Amazon College, Colombo-04. Sri Lanka.

Contents

1. Introduction 3

2. The Supervision Process 4

3. Guidance on the Structure of a Dissertation 7

4. Dissertation Format and Presentation 11

5. Assessment Brief 16

6. Assessment Criteria 21

7. FAQ’s 26

8. Supervisors Marking Sheet 31

9. Confidentiality, Copyright and Data Protection 38

10. Ethics 39

11. Plagiarism, Collusion, Referencing Correctly and Commissioning 43

12. Re submissions and Retakes 44

13. Conclusion 45

2
 Introduction

A dissertation is a long piece of written work that offers a detailed, sustained and critical
treatment of a chosen topic and at Amazon College, this also includes a significant
element of research. It is a critical evaluation and analytic undertaking. It is not a
descriptive account of the topic under investigation, nor is it simply a review of books and
articles read.

A dissertation differs from an essay in requiring a more sustained treatment of a topic,

greater depth of analysis and deeper consultation of sources and materials as well as
undertaking primary research or accessing secondary research data. It is important that
you begin work on the dissertation as early as possible and that you ensure at the outset
that you have a clear idea of what the dissertation will require. In essence, the aim of the
dissertation is to enable you to advance your knowledge of the field covered by your
master’s degree programme by pursuing an independent research project on a chosen
topic within that field.

This rough guide to your dissertation is a collection of materials written by academics from
the College and other published dissertation handbooks, regarding your UG/master’s
dissertation or research project. It is designed to supplement your module lectures and
seminars by giving guidance on your research project dissertation submission in one
document. There may be slight variations to this, depending on the traditions and protocols
of the subject area that your dissertation is in, so please ensure that you confirm any specific
requirements with your supervisor prior to submission.

3
 The Supervision Process
It is hoped that you will have been allocated a supervisor who will act as your guide and
advisor throughout your research project. This process may be addressed through small group
tutorials or individual meetings, normally held on college premises. It is anticipated that, once
allocated, your supervisor will continue to support you until you submit your research
project/dissertation. The supervisor will mark your work initially but it will be also being
second marked by another academic and a sample of research projects will be third
marked/moderated by external examiners.

As a student you are expected to arrange meetings that are suitable for the working hours of
the supervisor, which will generally be during the daytime however, some tutors may have
availability in the evenings. Please endeavor to adapt to the supervisors availability, which
may be constrained due to other commitments.

Remember that academics are not in their office every day but teaching or attending
meetings and conferences. It is advisable to set up meetings well in advance through the
college e-mail system and your supervisor will make every effort to accommodate your
schedule. In addition most academics have drop in sessions, and hour each week where
appointments do not have to be arranged, please check with the business school reception
to ascertain the availability of your supervisor should you need to meet them without an
appointment. You are expected to keep a signed record of the meetings that you have and
include this in the appendices of your final work, this ensures that you are accessing the
support which is required to enable you to pass this important part of your course.

During the process of supervision it is hoped that you will build up a good working relationship
so that you are able to reach your potential. It is acknowledged that the emphasis of the
relationship between supervisor and student will vary dependent upon a number of issues
including the confidence, ability and requirement of the student. Some agreement over
operation may usefully be agreed upon at the first meeting of both parties using these notes
as a basis for discussion. Both individuals will want to ensure that satisfactory progress is
being achieved throughout the process. The following contains information about the
supervision process, however supervisors may differ slightly in their style and approach within

4
the guidelines published. The items below are neither exhaustive nor prescriptive, but identify
a number of important issues to be considered.

The Role of your Dissertation Supervisor

 Offer general guidance on the dissertation process

 Encourage the student to produce the best effort they can
 Provide a “sounding board” for student ideas and to offer honest, objective comment
and advice
 Discuss progress (this might include providing full feedback at the proposal stage, after
the drafting of the first three chapters, and once the dissertation writing up is nearing
completion).
 Assist the student in clarifying the focus of the chosen topic
 Help the student formulate appropriate research questions, etc. and viable ideas for
themselves
 Direct the student to relevant information, literature sources and specialised help
 Comment on the appropriateness of chosen methodologies/techniques
 Alert student to referencing style errors and the problem of plagiarism and other
forms of academic misconduct
 Offer guidance on the proposed dissertation structure
 Offer feedback on chapter drafts - not to edit work and correct spelling errors.
(Students requiring assistance with this aspect of their work should be encouraged to
seek appropriate assistance from the Study skills advisor in the Learning Centre).
 Keep a written record of the opportunities for formal contact offered to the student
and the occurrences of that contact
 Ensure the student is made aware of inadequate progress and standards of work
below the expected level
 Participate in the ultimate assessment, marking and feedback on the submitted final
dissertation including liaison with the second marker, the module leader and the
external examiner

5
The Role of the Dissertation Student:

 Take ownership of the process by managing the relationship with the supervisor,
maintaining contact and meeting key deadlines
 Discuss with the supervisor the type of guidance and comment that would be most
beneficial
 Agree a schedule of meetings with the supervisor for briefings on progress and general
discussions
 Take responsibility for ensuring that satisfactory progress is being achieved and that
any deadlines and target dates are met
 Maximise the benefit of having a supervisor by taking the initiative in discussing any
problems the work, and asking questions that matter most
 Maintain a set of working papers, which include a schedule of activities, journal
articles used in the work, data collected, working notes and details of engagement
with the dissertation supervisor, etc.
 Prepare for meetings with the supervisor, (without working papers and draft work
these will not be effective use of time), simple questions or a point to check should be
cleared by email rather than waiting for a meeting
 Be familiar with dissertation requirements (including the ethical code and the
requirement to avoid academic misconduct) and deadlines
 Reflect on honest constructive criticisms of work by the supervisor (which is not a
criticism of you or of your ability)

There is not expected to be any problems with your relationship with your supervisor and
changing supervisor or topic is not encouraged within the Business School, however if there
are any issues you should discuss them with your supervisor initially and then if you are unable
to resolve the problem you should speak to the dissertation coordinators.

6
 Guidance on the Main Chapters of a Dissertation

It is expected that you will follow this suggestion unless your supervisor advises you
otherwise; this may be due to protocols of the subject area of the research methodology and
methods that you are employing for your dissertation/project.

Don’t forget it should all be your own work; copying, working with someone else or asking
someone one else to complete any part of the dissertation for you is not acceptable and is
considered as academic misconduct. The following paragraphs explain the content of the
main chapters and their approximate word counts.

Chapter 1: Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to justify the topic of the dissertation or research project as
being worthy of research.

To do this successfully you the should:

 Introduce the topic and its context.

