Comprehensive Dissertation Feedback Analysis: Int'l Business, SMEs

This document provides a detailed analysis of feedback received on a dissertation concerning international business, specifically focusing on the internationalization of SMEs. The feedback highlights significant weaknesses in the dissertation, including a vague purpose and objectives, unclear terminology, and a lack of critical engagement with relevant theories. The literature review is criticized for its incoherence and insufficient depth, while the methodology is questioned for its appropriateness and lack of justification. The primary research is deemed limited and lacking rigor, and the analysis fails to adequately utilize the frameworks outlined in the literature review. The feedback emphasizes the need for substantial improvements in academic writing, clarity, and focus, offering specific suggestions for enhancing the dissertation's quality and addressing the identified shortcomings. The analysis underscores the importance of a well-defined research question, a robust literature review, and a rigorous methodology to produce a successful dissertation.

Here is the feedback:
"Clarity of dissertation purpose and objectives within context of management of
international business:
A rather vague purpose and confusing set of objectives in which Objective 2 and 3 appear
almost identical. The terms “internationalisation” and “industrialisation” appear to be
interchangeable terms, which is an obvious and confusing oversimplification.
2nd marker The purpose and objectives of the dissertation are not clear. The dissertation
moves between internationalization of SMEs in general to some discussion of agri-business.
Critical understanding of international business and management theories relevant to
the specific topic:
The literature review does not develop a coherent analysis relating to the central aim of the
research which is to evaluate the range of potential exporting barriers to successful
internationalisation of SMEs in developing and emerging economies. There are frequent
occasions where the meaning of the sentence is obscure and confusing; the author needs to
review the standard of academic writing and apply the grammar check facility more
frequently. To improve the literature review, the author requires wider and deeper
engagement with the international management literature to explore the exporting barriers
whilst also exploring how developing and emerging countries, similar to Nigeria, have
succeeded in developing fulfilling export strategies in terms of best practice. Nigeria should
not be considered in the literature review, other than to demonstrate the poor performance of
Nigeria argro -businesses compared to similar countries (the literature review currently
resembles a case study of Nigeria which adds to the confusion). There should be a stronger
analysis of the role of government both in supporting local SMEs plus developing possible
export markets through trade agreement and other functions. (In this case, the research
objectives should be re-focused accordingly)
2nd marker: Lack of criticality of relevant international business and
management theories. Very confused. Misunderstandings "benefits for
internationalization is free trade" Identifies some barriers but not clear how
they specifically relate to the sector "training staff"? Discussion too broad as
SMEs in general not how it relates to the industry.
Ability to select, justify and apply relevant methodology and research methods, and an
understanding of the limitations:
While the methodology includes a rage of relevant topic areas, it does not sufficiently locate /
justify the focal research. There are some confusing issues and random sampling is not the
most appropriate method of selecting the sample for this type of study. There is no discussion
surrounding the development, design and administration of the questionnaire which is also a
notable limitation. Not sure what is meant by “descriptive design” entails.
2nd marker: Primary research has been carried out. In the methodology it
briefly mentions that the participants will be from agricultural production
companies that have already internationalized will be used. There is mention
that random sampling will be used so that different class of people business,
professional services will be included and this will have educational impact.
To locate sufficient data relevant to the aims/ objectives:

The primary research lacks depth and rigour and requires further development. It doesn’t
focus sufficiently on the key issue of export barriers and presenting the data in table format is
also misleading as it very much generalises the data.
2nd marker: Limited primary research. Secondary research is broad and lacks
specific data relevant to agricultural SMEs and Internationalization
Systematic analysis and evaluation, relevant to the aims / objectives:
Very limited in this regard, a fuller analysis is required with deeper critical perspective of the
key concepts cited in the literature review.
2nd marker: There is lack of depth to the analysis. The analysis makes rather
limited use of the frameworks outlined in the literature review. New issues
brought into the conclusion such as "culture" "location advantage" that are
not discussed elsewhere
Structure, coherence, clarity, and a high standard of academic writing, with accurate
referencing:
The coherence and clarity of the work is poor. Confusion over terminology used-
internationalization and internationalisation. Very poor academic writing. Reference list is
not APA
What you can do to improve your performance in your future work:
The dissertation requires fundamental improvement. See above comments for improvement
You need to work on your academic English. Keep a clear focus on what you
are researching.
Assessor 1: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Assessor 2: xxxxxxxxxxxx Date : 22/3/2019
Agreed Mark: 40%