Guidelines for degree projects in business administration: A. Bachelor level 15 hec (G2E level) D. Master level 30 hec (A2E level)

Transcription

1 School of Business and Economics Reg. no: 2010/83 at Linnaeus University Revision 2 Decided by ELNU Board Revision 3, (Reg. no: ST 2013/47-1.1) Guidelines for degree projects in business administration: A. Bachelor level 15 hec (G2E level) B. Master level 15 hec (A1E level) C. On Business Administration and Economics Programme 30 hec (A2E level) D. Master level 30 hec (A2E level)

2 Table of contents 1 Introduction Purpose Differences between degree projects on different levels Organisation the thesis work - division of roles The student: responsibility and role The tutor: responsibility and role The examiner: responsibility and role The co-assessor: responsibility and role Seminars Introductory meeting PM PM PM PM Final review Final seminars Formal requirements Admission requirements Extent of the thesis Number of copies of the finished work Spacing font size Heading- and reference system List of references Disposition of the thesis Other instructions Group size Plagiarism Publication of finished work Commissioned theses secrecy, ethics Costs for the thesis Grading... 8 Appendix 1 Summary... 9 Appendix 2 Bases for assessment

3 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose The degree project involves independently identifying and formulating a subject, and conducting and presenting a study. 15 higher education credits (henceforth hec) degree projects are carried out, at part or full time, over half a semester, while 30 hec degree projects are carried out over one semester. The aim is to develop the students abilities to conduct creative degree projects on a scientific basis, characterised by a reflective stance. The students must exhibit methodological knowledge and the ability to independently gather, process and analyse data on the basis of theories relevant for their subject matter. 1.2 Differences between degree projects on different levels Degree projects of type A (Bachelor level 15 hec, G2E level) and B (Master level 15 hec, A1E level) can be based on theoretical and/or practical problems. Type C (On Business Administration and Economics Programme 30 hec, A2E level) is preferably based on practical problems at a commissioning company. Degree projects of type D (Master level 30 hec, A2E level) are preferably based on theoretical problems. There are no formal differences between type A and type B when it comes to structure and scope. The level of practical and theoretical relevance required by a degree project of type B is, however, higher compared to type A; the degree project of type B is expected to be more clearly and extensively related to previous research and comprise discussions on theory and methodology of a higher scholarly and reflective quality. Qualitatively, the degree project of type C implies stricter requirements on theoretical and practical relevance, compared to projects of type A. The practical relevance of the project should be emphasised by, e.g., concrete recommendations to the commissioning company, or by detailed discussions on practical relevance. Degree projects of type C are expected to comprise literature reviews as well as empirical materials that are quantitatively larger than a type A degree project. A degree project of type D has a stricter requirement regarding theoretical relevance than type A and B projects. A type A project is expected to have a strong academic orientation, as manifested by, e.g., a strong positioning towards previous research and reflected, scholarly problem, theory- and methodology discussions. The project should make a theoretical contribution, meaning that the students should be able to use the findings of the thesis to complement, revise, or extend theories about their subject matter. 2 Organisation of the thesis work - division of roles A number of parties are involved in the thesis work; student, tutor, examiner and possibly also co-assessor. According to Lokala regler för examinationer på grundnivå och avancerad nivå vid Linnéuniversitetet (Dnr HL/ ), the examiner and tutor cannot be the same person unless special reasons apply (p. 4). According to Kriterier för vem som får vara examinator på kurser inom utbildning på grundnivå och avancerad nivå på Linnéuniversitetet (Dnr 2010/1085), the examiner on a degree project of type A should have a PhD, and the examiner on a degree project of type B, C and D should be associate professor within the subject area unless special reasons apply. In this section the expectations on each party are described. 3

4 2.1 The student: responsibility and role The students are responsible for the completion and quality of the degree project. Their ability to apply the advices from tutor, other students and examiner will affect their success. It is important to note that students aiming for a distinction grade cannot expect the tutor to give them advice automatically leading to such grade; rather it is the students own carefulness, creativity, analytical skills and ability to elaborate on their material and the given comments that count. Altogether, the expectations on the student are to take responsibility for the degree project to keep in contact with the tutor during the course to actively participate in all seminars as authors and opponents 2. 2 The tutor: responsibility and role The tutor is the student s contact person and guide during the process. The advice and comments most often emanate from written material from the student. They can regard relevant theories, methodological choices, and comments on drafts and analyses etc. The form of the comments can vary among the tutors. The central aspect is that the student can expect advice and that the student is given the possibility to write a degree project that fulfils the requirements. The tutor s responsibility is to contribute to a learning process that makes it possible for the students to fulfil the requirements, not to directly assist the students in writing a good thesis. It is the responsibility of the tutor to discuss the practical aspects of the studenttutor cooperation, e.g., how communication will take place and how long in advance the manuscript must be delivered to the tutor before tutoring sessions. The tutor reviews the nearcompleted manuscript and has a dialogue with the examiner, who decides whether the degree project can be treated at a final seminar. Furthermore the tutor should provide feedback on the thesis to the examiner and suggest a grade on the finalised degree project. Altogether, the expectations on the tutor are to give advice and comments that stimulate the learning process and push the work forward throughout the entire course to conduct the final review of the manuscript and decide whether the manuscript can be presented at a final seminar, which in undecided cases can demand a discussion with the examiner to provide feedback and suggest a grade on finalised degree project 2.3 The examiner: responsibility and role The examiner is responsible for organising and executing the mandatory seminars at which the degree project is discussed and assessed, and for presenting this guidelines document and how the actual course relates to the guidelines. If a course has more than one examiner, one of them should have course-coordination responsibility. The examiner, together with the Depute Head of Department, assigns tutors. The examiner may grant a waiver for the absence of seminar. The examiner should secure the scientific level on the degree projects. Furthermore, the examiner is responsible for grading, taking advice from tutor or co-assessor. The role of the examiner also includes acting as an adviser and discussion partner for the tutor. Altogether, the expectations on the examiner are to organize the course, to assign the students into PM groups, and to assign tutors (together with the Depute Head of Department) to execute the seminars and secure the scientific level to check the manuscripts for plagiarism to grade the projects and report the results to the students and the secretary 4