 Locate the topic within current academic literature.
 Draw from non-academic literature sources (e.g. specific company literature,
government reports, newspapers etc.) to demonstrate the wider relevance of the
topic.
 Show the contemporary nature of the study or a gap in the current research.
 Present the research questions to be studied as a logical consequence of the argument
you have constructed.
 Summarise the chapter and introduce the next chapter.
(Approximate proportion of word count, 10%)

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The purpose of this chapter is to review and critically analyse the academic literature
pertinent to the research question(s). This chapter also provides the academic debates and
material to be used or followed up through the collection of primary or secondary data.

7
To do this successfully you should:

 Ensure the reviewed literature is relevant by using the research question(s) as sub-
headings, at least in the draft stage.
 Demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of the academic debates relevant
to their topic.
 Critically analyse key authors contributions, identifying the strengths and weaknesses
of the arguments, testing their internal consistency, and acknowledging and
presenting the inevitable counter-arguments.
 Avoid presenting literature uncritically – explaining and describing concepts models
of frameworks does not demonstrate understanding at master’s level.
 Avoid presenting only the positive side of an argument, as a researcher s/he must
acknowledge and evaluate the negative aspects of topic.
 Summarise the chapter and introduce the next chapter.
(Approximate proportion of word count 30%)

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

The purpose of this chapter is to justify the research methodology and data collection
methods, which you have selected.

To do this successfully you should:

 Support and substantiate your claims and discussions throughout with reference to
appropriate research methodology literature.
 Justify the research strategy, philosophy and approach chosen.
 Ensure the strategy or philosophy is consistent with your identified research approach
(e.g. qualitative or quantitative).
 Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the type of research approach chosen
and the data collection methods employed.
 Identify the limitations of the research in terms of methods chosen.
 Summarise the chapter and introduce the next chapter.
(Approximate proportion of word count 15%)

8
Chapter 4: Results, Analysis or Findings & Discussion (these may be split into separate
additional chapters but seek advice from your supervisor regarding the preference for the
topic area)

The purpose of this chapter is to present the data and analyse the findings in relation to the
literature reviewed in chapter two (the latter may be achieved in a separate discussion
chapter if your supervisor recommends this).

To do this successfully you should:

 Ensure relevance the relevance of your findings/results by using the research

questions as sub-headings, at least in the draft stage.
 Present the data in a clear and coherent manner, using tables, graphs etc. as you and
your supervisor agree.
 Critically discuss the findings in relation to the literature in chapter two, identifying
areas of agreement and disagreement, and give some thought as to why the results
may or may not agree with the published literature.
 Identify any results that were puzzling or unexpected and consider why this was so.
 Summarise the chapter and introduce the next chapter.
(Approximate proportion of word count 35%)

Chapter 5: Conclusions, Implications & Recommendations (these may be split into separate
additional chapters)

The purpose of this chapter is to conclude the study by drawing together all the key issues
and if you are doing an organisational project, to identify any recommendations drawn from
the research.

To do this successfully you should:

 Conclude the study effectively by drawing together all the main issues, state their
implications and make recommendations - presenting them in a coherent narrative.
 Reflect upon the process of the research identifying what went well and what should
have been done differently.
 Identify the limitations of your study.

9
  Identify any areas of further study highlighted during the research process.
 Include any personal/professional reflections.
 Summarise the whole of the study.
(Approximate proportion of word count 10%)

The main chapters described above contain the content, which is finally assessed by your
supervisor and second marked by another academic before being and given a percentage
mark. However there are other academic protocols and expectations with regards to
additional content, structure and presentation. The following chapter identifies these
guidelines, which you should follow.

10
 Dissertation Format and Presentation
Your Masters Dissertation or Research Project is the most important single piece of work that
you will complete in working towards achievement of your degree. It is important to present
your dissertation according to the general standards expected throughout the UK Higher
Education Sector. The following guidance sets out the standards as they apply to your
programme at the Wolverhampton Business School.

Presentation Guidance:

 Word Length

The word count incorporates the 5 main chapters as discussed above and excludes any other
sections. The word count for the module 12,000 - 15,000. It is not expected that you will
exceed the word count, although there is no penalty for doing so.

 Font

The dissertation or research project study is to be word-processed and printed using clear a
typeface size 12. Typically this would be Times New Roman or Arial as this reflects the
guidelines for publishing in academic journals.

 Paper

A4 paper of good quality and sufficient opacity (typically 70g/sq.m white) should be used.
Only one side of the paper should be used. A left hand margin of 30/40mm should be used,
to allow for spiral or other binding; right hand margins should be 20mm.

 Page Numbering

Pages numbers must be numbered consecutively throughout the text. Pages numbers should
be located centrally at the bottom of each page.

 Spacing and Indentation

Each chapter should start on a new page using 12-point size typeface. Line spacing of 1.5 must
be used for typescript of the main text, except for indented quotations or tables when single
spacing may be used. New paragraphs should begin flush with the left hand margin. Any

11
abbreviations used should be those in normal use; where necessary a key to abbreviations
should be provided.

 Copies
Two paper copies of the dissertation or research project are required for submission to the
College and should marked for the attention of the member of staff who has supervised the
dissertation or research project (not the module leader). Where copies are produced by any
means they must be of permanent nature. Submitted copies shall be bound in a permanent
way so that sheets cannot readily be removed or replaced for example; using spiral binding.
There is no necessity to book bind your dissertation as this can be very expensive and will not
improve your final mark.

If your course is delivered elsewhere (other than the Sri Lanka) please seek advice from your
research methods tutor/supervisor or course leader regarding paper copies.

N.B. In addition you must also submit the final submission online via your portal. This will then
be put through the software package called Turn it in to assess if there is any plagiarism or
collusion. Failure to do so will result in a FAIL mark for your work.

The Final Format for Submission:

 FRONT Covers:

This first page should be a title page and include the following information:

 The full title of the dissertation or research study

 The full name of the author
 The authors student number
 The academic award for which the dissertation is submitted
 The sponsoring organisation in which the research was conducted (if applicable)
 The year of submission
 The name of the academic supervisor

12
  DECLARATION

Following the title page (second page) there be a page containing a signed statement. This
declares that the whole project is work that you have produced alone and that you have also
referenced authors work correctly. This is a declaration of your academic integrity and
honesty regarding plagiarism, commissioning or any other form of cheating.

“I declare that this Dissertation/Research Project, in its entirety, is my

own work. It has not previously been presented in whole or part, for
any other award. Neither has it been published in whole or in part
elsewhere and presented here without the proper use of references.
Neither has it been commissioned in part or whole to be written by
another party or individual on my behalf.”

Signed:

 ABSTRACT:

A brief summary of your project and its findings (200-300 words).

 TABLE OF CONTENTS:

List of chapters and subsections linked to the page number.

