dissertation second marker

Academic Manual

• 4. Marking & Moderation

Section 4: Marking & Moderation

Published for 2023-24

4.1 Overarching Principles

4.2 responsibilities, 4.3 markers, 4.4 anonymity, 4.5 marking criteria, 4.6 second marking, 4.6.1 minimum requirements, 4.6.2 parity meetings, 4.6.3 sampling, 4.6.4 reconciliation of marks, 4.6.5 third markers, 4.6.6 documentation of marking, 4.7 internal moderation, advice for students.

Further information and advice for students about assessment is available on the  Examinations & Awards webpages .

Recent Changes

A guide to changes to the regulations are available from the  Recent Changes  page.

Dissertation Structure & Layout 101: How to structure your dissertation, thesis or research project.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) Reviewed By: David Phair (PhD) | July 2019

So, you’ve got a decent understanding of what a dissertation is , you’ve chosen your topic and hopefully you’ve received approval for your research proposal . Awesome! Now its time to start the actual dissertation or thesis writing journey.

To craft a high-quality document, the very first thing you need to understand is dissertation structure . In this post, we’ll walk you through the generic dissertation structure and layout, step by step. We’ll start with the big picture, and then zoom into each chapter to briefly discuss the core contents. If you’re just starting out on your research journey, you should start with this post, which covers the big-picture process of how to write a dissertation or thesis .

*The Caveat *

In this post, we’ll be discussing a traditional dissertation/thesis structure and layout, which is generally used for social science research across universities, whether in the US, UK, Europe or Australia. However, some universities may have small variations on this structure (extra chapters, merged chapters, slightly different ordering, etc).

So, always check with your university if they have a prescribed structure or layout that they expect you to work with. If not, it’s safe to assume the structure we’ll discuss here is suitable. And even if they do have a prescribed structure, you’ll still get value from this post as we’ll explain the core contents of each section.  

Overview: S tructuring a dissertation or thesis

• Acknowledgements page
• Abstract (or executive summary)
• Table of contents , list of figures and tables
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Literature review
• Chapter 3: Methodology
• Chapter 4: Results
• Chapter 5: Discussion
• Chapter 6: Conclusion
• Reference list

As I mentioned, some universities will have slight variations on this structure. For example, they want an additional “personal reflection chapter”, or they might prefer the results and discussion chapter to be merged into one. Regardless, the overarching flow will always be the same, as this flow reflects the research process , which we discussed here – i.e.:

• The introduction chapter presents the core research question and aims .
• The literature review chapter assesses what the current research says about this question.
• The methodology, results and discussion chapters go about undertaking new research about this question.
• The conclusion chapter (attempts to) answer the core research question .

In other words, the dissertation structure and layout reflect the research process of asking a well-defined question(s), investigating, and then answering the question – see below.

To restate that – the structure and layout of a dissertation reflect the flow of the overall research process . This is essential to understand, as each chapter will make a lot more sense if you “get” this concept. If you’re not familiar with the research process, read this post before going further.

Right. Now that we’ve covered the big picture, let’s dive a little deeper into the details of each section and chapter. Oh and by the way, you can also grab our free dissertation/thesis template here to help speed things up.

The title page of your dissertation is the very first impression the marker will get of your work, so it pays to invest some time thinking about your title. But what makes for a good title? A strong title needs to be 3 things:

• Succinct (not overly lengthy or verbose)
• Specific (not vague or ambiguous)
• Representative of the research you’re undertaking (clearly linked to your research questions)

Typically, a good title includes mention of the following:

• The broader area of the research (i.e. the overarching topic)
• The specific focus of your research (i.e. your specific context)
• Indication of research design (e.g. quantitative , qualitative , or  mixed methods ).

For example:

A quantitative investigation [research design] into the antecedents of organisational trust [broader area] in the UK retail forex trading market [specific context/area of focus].

Again, some universities may have specific requirements regarding the format and structure of the title, so it’s worth double-checking expectations with your institution (if there’s no mention in the brief or study material).

Acknowledgements

This page provides you with an opportunity to say thank you to those who helped you along your research journey. Generally, it’s optional (and won’t count towards your marks), but it is academic best practice to include this.

So, who do you say thanks to? Well, there’s no prescribed requirements, but it’s common to mention the following people:

• Your dissertation supervisor or committee.
• Any professors, lecturers or academics that helped you understand the topic or methodologies.
• Any tutors, mentors or advisors.
• Your family and friends, especially spouse (for adult learners studying part-time).

There’s no need for lengthy rambling. Just state who you’re thankful to and for what (e.g. thank you to my supervisor, John Doe, for his endless patience and attentiveness) – be sincere. In terms of length, you should keep this to a page or less.

Abstract or executive summary

The dissertation abstract (or executive summary for some degrees) serves to provide the first-time reader (and marker or moderator) with a big-picture view of your research project. It should give them an understanding of the key insights and findings from the research, without them needing to read the rest of the report – in other words, it should be able to stand alone .

For it to stand alone, your abstract should cover the following key points (at a minimum):

• Your research questions and aims – what key question(s) did your research aim to answer?
• Your methodology – how did you go about investigating the topic and finding answers to your research question(s)?
• Your findings – following your own research, what did do you discover?
• Your conclusions – based on your findings, what conclusions did you draw? What answers did you find to your research question(s)?

So, in much the same way the dissertation structure mimics the research process, your abstract or executive summary should reflect the research process, from the initial stage of asking the original question to the final stage of answering that question.

In practical terms, it’s a good idea to write this section up last , once all your core chapters are complete. Otherwise, you’ll end up writing and rewriting this section multiple times (just wasting time). For a step by step guide on how to write a strong executive summary, check out this post .

Need a helping hand?

Table of contents

This section is straightforward. You’ll typically present your table of contents (TOC) first, followed by the two lists – figures and tables. I recommend that you use Microsoft Word’s automatic table of contents generator to generate your TOC. If you’re not familiar with this functionality, the video below explains it simply:

If you find that your table of contents is overly lengthy, consider removing one level of depth. Oftentimes, this can be done without detracting from the usefulness of the TOC.

Right, now that the “admin” sections are out of the way, its time to move on to your core chapters. These chapters are the heart of your dissertation and are where you’ll earn the marks. The first chapter is the introduction chapter – as you would expect, this is the time to introduce your research…

It’s important to understand that even though you’ve provided an overview of your research in your abstract, your introduction needs to be written as if the reader has not read that (remember, the abstract is essentially a standalone document). So, your introduction chapter needs to start from the very beginning, and should address the following questions:

• What will you be investigating (in plain-language, big picture-level)?
• Why is that worth investigating? How is it important to academia or business? How is it sufficiently original?
• What are your research aims and research question(s)? Note that the research questions can sometimes be presented at the end of the literature review (next chapter).
• What is the scope of your study? In other words, what will and won’t you cover ?
• How will you approach your research? In other words, what methodology will you adopt?
• How will you structure your dissertation? What are the core chapters and what will you do in each of them?

These are just the bare basic requirements for your intro chapter. Some universities will want additional bells and whistles in the intro chapter, so be sure to carefully read your brief or consult your research supervisor.

If done right, your introduction chapter will set a clear direction for the rest of your dissertation. Specifically, it will make it clear to the reader (and marker) exactly what you’ll be investigating, why that’s important, and how you’ll be going about the investigation. Conversely, if your introduction chapter leaves a first-time reader wondering what exactly you’ll be researching, you’ve still got some work to do.

Now that you’ve set a clear direction with your introduction chapter, the next step is the literature review . In this section, you will analyse the existing research (typically academic journal articles and high-quality industry publications), with a view to understanding the following questions:

• What does the literature currently say about the topic you’re investigating?
• Is the literature lacking or well established? Is it divided or in disagreement?
• How does your research fit into the bigger picture?
• How does your research contribute something original?
• How does the methodology of previous studies help you develop your own?

Depending on the nature of your study, you may also present a conceptual framework towards the end of your literature review, which you will then test in your actual research.

Again, some universities will want you to focus on some of these areas more than others, some will have additional or fewer requirements, and so on. Therefore, as always, its important to review your brief and/or discuss with your supervisor, so that you know exactly what’s expected of your literature review chapter.

Now that you’ve investigated the current state of knowledge in your literature review chapter and are familiar with the existing key theories, models and frameworks, its time to design your own research. Enter the methodology chapter – the most “science-ey” of the chapters…

In this chapter, you need to address two critical questions:

• Exactly HOW will you carry out your research (i.e. what is your intended research design)?
• Exactly WHY have you chosen to do things this way (i.e. how do you justify your design)?

Remember, the dissertation part of your degree is first and foremost about developing and demonstrating research skills . Therefore, the markers want to see that you know which methods to use, can clearly articulate why you’ve chosen then, and know how to deploy them effectively.

Importantly, this chapter requires detail – don’t hold back on the specifics. State exactly what you’ll be doing, with who, when, for how long, etc. Moreover, for every design choice you make, make sure you justify it.

In practice, you will likely end up coming back to this chapter once you’ve undertaken all your data collection and analysis, and revise it based on changes you made during the analysis phase. This is perfectly fine. Its natural for you to add an additional analysis technique, scrap an old one, etc based on where your data lead you. Of course, I’m talking about small changes here – not a fundamental switch from qualitative to quantitative, which will likely send your supervisor in a spin!

You’ve now collected your data and undertaken your analysis, whether qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. In this chapter, you’ll present the raw results of your analysis . For example, in the case of a quant study, you’ll present the demographic data, descriptive statistics, inferential statistics , etc.

Typically, Chapter 4 is simply a presentation and description of the data, not a discussion of the meaning of the data. In other words, it’s descriptive, rather than analytical – the meaning is discussed in Chapter 5. However, some universities will want you to combine chapters 4 and 5, so that you both present and interpret the meaning of the data at the same time. Check with your institution what their preference is.

