

7

Assessment Title:

Research Proposal

Weighting:

20% of the module

Criteria and Weighting

100-70% (Distinction)

69-60% (Merit)

59-50% (Pass)

49-40% (Fail)

39-0% (Poor Fail)

Background to the Study (15%)

Provides an engaging background to the study with a clear and exceptional description of the topic area and its context. Based on analysis of recent development, the research problem is clearly established. Well- structured argument that justifies the needs for the study and clearly informs the choice of topic and research focus. It would show a high level of critical thinking and supported by adequately referenced sources.

Provides a very good background to the study, and the research problem is established, but some subtle points and recent developments may not be adequately evaluated. The need for the study is justified and it would appear to inform the choice of the specific project.

Supported by well- referenced sources.

Focuses on some relevant issues and the research problem is identified. The need for the proposed study may not be very strong, and the link between the problem and the focus of the study may be missing or weak.

Supported by a few pieces of evidence but may be partially based on assertions rather than citing referenced evidence.

The research problem is identified, but there is no clear analysis and evidence to buttress the claims. This may be based on assertions rather than citing relevant reference sources. The identified problems and the research focus may not be adequately aligned. Sources cited may not be correctly referenced or may not be robust/reliable.

Basic presentation that is mainly descriptive rather than analytical. It may be lacking structure, and mostly based on assertions instead of citing referenced evidence. The research problem may be identified, but the need for the study may be mainly lacking. The link between the problem and the research focus is either weak or non-existing.

Aim and Objectives (10%)

Well-written, concisely summarised, and realistic project aim, with a number of SMART objectives that are adequately linked to the aim. The aim and objectives are clearly informed by the research problems and the established gaps in the literature.

Well presented research aim is supported by a number of SMART research objectives. There is a clear link between the research problem and the aim and objectives, but some of the objectives may not be supported by the gaps in the literature.

Viable project aim is presented, and an attempt is made to provide a coherent list of objectives. Some of the objectives may not be SMART, but they are all related to the main research focus/aim. The aim and objectives would be adequate to address the research problem.

The description of the project aim may be vague, and the objectives are not specific enough to address the research problem. The aim and objectives may be informed by the research problem, but they would not be underpinned by gaps in knowledge.

Aim is either missing or vague, with a lack of a coherent list of objectives. Where they are presented, the objectives would not be informed by the gaps in the literature. The aim and objectives would be inadequate to address the research problems.

Literature Review (30%)

An exemplary literature review that demonstrates an excellent understanding of key issues relevant to the study. The review is comprehensive and well organised. It provides critiques regarding the relationship between the research and scholarship reviewed. Through a critical analysis of existing literature, a clear research gap is identified, and the potential contribution to the field is established.

A strong literature review that offers a comprehensive overview of the relevant literature, directly tied to the study's context. The review is well- structured, with insightful critiques regarding the relevance of the research and scholarship reviewed. It identifies a research gap and articulates the potential contribution through the literature review.

A satisfactory literature review that covers a range of relevant literature. The review demonstrates some awareness of the connection between the research and the literature. The literature review is largely descriptive.

Research gap and potential contribution are implied, but further justification is needed.

The literature review is limited in scope, with significant gaps in coverage. It primarily provides basic descriptions, lacking critical analysis and synthesis.

There is a missing connection between the research and literature reviewed, and no convincing research gap or contribution is identified.

The literature review demonstrates minimal engagement with primary materials and exhibits little familiarity with existing scholarship in the subject area. It is poorly organised and primarily consists of basic descriptions, lacking critical analysis and synthesis. No research gap or contribution is identified.

Methodology (30%)

Sufficient, robust and

appropriate sampling and recruitment methods, data

The proposed study uses

good sampling, recruitment, data collection

Reasonable sampling,

recruitment, data collection and data analysis methods

The proposed study uses

basic methods but lacks details. Some of the

Several elements of the

research design are missing, with the plan

collection methods and data analysis and presentation procedures to provide valid findings for the stated aim and objectives. The research design is appropriate for the research problem, and there is a clear link between the objectives and the methods. The choice of research methods and the techniques for data collection and analysis are adequately justified using relevant sources.

and data analysis methods but minor aspects may threaten validity. Good justification of choices made throughout, using reliable sources, and good detail on maximising robustness throughout.