 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS AND TABLES:

Illustrations and tables will normally have a separate index.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

Simply an acknowledgement of the individuals and groups who have contributed towards
your dissertation including your supervisor, participants in your research and organisations
who have allowed you access or any other person who has assisted you.

13
  DEFINITIONS AND/OR ABBREVIATIONS:

This is optional and will depend on the nature of the topic, ask your supervisor for advic

 CHAPTER 1:

Introduction and aims of research (see earlier explanation)

 CHAPTER 2:

Review of the literature (see earlier explanation)

 CHAPTER 3:

Research Methodology and data collection techniques (see earlier explanation)

 CHAPTER 4:

Results, Analysis & Discussion (see earlier explanation)

 CHAPTER 5:

Conclusion, implications & recommendations (including strengths and weaknesses of your

research and further research to be done; see earlier explanation)

 REFERENCES:

Alphabetical list your sources cited in the text, normally no bibliography will be needed but
please check with your supervisor as this may differ due to the nature of your topic. This must
always be in strict Harvard reference format.

 APPENDICES:

Appendices within the dissertation do not count toward the total word length. However an
appendix cannot be used to contain additional material central to the topic under discussion
that could not be fitted into your dissertation because of the word limit.

14
This is an optional section and would not normally exceed 20 pages. An appendix is not
another chapter and academics or examiners are not expected to read the appendices so your
project should not depend on them doing so. They are likely to contain material that is not
essential to your argument in the dissertation, such as reference information or additional
data referred to in the text but does that not contribute to the main topic. The appendices
may include some lengthy material and likely to break up the text in an undesirable way. You
should always refer to the appendices in the main body of the dissertation.

15
 Assessment Brief
The following is the assessment brief for the final dissertation/research project, the module
learning outcomes are identified and your work is compared to assessment criteria that is
also identified within the assessment brief. Each year it is reviewed and maybe amended in
consultation with the External Examiners, whose role it is to ensure that the appropriate
standards are in place for assessments in the Sri Lanka Higher Education sector. Students are
advised to consult the brief and the assessment criteria in detail to ensure an understanding
of what is required and how to gain a merit or distinction classification.

Module assessment detail (approved at validation as amended by module modification)

Module code & Dissertation Writing

title

Module Learning Outcomes:

LO1 Demonstrate competence in the linguistic, numerical and √

analytical skills associated with study at Masters level

LO2 Critically interpret data and use data in organisational √

contexts.

LO3 Critically understand and ethically apply appropriate research √

approaches and methodological techniques that facilitate
detailed investigation into business and management issues.
LO4 Produce an original piece of work as defined by your Masters' √
Award that uses evidence and academic sources in analytical
manner to reach clear conclusions

Assessment types Weightings (%)

Dissertation / Independent Depends

Project

Mode of Working: Individual

Presentation Format: Research Project

16
Method of Submission: All students: Submission via electronic e-
submission on portal by the due date. Sri Kankan
based students in addition 2 hard copies and a
disc are required, submitted on the same due
date at our student office only. Other students
to be informed by their tutor

Mark required to pass: 50%

Hand in date & time This is amended each year

Date & method by which This is amended each year

you will receive feedback

Re-sit/retrieval date Usually at the next cohorts hand in date or earlier this would
normally be negotiated separately

Assessment limits Between 12,000 – 15,000 words, excluding appendices and

reference list

Do clearly state your name, student number and supervisor when submitting work.

Always keep a copy of your work.

Always keep a file of working papers (containing, for instance, working notes, copied journal
article and early drafts of your work, etc.) that show the development of your work and the
sources you have used. You may need to show this to the supervisor at some point so notes
should be clear and written in English. This is an important requirement. There may be
circumstances where it is difficult to arrive at a mark for your work. If this is so you may be
asked to submit your file within 3 working days and possibly meet with your supervisor to
answer questions on your submission.

17
Explanation of submission requirements and further guidance

 Aassessments’ are subject to a word limit to ensure consistency of approach across all
modules. Your work should not exceed the limit indicated (excluding appendices). Do
not feel that you have to “achieve” this word count in your work. What is important
is that the work satisfies the stated learning outcomes which are articulated through
the assessment criteria (see following page).
 Care is taken to ensure that work has been marked correctly. Dissertations are double
marked and an independent expert from outside the College on batches of work.
 Your work will not be returned to you but you will receive detailed feedback explaining
how your mark has been arrived at and how your work could have been improved
upon.
 Always use the Harvard style referencing system. The College’s Learning Information
Services have produced a series of guides covering a range of topics to support your
studies and develop your academic skills including a guide to Harvard referencing.
 Expensive or elaborate bindings and covers for submissions are not required; please
refer to guidelines in the dissertation resources topic on presentation.
 The Business School has a policy of anonymous marking of individual assessments
which applies to most modules but not the dissertation for obvious reasons.

Avoid academic misconduct

WARNING: Collusion, plagiarism and cheating are very serious offences that can result in a
student being expelled from the College. The Business School has a policy of actively
identifying students who engage in academic misconduct of this nature and routinely applying
detection techniques including the use of sophisticated software packages.

 Avoid Collusion. The Business School encourages group working, however to avoid
collusion always work on your own when completing individual assessments. Do not
let fellow students have access to your work at any stage and do not be tempted to
access the work of others. Refer to your module tutor if you do not understand or you
need further guidance.

18
  Avoid Plagiarism. You must use available and relevant literature to demonstrate your
knowledge of a subject, however to avoid plagiarism you must take great care to
acknowledge it properly. Plagiarism is the act of stealing someone else's work and
passing it off as your own. This includes incorporating either unattributed direct
quotation(s) or substantial paraphrasing from the work of another/others. For this
reason it is important that you cite all the sources whose work you have drawn on and
reference them fully in accordance with the Harvard referencing standard. (This
includes citing any work that you may have submitted yourself previously). Extensive
direct quotations in assessed work is ill advised because it represents a poor writing
style, and it could lead to omission errors and a plagiarism offence could be committed
accidentally.

 Avoid the temptation to “commission” work or to cheat in other ways. There are
temptations on the internet for you to take “short cuts”. Do not be tempted to either
commission work to be completed on your behalf or search for completed past
academic work.

When you submit your work you will be required to sign an important declaration that the
submission is your own work, any material you have used has been acknowledged and
referenced, you have not allowed another student to have access to your work, the work has
not been submitted previously, etc.

Assessment Brief/ Task

The detailed requirements for this task are as follows:

The production of a piece of original work based on independent research is an essential

part of study at Masters level. For the award of a Master’s degree, candidates must
present a Dissertation or Independent Business Analysis Project within their Master’s
field of study, which demonstrates a range of intellectual and practical skills in carrying

19
out evidence based research project. This will normally be within a business and
management context and will include identifying the implications of the findings.