Now that you’ve presented the data analysis results, its time to interpret and analyse them. In other words, its time to discuss what they mean, especially in relation to your research question(s).

What you discuss here will depend largely on your chosen methodology. For example, if you’ve gone the quantitative route, you might discuss the relationships between variables . If you’ve gone the qualitative route, you might discuss key themes and the meanings thereof. It all depends on what your research design choices were.

Most importantly, you need to discuss your results in relation to your research questions and aims, as well as the existing literature. What do the results tell you about your research questions? Are they aligned with the existing research or at odds? If so, why might this be? Dig deep into your findings and explain what the findings suggest, in plain English.

The final chapter – you’ve made it! Now that you’ve discussed your interpretation of the results, its time to bring it back to the beginning with the conclusion chapter . In other words, its time to (attempt to) answer your original research question s (from way back in chapter 1). Clearly state what your conclusions are in terms of your research questions. This might feel a bit repetitive, as you would have touched on this in the previous chapter, but its important to bring the discussion full circle and explicitly state your answer(s) to the research question(s).

Next, you’ll typically discuss the implications of your findings? In other words, you’ve answered your research questions – but what does this mean for the real world (or even for academia)? What should now be done differently, given the new insight you’ve generated?

Lastly, you should discuss the limitations of your research, as well as what this means for future research in the area. No study is perfect, especially not a Masters-level. Discuss the shortcomings of your research. Perhaps your methodology was limited, perhaps your sample size was small or not representative, etc, etc. Don’t be afraid to critique your work – the markers want to see that you can identify the limitations of your work. This is a strength, not a weakness. Be brutal!

This marks the end of your core chapters – woohoo! From here on out, it’s pretty smooth sailing.

The reference list is straightforward. It should contain a list of all resources cited in your dissertation, in the required format, e.g. APA , Harvard, etc.

It’s essential that you use reference management software for your dissertation. Do NOT try handle your referencing manually – its far too error prone. On a reference list of multiple pages, you’re going to make mistake. To this end, I suggest considering either Mendeley or Zotero. Both are free and provide a very straightforward interface to ensure that your referencing is 100% on point. I’ve included a simple how-to video for the Mendeley software (my personal favourite) below:

Some universities may ask you to include a bibliography, as opposed to a reference list. These two things are not the same . A bibliography is similar to a reference list, except that it also includes resources which informed your thinking but were not directly cited in your dissertation. So, double-check your brief and make sure you use the right one.

The very last piece of the puzzle is the appendix or set of appendices. This is where you’ll include any supporting data and evidence. Importantly, supporting is the keyword here.

Your appendices should provide additional “nice to know”, depth-adding information, which is not critical to the core analysis. Appendices should not be used as a way to cut down word count (see this post which covers how to reduce word count ). In other words, don’t place content that is critical to the core analysis here, just to save word count. You will not earn marks on any content in the appendices, so don’t try to play the system!

Time to recap…

And there you have it – the traditional dissertation structure and layout, from A-Z. To recap, the core structure for a dissertation or thesis is (typically) as follows:

• Acknowledgments page

Most importantly, the core chapters should reflect the research process (asking, investigating and answering your research question). Moreover, the research question(s) should form the golden thread throughout your dissertation structure. Everything should revolve around the research questions, and as you’ve seen, they should form both the start point (i.e. introduction chapter) and the endpoint (i.e. conclusion chapter).

I hope this post has provided you with clarity about the traditional dissertation/thesis structure and layout. If you have any questions or comments, please leave a comment below, or feel free to get in touch with us. Also, be sure to check out the rest of the  Grad Coach Blog .

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

36 Comments

many thanks i found it very useful

Glad to hear that, Arun. Good luck writing your dissertation.

Such clear practical logical advice. I very much needed to read this to keep me focused in stead of fretting.. Perfect now ready to start my research!

what about scientific fields like computer or engineering thesis what is the difference in the structure? thank you very much

Thanks so much this helped me a lot!

Very helpful and accessible. What I like most is how practical the advice is along with helpful tools/ links.

Thanks Ade!

Thank you so much sir.. It was really helpful..

You’re welcome!

Hi! How many words maximum should contain the abstract?

Thank you so much 😊 Find this at the right moment

You’re most welcome. Good luck with your dissertation.

best ever benefit i got on right time thank you

Many times Clarity and vision of destination of dissertation is what makes the difference between good ,average and great researchers the same way a great automobile driver is fast with clarity of address and Clear weather conditions .

I guess Great researcher = great ideas + knowledge + great and fast data collection and modeling + great writing + high clarity on all these

You have given immense clarity from start to end.

Morning. Where will I write the definitions of what I’m referring to in my report?

Thank you so much Derek, I was almost lost! Thanks a tonnnn! Have a great day!

Thanks ! so concise and valuable

This was very helpful. Clear and concise. I know exactly what to do now.

Thank you for allowing me to go through briefly. I hope to find time to continue.

Really useful to me. Thanks a thousand times

Very interesting! It will definitely set me and many more for success. highly recommended.

Thank you soo much sir, for the opportunity to express my skills

Usefull, thanks a lot. Really clear

Very nice and easy to understand. Thank you .

That was incredibly useful. Thanks Grad Coach Crew!

My stress level just dropped at least 15 points after watching this. Just starting my thesis for my grad program and I feel a lot more capable now! Thanks for such a clear and helpful video, Emma and the GradCoach team!

Do we need to mention the number of words the dissertation contains in the main document?

It depends on your university’s requirements, so it would be best to check with them 🙂

Such a helpful post to help me get started with structuring my masters dissertation, thank you!

Great video; I appreciate that helpful information

It is so necessary or avital course

This blog is very informative for my research. Thank you

Doctoral students are required to fill out the National Research Council’s Survey of Earned Doctorates

wow this is an amazing gain in my life

This is so good

How can i arrange my specific objectives in my dissertation?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• What Is A Literature Review (In A Dissertation Or Thesis) - Grad Coach - […] is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Subscriber Services
• For Authors
• Publications
• Archaeology
• Art & Architecture
• Bilingual dictionaries
• Classical studies
• Encyclopedias
• English Dictionaries and Thesauri
• Language reference
• Linguistics
• Media studies
• Medicine and health
• Names studies
• Performing arts
• Science and technology
• Social sciences
• Society and culture
• Overview Pages
• Subject Reference
• English Dictionaries
• Bilingual Dictionaries

Recently viewed (0)

• Save Search
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Related Content

Related overviews.

dissertation

More Like This

Show all results sharing these subjects:

second marking

Quick reference.

The assessment of a piece of student work by two teachers in order to ensure that the mark or grade awarded is accurate and reliable. It is a process which is most valuable when the assessment method is vulnerable to some degree of subjectivity on the part of the marker; for example, in the assessment of essay‐style answers or longer pieces of student work such as written assignments and dissertations. The second marking may be carried out as ‘blind’ marking, which means that neither teacher sees the comments or assessment decision of the other prior to arriving at their own decision. Alternatively, the second marker may have access to the first marker's comments and the grade or mark awarded. Second marking, or double marking, is an important feature of assessment in courses where the student outcome depends wholly or heavily on continuous assessment. See also moderation.

From:   second marking   in  A Dictionary of Education »

Subjects: Social sciences — Education

Related content in Oxford Reference

Reference entries.

View all related items in Oxford Reference »

Search for: 'second marking' in Oxford Reference »

• Oxford University Press

PRINTED FROM OXFORD REFERENCE (www.oxfordreference.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2023. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single entry from a reference work in OR for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice ).

date: 24 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|45.133.227.243]
• 45.133.227.243

Character limit 500 /500

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

How to survive marking dissertations

About a decade ago I clearly remember a colleague and I negotiating marks for a dissertation. And he browbeat me into awarding a higher mark (and therefore degree classification) than I felt was deserved. It's stuck with me – I can even remember the student's name. I should have stuck to my guns and agreed to put it to a third marker.

The whole business of dissertation marking is a fascinating and all too human process. On the face of it, awarding marks should be a predominantly objective procedure. There are assessment and grade criteria, specific headings that students know they need to deliver against – are the aims and objectives clear and tracked through? Does the literature review provide good coverage of existing sources relevant to the dissertation topic? Are the adopted methods explained, appropriate and justified? Does it read well and look 'the biz'?

So in the next few weeks colleagues – including myself – will be hit by a tidal wave of incoming final year undergraduate dissertations. Often these are worth two module credits and can disproportionately weigh in the balance when it comes to determining a final degree award. Typically dissertations are blind double marked. So that each marker judges the work independently and only then discusses with a colleague, the definitive mark to be awarded. At this point there are three outcomes – first, markers are of one mind and agree; second, they pace around like fencers, land a few good arguments and, again, reach a settlement. Third, they disagree so dramatically about the quality of the work and its mark that it must go to a third marker.

How do such divisions arise? There are various reasons: the dissertation adviser will likely have formed a working relationship with the student, and it may be difficult to disentangle things like effort from achievement. Related to this is the fact that where a second marker criticises a submission, the adviser/first marker may not only feel (partly) responsible, but can become defensive as they blur boundaries between marking student work and being drawn in to assessing their own inputs and advice. The key point here is to stick to the evidence and, in particular, to focus on major points such as good literature coverage but very limited primary research; clear articulation and delivery of aims and objectives.

Then there is 'power play'. In my experience the vast majority of cases of mark negotiation are cordial, professional and straightforward. But occasionally you find yourself discussing with a colleague who is determined to 'have their way'. Equally – with substantial numbers of dissertations to assess - you may find yourself uncomfortably at the edge of your known world in terms of expertise. This in turn may lead to overly lenient or punitive marking.

So what to do?

Try to start marking as soon as the dissertations are distributed for marking and – just like student dissertation writers – do a little and often. Personally – whether as a marker or external examiner – I can't cope with more than about four dissertations a day. Beyond which it's hard to know which way is up.