Some of the approaches to the research may not be adequate to achieve all the research objectives. All the key elements of the chosen methodology are considered.

are proposed for the study, but the research design may threaten the validity of the study. The approaches may not be sufficient and robust to address the specific project objectives. Justifications for the choices made may be missing, inadequate or partially based on unreliable sources. It would benefit from more details.

elements may be missing or irrelevant to address the specific research problems, with some aspects seriously threatening the validity of the findings. Justifications for the choices of methods and approaches are either missing or inadequate.

seriously threatening the validity and reliability of the study. No relevant justification was made for the choices of methods and approaches to data collection and analysis.

Project Plan (10%)

The project plan is presented with an excellent thought given to the whole process of the study, with varied activities and milestones that are adequate for addressing the research problems.

The project plan shows key elements of the research process, activities, and milestones.

The project plan shows some processes and milestones, but some significant elements may be missing.

The project plan may be missing or lacking the detail of the research processes and key milestones.

Project plan is missing or illegible

Presentation and referencing (5%)

Excellent standard of academic writing. Spelling, grammar, structure and formatting are all accurate. No pasted-in content or poor paraphrasing.

Good use of academic language. Generally good spelling, grammar, structure and formatting. Referencing is correct and consistent throughout both

Mostly coherent. May lack clarity, occasionally. Very minor errors in spelling, grammar, structure, formatting or referencing, but adequate.

Partly coherent but lacks clarity. Frequent errors in spelling, grammar, structure and formatting.

May include some poor paraphrasing or pasted-in

Content is incoherent or very unclear. Poor quality writing – difficult to comprehend.

Course Title(s):

Various

Module Title:

Master Dissertation

Level:

7

Assessment Title:

Final dissertation

Weighting:

80% of the module

Criteria and Weighting

100-70% (Distinction)

69-60% (Merit)

59-50% (Pass)

49-40% (Fail)

39-0% (Poor Fail)

Introduction (15%)

High-quality abstract that very clearly and precisely describes the project, including its aim, the methodology used, the main findings and conclusions to a standard often found in high- quality journals.

An excellent introduction that very clearly and succinctly describes the project topic area, its context and background, using a wide range of references. The research problem is excellently established and

the knowledge gap is

A good abstract is provided with a clear description of the project, including its aim, the methodology used, the main findings and conclusions.

A very good introduction that clearly describes the project topic area, its context and background, using a good range of references. The research problem is well established with a good attempt to establish the gaps in the extant literature, which is

then linked to the research

Satisfactory abstract is provided, the project is mostly described but may be missing some key elements.

A satisfactory introduction that describes the project topic area, its context and background adequately, supported by some references. The research problem is identified, but the knowledge gap may be inadequately established. The relevance of the project may be implied but

not explicitly defined.

The abstract is either missing or fails to include some of the key elements required.

The introduction somewhat describes the project topic area, its context and background but is not properly justified with appropriate references. The research problem could be identified, but the needs for the study and gaps in knowledge are poorly defined.

An abstract is either missing or failed to include several of the key elements required.

Introduction failed to demonstrate an awareness of the research subject matter and it is not underpinned by adequate academic literature. The research problem may be identified but the gaps in knowledge to justify the study is missing.

No aim and objectives presented, or if presented

Criteria and Weighting

100-70% (Distinction)

69-60% (Merit)

59-50% (Pass)

49-40% (Fail)

39-0% (Poor Fail)

established through a brief evaluation of the current literature. The proposed study is seen to be addressing the identified gap. The relevance of the project within the broad subject area is explicitly stated and the benefits of the research are discussed.

The research aim and objectives are clearly and explicitly stated, coherent and clearly interrelated, feasible and realistic to be achieved well within a Masters’ dissertation.

Overview of the research method, scope and limitation and outline structure of the dissertation are excellently presented.

focus. The relevance of the project within the broad subject area is implied but may not be clearly stated.

The research aim and objectives are clearly stated, coherent and clearly interrelated, feasible and realistic to be achieved within a Masters’ dissertation.

Overview of the research method, scope and limitation and outline structure of the dissertation are well presented.

The research aim and objectives are stated but the interrelationship between them is weak. Somewhat feasible and realistic to be achieved within a Masters' level dissertation but could be better framed.

Overview of the research method, scope and limitation and outline structure of the dissertation are presented.

The research aim and objectives are not explicitly stated or, if so, largely not appropriate for addressing the research problem identified. The aim and objectives may be unrealistic to be achieved within a Masters’ level dissertation.

An overview of the research method, scope and limitation and outline structure of the dissertation may be presented.

are unsuitable for a dissertation.

It lacks information about the method, scope and content of the dissertation.