The work should follow the prescribed format as advised by the supervisor and the
module material held on Portal, (which will also be covered in the taught module
content). The dissertation will be between 12,000 and 15,000 words in length and should
include the following main sections:

 INTRODUCTION AND/OR THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

 CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS & LITERATURE REVIEW

 METHODOLOGY

 RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 REFERENCE LIST

N.B. Candidates will receive further guidance from their supervisors as the content may

vary slightly depending upon the subject/topic area investigated.

20
 Assessment Criteria

Just like all your module assessments it is the written text that is evaluated. However hard
you have worked or how much time and effort has gone into the research work, the
assessment stands or falls on the quality of the dissertation in comparison to the assessment
criteria.

In addition, in order to satisfy the assessment criteria the structure and clarity of the
dissertation is crucial. There is no one single correct way to write a dissertation because each
dissertation is unique, is placed within a specific subject area and contains a body of research,
inviting a variety of different interpretations.

You are strongly advised to confirm the structure of your dissertation and your time schedule
with the supervisor but the following criteria are used to assess the standard and mark of
your dissertation using a the separate marking sheet which is available for you to consider in
the following sections

Performance descriptors

The Performance descriptors that follow indicate how marks will be arrived at against each of
the above chapters. The descriptors indicate the likely characteristics of work that is marked
within the percentage bands indicated.

The module learning outcomes tested by this assessment task are indicated. The precise criteria
against which your work will be marked are in the main chapters as follows:

 INTRODUCTION AND/OR THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

 CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS & LITERATURE REVIEW
 METHODOLOGY
 RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 PRESENTATION

21
 Performance Descriptors for Final Project/Dissertation

Criteria 70-100% Work of an Merit 60-69% Work Pass 50-59% 40-49% FAIL 0-39% FAIL
outstanding, standard of a good standard. Work of a pass (Retrievable)
standard.

Excellent Introduction & Clear Introduction & Good Introduction & The focus,
background; synopsis of background; synopsis introduction & background purpose and
Introduction and relevant literature clearly of relevant literature background; wholly method of the
background delineated; research delineated; research synopsis of descriptive; project are not
problem stated, research problem stated, relevant synopsis of made clear to
aims, objectives and research aims, literature has relevant the reader.
primary questions clearly objectives and gaps; research literature
stated, appropriate and primary questions problem unclear, absent;
aligned. Methods and mostly appropriate research aims, research
research approach and aligned. objectives and problem,
appropriately stated. Methods and primary research aims,
research approach questions mostly objectives and
appropriately stated. show some primary
misaligned. questions
Methods and misaligned.
research Methods and
approach research
appropriately approach
stated. inappropriately
framed.

Authoritative selection of Substantial range of Limitations in Obvious Key sources

material from apposite sources variety and depth omissions of obviously
Literature Review comprehensive array of consulted; attention of sources; relevant omitted, much
and Conceptual relevant sources; to both scholarly and reasonable grasp sources; some misunderstandi
Analysis attention to both scholarly practitioner of those misunderstandi ng; little if any
and practitioner dimensions, with consulted and ng; argument argument; lack
dimensions, with excellent small omissions with with relevance to not following a of a critical
evidence of originality; respect to the the argument; no particularly stance chapter
argument is logical, argument; generally particular clear thread, or is just an
systematic and systematic and originality; some not particularly incomplete list
persuasive; shows high persuasive narrative; unevenness in convincing; of authors,
degree of critical shows evidence of presentation; narrative is taken mainly
awareness of linkage critical awareness of narrative is wholly from basic
between literature and linkage between mostly descriptive; texts. No
aims literature and aims descriptive; little awareness evident link to
modest of linkage research being
awareness of between undertaken.
linkage between literature and Overall, the
literature and aims author appears
aims to have read
little and
understood less

Clearly articulates and Methodology Methodology Methodology Insufficient

justifies the generally sound, discussed though confused with discussion of
Research methodological approach articulates and with incomplete description of methodology,
Methodology to be adopted e.g. justifies the awareness of methods and little awareness
deductive/inductive; methodological several aspects techniques; of its
provides a rationale that approach to be and/or unaware of or importance;
fits the approach chosen; adopted e.g. omissions. confused about unaware of
describes the relation deductive/inductive; Methods research research
between the research provides a rationale described but key design; design;
aims/objectives and the that fits the areas hazy and methods and methods and

22
 approach chosen; states approach chosen; lacking in techniques techniques
the research describes the justification and taken for inappropriate
hypothesis(es) and link to relation between the complete granted; errors or incomplete;
selection of approach; research information in sampling, sampling
describes clearly the aims/objectives and which may be unconsidered
method and explanation the approach incomplete as an issue
(rationale) of chosen; states the
observation/data research
collection – qualitative hypothesis(es) and
and/or quantitative; link to selection of
primary and secondary approach; describes
data collection; methods clearly the method
for analysing research and explanation
material; identifies and (rationale) of
critically comments on the observation/data
sampling, piloting and collection –
ethic aspects; shows qualitative and/or
understanding of and quantitative; primary
demonstrates validity and and secondary data
reliability of data collection; methods
instruments for analysing
research material;
identifies and
critically comments
on the sampling,
piloting and ethic
aspects; shows
understanding of and
demonstrates
validity and reliability
of data instruments

Very reliable data. Reliable data. Results Mostly reliable Some doubts Little clear
Triangulated results drive substantiate the data. Results about data argument,
Results, Analysis the argument onwards, argument, some substantiate the reliability. reliability of
and Discussion completely and fairly; triangulation argument, some Results do not data in serious
contrary findings used to attempted, contrary triangulation substantiate doubt; no
illuminate or extend the findings highlighted attempted, the argument, contrary
argument. Library-based to illuminate or contrary findings no findings to
projects provide crystal extend the to illuminate or triangulation illuminate or
clear rationale using argument. Library- extend the attempted, no extend the
published sources to based projects argument are contrary argument. Use
support the argument provide clear weak. Library- findings to of secondary
seamlessly. Has explained rationale using based projects illuminate or data for library-
and linked (signposted) published sources to provide some extend the based projects
the findings to appendices support the rationale using argument. Use is insufficient or
(if primary / secondary argument. Has published of secondary unsubstantial.
data). Clear links to signposted the sources to data for library- No signposting
literature in the findings to support the based projects the findings to
discussion; analysis uses appendices (if argument. Has is narrow and appendices (if
techniques appropriate to primary / secondary signposted the not justified. primary /
data. Use is made of data). Clear links to findings to Some secondary
appropriate tables, literature in the appendices (if signposting the data). No
graphs, and other discussion; analysis primary / findings to attempt to link
illustrations. A strong uses techniques secondary data). appendices (if literature in the
synopsis of findings ends appropriate to data. Some attempt to primary / discussion;
the chapter Use is made of link literature in secondary analysis
appropriate tables, the discussion; data). techniques
graphs, and other analysis uses Insufficient inappropriate
illustrations. A strong techniques attempt to link to data or not
synopsis of findings appropriate to literature in the explained or
ends the chapter data. Use is made discussion; incorrectly
of appropriate analysis used. Use of