Over about 18 years I have learned that it takes me about 1.5 hours to read a dissertation and write up a report on it. I (and colleagues) use a template with headings such as 'abstract', 'literature review', 'methodology', 'findings and discussion', 'conclusions' (and recommendations where relevant), quality of bibliography and appendices and so on. This helps to ensure that negotiations review the same aspects and sections.

Try to hone in on key points – see the wood for the trees; don't get fixated on every jot and tittle. Is it a good read? Is it professionally turned out? Does it do what it says on the tin – title matches aims and objectives, that then inform methods, that deliver persuasive findings and lead up to reasoned conclusions, that link back to starting objectives?

Remember it's the piece of work you are marking, not the student overall; nor the fact that they worked very hard at it or are delightful. What you see is what they get.

Be clear about whether or not you are allowed to give an agreed mark to the student prior to exam board consideration. At my institution we are not allowed to do this; so we email qualitative feedback that gives a clear nod as to how the wind is blowing. Here's an extract from 2011: "Overall this is an excellent piece of research. Very well done…A beautifully and meticulously presented piece of work that demonstrated an excellent level of endeavour and research. Strengths of your work aside from the clear and methodical layout include…Areas that could be improved…" So, what was the mark? You guessed - a first class 70%+ piece of work.

Double markers should try to agree a mark otherwise it creates more work for another colleague as third marker. But if it does go to a third person, be clear about the procedure – is their decision 'final'? Do the disagreeing colleagues mutually agree a third marker? Or is it the module/course leader that does this? There also needs to be a written trail so that, for example, an external examiner can see how two staff diverged, and how the third decided on the given mark.

Colleagues may like to read my article : Shall we dance? The importance of staff-student relationships to undergraduate dissertation preparation in the journal Active Learning in Higher Education Volume 12 Issue 2, July 2011.

James Derounian is a principal lecturer in community development and local governance and National Teaching Fellow, University of Gloucestershire

• Universities
• Professional development
• Higher education

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

Department of Economics

4: dissertation and project guidelines, dissertation and project guidelines, dissertation guidelines for msc economics and msc economics and international financial economics.

The main aim of the dissertation is to encourage independent study and to provide a foundation for future original research. In terms of learning, the dissertation should provide you with a number of research skills, including the ability to:

• Define a feasible project allowing for time and resource constraints;
• Develop an adequate methodology;
• Make optimal use of library resources;
• Access data bases, understand their uses and limitations and extract relevant data;
• Work without the need for continuous supervision.

Topic selection and allocation of supervisors

Your first task is to determine your dissertation topic and possible supervisor. Topics will be suggested by module lecturers, especially on the optional modules, and by members of faculty. In the Spring Term you will have Research Methods lectures that explicitly direct you to sources of inspiration. Alternatively, you may already know the topic you wish to pursue. A word of advice: it is critical that you choose a topic that you are really interested in and not something that you think sounds good.

Information on potential supervisors will be made available in a spreadsheet, which gives you a list of all supervisors available for 2023-2024, along with their main areas of interest and their suggested dissertation topics. Alternatively, you can browse the staff personal web pages for information, or approach members of staff directly with your research ideas.

Students need to approach their potential supervisor and confirm supervision with them in writing (an email is sufficient). Note that supervisors will only be able to accept a limited number of students each. If you have a preferred supervisor in mind approach them early with a clear idea of a topic you would like to pursue to avoid disappointment.

Once you have decided on a topic you should go to the online form on the dissertation webpage. On this form, you are asked to indicate:

(i) your thesis title, and

(ii) a short (max 200 words) description of your planned research.

(iii) your dissertation supervisor (if you have reached an agreement with a supervisor).

The deadline for submitting this form is 12.00 noon on Monday 8 April 2024 (week 28).

If you have not made an agreement with a supervisor then you will be asked to sign up for one of the remaining supervisors on Tabula, and the slots will be filled on a first-come first-served basis. You will be notified of the date and time for doing this by email.

By the start of week 34 of the Summer Term, i.e. Monday 20 May 2024 (week 34) , all students will be allocated supervisors.

Changes in title must be agreed with the supervisor. A request for a change in supervisor must be made directly to the Director of Graduate Studies (Taught Degrees). Changes will only be made if both original and new supervisor agree.

Timetable for Summer Term

Students are expected to stay in the UK during the Summer Term and will be delivering their presentations in-person.

Monday 8 April 2024 (week 28) - 12.00 noon

Deadline for submission of proposed title of dissertation and prospective supervisors online form Link opens in a new window .

Monday 20 May 2024 (week 34)

MSc dissertation supervisors announced.

Wednesday 29 May 2024 (week 35)

Deadline for submitting ethical scrutiny form (if applicable).

Monday 3 June - Fri 14 June 2024 (weeks 36/37)

During this period supervisors will arrange for all supervisees to give short in-person presentations of their ideas.

Monday 24 June 2024 (week 39)

Deadline for submitting Dissertation Proposal by e-submission.

Wednesday 11 September 2024 (week 50)

Dissertation submission deadline for MSc in Economics and MSc in Economics and International Financial Economics.

Wednesday 5 March 2025 (week 23)

Dissertation submission deadline (for resit candidates).

The role of the supervisor

The role of the supervisor is:

• To advise you on the feasibility of your chosen topic and ways of refining it;
• To provide some references to the general methodology to be used;
• To provide general guidance to the literature review and analysis of the chosen topic.

Supervision will take place mainly or entirely during the summer term. This means that both you and your supervisor need to use the time efficiently. The role of the supervisor during the summer term is to help you develop your dissertation proposal and then to mark and provide feedback on your proposal. During the summer vacation the expectation is that you will be working independently, and your supervisor’s role will be to read and make some comments on a final draft of your work.

Additional support to develop research skills

In the Spring Term we run Research Methods lectures and workshops to equip you with the necessary skills required for research and help to prepare you for your dissertation. The weekly sessions will explain the dissertation process, how to select your topic, what makes a good dissertation, how to complete literature reviews and identify your data. We will continue to build on your skills in econometrics packages with a session on STATA. A Library dissertation training session will explain available resources and how to access databases. A detailed schedule for the lectures and workshops will be announced in the Spring Term.

We provide weekly surgeries in the summer term and vacation to help answer queries about your topic and deal with software and econometric problems. Full details of this facility will be circulated in week 34 of the Summer Term.

It is very important that you identify appropriate data source(s) for your dissertation if you are doing an empirical topic, and you should discuss the availability of sources with your supervisor an early stage.

Some organisations will only supply data on the condition that it would be stored on the Department's secure servers and that the Department would take legal responsibility for it. Unfortunately, the Department is unable to meet these conditions, and in this situation, you would need to use an alternative data source.

Please also be aware that the Department does not typically pay for data sets or cover other costs relating to MSc dissertation data collection (for example, surveys). Therefore, please identify data that are already available or can be acquired free of change. Our Economics Academic Support Librarian, Jackie Hanes, is happy to help you find the information you need for your research, show you how to use specific resources, or discuss any other issues you might have. Her email address is [email protected].

Ethical scrutiny

At Warwick, any research, including dissertations for Masters degrees, that involves direct contact with participants, through their physical participation in research activities (invasive and non-invasive participation, including surveys or personal data collection conducted by any means), that indirectly involves participants through their provision of data or tissue, or that involves people on behalf of others (e.g. parents on behalf of children), requires ethical scrutiny.

Note that your research does not require ethical scrutiny if it does not involve direct or indirect contact with participants. For example, most research involving previously existing datasets where individual-level information is not provided, or where individuals are not identified, or using historical records, does not require ethical scrutiny, and this is likely to include most research conducted in the Department. Research involving laboratory or field experiments, or the collection of new individual level survey data, always requires ethical scrutiny.

It is your responsibility to seek the necessary scrutiny and approval, and if in doubt, you must consult your supervisor.

If your research work requires ethical scrutiny and approval, checks are conducted within the Department in line with rules approved by the University’s Humanities and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee. Please consult with your supervisor and complete the Department’s form for ethical approval of student research Link opens in a new window .

The form should be submitted to the Postgraduate Office by Wednesday 29 May 2024 (week 35).

The dissertation proposal

There are two parts to the dissertation proposal: a presentation and a written proposal.

First, you will be required to present your proposed topic to your supervisor and fellow students in a group. This will help you focus your ideas, especially via feedback from other students and your supervisor. Please note that some supervisors will organise individual meetings for presentations. The presentations should take the following format:

• The presentation will be delivered in-person.
• You will have 10-15 minutes each, comprising your 5-10 minute presentation followed by five minutes of discussion and comment;
• The presentation should either use Powerpoint or PDF;
• You must identify the title of your proposed research, the research objective, the data and any computing/statistical tools required (for example, Stata);
• The research objective should be briefly expanded into a justification of why you want to study this question — why it is important followed by a short description of what you intend to do;
• One slide is adequate for covering related literature.

Then, based on your presentation and any feedback you receive, you have to write a detailed dissertation proposal to include a literature review and research plan. This should be a maximum length of 1,000 words excluding all appendices, footnotes, tables and the bibliography.

Please note that your supervisor will not comment on a draft of your proposal before you submit it.

The dissertation proposal will be assessed and carries a mark worth 10% of the mark for the dissertation module as a whole. The deadline is Monday 24 June 2024 (week 39) and you should submit your proposal electronically via Tabula.

Dissertation format

The dissertation is worth 90% of the total mark for the dissertation module. There is no minimum word length and concise expositions are encouraged. The dissertation should be a maximum length of 8,000 words, excluding acknowledgements, appendices, footnotes, words in graphs, tables, notes to tables and the bibliography. Note there is a limit of 15 pages for the appendices, footnotes, and tables. Abstract words, quotations and citations count towards the word limit.