Literature Review (20%)

An outstanding literature review that is fully comprehensive, thorough and highly relevant to the

study. Well organised, with

A very good literature review that is largely comprehensive and relevant to the study. It is

fairly well-structured, with

A satisfactory literature review that is somewhat comprehensive and relevant to the study. There

is some acknowledgement

Review of the literature is inadequate, and most parts of the content are not relevant to the study. It

contains a basic

There is little or no sign that the author has identified a body of primary material. There is little

evidence of familiarity with

Criteria and Weighting

100-70% (Distinction)

69-60% (Merit)

59-50% (Pass)

49-40% (Fail)

39-0% (Poor Fail)

nuanced critique regarding the relatedness of the research and scholarship reviewed. Through a critical analysis of the extant literature, a clear research gap and potential contribution are identified.

some good critiques regarding the relatedness of the research and scholarship reviewed.

A research gap and potential contribution are identified through the review of the literature

of the relatedness of the research and scholarship reviewed. There is some synthesis of reviewed literature albeit largely descriptive. A research gap and contribution is somewhat implied but not adequately justified as emerging from the

literature review

description; critical analysis and synthesis is absent.

There is no relatedness to the research and scholarship reviewed. No research gap or contribution was identified. Needs further work to satisfy Masters' level requirement.

the existing scholarship on the subject. It is poorly organised and only contains basic description; critical analysis and synthesis is absent. No research gap or contribution was identified.

Methodology (15%)

The description of the methodology presented is of exceptional quality, not dissimilar to one found published in a high-quality journal. The research approach and strategy employed are exceptionally justified, with an outstanding discussion of alternative methods and their non- selection. Research design is to a high level of rigour, worthy to be published in a high-quality journal, and fully compatible with the research aim and objectives stated.

Data collection and analysis

The research approach and strategy used are clearly stated and well supported with appropriate references, alternative methods are discussed, and their non-selection are largely justified. The design of the research is well- suited for the aim and objectives stated. Data collection and analysis tools and techniques are clearly described. Limitations of research design are acknowledged and discussed with appropriate

references. Sources of data

Research approach and strategy used are stated and supported with appropriate references. Some or little discussion of alternative methods and their non-selection are not adequately justified. The research design is appropriate for the aim and objectives stated. Some description of data collection and analysis tools and techniques, but not with enough detail.

Limitations of research

design are not adequately acknowledged and

Absent or very weak explanation of the methodology, its choice or appropriateness for the research. Choice of tools and techniques used is not aligned with the aim and objectives stated. Data collection and analysis tools and techniques are not adequately described.

Sources of data are not adequately described though implied to some extent. Justification for their choice and use is missing or very limited.

The methodology is missing or inadequate in many aspects. Choice and appropriateness of chosen methodology are not discussed and chosen data collection and analysis tools and techniques are not described at all. No description of sources of data or justification for their choice and use.

No consideration or acknowledgement of ethical issues.

Criteria and Weighting

100-70% (Distinction)

69-60% (Merit)

59-50% (Pass)

49-40% (Fail)

39-0% (Poor Fail)

tools and techniques are exceptionally described, such that other researchers can replicate the research process and achieve the same results with no problems. Limitations of research design are fully discussed and supported.

Sources of data are fully described and justified. Ethical issues are considered and addressed at the highest

level.

are well-described and largely justified.

Ethical issues are sufficiently considered and addressed

discussed or are missing. Sources of data are adequately described but justification is limited.

Ethical issues are considered and addressed to some extent.

Ethical issues have not been acknowledged and/or considered.

Analysis, Finding and Discussion (30%)

Findings are reported exceptionally, with excellent use of tables, figures and other graphical illustrations to support results. They are clearly based on a comprehensive and fully relevant range of evidence. The analysis is comprehensive, coherent, very well-structured, and demonstrates very high levels of criticality. There is clear evidence of creativity,

originality, critique and

Findings are well-structured and very clearly presented, and clearly based on a comprehensive and relevant range of evidence. Good levels of critical analysis are present.

A coherent and well- developed argument is developed, and the findings and analysis are interrelated to the research aim and objectives. There is evidence of creativity,

originality, critique and

Some findings are presented but are clearly based on a limited range of evidence. Some analysis is provided, although this is predominantly descriptive and lacks critical analysis. The author fails to develop a coherent argument; the findings and analysis are poorly interrelated with the research aim and objectives.

