Correcting Deficiencies in Dissertation

The assignment content highlights several deficiencies and inadequacies, primarily related to the Literature Review, Conclusions, and Presentation sections. The key issues include: inadequate referencing, lack of critical analysis, over-reliance on a single reference, and poor presentation. Specifically, it was noted that references in the Reference List but not in the body of the text were invalid, while some references were missing from the text altogether. Additionally, there was an over-emphasis on Jiang (2013) and underdevelopment of findings. The Conclusions section also lacked evidence-based personal comments and reflections, as well as limitations and recommendations for further research.

Management of Projects Group of Programmes
Feedback to guide Dissertation Resubmission
Version 4: 29/11/2017
Note to students
 This form sets out the feedback and comments on the deficiencies and inadequacies that are to be remedied. You must read these very carefully,
and use them to guide the preparation of your resubmission.
 When you have prepared your resubmission you must fill in the sections headed ‘student to complete’.You must list the remedial work you have
done and explain how you have addressed the deficiencies and inadequacies set out. You must add the completed form to the back of the resubmitted
dissertation. Failure to do so will be taken into consideration when your work is marked.
 You should refer to the Dissertation Handbook for a full description of the criteria for each element.
 The aim of a resubmission is to correct and remedy the deficiencies and inadequacies in the original dissertation, and therefore the original project which
was the basis for your dissertation, its aim and the original title must not be changed.
Element Criteria
Extract from ‘Dissertation Marking Scheme Guidance notes’
Supervisor to complete:
Feedback and comments on deficiencies and inadequacies to be remedied
Introduction:
Aims and
Objectives
All dissertations should have an abstract and an
introductory chapter.
 The abstract should provide an overview of the
whole dissertation.
The introduction should provide:
 an overview of the project topic area, and its
context and background, together with a brief
summary of the key concepts and definitions,
supported by referenced material;
The Introduction does not meet all the requirements
The Introduction starts off strongly but the quality of the further sections does not match this - several of
the sections should be significantly improved by taking note of the expectations set out in the
Dissertation Handbook
The abstractmentions many of the elements required but does not say anything about them. It is more
of a guide to the dissertation than an abstract. Include a general overview of the main elements within
the dissertation, a summary of the conclusions and recommendations for future work
In what you have written about the project topic area - as in many other places - the material is rather
repetitious and similar points made more than once – re-read everything and try to edit out this
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 7

 a clear aim and linked objectives and, if
appropriate, the research questions or hypotheses
to be tested;
 a statement on the significance of the project topic
area and its potential beneficiaries;
 a description of the scope and limitations;
 an explanation of the structure and content of the
dissertation.
repetition
The Aim and Objectives are clearly interrelated - but the objectives overlap each other – re-write them
as independent goals in more distinct detail – this will help in setting out the steps needed to address
the aim.
The Aim includes some discussion of the Methodology – this is not appropriate, so remove it (put it in
the Methodology Chapter if necessary)
The Scope is stated very briefly. It is not clear if the focus is solely on Financial organisations - as
indicated in the Abstract – make it clear. State the limitations of the work.
The Dissertation guide is inadequate. It states the headings of the chapters (in the wrong order) but
little else – see the Dissertation Guide for clarification on what should be included and re-write
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 7

Student to complete:
List the remedial work done and explain what you have done to remedy the deficiencies and inadequacies set out in the feedback.
 The abstract was modified and present the clear concept of the entire study
 In the introduction chapter, the research rationale and the problem statement provide the clear knowledge of the research issue
 Research objectives and questions are appropriately structured for highlighting the major issues in this research
Element Criteria
Extract from ‘Dissertation Marking Scheme Guidance notes’
Supervisor to complete:
Feedback and comments on deficiencies and inadequacies to be remedied
Methodology The Methodology should provide:
 a justification for the method, or methods, of data
acquisition, investigation and analysis used in the
preparation of the dissertation; these should be
related to the nature of the project topic area, and to
the research aim and objectives.
 a description and explanation of the methodology
The Methodology section is long. It is extremely repetitious in the first part - and fails to address
many of the required elements. It needs to be edited, taking the following into account.
You write at some length to describe the various categories of research that could be carried out -
and indicate the method selected without ever being convincing in what was done here. This detail of
the alternative methods is not necessary – but you don’t have to reduce it
However, the detail of the methodology actually selected is inadequate and should be
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 7