We recommend that you use Microsoft Word or Scientific Word, both of which can easily insert equations. The first page of the dissertation itself should include the title, your name, date and any preface and acknowledgements. Pages and sections must be numbered. We have no particular preference for how you format your dissertation. The structure of your dissertation will be decided upon by yourself and your supervisor. We have published some top past dissertations and proposals Link opens in a new window to show you what headings/sub headings other students have used, and how the dissertation might be organised. Every dissertation will normally include:

• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Methodology
• Results/Discussion

References should be collected at the back in alphabetical order and should contain sufficient detail to allow them to be followed up if required: at a minimum you should cite author, date of publication, title of book or article, journal of publication or book publishing company.

Submitting your dissertation

Your MSc dissertation must be submitted electronically via Tabula under module code EC959. The name of the PDF file should be your student ID number. As well as the PDF of your dissertation, you should submit your “log” (output) file, noting that you will need to upload the .PDF file and the .txt output file at the same time – if you upload them separately the second file may overwrite the other. Please note that we reserve the right to ask to see further details of your data and any econometric and other programmes you have used to analyse it. So, we advise you to keep electronic copies of data and programs (including do-files if applicable) until after the Exam Board has met.

At the same time, you must also submit a completed Dissertation Submission Form Link opens in a new window . No paper copies of your dissertation are required.

Deadlines and extensions

There will be two deadlines each year for MSc dissertations. The September deadline applies to all MSc students who have passed their examinations at the first attempt and are not taking any re(sit) exams in September. The March deadline will be for those students who are doing re(sit) exams in September, and for those who may have asked for an extension due to mitigating circumstances.

Students who are doing one re(sit) exam and are able to hand in their dissertation for the September deadline will be permitted to do so, on the understanding that this is done at their own risk; the dissertation will not be considered if they have not met the criteria for the taught component of the MSc (see the section on MSc Exam Schemes Link opens in a new window ). In the case of two re(sit) exams, we strongly advise you to defer your dissertation until March of the following year. However, if you really feel you have to do your dissertation over the summer, for example, because you are going straight to a job, or for other reasons, you must discuss the situation with your supervisor, and obtain his/her agreement. Please note that we cannot give you a short deadline extension in September because you have got resit examinations. If you have failed or missed three or more exams, we require you to defer the writing of your dissertation until after the September exams, without any exceptions.

If you cannot make your September or March deadline due to medical, or other mitigating circumstances, you must fill in an extension request form, available on Tabula. If your application is approved, you will be permitted to submit your dissertation by the agreed extension date or the next biannual deadline (either March or September). You need to supply suitable medical or other evidence within one week of submitting the extension request. The evidence you provide should cover a substantial part of the dissertation period detailing why you were unable to work on the dissertation. Please note that extensions will not be granted for short-term illnesses or being in full- or part-time employment.

Assessment and feedback

To achieve at least a pass, a dissertation must demonstrate a high level of competence in both analysis and expression. This can be achieved in several ways, for instance by:

• Providing a critical survey of some area of the subject. This should be written in such a way as to take the non-specialist reader from the beginnings of the topic up to the frontiers. It should integrate and synthesise existing ideas, demonstrate the relationships between them and assess their significance. It is not enough to simply catalogue previous work. However lengthy the bibliography is, a dissertation which shows no deep grasp of the motivation, content and structure of the literature will fail. Though ‘originality’ in the sense of a demonstrable theoretical or empirical innovation is not required in order to pass, it is expected that some degree of original thought will be needed to place the ideas of others in a coherent setting;
• Applying techniques developed by others to a data-set not previously used for that purpose, with a clear motivation for doing so;
• Examining the robustness of an existing theoretical model to changes in its underlying assumptions, with a clear motivation for doing so.

At least two examiners will assess your dissertation. Markers will use the 20-point scale shown in the next section when marking the proposal and dissertation (though note that the final mark agreed by first and second dissertation markers is not restricted to the 20-point scale to enable averaging if appropriate).

No feedback on the result of your dissertation is possible until after the Exam Board meets in November 2024, when your mark and comments will be provided through Tabula. Second markers are not required to write comments, though they can do so if they wish. If the second marker does write comments these can be included separately, or they can be combined into a joint report.

20-point marking scale

Research project guidelines for msc behavioural and economic science.

You will carry out novel research in the area of behavioural science. You will work within one of the departments’ labs, designing and running independent empirical work that addresses a current research question. You will have the support of experts in the field and will produce research suitable for publication in an international journal.

Projects are:

• Empirical (that is an experiment, computer program, survey or observational study);
• Physically safe and ethically acceptable (conform to the British Psychological Society Code of Conduct);
• Practical in terms of demands on time, equipment, number of subjects required and laboratory space.

Potential research project topics will be provided in the Spring Term. When the topics are published, please do contact supervisors. You will indicate your project preferences via an online form, with projects allocated centrally.

You must read the British Psychological Society Code of Human Research Ethics. If you are conducting research using the internet, you must also read the British Psychological Society guidelines on internet mediated research. Both documents can be found on the BPS website Link opens in a new window .

At Warwick, any research that involves direct contact with participants, through their physical participation in research activities (invasive and non-invasive participation), that indirectly involves participants through their provision of data or tissue and that involves people on behalf of others (e.g. parents on behalf of children) requires ethical scrutiny. It is your and your supervisor’s joint responsibility to ensure that ethical approval is secured, and this should take place very early in the Summer Term.

If you consider that ethical approval is necessary, please consult with your supervisor and submit the relevant form for ethical approval to [email protected] Link opens in a new window . When there are multiple students on the same project, we will only require one form.

Format and submission

Projects might typically contain one or two experiments or a significant econometric analysis of a large data set. The research in the report should be of a publishable standard. This normally means that the research is relevant and innovative, that there are no major methodological flaws and that the conclusions are appropriate.

With your supervisor choose an appropriate target journal. The formatting of the dissertation must be as for submission to your target journal. Write up your report following the journal submission guidelines. Include on the front page of your report the name of the journal you select. Avoid writing in a more generic 'thesis style' as you may have done for past projects.

Project reports, excluding appendices, should not exceed 20,000 words, and should normally be much shorter. Your target journal may well have a word or page limit which you should follow.

Appendices of test material, raw data, protocols, etc. need not be submitted with your project, but copies of these materials must be given to your supervisor (see below).

No paper copies are required. Please submit online through Tabula as a PDF.

You must retain all of the data that you collect. You must submit all of your data directly to your supervisor when you submit your project. Ideally, you should also submit R scripts (or another language) for the complete analysis of your data.

There will be two deadlines each year for MSc projects. The first will be in August and the second one will be in March. The August deadline will be for all MSc students who have passed their examinations at the first attempt and those with the option to proceed to the project. The March deadline will be for those students who are required to do one or more re(sit) exams in September, either for core modules, or for optional modules where a mark of less than 40 was achieved at the first attempt. The March deadline is also for those who may have asked for an extension due to mitigating circumstances.

Students who are required to re(sit) one exam and are able to hand in their project for the August deadline will be permitted to do so, on the understanding that this is done at their own risk; the project will not be considered if they have not met the criteria for the taught component of the MSc (see the section on Exam Schemes Link opens in a new window ). In the case of students being required to take two re(sit) exams, our advice is that you defer your project until March of the following year. Please note that we cannot give you a short deadline extension in August/September because you have got resit exams. If you have failed or missed three or more exams, we require you to defer the writing of your project until after the September exams, without any exceptions.

If you cannot make your August or March deadline due to medical, or other mitigating circumstances, you must fill in an extension request form, available on Tabula. If an application is approved, the student will be permitted to submit their dissertation by the agreed extension date or the next biannual deadline (either March or August). You need to supply suitable medical or other evidence within one week of submitting the extension request. The evidence you provide should cover a substantial part of the project period detailing why you were unable to work on the dissertation. Please note that extensions will not be granted for low-level and short-term illnesses, or being in full- or part-time employment.

References should be in the style of your target journal. Minimally they should contain the author, date of publication, title of book or article, journal of publication and volume or book publishing company. Almost all journals are very specific about referencing. If there is no guidance (very unlikely) follow the APA conventions.

Assessment is based upon the project report. In assessing reports, some of the points markers will have in mind are:

• How well has the student been able to formulate the research question or hypothesis and establish why it is an important question to ask? How precise is the hypothesis?
• How well does the student know relevant theoretical and empirical literature and can they frame the research question in the light of such literature?
• How clearly has the student described the design and procedure of the investigation and specified the subject sample(s) investigated? (Could the reader replicate the investigation on the basis of the information given?)
• How clearly and how thoroughly has the student been able to describe and analyse the data obtained? How well does the student understand the logic of descriptive and inferential statistics? Can the student explore findings intelligently and not simply number-crunch?
• How well does the student interpret the findings in relation to the original rationale for the investigation? How aware is the student of limitations in the design of the investigation (also important for meta-analysis and analysis of existing data sets) or in the way the research question was formulated? How well can the student point to what might next be done in the light of what has been learned from the investigation?
• What is the overall quality of writing, presentation, organisation and attention to detail?

At least two examiners will assess your project, employing the criteria described elsewhere in this handbook. No feedback on the result of your project is possible until after the Exam Board meets in November 2024, when your mark and comments will be provided through Tabula. Second markers are not required to write comments, though they can do so if they wish. If the second marker does write comments these can be included separately, or they can be combined into a joint report.

• How to Contact Us
• Library & Collections
• Business School
• Things To Do

Double Marking and Moderating

This policy should be read in conjunction with:.

• The University's Learning and Teaching Handbook which sets out the policy on moderation and double marking. The additional information below provides further clarification on the policy in the context of the Common Awards programmes.

TEIs should also consult:

• The University's Principles of Assessment ;
• The University's policy on the R etention of Assessed Work

Double-marking and moderation are two distinct mechanisms. These activities should be undertaken by core or experienced staff (such as programme leaders and module leaders), in order to ensure there is appropriate oversight of assessment processes.