23
 tables, graphs, techniques tables, graphs,
and other inappropriate and other
illustrations. to data or not illustrations is
Synopsis of explained. Use scrappy. No
findings ends the of appropriate synopsis of
chapter tables, graphs, findings to
and other speak of
illustrations is
lacking
thought. No
synopsis of
findings ends
the chapter

Well-organised, logical, Well-organised, Reasonably well- Poor Assertions little

fully supported by logical, supported by organised, organisation; related to
Conclusions, evidence, conclusions evidence, logical, generally gaps in evidence,
Implications & clear and arise from conclusions fairly supported by reasoning; frequently
Recommendations results/discussion; clear and arise from evidence, some obvious illogical or
implications critically results & discussion; conclusions fairly conclusions arbitrary;
considered for all implications critically clear and arise omitted for the conclusions if
stakeholders; practical considered for all from results & list; other presented are
and feasible, with clear stakeholders; discussion; conclusions not disorganised;
consideration of budget practical and implications especially alternatives not
issues (if appropriate). feasible, with clear considered for all driven by the considered; no
Recommendations driven consideration of stakeholders but findings but real
by conclusions and again budget issues (if criticality weak; from ‘common understanding
explicit for stakeholders appropriate) practical and sense’. No real of the need to
Recommendations feasible, with un implications draw
driven by conclusions clear or weak and conclusions,
and again explicit for consideration of recommendati implications
stakeholders budget issues (if on considered and
appropriate). for recommendati
Recommendation stakeholders ons from
s not always results
driven by
conclusions and
not for all
stakeholders

Fully documented and Well documented Reasonably well Some Documentation

styled according to the and styled according documented and incompleteness seriously at
Presentation brief; written in attractive, to the brief; written styled according of fault: missing,
engaging, and compelling in attractive, to the brief; documentation misplaced,
language; ; text free from engaging, and written in and styled difficult to find
spelling and grammatical compelling language; engaging according to one’s way
solecisms; vocabulary ; apart from a few language; ; text the brief; around;
appropriate; specialist instance, text free not wholly free written persistent
terms defined; tables and from spelling and from spelling and language fails errors in
illustrations beautifully grammatical grammatical to meet spelling and
prepared; excellent solecisms; solecisms; postgraduate grammar,
allocation of material to vocabulary vocabulary standard; text solecisms or
main body of text, and appropriate; appropriate; not wholly free occasional
appendices. Fully specialist terms specialist terms from spelling failure in
conforms to Harvard defined; tables and defined; tables and conveying
Referencing style. illustrations well and illustrations grammatical meaning;
Wordage, binding and prepared; very good well prepared; solecisms; typescript
related appearance meets allocation of material good allocation vocabulary messy with
requirements to main body of text, of material to appropriate; uncorrected
and appendices. Fully main body of specialist terms errors and
conforms to Harvard text, and defined; tables missing or

24
 Referencing style. appendices. and incomplete
Wordage, binding Mostly conforms illustrations illustrations,
and related to Harvard well prepared; tables. Charts..
appearance meets Referencing style. good allocation Referencing
requirements Wordage, binding of material to and formatting
and related main body of errors
appearance text, and widespread
meets appendices.
requirements Mostly .
conforms to
Harvard
Referencing
style. Wordage,
binding and
related
appearance
meets
requirements

Note:

The information regarding performance descriptors above is important when:

 Preparing for your assessment

 Checking your work before you submit it

 Interpreting feedback on your work after marking.

25
 FAQ's or Frequently Asked Questions!

Q. Are there any restrictions about my choice of topic?

Your dissertation topic should normally have direct relevance to the masters course you are
enrolled on because the credits that you gain from the dissertation module is partial
fulfilment of that programme of study. The topic should relate to at least one of the modules
within your master’s degree and be linked to a recognised body of literature in whichever
field the degree is taken.

Q. Do I need to get my topic approved?

Your allocated supervisor should approve your topic in terms of ethical considerations and
whether the topic and the research you propose is achievable, specific and realistic. While the
exact title of the dissertation and aspects of the approach may change slightly; any major
change of topic involving a new supervisor is not normally possible.

Q. Can I look at past dissertations?

Dissertations are not normally available due to confidentiality; however, you will find some
examples on the PORTAL topic page. There are a range of anonymous dissertations which
attained different marks so you can see the differences in standards. Note: all our
dissertations are processed through Turn-It-In; a plagiarism software

Q. How do I get a print copy of my dissertation?

Many students print and bind their own dissertation at the Learning Center. However if you
prefer, you can pay for a print and binding facility which is available in the high street or within
stationery stores.

Q. I'm a student who has submitted their dissertation through e submission on WOLF. How
will I know if it was successful?

When you have uploaded and submitted your work you will automatically be sent an e mail
receipt by our PORTAL system, but don’t forget to hand in two paper copies at the student

26
office in before the deadline or alternative arrangements may be in place where the module
is delivered outside Sri Lanka.

Q. Where will I find the school dissertation format/presentation requirements?

The recommended dissertation structure, presentation and a sample cover sheet is contained
within the left hand side menu on PORTAL as well as in this document. It is also worth checking
this with your supervisor as the subject area or topic you have chosen may have a tradition
of slightly different format of chapter headings or other requirements.

Q. Can I attend any workshops on writing dissertations?

Yes, the Learning Centre run regular workshops about writing dissertations in Sri Lanka. They
also run separate workshops about different aspects of your dissertation. Please see Learning
and Information Service web pages on study skills. Delivery outside Sri Lanka will differ slightly
please consult your course tutor for details of advice available

Q. Can I make changes or revisions after I have uploaded the dissertation on PORTAL?

No changes may be made to the dissertation after the final deadline but it is possible to
replace your uploaded document up until the final deadline. No changes can be made after
the student office has accepted it as this is paper copy. Don’t forget the submission date/time
is the last date your work will be accepted but not necessarily the date you upload it, you can
upload any time up to the final deadline.

Q. What is the final date that I can submit my dissertation electronically?

Your submission must be completed by the deadline for your cohort this is important for all
students studying the module both in Sri Lanka and overseas. This information is contained in
the PORTAL topic page. See schedules and submission dates. The final version must be
uploaded by midnight on the hand in date and 2 paper copies handed in for marking unless
your tutor has informed you differently. .

