What to Expect at Dissertation Central

The nature and extent of content in faculty-wide teaching and resources for participant-based undergraduate dissertations.

Dissertations and their supervision may rightly be very individual. In higher education, whenever standardization as a marker for quality conflicts with fitness for purpose, the latter should ideally prevail. The value of striking a balance between freedom and structure in independent study is noted by Hughes (2001). 

Nonetheless, there is merit in looking at what can be provided centrally from the start. Offering dedicated sessions and materials benefits students and supervisors alike, particularly in human studies, where primary research involving people as respondents is required for dissertations.

Achieving Topic Focus

While topic selection is ultimately shaped by student dialogue with a supervisor, central guidance still puts forward three useful criteria to aid in the process, namely:

The topic is specific

The topic is interesting to the student

There is relevant and feasible primary research in the area

However, many areas of student interest can be very broad. One activity that can help with meeting these criteria is called double-chopping. This involves taking a broad theme and cutting it down once by aspect and then further by context or setting. 

Here are some examples of this practice in action:

The broad topic of Motivation can be cut to an aspect (promotion and advancement) and then to a setting (the hospitality sector). 

The broad topic of Behavior/Classroom Management can be cut to a specific aspect method (flipped learning activities) and then to a context or setting (high school geography). 

Double-chopping increases the chances of presenting a topic viewed as workable by the supervisor. It also readily lends to the creation of a specific research question or objectives that can guide the entire study.

This is key because clarifying the feasibility of primary research near the outset of the dissertation is crucial for work efficiency. Undertaking sizable methodology work based on primary research that later turns out to be unfeasible means significant work must be unraveled or shelved. 

Likewise, appreciation of what work remains in a limited time will increase anxiety. The time frame aspect of problems regarding primary research feasibility in social studies dissertations is noted by Todd, Bannister, and Clegg (2004).

Literature Review

Format and analysis interweave during literature reviews. Students should avoid literature surveys that simply list individual works and instead critically discuss points relevant to dissertations.

Exploring points from across literature – be it theory, empirical research, or relevant opinion – should be encouraged but undertaken within thematic subsections. In other words, the themes pursued should align with study objectives and the primary research undertaken. 

In this way, a literature review can help ensure a coherent dissertation structure.

Methodology

Methodology depictions in many well-known texts deploy the “research onion” – several layered methodology categories ranging from conceptual to practical (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill, 2023). 

Centralized guidance for dissertations, then, should specify which of these matters for the faculty’s dissertations. Crucially, we suggest that the guidance should clarify these decisions with justifications for how and why they are fitting for the topic and objectives.

Other significant elements of methodology include consistency between conceptual and applied decisions, as well as coverage of limitations. The last aspect is plausible for undergraduate dissertations, especially when learning outcomes specify an appreciation of limitations.

Explicit Areas of Flexibility

The balance between literature and methodology in dissertations varies, a fact that further emphasizes the importance of fitness for purpose. 

For instance, a literature review that strongly covers methods in existing work, linking to the dissertation’s own approach, could readily precede the methodology. In this case, a methodology that lays out how existing literature is analyzed would then more readily precede the literature review.

Proportions rightly vary, too. A dissertation topic on which there is much existing writing– may warrant a larger literature review than a methodology section. 

Conversely, a topic on which there is limited writing but where the dissertation’s methods are a departure (and therefore require meticulous justification) may warrant a larger methodology section than a literature review.

Presentation & Analysis of Findings

When presenting their findings, students must decide between separation and fusion. While separation may be viewed as ideal and consistent with published research, the risk is that an analysis undertaken after a descriptive presentation can go directly into the overview. 

It is vital that findings analysis contains specific points based on particular pieces of primary evidence. It is also important that the findings presentation is thematic and combines aspects from the primary research with connections to literature and existing secondary evidence. 

Regardless, an essential point here is that the student, in consultation with the supervisor, decides on an approach that they are comfortable with and clearly capable of carrying out.

The dissertation’s centralized delivery and resources should assert these flexibility aspects to manage student expectations and show that final-year undergraduate assessment guidance cannot be totally prescriptive or uniform. 

These aspects also highlight that contextualized dialogue, initiative, and even staff-student co-creation have a key role.

Ethics

For participant-based dissertation research, the standard ethical assurances of anonymity, confidentiality, and restricted use of data should be covered with students in session. They should also be presented through faculty or institutional policy documentation, including a template application form for internal ethics approval. 

These aspects are not only crucial in principle but also vital in practice to ensure full respondent participation on many topics.

Dissertation Module Handbook

Dissertation modules do warrant their own dedicated handbook. Though placed last here, it is perhaps the first resource to prepare. 

An important aspect to include would be the dissertation module descriptor(s) including learning outcomes as approved. Any presentational housekeeping – like stipulations on contents pages, abstracts, acknowledgments, and appendices – can also be specified in this document. Further reiteration of ethical aspects is advised here to add to their official importance.

Key Takeaways: Dissertation Central Guidance

Overall, we advise that the points above be delivered faculty-wide at the start of the academic year over two interactive sessions, with space for Q&A both in-class and individually afterward. 

The session resources, such as PowerPoint slides and handouts, should go with the handbook and ethics form template on the central module page.

While the specifics above may not be ideal at all institutions, we advise that faculties reach some central informative positions on these themes, with consultation across supervisors as a key part of the process.

Russ Woodward has degrees in economics from the UK Universities of Cambridge and Exeter. Since 2002, he has taught on the business degrees at University Centre, Grimsby: The TEC Partnership, UK. He has written a number of papers on teaching business and higher education generally for UK, USA, and Australian periodicals.

Ian Rodwell has a bachelor’s degree in public sector management from Sheffield Hallam University, UK, and a masters in sociology and sports management from Leicester University, UK. He has taught across the business and tourism management degrees at University Centre Grimsby, The TEC Partnership, UK for over 20 years.

References

Hughes, Peter. “Developing independent learning skills.” Implementing Skills Development in HE: Reviewing the Territory, University of Hertfordshire (2001): 11-12.

Saunders, Mark, Philip Lewis, and Adrian Thornhill. Research Methods for Business Students. 9th Edition. Pearson Education, 2023.Todd, Malcolm, Phil Bannister, and Sue Clegg. “Independent inquiry and the undergraduate dissertation: perceptions and experiences of final‐year social science students.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 29, no. 3 (2004): 335-355.