Double marking

Double-marking involves two separate markers each making a judgment about a piece of work, and then assigning an agreed mark.

Double marking  must  be applied to all scripts in a run – otherwise those students whose work is not double marked are being treated differently from those who are. Individual marks awarded by the first marker cannot be changed unless the second marker has marked all the other scripts in a run.

If you want a second marker to look only at a sample of scripts, this is ‘Moderation’ and the guidance below must be followed.

Where double marking is used, there is no University requirement that it must be carried out blind or unseen (where the first marker's marks and the rationale for them are not communicated to the second marker until after they have completed their marking).

Where double-marking is employed there should be a clear procedure in place for the agreement of marks between markers and for the resolution of any differences. An example of such a procedure might be the following:

• a discrepancy of <5% in the mark for the module as a whole and which does not span a classification border can be resolved by taking the average of the two marks
• a discrepancy of >5% in the mark for the module as a whole or spanning a classification border is to be resolved by discussion between the markers to reach an agreed mark if possible
• if agreement cannot be achieved refer to a third party (which may include an external examiner). This should not become the norm: markers should normally be able to secure agreement between themselves.

Wherever double-marking is used there should be a clear 'audit trail' showing the rationale for the mark reached by each marker, and the communication between them to reach an agreed mark. One means of achieving this is by the use of a moderation record sheet (produced by the Continuing Implementation Group) which can be found in the  templates and forms section. Raw marks, as well as reconciled marks, should be made available to external examiners.

Double-marking is to be applied to all dissertations and major projects.

Moderation involves a moderator looking at a sample of the pieces of work in a run. It does not involve the moderator agreeing a revised mark for each individual piece of work.

The role of the moderator is to ensure that the scale, range and standards of first-marking are appropriate, with any recommendations for change being recommendations for change to the whole run of pieces of work. For instance, if moderation reveals a pattern of excessively generous or punitive marking in the sample, omission or over-emphasis of some element of answers, large fluctuations in marks, or use of an excessively narrow range of marks, then this should be rectified by an appropriate systematic review of the marks. Where the moderator identifies problems that can't be handled in this way – by identifying the reason for the erroneous mark(s), identifying all other scripts to which that reason might apply, and agreeing an alteration to the marks for all those scripts – it is possible to refer cases to a third marker. See our  moderation examples  for some simple descriptions of how all this can work.

For Common Awards programmes, the  approved minimum sample size  is 6 pieces of work or 10% of the pieces of work in a run (whichever is greater).

The selection of the sample should not depend entirely on the first marker's identification of work which seems to them to be problematic. It should include pieces of work from the top, bottom, and middle of the range.

TEIs should ensure that appropriately senior/experienced staff conduct the moderation.

A clear audit trail must be maintained. This should demonstrate the samples that have been considered, any systematic issues identified, and details of the actions taken to rectify these.

This main page relates to the course for 2022/23. For information regarding the 2023/24 MSc Dissertation, please see Open Course - DISS .

MSc Project Guide, 2022/23

Introduction.

The project is an essential component of the Masters courses. It is a substantial piece of full-time independent work starting in June. A dissertation describing the work must be submitted by a deadline in mid-August.

Students are expected to stay in Edinburgh for the duration of their degree programme. This includes during the writing of the MSc dissertation until the submission deadline. If you are on a Tier 4 visa and leave the country for an extended period of time, the School is obligated to contact Student Immigration Service who will notify UK Visa and Immigration (UKVI).) See MSc handbook .

The project involves both the application of skills learned in the past and the acquisition of new skills. It allows students to demonstrate their ability to organise and carry out a major piece of work according to sound scientific and engineering principles. The types of activity involved in each project will vary but all will typically share the following features:

• Research the literature and gather background information
• Analyse requirements, compare alternatives and specify a solution
• Design and implement the solution
• Experiment and evaluate the solution
• Develop written and oral presentation skills

Supervision

Supervisors enable students to complete the taught module Informatics Project Proposal (IPP) during Semester 2, and to carry out MSc projects over the summer.

Over the summer, the supervisor gives appropriate technical advice and also assists the student in planning the project and working towards various targets during the period of work. Students should expect approximately weekly meetings with their supervisor at the start of the project but the frequency of these meetings will normally drop as the project progresses and as students become more self-sufficient. Backup supervisors may be allocated to cover periods of absence of the supervisor, if necessary.

Choosing a Project

There are several steps

• Staff and (optionally) students propose MSc projects.
• Students then express interest in projects and potential supervisors mark interested students as suitable/unsuitable for the projects in question. At the end, every student needs to be marked suitable for 5 projects .
• Students rank their project choices in order of preference.
• Students are assigned a project and MSc supervisor.

Details on how to propose a project and select your project preferences are given below.

Student-proposed projects

Students can submit their own project proposal via the DPMT system . However, they need to find an interested supervisor, typically well in advance of the project selection deadline .

Self-proposed project supervisors should be a member of Academic staff or Research staff . The School’s Institutes pages are useful for finding staff in particular research areas, and to browse the broad research areas represented in the School.

This procedure of self-proposal is intended for students who know at the beginning of semester 2 (or earlier) what specific project they wish to do. The student must discuss their idea with a member of academic staff and get them agree to act as supervisor for the project. The MSc project coordinator will take self-proposed projects into account when making the allocation between students and MSc supervisors, and allocate a self-proposed project whenever feasible.

Students are not expected to propose a project; the default is that students will be assigned a staff-proposed project which they will flesh out into a fuller MSc project as an outcome of the taught module Informatics Project Proposal (henceforth IPP).

If you do wish to propose a project however, you must discuss your ideas with a member of staff and get them to commit to supervising your project before submitting a proposal. This will cover aspects such as the suitability of its topic, the methods to be used, any facilities or systems required, the form the results would take, any difficulties that might arise (i.e., risks), the likelihood that it can be completed and written up by the August deadline, etc. It is up to you to find a supervisor who is willing to supervise your project. Having done this, submit the proposal as instructed in the DPMT system with all the relevant details filled in. The deadline for completing the whole process (discussion with staff and filling in the proposal webform) is in the timetable . This staff member will then register as potential supervisor for your project in the DPMT system. (Green button “Register…” at the bottom of the page.)

If you want to do your self-proposed project with an external industrial partner as supervisor, you’ll still need an internal co-supervisor (i.e., an Informatics staff member) in addition to your external supervisor. (If your supervisor is a staff member at a different School at the University of Edinburgh, then no co-supervisor is required.)

See the guide for external supervisors

As always, your project proposal must be filed before the deadline Both the internal and external supervisor need to register for it.

Even if you self-propose a project, you still need to register interest in other projects, until you are marked suitable for 5 projects (including your self-proposed one). You might not get your self-proposed project if the named supervisor ends up with too many projects to supervise. Thus you need fall-backs.

There is no guarantee that all proposed projects will be allocated. However, any pairings between staff and students that happen as a result of student self-proposed project development during these first 2 weeks of the semester will be taken into account when assigning staff their MSc students.

Projects with Industrial Collaborators

Students who are sponsored by, or have close contact with an industrial company may wish to undertake a project which relates to that company’s activities. This is encouraged. Such collaborations can take two different forms:

• If the project is specific to a particular student, then the student should file a self-proposed project in DPMT and get both an internal supervisor (i.e., Informatics staff member) and an external supervisor (i.e., the industrial partner). These supervisors will need to register as supervisors for this particular project in DPMT. See the guide for external co-supervisors here .
• External people (i.e., not staff at UoE) can also propose topics for MSc thesis. (provided that they have a staff member as co-supervisor). However, in this case the topic is open to all students , and not reserved for one particular student. Students can then bid for these topics during the normal project selection phase.
• UoE staff from other departments (i.e., not Informatics) can also propose/supervise MSc projects. Unlike externals from industry, they do not necessarily need an internal Informatics co-supervisor. See the guide here .

Students doing a project with an industrial partner are still expected to spend a significant portion of their time at the University.

Selecting projects

Students can view the proposed projects from the DPMT system . The list of projects can be sorted by project title, number or supervisor name by clicking on the relevant columns. There is also a search facility (via project tags), so that you can find projects in specific areas.

Students must eventually be marked suitable (by the potential supervisor) for at least 5 MSc projects that they would like to do (this includes supervisors registering interest in any self-proposed projects, where relevant). To this end, students must register interest in projects via the DPMT system and must contact the project proposer. Before doing this, read project descriptions carefully: these often contain information about how to contact the proposer and what information to provide. This is so that the project proposer can provide feedback to the MSc project coordinator about the student's suitability for doing the project. The supervisor will then mark the student as either suitable or unsuitable for the project. Students who are marked unsuitable for some of their chosen projects must register interest in more projects until they are marked suitable for at least 5 projects.

See the timetable for when project selection phase ends. Students who lack five suitable projects by this date risk being assigned to one of the remaining un-allocated projects/supervisors. To be safe, please try to identify and register interest in an initial set of projects a week before this deadline.

Project selection step-by-step

Please follow all of the steps below, even if you proposed a self-proposed project and found a supervisor for it. We try to accommodate all self-proposed projects, but sometimes load-balancing constraints make it impossible. Thus you need fallback options.

Log into the DPMT system and take a detailed look through the list of proposed projects. You must be on campus or the School’s VPN to access DPMT.

Read the details of all projects that seem interesting, paying attention to “Essential Skills” and “Completion Criteria”. We try hard to make sure you get a project of your choice, but this is not always possible. Some projects are extremely popular, but many can only be allocated to one student. We also cannot guarantee that you will be assigned a project in your specialism area.

In the DPMT system you can register interest in projects. Start by registering interest in 5 projects. Try to do this before 3 February , as supervisors will be encouraged to review students for suitability at that point. Do not worry about your preference ranking at this stage. You may need to register interest in a few more projects later (see below).