27
Q. What kind of mistakes will affect my mark?

Candidates who work hard sometimes produce relatively weak dissertations, because
they have fallen into one or more of the 'traps' described below. These are the most
common complaints examiners cite when criticising dissertations that show real ability
and application but nonetheless fall short in some way. While none of these are fatal, all
are worth avoiding, as they can seriously detract from the quality of the dissertation:

• Excessive description. Your dissertation should offer an analytical treatment

of the subject under investigation. This is probably the most common
weakness cited by examiners.

• Poor definition of the question. One of the biggest differences between a

dissertation and an essay or exam is that it is up to you to define the research
question you wish to answer. Often, this is the most difficult task of all. It is
also one of the most important. A fuzzy question often results in a weak overall
structure, since the structure of the dissertation should be designed so that
each section contributes to the argument you are making in response to the
question.

• Poor integration of theoretical and empirical material. This is probably the

second most common weakness. Many dissertations contain theoretical
discussions that are meant to inform the analysis of the material under study
but that are never rigorously and clearly applied to it. All too often, the
theoretical section simply stands isolated from the rest of the dissertation. Its
inclusion reflects an awareness that it is somehow relevant but it is never
brought to bear on the case or cases under discussion.

• Poor contextualisation. The dissertation should demonstrate that you

understand how the topic relates to the work others have done in the same
field. The review of the literature should identify relevant debates and outline
the positions of the main participants in order to situate the topic of your
dissertation and the argument that you present. Do not make an argument in
a vacuum.

• Uncritical use of sources. It is important to subject sources to critical scrutiny.

28
 A wide range of sources may be used in a dissertation, but students should
demonstrate an understanding of whether a source should be treated as
authoritative and of the need to crosscheck and ‘triangulate’ important
empirical claims. Academic sources should also be interrogated for logical
argument, internal coherence and strength of evidence.

Q. What would lead to a fail mark?

Most weak or failing dissertations are likely to reflect a combination of sloppiness,

procrastination and/or lack of work. In addition; any kind of cheating will lead to a fail mark,
this includes getting someone else to do your work, paying someone to do the work, copying
published work, not referencing accurately using Harvard referencing, colluding with other
students and borrowing chapters of other students work. You are able to re sit or retake the
module but in both cases your mark will be capped at a pass i.e. 50%.

Q. What happens if I fail?

You will be able to re sit by improving the work that you submitted to achieve an acceptable
standard at master’s level to pass. You will need to discuss this with your supervisor who will
advise you what you need to improve. Sometimes lack of engagement and limited meetings
with your supervisor means that you do not achieve the required standards, as you have not
taken advice. However; if you fail due to cheating you will be required to retake and pay for
the whole module.

29
 Supervisors Marking Sheet

Marking Grid/Assessment Feedback Form

N.B. This feedback excludes results from Turn It In plagiarism software which may affect the final
mark)

Student Date
Name/ID: Marked:

Supervisor: Provisional
Mark:
Second
marker:

Module Module Leader:

Code/Title

Assessment:
Business
Subject
Area

Generic Academic Outcomes:

Using information: Demonstrate an ability to collect and use primary and/or secondary material
in a scholarly manner.

Analysis: Display an ability to identify, compare, justify, and employ appropriate

methodologies.

Critical thinking: Show evidence of independent and critical thought (clearly differentiated
from that of others).

Synthesis: Distil key arguments and conclusions, and assess their implications for
theory and practice in an articulate and concise manner.

30
Learning Academic Outcomes:

LO1: Demonstrate competence in the linguistic, numerical and analytical skills associated with study
at Masters level.

LO 2: Critically interpret data and use data in organisational contexts.

LO 3: Critically understand and ethically apply appropriate research approaches and methodological
techniques that facilitate detailed investigation into business and management issues.

LO 4: Produce an original piece of work as defined by your Masters' Award that uses evidence and
academic sources in analytical manner to reach clear conclusions.

31
 Tick 1
CRITERION 1. INTRODUCTION AND/OR THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Box

70- Excellent Introduction & background; synopsis of relevant literature clearly delineated; research
100% problem stated, research aims, objectives and primary questions clearly stated, appropriate and
Distincti aligned. Methods and research approach appropriately stated.
on

60-69% Clear Introduction & background; synopsis of relevant literature delineated; research problem
Merit stated, research aims, objectives and primary questions mostly appropriate and aligned. Methods
and research approach appropriately stated.

50-59% Good introduction & background; synopsis of relevant literature has gaps; research problem
Pass unclear, research aims, objectives and primary questions mostly show some misaligned. Methods
and research approach appropriately stated.

40-49% Introduction & background wholly descriptive; synopsis of relevant literature absent; research
Fail problem, research aims, objectives and primary questions misaligned. Methods and research
approach inappropriately.

0-39% The focus, purpose and method of the project are not made clear to the reader.
Fail

Tick 1
CRITERION 2. LITERATURE REVIEW & CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS Box

70- Authoritative selection of material from comprehensive array of relevant sources; attention to
100% both scholarly and practitioner dimensions, with excellent evidence of originality; argument is
Distincti logical, systematic and persuasive; shows high degree of critical awareness of linkage between
on literature and aims

60-69% Substantial range of apposite sources consulted; attention to both scholarly and practitioner
Merit dimensions, with small omissions with respect to the argument; generally systematic and
persuasive narrative; shows evidence of critical awareness of linkage between literature and aims

50-59% Limitations in variety and depth of sources; reasonable grasp of those consulted and with
Pass relevance to the argument; no particular originality; some unevenness in presentation; narrative is
mostly descriptive; modest awareness of linkage between literature and aims

40-49% Obvious omissions of relevant sources; some misunderstanding; argument not following a
Fail particularly clear thread, or not particularly convincing; narrative is wholly descriptive; little
awareness of linkage between literature and aims

32
 Grade
CRITERION 3. METHODOLOGY Tick 1
Box

70-100% Clearly articulates and justifies the methodological approach to be adopted e.g.
Distinction deductive/inductive; provides a rationale that fits the approach chosen; describes the relation
between the research aims/objectives and the approach chosen; states the research
hypothesis (es) and link to selection of approach; describes clearly the method and
explanation (rationale) of observation/data collection – qualitative and/or quantitative;
primary and secondary data collection; methods for analysing research material; identifies and
critically comments on the sampling, piloting and ethic aspects; shows understanding of and
demonstrates validity and reliability of data instruments

60-69% Methodology generally sound, articulates and justifies the methodological approach to be
Merit adopted e.g. deductive/inductive; provides a rationale that fits the approach chosen; describes
the relation between the research aims/objectives and the approach chosen; states the
research hypothesis(es) and link to selection of approach; describes clearly the method and
explanation (rationale) of observation/data collection – qualitative and/or quantitative;
primary and secondary data collection; methods for analysing research material; identifies and
critically comments on the sampling, piloting and ethic aspects; shows understanding of and
demonstrates validity and reliability of data instruments

50-59% Methodology discussed though with incomplete awareness of several aspects and/or
Pass omissions. Methods described but key areas hazy and lacking in justification and complete
information.