There is little evidence of

creativity, originality,

Some findings are presented but poorly presented and unclear what evidence it is based on. It is simply a summary with very little or no evidence of critical analysis. The author fails to develop a coherent argument, and the findings and analysis have no discernible links with the research aim and objectives.

There is no evidence of

creativity, originality,

Findings are not presented or it is very unclear what evidence it could be based on. Where presented, the finding is not adequately linked to the aim and objectives of the study. No discussion of results in relation to literature.

There is no evidence of creativity, originality, reflection, critique, and understanding of the project topic area and data

compiled and analysed.

Criteria and Weighting

100-70% (Distinction)

69-60% (Merit)

59-50% (Pass)

49-40% (Fail)

39-0% (Poor Fail)

understanding of the project topic area and data interrogated.

Discussion is superior, accurate, engaging, and thought-provoking.

Thoroughly engages with literature and previous studies.

understanding of the project topic area and data interrogated.

There is a good discussion of the research conducted in relation to literature and previous studies.

reflection, critique, and understanding of the project topic area and data compiled and analysed.

There is some discussion of research conducted in relation to previous literature and studies, but

this is limited.

reflection, critique, and understanding of the project topic area and data compiled and analysed.

Discussion of research conducted in relation to previous literature is very limited or non-existent.

Conclusion (10%)

The conclusions chapter is outstanding. Conclusions are comprehensively drawn against the research aim and objectives set out in the dissertation. The study is comprehensively re- summarised, and the key findings of the study are reiterated in relation to the literature and data presented.

Limitations of the study are acknowledged and implications for the validity and potential transferability of findings are discussed.

Recommendations for future

research are fully justified

The conclusions chapter is very good, and the findings are clearly linked to the research aim and objectives set out in the introduction. The study is well summarised, and the key findings of the study are reiterated in relation to the literature and data presented.

Limitations of the study are somewhat acknowledged and implications for the validity and potential transferability of findings are discussed in some detail. Some

recommendations for

A satisfactory conclusion chapter that adequately answers the research aim and objectives set out at the start is provided. The key findings of the study are presented in relation to the literature and data presented.

Some limitations of the study are acknowledged and some recommendations for future research are presented but without adequate justification. Implications of research for practice/ industry are

Conclusions do not relate to the research aim and objectives set out. The findings of the study are unclear and/or are not supported by the literature and data presented.

Limitations of the study are not acknowledged and recommendations for future research are missing or not supported by previously presented evidence. No mention of implications of research for practice/ industry.

No conclusions are presented or, if present, are incoherent and do not appear related to any research aim and objectives.

Limitations of the study are not acknowledged and recommendations for future research are missing. No mention of implications of research for practice/ industry.

Criteria and Weighting

100-70% (Distinction)

69-60% (Merit)

59-50% (Pass)

49-40% (Fail)

39-0% (Poor Fail)

and linked to previously identified limitations and the implications of the research for practice/ industry are discussed to a high level of detail.

future research are presented but their justification and link to previously identified limitations could be stronger. The implications of the research for practice/ industry are discussed but not in

enough detail.

missing or only superficially mentioned.

Presentation and Referencing (10%)

The dissertation is exceptionally well-structured and sequenced such that the narrative and argument are very easily followed by the reader. Language is clear and precise, with no spelling, grammar, or syntax errors. Relevant tables, graphs and other illustrations are used exceptionally well to support points made in text; all are correctly numbered and labelled and acknowledge their source.

All material in the text is correctly referenced using the Harvard format, the list

of references is complete and

Dissertation is generally well-structured and logically sequenced, such that the narrative is relatively easy for the reader to follow and understand. Language used is clear and comprehensible but there are still some errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax. A range of relevant tables, graphs and other illustrations are used to support points made in text; all are correctly numbered and labelled and acknowledge their source. Most material in the text is

correctly referenced using

The dissertation largely follows a coherent structure, but the narrative is generally difficult for the reader to follow and understand. The language used is generally comprehensible but lacks clarity due to errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax.

Some illustrations are not correctly numbered or labelled, fail to acknowledge their source, or are not referred to in the text.

The dissertation is poorly structured and lacks appropriate sub-headings and suitable paragraphing. It contains high levels of errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax such that it is difficult for the reader to follow and understand.

Illustrations are not correctly numbered or labelled, fail to acknowledge their source, or are not discussed in the text. There is insufficient referencing to identify the source of material included

in the dissertation. It is

Presentational guidelines and the conventions of academic writing (including grammar and spelling) have been ignored.

The dissertation is incoherent and unfocused. Poor use of academic referencing.