If you register interest in a project, then you must contact the supervisor (and, ideally, the co-supervisor as well if there is one) and ask to discuss the project. Please see if there is guidance about how to do this in the project description. Just clicking a button in DPMT alone achieves nothing. This will give you a chance to learn more about the project and about the supervisor(s). It will also give the supervisor(s) a chance to assess if you have the right skills to do the project. Some supervisors may not be able to meet with you in person, in which case you will need to discuss the project via video chat or email. Some supervisors also hold pre-tests or group meetings to assess candidates.

The supervisor will then mark you as either “very suitable”, “suitable” or “unsuitable” for the project in the DPMT system. Normally, the only reason for being “unsuitable” is the student does not have the “Essential Skills” to undertake the project.

If you get marked “unsuitable” for some of your first 5 projects of interest, you need to register interest in a few more until you are “suitable” for 5. Please start doing this at least 4-5 days before the final selection deadline. Do not register interest in large numbers of projects, because you’d be wasting everybody’s time.

You can rank your projects in order of preference. We try to take these into account as far as possible, but remember that you might be assigned to any of your “suitable” projects, including your last choice. So choose carefully.

Getting the project you want

To maximise your chances of getting a project you want:

• Look at the project list to see how many other students registered interest in a given project. If that number is high, and the project does not have capacity for several students, then you are unlikely to get it. Choose a different project instead.
• Do not select all your projects from the same supervisor.
• Do not select all your projects in a narrow subject area.
• Consider interesting projects outside your specialism area.

If you do not register interest/attain “suitability” for 5 projects, you will be de-prioritized in the allocation. This means a significantly higher chance that you don’t get assigned to any project, and will have to choose from whatever projects are left over at the end.

See the timetable for the the deadline for the project selection phase. The final project allocation will be made shortly after that (see timetable).

If you have questions, the IPP/MSc project Piazza instance is a good venue for them.

When choosing projects, some issues you should consider are:

• Do you genuinely possess the essential skills listed in the proposal?
• Will you find the project interesting?
• Does it suit your degree?
• Are you up to the intellectual requirements of the project?

Project selection FAQ

Q: Does it help to register interest in a project early? A: There is no first-come first-serve for projects. It does not matter at all who registers interest in a project first; as long as you are marked suitable you will be a potential candidate for that project.

Q: Will I increase my odds of getting my top pick (or top 2 or 3) if I only register interest for that 1 (or 2 or 3) project(s)? A: No. It will decrease the odds. Our matchmaking system allocates students with five suitable projects first, so your preferences count for much less if you don’t have five.

Q: What if I do not meet the essential requirements but I am a quick learner and a hard worker? A: Many of our projects assume that you are both of those things in addition to meeting the essential requirements. Trying to bluff your way into a project is unlikely to be to your advantage.

Q: If I select an “Easy” project, does that mean I can’t get a high mark (e.g., 75+) on it? A: Generally, all projects can be expanded or executed in an unusually impressive way. If you worry a project that interests you might be an exception, ask the proposer.

Allocation of Projects and Supervisors to Students

The MSc project coordinator will allocate each student a project and MSc supervisor on the basis of the preferences expressed by students and the supervision load of individual supervisors. There will inevitably be difficulties when more than one student wishes to do the same project. Some supervisors’ proposals are much more popular than others. Students should not necessarily expect to get their first preference of project, or even (in rare cases) any of the preferences that they stated. This process of assigning students to supervisors and projects will be completed by a date given in the timetable .

These initial assignments of students to projects happens this early in the semester, so that the supervisors, together with the IPP tutors, can deliver to their MSc students the compulsory taught module IPP . However, there is flexibility in changing supervisors in at least two ways. First, a member of staff can, if they choose, delegate supervising duties to a member of research staff (with the researcher’s agreement). However, the staff member remains responsible for ensuring that the supervision meets acceptable standards. Secondly, a student can also choose to change supervisors, provided they get agreement from their existing supervisor and the proposed new supervisor. If there are problems between a student and supervisor that they can’t sort out themselves, then the student can consult with their Personal Tutor.

This flexibility for changing supervisor remains, until the deadline for changes to projects and supervisors given in the timetable . It is not possible to change supervisors after this date.

Plagiarism and other Academic Misconduct

Remember the good scholarly practice requirements of the University regarding work for credit. You can find guidance at the School page . This also has links to the relevant University pages.

See also the following general guide on how to avoid plagiarism .

Progress reports

Progress reports on your MSc projects are due in July; see the timetable for specifics.

The progress reports will NOT be graded. They are meant to be

• informational, for your supervisor and second-marker to verify that you are progressing and that you understand what you are doing;
• additional helpful practice with respect to the final report on your MSc projects, due in August.

The report should be 2-3 pages. It should specify:

• The goal of your project
• The methods you are using
• What you have accomplished so far
• What remains to be done to complete the project.

Submitting progress reports : Students submit their progress report on the LEARN page of DISS, menu item Assessment and then Progress Report on the page.

The Dissertation

The project is only assessed on the basis of a final written dissertation. Additional material, such as the code you submit, may be taken into account in case of doubt, but you should make sure that all the work you have done is carefully described in the dissertation document. All 60-credit MSc dissertations must conform to the following format: (The following limits on the length do not apply to EPCC, DSTI Dissertation (Distance Learning), Masters Dissertation (Design Informatics), and CDT thesis.)

The strict upper bound on the length is 40 pages for normal 60-credit MSc dissertations, excluding front matter (title, abstract, declaration) and bibliography. Theses should not be shorter than 20 pages. Where appropriate, the dissertation may additionally contain appendices in which relevant program listings, experimental data, circuit diagrams, formal proofs, etc. may be included. However, students should keep in mind that they are marked on the quality of the dissertation, not its length. The referees are not required to read any appendices.

The dissertation must be word-processed using LaTeX and must use the School of Informatics infthesis.cls style file according to the skeleton template provided. Any style changes to this LaTeX template (e.g., font size, page size, margins, or anything else) are strictly prohibited .

Additional points about building the thesis using LaTeX:

• The required infthesis.cls style file is installed on all DICE machines. If you run LaTeX on your personal computer you will need to install the following two files found on DICE: /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/informatics/infthesis/infthesis.cls and /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/common/logos/eushield.sty.
• Template files skeleton.tex, mybibfile.bib, skeleton.pdf can be downloaded here . The first two of these generate the skeleton thesis document with an example bibliography file, and illustrate correct use of the style. If you compile them yourself, you should get a document that looks like skeleton.pdf. Your dissertation must follow the example usage given in skeleton.tex.
• Additional documentation about LaTeX and LaTeX use within the School can be found here .

On submission of their dissertation, students will be required to certify that their dissertation satsifies these requirements on the length and style.

The typical structure of an Informatics MSc thesis is as follows:

• Title page with abstract.
• Introduction : an introduction to the document, clearly stating the hypothesis or objective of the project, motivation for the work and the results achieved. The structure of the remainder of the document should also be outlined.
• Background : background to the project, previous work, exposition of relevant literature, setting of the work in the proper context. This should contain sufficient information to allow the reader to appreciate the contribution you have made.
• Description of the work undertaken : this may be divided into chapters describing the conceptual design work and the actual implementation separately. Any problems or difficulties and the suggested solutions should be mentioned. Alternative solutions and their evaluation should also be included.
• Analysis or Evaluation : results and their critical analysis should be reported, whether the results conform to expectations or otherwise and how they compare with other related work. Where appropriate evaluation of the work against the original objectives should be presented.
• Conclusion : concluding remarks and observations, unsolved problems, suggestions for further work.
• Bibliography .

In addition, the dissertation must be accompanied by an ethics statement and an own-work declaration, as in the provided template. Your IPP should have planned for the projects ethics requirements, and review the academic conduct section above.

Writing a dissertation is time-consuming. Doing it well can take as long as four weeks of full-time work. You should write up explanations, results, and discussion as you go; this reduces the risk you will run out of time, and often clarifies and improves the research. Do not leave writing up until the last couple of weeks.

Some guidelines on the style of an MSc thesis.

• Focus on your own work . If previous work is provides essential context, cite it and direct the reader to it. Never copy and paste material from elsewhere into your dissertation and edit it.
• Keep the sections on Introduction and Background brief . Mention only background and related work that is necessary to understand and evaluate your work. (E.g., definitions what are used later in your theorems/proofs, or data on the performance of other methods so that you can compare it to your results.)
• Apart from what is necessary (see item above), do not do a lengthy repetition/discussion of background and related work in your dissertation. You already received credit for planning and review in IPP. This material must not be repeated without correctly citing this prior work (see Academic Conduct section). Most students will not want to repeat material from their IPP, as they will have an improved and more focussed view of the subject matter by the time they write their final project.
• Write your dissertation in a brief and concise style. Do not waste words. Do not repeat youself. Say it once, but clearly.
• Pay attention to the bibliography. We recommend that you read the guidelines for bibliography entries - it's easy to get this right, and failure to do so is a sign of sloppiness that the reader may suspect extends to other aspects of your work.

Some links to lectures on writing:

• Informatics Lecture 1. Getting started with writing your dissertation - July 2020 (21.11mins).
• Informatics Lecture 2. Writing your dissertation: IMRaD - July 2020 (19.29mins)
• Informatics Lecture 3. Writing Dissertations - Being Concise - July 2020 (27.33mins)

Computing Resources

The standard computing resource we provide is 24/7 access to communally used DICE machines; we cannot guarantee access to or a specific lab or specific machine, reliable constant remote access, or exclusive use of any machine.

By default, you and the project supervisor are responsible for providing any and all resources required to complete the project. If necessary, the supervisor should discuss any exceptional requirements with support and/or the ITO, and receive their approval before writing the proposal.

Technical problems during project work are only considered for resources we provide; no technical support, compensation for lost data, extensions for time lost due to technical problems with external hard- and software as provided will be given, except where this is explicitly stated as part of a project specification and adequately resourced at the start of the project.