which should be detailed enough to enable another
individual to replicate the study and achieve the
same results.
strengthened
There are parts which may have been copied - without acknowledgement - judging from the
phraseology - eg p31 references to "the dealer, retailer and the distributor" or p33 reference to "the
school libraries" and reference to an unknown acronym (LIS). Be very careful to avoid plagiarism.
Make sure you know what this means and review the whole dissertation to eliminate it
The references are a problem – many of the sources are from the medical discipline, and their use
here is questionable. There is a lack of adequate referencing, with many unsubstantiated
statements. In parts there is too much reliance on one or two sources. You need to resolve these
problems – see also the next section, which discusses a more serious problem with the references
There is an entirely spurious section - almost two pages - on ethical considerations - which bears
little relationship to this work – it is not required and could be deleted
The sources of material are discussed only briefly and without significant regard to their potential
validity – you need to explain more about the type of material you are using – and justify it
There is no information whatsoever on the search strategy or search terms – you need to include this
Student to complete:
List the remedial work done and explain what you have done to remedy the deficiencies and inadequacies set out in the feedback.
 The methodology section achieved the requirements and it includes the structure as recommended.
 Each of the topic is covered for developing a secondary research process
 The references used in the methodology section are authentic and sourced from the previous scholars’ works.
Element Criteria
Extract from ‘Dissertation Marking Scheme Guidance notes’
Supervisor to complete:
Feedback and comments on deficiencies and inadequacies to be remedied
Literature
Review, Main
The main content of the dissertation should be based on
either a literature review only, or on a literature review
and a description, discussion and analysis of empirical
The Literature Review includes some interesting work but is not set out clearly and logically enough
in order to achieve the goals. It seems to include much relevant material - although see comment on
references below. However, it is - like the Methodology - not well organised and somewhat
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 7

Content
and Critical
Analysis
work undertaken. In both cases the appropriate ‘Ethics
Approval’ must be included.
The Literature Review should focus on achieving the
research aim and objectives, and should include:
 a critical analysis of the literature and a discussion of
its strengths, weaknesses and any controversial
issues or other points that it raises;
 an analytical review of, synthesis of and insight into,
the current state of knowledge and research in a
specific area.
If the dissertation is literature-review only then the review
should be divided into several chapters, each of which
focuses on an objective or limited number of related
objectives. If the dissertation includes empirical research
then the review can be presented in a single chapter.
Any empirical research must be described, discussed
and analysed in detail to explain how it relates to the aim
and objectives.
repetitious. There is little evidence that you have analysed the works (apparently) referred to so you
can build on the findings – you need to summarise the analysis and relate it to the argument you are
developing
The written style is repetitious and rambling, with significant padding, which leads to a lack of clarity,
and the absence of a clear coherent theme or themes being developed. Try to write only what is
necessary to convey your findings. The sources quoted are not discussed at the correct level of detail
to enable an adequate level of comparison and analysis.
References – this is most important
The use of references in this work is very strange and it must be put right. There are many
references which appear in the text but not in the Reference List - and vice versa
1. References in text but not in the Reference List: starting on page 36 - the references given up
until the end of the first paragraph on p49 were checked. Of the 43 references given (a couple of
duplicates) no fewer than 41 do not appear in the Reference List - only 2 do. As it stands, those
references are not valid and the associated work is at danger of scoring zero marks
2. References in the Reference List but not in the body of the text: 11 references in the
Reference List were checked at random. Of those, 6 do not appear in the text (they are only in
the Reference List) – only 5 are both in the text and in the Reference List
How has this happened? This is very serious and you are at risk at losing all marks if the work is
submitted without valid references that can be checked. You must sort this out – use the correct
references and build up the Reference List only with these works.
Whilst you are correcting references:
 Hofstede and Hall are indicated as being crucial to the discussion, but their work/models are
not discussed at the appropriate level of detail.
 You seems to be aware of only 5 of Hofstede's dimensions - although a 2015
reference is cited, well after the 6th was added
 Hall's Cultural Dimensions are mentioned without any attempt to explain why - and
how they relate to Hofstede
 There is over-reliance on Jiang (2013) – use other references alongside this. Relying too
much on one or two references is a problem in several places
 In some places, no references are given when they are clearly required
There is some attempt to synthesise the findings but it does not clearly establish what is found and -
in particular - apply it to the negotiations of commercial (financial?) organisations in a systematic way.
One way would be to identify the various stages in business negotiation and discuss how the cultural
findings - eg Hofstede and Hall - apply and the effect they may have
Table 1 is a reasonable attempt to compare key references but it does not go anything like far
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 7