5 2.4 The co-assessor: responsibility and role In those cases when examiner and tutor is the same person, the student is entitled to a coassessor. The co-assessor gives feed-back and suggests a grade to the examiner. 3 Seminars Listed below are the topics of the mandatory seminars. For degree projects of type A and B, the PM 3 seminar can be omitted. As of PM 1 and onwards the students are expected to provide opposition on other seminar participants. 3.1 Introductory meeting The meeting is supervised by the examiner. It is recommended that this meeting takes place approximately four weeks before the course starts. The objective of the meeting is to give information about the course scheduling and introduce the guidelines. The meeting should also provide information that may facilitate students choice of subject for their projects, such as ongoing research projects, suggestions on continued research based on essays and theses, suitable scientific articles, and current debates regarding the subject and possible assignments from the business and industry sector. 3.2 PM 0 The report should comprise approximately 1-3 pages and include a subject description. This report forms the basis of the introductory discussion at the seminar and also the choice of tutors. The examiner, together with the Head of Department, match tutors and student groups based on the subject of each degree project. 3.3 PM 1 The report is to offer a basis for assessing the project s feasibility. PM 1 can comprise 5-10 pages including an introduction chapter comprising background, problem discussion and purpose statement. Preferably, the report also comprises ideas about methodology, a time schedule and a planned disposition. 3.4 PM 2 This PM is an elaboration of PM 1, including a methodology chapter, and can comprise pages. The methodology chapter is the link between the research questions and the results. It should motivate the choices made, clarify how results will be derived and how conclusions can be drawn based on the gathered theoretical and empirical material. The research questions and purpose are the basis of those choices. A compulsory section should deal with the research ethical considerations that have been made. One criterion is that the reader should be able to replicate the degree project based on the information provided in the methodology chapter. The chapter should cover how the empirical information is to be collected and processed, choice of perspective, and sampling. It should also comprise aspects such as how empirical data and theory are interrelated, applied analysis and interpretation strategies and tentative results/contributions; how this is described can vary between subject areas and their traditions. 3.5 PM 3 PM 3 is an elaborated PM 2 and is expected to comprise around pages. For deductive approaches, a theory chapter, relevant for the research questions, is to be presented. The theory chapter is a framework for the research questions and tentative results. A compulsory 5

6 concluding section should integrate the literature that is to be used. The chapter preferably results in a model for analysis, which clarifies concepts and theoretical models in use, and the sequence by which the research questions are approached. Operationalizations can preferably be displayed in an interview guide or as a questionnaire. For inductive/abductive approaches, an empirical chapter with suggestions on how the material should be interpreted should be presented. 3.6 Final review This includes an almost finished manuscript. A concluding section should account for societal and/or sustainability aspects of the degree project. Final review is conducted by the tutor before the final seminar. A degree project that is not assessed to possibly fulfil the requirements at the final tutoring is recommended not to be treated at the originally scheduled final seminar. The thesis has to be reassessed at a new final review and considered fulfilling the necessary requirements in order to be presented at a later final seminar. 3.7 Final seminars The objective of the final seminar, lasting approximately 45 minutes, is a critical and constructive discussion about the form and content of each degree project. The main participants are the students/authors and the opponents. At the beginning of the seminar, the author(s) may present errata. In addition to a main opposition on one thesis, each student is required to individually provide mini-opposition on three theses. No later than on the day of the seminar, the main opponents and mini-opponents are to hand in a written summary of their opposition, 1-2 pages for miniopposition and 3-4 pages for main opposition, to the examiner. The comments should focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the thesis and also offer constructive suggestions on alternative approaches and improvements. Mini-opponents and other seminar participants are welcome to offer comments at the seminar when the main opponents have conducted their opposition. No presentation takes place at the final seminar, but degree projects of type C should be presented to the commissioning company if such exist. 4 Formal requirements 4.1 Admission requirements The admission requirements for each type of degree project are regulated in the respective syllabus (in Kursinfo). 4.2 Extent of the thesis Type A and B: Most theses are to comprise approximately pages. Type C and D: Most theses are to comprise approximately pages. Exceptions can be made for projects that, for reasons of the character of their empirical material, require more space. Detailed empirical presentations could be included in an appendix and only summarised briefly in the text. This limitation has been introduced in order to avoid too spacious descriptive sections and encourage elaborated and reflective texts in which the authors analyses and interpretations are given voice. 4.3 Number of copies of the finished work One week prior to the final seminar, the authors are to hand in two hard copies of the finished thesis to the examiner. Furthermore the thesis is to be submitted in a word or PDF file format to the examiner in order to check for plagiarism. The authors are to the thesis to the other seminar participants at the same date. 6