Students must submit their project by the deadline (see the timetable of events ). Students need to submit an electronic copy and archive software as detailed below. Paper copies are not required.

Electronic Copy

Students must submit a PDF version of their thesis. These are included in an electronic archive that is accessible to future students. If there are good reasons why a thesis cannot be archived, ensure your supervisor knows the reasons and tick the appropriate box on the submission page.

Generating your thesis in pdf format should be straightforward, using LaTeX (or similar), or a “save to PDF” feature in most word processors. Take care to ensure that all figures, tables and listings are correctly incorporated into the pdf file you plan to submit.

Submit your PDF using this form .

When you submit the electronic copy of your thesis you will also be asked to provide an archive file (tar or zip) containing all the project materials. Students should use this to preserve any software they have generated, source, object and make files, together with any essential data. This material is not marked directly, but may be used to assess the accuracy of claims in the report. It should contain sufficient material for examiners to assess the completion of the project, the quality of the project, and the amount of work required to complete the project.

You should create a directory, for example named PROJECT , in your file space specifically for the purpose. Please follow the accepted practice of creating a README file which documents your files and their function. This directory should be compressed and then submitted, together with the electronic version of the thesis, via the submission webpage .

Your README should make clear where any data that you used came from, how it was processed, and how any outputs can be generated from the code that you have included. You do not normally need to include large datasets, model outputs, or model checkpoints in your archive. However, sometimes such data might be useful for follow-up projects in future years, or could be important for checking your work. Please discuss with your supervisor what to include.

Project Assessment

Projects are marked independently by the supervisor (1st marker) and the (centrally allocated) 2nd marker. The 1st and 2nd marker are not allowed to discuss marks until after both have filed their marking forms. Once both markers have filed their forms, they discuss the final mark, and one of them (usually the 1st marker) files the Agreed Mark Form. (If you fail to agree, then explain why on this form.) In certain circumstances the project will go to moderation (see below).

Projects are assessed in terms of a number of basic and other criteria. Only the dissertation is used for assessment. See also the common marking scheme . Knowledge of these criteria will help you to plan your project and also when writing up. They include:

• Understanding of the problem
• Completion of the work
• Quality of the work
• Quality of the dissertation
• Knowledge of the literature
• Critical evaluation of previous work
• Critical evaluation of own work
• Justification of design decisions
• Solution of conceptual problems
• Amount of work
• Evidence of outstanding merit e.g. originality
• Inclusion of material worthy of publication

Marks in the range of 45-49 allow a re-submission of the thesis by the student within 3 months, which will need to be re-marked (Taught Assessment Regulation 58). The marking guidelines can be found here and the policy on moderation can be found here .

Markers can find electronic copies of reports here . (Access problems? Contact Computing support to give you access.)

Marking is done via the webmark system . (Access problems? If you are UoE staff without an Informatics co-supervisor: Contact Computing support to give you access. If you are external and have an Informatics co-supervisor: Consult with your co-supervisor. It is his/her responsibility to file the marking form.)

Extensions are permitted and Extra Time Adjustments (ETA) for extensions are permitted. Please refer to Rule 3 here for further details. Please see Learn for the number of extension days that are permitted.

Important Dates

All the deadlines for the various tasks, including the deadline for submitting the thesis, can be found in the Timetable of Events .

While a demonstration is not a compulsory component of your MSc summer project, there are many circumstances in which providing your supervisor and your second marker with a demo will enable them to assess your achievements more accurately.

If you do decide to give them a demo, then your examiners will need to be convinced that:

• you actually did something,
• what you did was significant and
• you understand what you did.

You should also try to educate the examiners by clearly presenting:

• what was the problem you were trying to solve,
• how you tried to solve it, and
• what the results were.

As a guide to pitching the level of your explanations, assume that your examiners are ignorant of the particular problem you are investigating, but have a general background in the subject area. Often the second examiner is from outside your project area. So, be sure to introduce your project properly, don't just dive into the middle. What were the aims of the project, how did you go about achieving them, what results did you obtain, what difficulties did you have?

In a typical demo, you might:

• lay down rules about when the audience can ask questions
• explain what the project was about
• explain what you're going to show
• show it, but don't spend lots of time describing low-level implementation detail; stick at the `knowledge level' for the most part
• try to cover as much of the functionality as you reasonably can, so in general don't dwell too long on just one or two aspects
• say what else you might have done if you'd had a bit more time

Not all projects will follow this outline; modify it to suit your own particular project.

A demo should take about 20 minutes. You will probably find that this is quite a short time, but it is good practice to do it in this time because this is typically the time you will have to demo a system in other scenarios; e.g., at conferences. Given that 20 minutes is not long, you should:

• Plan your demo carefully to cover the relevant details in the allotted time.
• Make an outline of the demo including time to explain the problem, the solution and results.
• Skip minor details if there isn't enough time.
• Practise the demo beforehand, perhaps with another student.
• Consult with your supervisor over your outline.
• Make drawings, charts and tables to clarify the whole context and simplify presentation.
• Pre-store results displays on the computer if it takes a long time to generate them. How long it takes the computer to go through a demo varies by the load; hence, it might be better to avoid too much on-line demonstration if possible.

What are the seven sections of a dissertation?

This is the second of three chapters about Dissertations . To complete this reader, read each chapter carefully and then unlock and complete our materials  to check your understanding.   

– Discuss the overall dissertation structure

– Explore the common elements of a dissertation

– Consider additional elements which may be added

Chapter 1: What is an academic dissertation?

Chapter 2: What are the seven sections of a dissertation?

Chapter 3: What is an effective dissertation topic?

When writing a dissertation , like any type of essay , it’s important that relatively inexperienced writers follow tried and trusted structures and methods so as to convey ideas, arguments and research as clearly and easily as possible. This chapter therefore offers one such prescribed structure that’s particularly used in social-science dissertations, such as for linguistics, psychology or anthropology. Although other subjects may of course use a slightly different number of sections, place these seven sections in a slightly different order, or expect a different weighting for each section, the example structure we’ve included below should cover most dissertation and thesis types that students will be required to produce.

1. The Abstract (5%)

Both the shortest and first-encountered section of a dissertation , the abstract  is intended to provide a very brief overview of the entire research project, highlighting to the reader the aims of the dissertation, the background and context of the investigation, the methodology that’s been used, the study’s key findings, and how this particular study has contributed to the field of knowledge.

2. The Introduction (15%)

Following the abstract , the purpose of the introduction is usually to describe the focus of the dissertation by reviewing the topic’s background and context. An introduction may also identify gaps in the research and how the writer intends to fill those gaps, as well as an outline of the scope of the investigation and the general and argumentative structure of the dissertation. 

3. The Literature Review (25%)

The largest section of a dissertation is usually the literature review , which aims to provide a detailed discussion of the existing research that’s most relevant to the investigation. This section usually includes a critical review of both non-research and research literature, as well as any theoretical perspectives that require understanding to support and contextualise the study. Additionally, identification and justification of the research gap being filled in this dissertation as well as an explanation of how all of the above features have informed the dissertation are generally included.

4. The Methodology (15%)

The methodology is usually where the primary (and original) research of the dissertation begins. The purpose of this section is to highlight and justify to the reader the approach, design and processes that were followed to collect the findings, such as whether qualitative or quantitative methods were employed and whether questionnaires, interviews or recordings were used to collect the raw data. This section may include the study’s methodological approach, the research design, justification of the methods used, a discussion of the reliability and validity of those methods, and a description of the data collection and analysis procedures.

5. The Results (10%)

The fifth section (which is sometimes combined with the sixth section) of a dissertation is usually focussed on the results . The primary aim of this chapter is to present the results of the study’s primary research in a clear manner that demonstrates how these results address the dissertation’s research questions. Generally, in the results section the writer will present the relevant findings of the study, explain the implications of those findings, present evidence to support those findings, refer back to the methodology and introductory background information, and perhaps also refer forwards to the discussion of results .

6. The Discussion of Results (15%)

While the results section deals with the raw data, the discussion of results is where these findings are contextualised and their significance explained. As well as reminding the reader of the research aims and how the study’s results work to explore these aims, the writer should additionally present a discussion of how these findings have contributed to the dissertation’s hypotheses and therefore to the overall literature. Some time may also be spent interpreting the study’s findings, comparing them to other research, and evaluating their contribution to the literature.

7. The Conclusion (15%)

The final section of a dissertation is called the conclusion , the purpose of which is to remind the reader of the study’s aims, the key methodology, and the findings of the investigation. The writer may also wish to evaluate the significance of the research, commenting on how this research further develops the theory as well as highlighting any limitations that may have become apparent during the investigation. Finally, how this research can be applied practically may also be outlined to the reader, and any research gaps generated by the study explained.

Additional Sections

While these seven sections constitute the bulk of the dissertation , don’t forget to also include a table of contents , a reference list and an  appendix   if necessary.

Now that we’ve discussed what a dissertation  is, when one might be used, and which sections such an extended essay usually contains, the final chapter on this subject is about choosing an effective dissertation topic. 

To reference this reader:

Academic Marker (2022) About Dissertations . Available at: https://academicmarker.com/essay-writing/dissertations/about-dissertations/ (Accessed: Date Month Year).

• University of Reading
• University of York

Downloadables

Once you’ve completed all three chapters about dissertations , you might also wish to download our beginner, intermediate and advanced worksheets to test your progress or print for your students. These professional PDF worksheets can be easily accessed for only a few Academic Marks .

Our dissertations academic reader (including all three chapters about this topic) can be accessed here at the click of a button.

Gain unlimited access to our dissertations beginner worksheet, with activities and answer keys designed to check a basic understanding of this reader’s chapters.

To check a confident understanding of this  reader’s chapters , click on the button below to download our  dissertations intermediate worksheet with activities and answer keys.