40-49% Methodology confused with description of methods and techniques; unaware of or confused
Fail about research design; methods and techniques taken for granted; errors in sampling, which
may be incomplete

0-39% Insufficient discussion of methodology, little awareness of its importance; unaware of research
Fail design; methods and techniques inappropriate or incomplete; sampling unconsidered as an
issue

Grade
CRITERION 4. RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Tick 1
Box

70-100% Very reliable data. Triangulated results drive the argument onwards, completely and fairly;
Distinction contrary findings used to illuminate or extend the argument. Library-based projects provide
crystal clear rationale using published sources to support the argument seamlessly. Has
explained and linked (signposted) the findings to appendices (if primary / secondary data).
Clear links to literature in the discussion; analysis uses techniques appropriate to data. Use is
made of appropriate tables, graphs, and other illustrations. A strong synopsis of findings ends
the chapter

33
60-69% Reliable data. Results substantiate the argument, some triangulation attempted, contrary
Merit findings highlighted to illuminate or extend the argument. Library-based projects provide clear
rationale using published sources to support the argument. Has signposted the findings to
appendices (if primary / secondary data). Clear links to literature in the discussion; analysis
uses techniques appropriate to data. Use is made of appropriate tables, graphs, and other
illustrations. A strong synopsis of findings ends the chapter

50-59% Mostly reliable data. Results substantiate the argument, some triangulation attempted,
Pass contrary findings to illuminate or extend the argument are weak. Library-based projects
provide some rationale using published sources to support the argument. Has signposted the
findings to appendices (if primary / secondary data). Some attempt to link literature in the
discussion; analysis uses techniques appropriate to data. Use is made of appropriate tables,
graphs, and other illustrations. Synopsis of findings ends the chapter

40-49% Some doubts about data reliability. Results do not substantiate the argument, no triangulation
Fail attempted, no contrary findings to illuminate or extend the argument. Use of secondary data
for library-based projects is narrow and not justified. Some signposting the findings to
appendices (if primary / secondary data). Insufficient attempt to link literature in the
discussion; analysis techniques inappropriate to data or not explained. Use of appropriate
tables, graphs, and other illustrations is lacking thought. No synopsis of findings ends the
chapter

0-39% Little clear argument, reliability of data in serious doubt; no contrary findings to illuminate or
Fail extend the argument. Use of secondary data for library-based projects is insufficient or
unsubstantial. No signposting the findings to appendices (if primary / secondary data). No
attempt to link literature in the discussion; analysis techniques inappropriate to data or not
explained or incorrectly used. Use of tables, graphs, and other illustrations is scrappy. No
synopsis of findings to speak of

34
 CRITERION 5. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Grade

Tick 1
Box

70-100% Well-organised, logical, fully supported by evidence, conclusions clear and arise
Distinction from results/discussion; implications critically considered for all stakeholders;
practical and feasible, with clear consideration of budget issues (if appropriate).
Recommendations driven by conclusions and again explicit for stakeholders

60-69% Well-organised, logical, supported by evidence, conclusions fairly clear and arise
Merit from results & discussion; implications critically considered for all stakeholders;
practical and feasible, with clear consideration of budget issues (if appropriate)
Recommendations driven by conclusions and again explicit for stakeholders

50-59% Reasonably well-organised, logical, generally supported by evidence, conclusions

Pass fairly clear and arise from results & discussion; implications considered for all
stakeholders but criticality weak; practical and feasible, with un clear or weak
consideration of budget issues (if appropriate). Recommendations not always
driven by conclusions and not for all stakeholders

40-49% Poor organisation; gaps in reasoning; some obvious conclusions omitted for the
Fail list; other conclusions not especially driven by the findings but from ‘common
sense’. No real implications and recommendation considered for stakeholders

0-39% Assertions little related to evidence, frequently illogical or arbitrary; conclusions

Fail if presented are disorganised; alternatives not considered; no real understanding
of the need to draw conclusions, implications and recommendations from results

Grade
CRITERION 6. PRESENTATION Tick 1
Box

70-100% Fully documented and styled according to the brief; written in attractive,
Distinction engaging, and compelling language; ; text free from spelling and grammatical
solecisms; vocabulary appropriate; specialist terms defined; tables and
illustrations beautifully prepared; excellent allocation of material to main body of
text, and appendices. Fully conforms to Harvard Referencing style. Wordage,
binding and related appearance meets requirements

60-69% Well documented and styled according to the brief; written in attractive,
Merit engaging, and compelling language; ; apart from a few instance, text free from
spelling and grammatical solecisms; vocabulary appropriate; specialist terms
defined; tables and illustrations well prepared; very good allocation of material
to main body of text, and appendices. Fully conforms to Harvard Referencing
style. Wordage, binding and related appearance meets requirements

50-59% Reasonably well documented and styled according to the brief; written in
Pass engaging language; ; text not wholly free from spelling and grammatical
solecisms; vocabulary appropriate; specialist terms defined; tables and
illustrations well prepared; good allocation of material to main body of text, and
appendices. Mostly conforms to Harvard Referencing style. Wordage, binding
and related appearance meets requirements

40-49%

35
 Fail Some incompleteness of documentation and styled according to the brief;
written language fails to meet postgraduate standard; text not wholly free from
spelling and grammatical solecisms; vocabulary appropriate; specialist terms
defined; tables and illustrations well prepared; good allocation of material to
main body of text, and appendices. Mostly conforms to Harvard Referencing
style. Wordage, binding and related appearance meets requirements

0-39% Documentation seriously at fault: missing, misplaced, difficult to find one’s way
Fail around; persistent errors in spelling and grammar, solecisms or occasional failure
in conveying meaning; typescript messy with uncorrected errors and missing or
incomplete illustrations, tables. Charts.. Referencing and formatting errors
widespread

36
 9. Confidentiality, Copyright and the Data Protection Act

Occasionally, work which is produced by students is based on confidential information; for

example, sensitive data from an organization. In this case the student should ensure that the
statement of “confidential” is placed on the front cover of the dissertation. It can then be
guaranteed that the work will not be selected as a sample or used in the public domain.

Data generated in the course of dissertation research should be kept securely and in
accordance with all legal requirements and ethical principles, such as those prescribed under
the Data Protection Act, the requirements of learned or professional bodies.