enough it is not properly introduced, the findings are not given in adequate detail - and the
implications not effectively discussed. This could be significantly improved
There is very little attempt at critical analysis - references are largely taken at face value and with no
discussion - even of the key references listed in Table 1 (p71-2) of how papers were written, how
information was derived, applicability to the dissertation, strengths and weaknesses and so on – you
need to include critical analysis
Student to complete:
List the remedial work done and explain what you have done to remedy the deficiencies and inadequacies set out in the feedback.
 The literature review was developed by utilising appropriate theoretical concept. There is the clear linking with the subject matter.
 The proper application of the theories is also shown in regards to the subject area.
Element Criteria
Extract from ‘Dissertation Marking Scheme Guidance notes’
Supervisor to complete:
Feedback and comments on deficiencies and inadequacies to be remedied
Conclusions The Conclusions should identify the key issues set out in
the dissertation, refer back to the aim and objectives, and
state to what level they have been achieved.
Conclusions should:
 discuss how the findings are justified or contradicted
by the literature and/or the empirical data, set out in
previous chapters;
 include any evidence-based personal comments,
observations and reflections on the information
gathered and should be supported by references.
In general this is an inadequate section, and findings should be developed much further and
appropriately referenced.
The Conclusions rely too much on assertion: you make a number of claims of what has been
achieved against the objectives set out earlier - but do not give the evidence in sufficient detail and do
not develop the findings far enough to achieve the main aim
A large amount of new material is introduced in this section – there should not be any new material
in the Conclusions section. These new references should not be included here but discussed in the
previous sections.
For the material which is not new and has been presented before, there are inadequate references
to the preceding chapters - you need to include references to the sources previously discussed –
giving the section of your work where they were introduced.
The limitations of the work are not explicitly stated - only implied by the section on
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 7

The limitations of the research should be clearly stated
followed by interrelated recommendations for further
research and the implications for practice.
Recommendations
The recommendations made are mainly in the form of advice to negotiators rather than proposals
for further academic work. The final paragraph is a reasonable suggestion for further academic work
-but it is not given in enough detail
Student to complete:
List the remedial work done and explain what you have done to remedy the deficiencies and inadequacies set out in the feedback.
 The data collection process is structured by developing themes based on the variables. It was quite fruitful for segregating the research area
and explaining each of the issue.
 Each of the themes describes the research variable for this study.
 The conclusion part connects the findings from the secondary data analysis with the literature review information.
 The preferable and realistic recommendations were provided to mitigate the issues identified in the research process.
Element Criteria
Extract from ‘Dissertation Marking Scheme Guidance notes’
Supervisor to complete:
Feedback and comments on deficiencies and inadequacies to be remedied
Presentation The presentation should be assessed on the
appropriateness and quality of the following:
 structure, layout and clarity of arrangement of
content;
 use and clarity of language, grammar and spelling
 use of diagrams, tables, illustrations and appendices;
 completeness and system of referencing.
Presentation is generally adequate, without being particularly noteworthy
The structure of the work is logical - although it would have been beneficial to differentiate the
objectives more clearly and to sub-divide the Literature Review accordingly into several chapters
each of which could deal with one objective, or issue.
The standard of English in this work is somewhat variable - at places being poor and difficult to
follow - although the meaning is generally evident after some study. It is rarely precise - but some of
the better passages read well. There are a number of spelling errors and use of the first person plural
There are very few tables and figures - and some would have helped illustrate the literature and / or
the analysis
References: In addition to the comments made in the section relating to the Literature Review, there
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 7

are the following points:
 The source given for the "Research Onion" - Figure 1 - is not appropriate"
 References are generally given in the correct format - but see under "Literature Review" for
comments on the reference List.
 In a few cases, the text contains "()" as though it had been intended to add a reference later
Student to complete:
List the remedial work done and explain what you have done to remedy the deficiencies and inadequacies set out in the feedback.
 The sentence constructions and grammars are checked. The presentation of the study is also systematic and structured.
General
comments
Supervisor to complete:
Feedback and comments on deficiencies and inadequacies to be remedied relating to dissertation as a whole
Comments
Student to complete:
List the remedial work done and explain what you have done to remedy the deficiencies and inadequacies set out in the feedback.
PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 7