7 4.4 Spacing font size The finished thesis is to have a spacing of 1.5, 12 points font size and 35 mm left-hand margin. 4.5 Heading- and reference system The authors select the heading system that they find appropriate. The School of Business and Economics recommends referencing in Harvard style, because of its wide application in the school s subject areas. Oxford style is not recommended as it is primarily used for unpublished sources. It is important that the chosen systems are consistently used throughout the thesis. 4.6 List of references The list of references should only include literature that is used and referenced in the text. Written and oral sources should be separated. 4.7 Disposition of the thesis Front page - Summary (exampled of content see appendix 1) Table of contents on the link above Text List of references Appendices 5 Other instructions 5.1 Group size Degree projects of type A and B should be written by groups of two-three students. Degree projects of type C and D should be written by groups of two students, and in exceptional cases by sole students. 5.2 Plagiarism All works are to be handed in for a plagiarism check after submission but before the final seminar. 5.3 Publication of finished work After the final seminar the authors are responsible for registering and publishing their work in DiVA on the University Library website, They should also submit a printed copy of the work to the School. After that, the grade can be reported into Ladok. 5.4 Commissioned theses secrecy, ethics Financial contributions from companies or organisations do not alter the academic demands. The theses of the university are public documents. If the commissioning company requires secrecy, the thesis may be exempted from the requirements of full-text publication in DiVA, and be anonymised or presented in an alternate version intended for academic use. 7

8 5.5 Costs for the thesis The authors are personally responsible for all costs for, e.g., printing, stamps and telephone bills, but are encouraged to apply for scholarships. In the case of commissioned theses the commissioning company should cover the costs. 6 Grading The work is awarded one of the following grades: Pass with distinction Pass Fail A-B C-E F The grading includes assessments of the main opposition, mini-oppositions and also participation and activity during the obligatory seminars of the course. The tutor and examiner together set the final grade, but the examiner has the final ruling in case of disagreement. In those cases where the examiner and tutor is the same person, a co-assessor has to be assigned. Bases for assessment are presented in detail in Appendix 2. 8

9 Appendix 1 Summary Summary Business Administration, Business Process & Supply Chain Management, Degree Project (master), 30 higher education credits, course code, Spring 2011 Authors: Barbro Andersson and Johan Ahlström Tutor: Per O N Persson Title: The Expectation Gap between Accountant and Client Background: The expectation gap between accountant and client is a problem that the group of accountants have tried to rectify for a long period of time. The debate concerning this subject has primarily occurred between accountants or representatives of accountant organisations. Only in special cases have the clients offered their opinions in the matter. Purpose: To identify the most important causes for the expectation gap, why it occurs and analyses of differences and similarities between accountants and clients assessments. Method: An inquiry was handed out to 25 accountants and 25 clients. The empirical material has been analysed for extended theoretical studies. The results and conclusions of the thesis have in conclusion been discussed in a personal interview with representatives of FAR. Results, conclusions: Eight main reasons were identified that, to a varied extent, have contributed to the expectation gap. Differences as well as similarities have been found in the parties assessments. The primary reason, brought to light by both parties, is the lack of communication, which originates in a presupposed assumption on the respective roles. 9

10 Appendix 2 Bases for assessment The thesis is to rely on a scientific basis. This means: systematic the logical design of the thesis transparency presentation of reference material respect for the tradition knowledge of the research field The following factors affect the assessment: Relevance of the problem discussion theoretical and practical, motivation Formulation of purpose limitations, clarity, relation to problem and results Method awareness of perspectives, motivated choices, discussion on sampling Frame of reference width and depth, motives for choice of theories Empirical data relevance considering the purpose, ability to present the data Analysis/interpretation consistency between empirical data and theory, practical and theoretical relevance Conclusion grounding, argumentative ability Validity critical assessment, validity, credibility Formal aspects structure, linguistic presentation, reference system In order to pass, the thesis should be of high quality along the above presented factors. To pass with distinction it should be of high quality and the thesis should be considered above average on one or more of the following dimensions: Level of difficulty Originality Independence during the process Theoretical contribution especially important for type D Practical contribution especially important for type C 10