Our dissertations advanced worksheet with activities and answer keys has been created to check a sophisticated understanding of this  reader’s chapters . 

To save yourself 5 Marks , click on the button below to gain unlimited access to all of our dissertations chapters and worksheets. The All-in-1 Pack includes every chapter in this reader, as well as our beginner, intermediate and advanced worksheets in one handy PDF.

Click on the button below to gain unlimited access to our about dissertations   teacher’s PowerPoint, which should include everything you’d need to successfully introduce this topic.

Collect Academic Marks

• 100 Marks for joining
• 25 Marks for daily e-learning
• 100-200 for feedback/testimonials
• 100-500 for referring your colleages/friends

Who will write my essay?

On the website are presented exclusively professionals in their field. If a competent and experienced author worked on the creation of the text, the result is high-quality material with high uniqueness in all respects. When we are looking for a person to work, we pay attention to special parameters:

• work experience. The longer a person works in this area, the better he understands the intricacies of writing a good essay;
• work examples. The team of the company necessarily reviews the texts created by a specific author. According to them, we understand how professionally a person works.
• awareness of a specific topic. It is not necessary to write a text about thrombosis for a person with a medical education, but it is worth finding out how well the performer is versed in a certain area;
• terms of work. So that we immediately understand whether a writer can cover large volumes of orders.

Only after a detailed interview, we take people to the team. Employees will carefully select information, conduct search studies and check each proposal for errors. Clients pass anti-plagiarism quickly and get the best marks in schools and universities.

Customer Reviews

Andre Cardoso

Allene W. Leflore

Johan Wideroos

"Research papers - Obsity in Children..."

Finished Papers

• Education Home
• Medical Education Technology Support
• Graduate Medical Education
• Medical Scientist Training Program
• Public Health Sciences Program
• Continuing Medical Education
• Clinical Performance Education Center
• Center for Excellence in Education
• Research Home
• Biochemistry & Molecular Genetics
• Biomedical Engineering
• Cell Biology
• Microbiology, Immunology, & Cancer Biology (MIC)
• Molecular Physiology & Biological Physics
• Neuroscience
• Pharmacology
• Public Health Sciences
• Office for Research
• Clinical Research
• Clinical Trials Office
• Funding Opportunities
• Grants & Contracts
• Research Faculty Directory
• Cancer Center
• Cardiovascular Research Center
• Carter Immunology Center
• Center for Behavioral Health & Technology
• Center for Brain Immunology & Glia
• Center for Diabetes Technology
• Center for Immunity, Inflammation & Regenerative Medicine
• Center for Public Health Genomics
• Center for Membrane & Cell Physiology
• Center for Research in Reproduction
• Myles H. Thaler Center for AIDS & Human Retrovirus Research
• Child Health Research Center (Pediatrics)
• Division of Perceptual Studies
• Research News: The Making of Medicine
• Core Facilities
• Virginia Research Resources Consortium
• Center for Advanced Vision Science
• Charles O. Strickler Transplant Center
• Keck Center for Cellular Imaging
• Institute of Law, Psychiatry & Public Policy
• Translational Health Research Institute of Virginia
• Clinical Home
• Anesthesiology
• Dermatology
• Emergency Medicine
• Family Medicine
• Neurosurgery
• Obstetrics & Gynecology
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopaedic Surgery
• Otolaryngology
• Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
• Plastic Surgery, Maxillofacial, & Oral Health
• Psychiatry & Neurobehavioral Sciences
• Radiation Oncology
• Radiology & Medical Imaging
• UVA Health: Patient Care
• Diversity Home
• Diversity Overview
• Student Resources
• GME Trainee Resources
• Faculty Resources
• Community Resources

Congratulations Caitlin Pavelec: Dissertation Defense!!!

April 22, 2024 by [email protected]   |   Leave a Comment

The Pharmacology Department would like to send out a huge congrats to Caitlin Pavelec (Pharmacology Graduate Student in the lab of Norbert Leitinger) for presenting her Dissertation Defense on Monday, April 22nd, 2024 in McKim Hall, Leonard Sandridge Auditorium. Her talk was titled: “Pannexin 1 Channels Control Cardiomyocyte Metabolism and Neutrophil Recruitment During Non-Ischemic Heart Failure”. Way to go, Katie! Pharm is very proud of you!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Positions Available
• All Training Faculty
• Professional Research Staff
• Graduate Program
• News and Events
• Research Facilities
• Uncategorized

UW–Madison alum is second place winner of Wisconsin Biennial exhibit

The second place winner of the 2024 Wisconsin Artists Biennial Exhibit , hosted by the Museum of Wisconsin Art ( MOWA ) in West Bend, is a UW–Madison alum.

Scott Espeseth, who earned an MFA in printmaking from the School of Education’s Art Department in 2000, is the recipient of the second place award. “His work often depicts familiar spaces charged with a sense of dark presence, hauntings, or consciousness,” notes a MOWA Facebook post that was quoted in the Washington County Daily News. “For Espeseth, paper becomes the screen of his mind’s eye, resulting in monochromatic works that reflect our most human instincts.”

Espeseth received the award for his work, “Box With Cat,” 2023.

Espeseth is a professor of art at Beloit College. Learn more about his work at www.scottespeseth.com .

Pin It on Pinterest

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.

• CENTERS & INSTITUTES

Doctoral student Anderson Al Wazni awarded prestigious dissertation fellowship to study state fragility in the face of climate disasters 

Posted on April 22, 2024

by Chris Hilburn-Trenkle  

It wouldn’t necessarily be inaccurate to say that Anderson Al Wazni’s award-winning dissertation fellowship was nearly 20 years in the making. 

In 2006, Al Wazni received funding through the United States Department of State to spend time in Southeast Asia for work focusing on comparative religion. She traveled around the continent, taking a pilgrimage through India with members of the Jain religion, spending a few weeks at a Buddhist monastery in Taiwan and learning Bengali, the official language of Bangladesh, while studying at a university in Dhaka, Bangladesh. 

While Al Wazni, a doctoral student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Social Work, officially began her research on state fragility in the context of climate change years later by examining other nations, her travels in Southeast Asia unofficially opened the door for her later work. 

Al Wazni, who plans to graduate from the School of Social Work in 2025, received a dissertation fellowship from the American Association of University Women (AAUW) for her project examining how climate disasters impact vulnerable populations in the United States through the concept of state fragility. 

“I was stunned,” said Al Wazni in response to receiving the fellowship. “I was of course hoping, but if you see the people who’ve gotten it before and the types of work that gets rewarded, I would not have been upset if I didn’t (get it) because I recognize it would have gone to a very deserving woman-identified scholar in the field, so good for her … It felt great.” 

Al Wazni’s project is developed into three separate papers. The first paper will focus on three prominent measurements associated with state fragility — public services, infrastructure and state legitimacy — to examine different regions of the United States that show fragility, especially relating to forcible displacement due to natural disasters. 

Although Al Wazni notes that state fragility is usually reserved for underdeveloped countries, she’s redefining the measurements to apply to the United States more readily. While the United States does not have widespread violent conflict as defined by the state fragility index, Al Wazni is sorting through data to examine bullet wounds and other markers in particular regions. 

Her second paper involves qualitative interviews with key experts in the field who focus on natural disaster response and professionals in policy or direct service work related to climate change. With the help of those in the field, she will refine an online survey that will serve as the basis of her third paper. Since forced migration is a big factor in calculating state fragility, according to Al Wazni, she is asking for 200 to 300 respondents who were forcibly displaced due to a natural disaster over the last decade.  

“I’m saying that climate change is pouring gas on a fire,” Al Wazni said. “We have this fire of inequity that is already there, and as long as you don’t address climate change it’s going to get worse and worse. I think that disasters are a really good window into seeing where that state service delivery and that trust is not doing a fantastic job currently.”  

It was nearly 20 years ago when Al Wazni was traveling in Southeast Asia as a religious studies major from North Carolina State University seeing the real-world effects of climate change. Today, the AAUW is recognizing the potential of her project that could help alleviate the suffering of those affected by natural disasters around the world, from Bangladesh to the United States. 

Related Stories

MSW student, Peace Rotary Fellow set to begin next chapter

Alexandra Rose had her eye on the Rotary Peace Fellowship for some time when she came across the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Social Work’s website.

MSW Student Jacob Hoyt receives equity and inclusion student award

Master of Social Work student Jacob Hoyt was among five recipients who received a 2024 Equity and Inclusion Student Award from the National Association of Social Workers North Carolina Chapter (NASW-NC).

NextEra reports strong growth in renewables projects

• Medium Text
• Company Nextera Energy Inc Follow
• Company Nextera Energy Resources, Llc Follow
• Company Nextera Energy Partners LP Follow

Sign up here.

Reporting by Seher Dareen in Bengaluru and Laila Kearney in New York; Editing by Pooja Desai, Marguerita Choy and Paul Simao

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Seher oversees and writes market reports with the commodities and energy team in Bangalore round-the-clock and monitors newsworthy events in the resources space.

Business Chevron

China's Huawei launches new software for intelligent driving

Chinese tech company Huawei (HWT.UL) unveiled on Wednesday a new software brand for intelligent driving, marking its latest push to become a major player in the electric vehicle industry.

South Jersey Times boys tennis notebook: Former champs return to GC Tournament

• Updated: Apr. 23, 2024, 1:29 p.m. |
• Published: Apr. 23, 2024, 12:38 p.m.

Maddox Marker of Pitman, shown during a match against Pennsville earlier this season, is looking to defend his title at the Gloucester County Tournament. Joe Warner | For NJ Advance Media

• Matt Cosentino | For NJ Advance Media

It’s not every year that the field for the Gloucester County Boys Tennis Tournament contains even one former champion, let alone two.

But that is the case this season, as Maddox Marker of Pitman and Nate Bassett of West Deptford are both looking to go out with a second title in their final appearances at the annual gathering of the area’s best players.

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.