37
 10. Ethics

The Amazon College Business School Ethical Procedures for Dissertation & Projects:

Categorization of Research Projects General Policy

Research projects (including those undertaken via the Dissertation, Research Project and
Organizational Consultancy Project modules) that may involve human subjects will require
ethical approval. The degree of interference with human subjects will determine the
processes involved in gaining approval to proceed with the dissertation or project.
Dissertations and projects which may involve human subjects are categorized as either A or
B.

Category A Projects

Category A dissertations and projects are ones where there is either no significant
interference with the subject’s physical or psychological wellbeing as a consequence of
primary research or the investigation is based on secondary sources and involves no primary
research. Accordingly no human subject(s) is considered vulnerable as consequence of the
design of the proposed dissertation or project investigation.

Dissertations and projects may involve access to confidential records provided that the
investigator’s access to these is part of their normal professional duties and they confirm they
have gained organizational approval for the use of these records in the dissertation or project
proposal.

If a dissertation or project is deemed to be in Category A the investigation can proceed.

Category B Projects

Category B dissertations and projects are ones that could be intrusive, sensitive or could cause
psychological harm or suffering to human subjects. The subject is vulnerable in relation to the
method and/or content of the dissertation or project.

38
IF A DISSERTATION OR PROJECT IS DEEMED TO BE IN CATEGORY B THE INVESTIGATION
CANNOT PROCEED

Accordingly, students are required to prepare and submit a substantially revised proposed
dissertation or project investigation, based on the Topic Registered and designed to meet the
Category A criteria.

General Ethical Principles for the Conduct of Dissertations, Research Projects and
Organizational Consultancy Projects

• Following submission and acceptance of a Topic Registration, students

preparing a dissertation, research project or organizational consultancy
projects as part of their taught postgraduate studies should submit a Request
for Ethical Approval with their Proposal. This is appended to the proposal
approval feedback sheet.

• The Proposal should make it clear what, if any, primary research activity is
intended. While literature search and reference to secondary sources will be
integral to the process of preparing the Proposal, students should not
undertake survey work, administer questionnaires, make enquiries, conduct
interviews, or engage in any form of primary research without completing an
ethical approval form and gaining approval to proceed from their supervisor.

• Students should not undertake any interviews, administer any questionnaires

or apply any primary research methods which are intrusive, sensitive or could
cause psychological harm or suffering to others.
• Students should not access records that are confidential without obtaining
written permission from the persons/organizations involved.

• Students should ensure that their dissertation or project investigation is

carried out in accordance with contemporary ethical standards for business
and management research.

39
School Procedures for Ethical Approval

• Students will indicate any ethical issues in their investigation and indicate on the proposal
feedback form the category of their research i.e. A or B. Where consent for primary
investigation/research is required the Proposal should include a clear explanation of
how and when it will be obtained.

• Proposals, along with the appended Ethical Approval request are then forwarded to
Supervisors for consideration.

• The investigation/research project will be cleared to proceed where proposed

dissertations or projects are clearly Category A, then the Supervisor confirms
approval by signing a copy off the Ethical Approval Form on the feedback form.

• The investigation will not be cleared to proceed where projects do not clearly meet
Category A criteria and the Supervisor will advise students of the issue(s) of concern
with regard to the ethical implications of the dissertation or project, and offer
guidance on how these can be addressed.

• Where a Proposal has been suitably modified and the proposed dissertation or project
are clearly Category A, then the Supervisor confirms approval by signing a copy of
the Ethical Approval Form as above.

• If a modified Proposal still does not meet Category A criteria and is considered to be a
Category B dissertation or project, then it cannot proceed. In such instances a
significant period of time will have elapsed and the student’s options with regard to
progression in the module will be reviewed and appropriate academic counselling
and/or further tutorial guidance offered.

• Decision on ethical approval will be confirmed to each student via the proposal feedback
form.

40
 ONLY category A projects will be approved

As business studies students it is unlikely that you will be undertaking research, which will not

be approved due to the nature of the subject. However, there may be circumstances involving

research participants who may be vulnerable; for example in times of organizational change

and it is important that your research takes this into account. Your supervisors and tutors will

give you further guidance and advice in doing ethical research.

41
 11. Plagiarism, Collusion, Referencing Correctly and Commissioning

Ethics aren’t just confined to your dealings with the ‘outside’ world and participants in your
research, but must also be a key principle of your academic conduct. Please review the section
in your course handbook headed plagiarism and be sure not to plagiarise any part of your
dissertation. Any data, writing, or illustrative material you use must be suitably and fully
referenced to enable a reader to look up the source. All dissertations are put through Turn it
in, software designed to pick up plagiarism and this will be used as evidence for academic
misconduct so please ensure that all direct quotes are referenced properly using the Harvard
Reference System.

It follows that commissioning any part of the dissertation, partly or wholly is also
unacceptable. Students who are suspected of commissioning their dissertations will be
required to confirm that it is their own work by providing evidence of background reading,
notes, original data and other suitable evidence. If this is not available then there may be
sufficient evidence to conclude that academic misconduct has taken place. It may be that
students are aware of others commissioning work, in which case this should be reported to
the appropriate academic staff with evidence.

Any case of plagiarism or commissioning will be dealt with severely. If your dissertation is
deemed plagiarised or commissioned, you’re gambling with more than a course. A plagiarized
dissertation will mean that you have failed your course and in order to retrieve it you will be
required to pay for and retake, the mark for the retake will be capped at a pass level and you
will risk a gaining a positive reference from college staff.

Remember that copying, plagiarism and commissioning someone else to do your work is
cheating. You would expect severe penalties for cheating in the exam hall and must expect
the same costs and disgrace if you cheat on your dissertation. There are cases of plagiarism
and commissioning dissertations being discovered after a degree has been awarded, and the
degree withdrawn.

42
 12. Re sits and Retakes

The numbers of people having to re sit or retake the dissertation is very small, over recent
years it has been 5% which has mainly been to lack of engagement with the process and/or
cases of academic misconduct

If you fail the dissertation after submitting the work for the first time on the due date, you
are able to re sit the work. This normally means improving the work in conjunction with the
advice of the supervisor but because it is a re-sit, the mark is capped at 50%. This is the
maximum mark, which can be awarded however much the dissertation has been improved.

A student may need to retake the module again if there evidence of academic misconduct,
this is likely to be identified through the Business Schools use of Turn it in, a software package
by which all dissertations are scrutinized. In this case the whole module including both the
assessments have to be taken again, the student is charged fee for the module and again the
work is capped at 50% pass. A new topic would need to be chosen and different supervisor
also has to be allocated in the case of a retake module.

43
 Conclusion

This rough guide has been produced to give you basic information about your dissertation
within one document. There is significantly more material, links and advice on the PARTAL
page for the module and in addition, your module tutors, module leader and supervisor will
also be able to advise you. Don’t hesitate to ask for help or advice and good luck with your
dissertation…. wherever and however you are studying with us.

44