msc thesis project

• Home »

find your perfect postgrad program Search our Database of 30,000 Courses

How to write a masters dissertation or thesis: top tips.

It is completely normal to find the idea of writing a masters thesis or dissertation slightly daunting, even for students who have written one before at undergraduate level. Though, don’t feel put off by the idea. You’ll have plenty of time to complete it, and plenty of support from your supervisor and peers.

One of the main challenges that students face is putting their ideas and findings into words. Writing is a skill in itself, but with the right advice, you’ll find it much easier to get into the flow of writing your masters thesis or dissertation.

We’ve put together a step-by-step guide on how to write a dissertation or thesis for your masters degree, with top tips to consider at each stage in the process.

1. Understand your dissertation or thesis topic

There are slight differences between theses and dissertations , although both require a high standard of writing skill and knowledge in your topic. They are also formatted very similarly.

At first, writing a masters thesis can feel like running a 100m race – the course feels very quick and like there is not as much time for thinking! However, you’ll usually have a summer semester dedicated to completing your dissertation – giving plenty of time and space to write a strong academic piece.

By comparison, writing a PhD thesis can feel like running a marathon, working on the same topic for 3-4 years can be laborious. But in many ways, the approach to both of these tasks is quite similar.

Before writing your masters dissertation, get to know your research topic inside out. Not only will understanding your topic help you conduct better research, it will also help you write better dissertation content.

Also consider the main purpose of your dissertation. You are writing to put forward a theory or unique research angle – so make your purpose clear in your writing.

Top writing tip: when researching your topic, look out for specific terms and writing patterns used by other academics. It is likely that there will be a lot of jargon and important themes across research papers in your chosen dissertation topic. 

2. Structure your dissertation or thesis

Writing a thesis is a unique experience and there is no general consensus on what the best way to structure it is. 

As a postgraduate student , you’ll probably decide what kind of structure suits your research project best after consultation with your supervisor. You’ll also have a chance to look at previous masters students’ theses in your university library.

To some extent, all postgraduate dissertations are unique. Though they almost always consist of chapters. The number of chapters you cover will vary depending on the research. 

A masters dissertation or thesis organised into chapters would typically look like this: 

Write down your structure and use these as headings that you’ll write for later on.

Top writing tip : ease each chapter together with a paragraph that links the end of a chapter to the start of a new chapter. For example, you could say something along the lines of “in the next section, these findings are evaluated in more detail”. This makes it easier for the reader to understand each chapter and helps your writing flow better.

3. Write up your literature review

One of the best places to start when writing your masters dissertation is with the literature review. This involves researching and evaluating existing academic literature in order to identify any gaps for your own research.

Many students prefer to write the literature review chapter first, as this is where several of the underpinning theories and concepts exist. This section helps set the stage for the rest of your dissertation, and will help inform the writing of your other dissertation chapters.

What to include in your literature review

The literature review chapter is more than just a summary of existing research, it is an evaluation of how this research has informed your own unique research.

Demonstrate how the different pieces of research fit together. Are there overlapping theories? Are there disagreements between researchers?

Highlight the gap in the research. This is key, as a dissertation is mostly about developing your own unique research. Is there an unexplored avenue of research? Has existing research failed to disprove a particular theory?

Back up your methodology. Demonstrate why your methodology is appropriate by discussing where it has been used successfully in other research.

4. Write up your research

For instance, a more theoretical-based research topic might encompass more writing from a philosophical perspective. Qualitative data might require a lot more evaluation and discussion than quantitative research. 

Methodology chapter

The methodology chapter is all about how you carried out your research and which specific techniques you used to gather data. You should write about broader methodological approaches (e.g. qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods), and then go into more detail about your chosen data collection strategy. 

Data collection strategies include things like interviews, questionnaires, surveys, content analyses, discourse analyses and many more.

Data analysis and findings chapters

The data analysis or findings chapter should cover what you actually discovered during your research project. It should be detailed, specific and objective (don’t worry, you’ll have time for evaluation later on in your dissertation)

Write up your findings in a way that is easy to understand. For example, if you have a lot of numerical data, this could be easier to digest in tables.

This will make it easier for you to dive into some deeper analysis in later chapters. Remember, the reader will refer back to your data analysis section to cross-reference your later evaluations against your actual findings – so presenting your data in a simple manner is beneficial.

Think about how you can segment your data into categories. For instance, it can be useful to segment interview transcripts by interviewee. 

Top writing tip : write up notes on how you might phrase a certain part of the research. This will help bring the best out of your writing. There is nothing worse than when you think of the perfect way to phrase something and then you completely forget it.

5. Discuss and evaluate

Once you’ve presented your findings, it’s time to evaluate and discuss them.

It might feel difficult to differentiate between your findings and discussion sections, because you are essentially talking about the same data. The easiest way to remember the difference is that your findings simply present the data, whereas your discussion tells the story of this data.

Your evaluation breaks the story down, explaining the key findings, what went well and what didn’t go so well.

In your discussion chapter, you’ll have chance to expand on the results from your findings section. For example, explain what certain numbers mean and draw relationships between different pieces of data.

Top writing tip: don’t be afraid to point out the shortcomings of your research. You will receive higher marks for writing objectively. For example, if you didn’t receive as many interview responses as expected, evaluate how this has impacted your research and findings. Don’t let your ego get in the way!

6. Write your introduction

Your introduction sets the scene for the rest of your masters dissertation. You might be wondering why writing an introduction isn't at the start of our step-by-step list, and that’s because many students write this chapter last.

Here’s what your introduction chapter should cover:

Problem statement

Research question

Significance of your research

This tells the reader what you’ll be researching as well as its importance. You’ll have a good idea of what to include here from your original dissertation proposal , though it’s fairly common for research to change once it gets started.

Writing or at least revisiting this section last can be really helpful, since you’ll have a more well-rounded view of what your research actually covers once it has been completed and written up.

Masters dissertation writing tips

When to start writing your thesis or dissertation.

When you should start writing your masters thesis or dissertation depends on the scope of the research project and the duration of your course. In some cases, your research project may be relatively short and you may not be able to write much of your thesis before completing the project. 

But regardless of the nature of your research project and of the scope of your course, you should start writing your thesis or at least some of its sections as early as possible, and there are a number of good reasons for this:

Academic writing is about practice, not talent. The first steps of writing your dissertation will help you get into the swing of your project. Write early to help you prepare in good time.

Write things as you do them. This is a good way to keep your dissertation full of fresh ideas and ensure that you don’t forget valuable information.

The first draft is never perfect. Give yourself time to edit and improve your dissertation. It’s likely that you’ll need to make at least one or two more drafts before your final submission.

Writing early on will help you stay motivated when writing all subsequent drafts.

Thinking and writing are very connected. As you write, new ideas and concepts will come to mind. So writing early on is a great way to generate new ideas.

How to improve your writing skills

The best way of improving your dissertation or thesis writing skills is to:

 Finish the first draft of your masters thesis as early as possible and send it to your supervisor for revision. Your supervisor will correct your draft and point out any writing errors. This process will be repeated a few times which will help you recognise and correct writing mistakes yourself as time progresses.

If you are not a native English speaker, it may be useful to ask your English friends to read a part of your thesis and warn you about any recurring writing mistakes. Read our section on English language support for more advice. 

Most universities have writing centres that offer writing courses and other kinds of support for postgraduate students. Attending these courses may help you improve your writing and meet other postgraduate students with whom you will be able to discuss what constitutes a well-written thesis.

Read academic articles and search for writing resources on the internet. This will help you adopt an academic writing style, which will eventually become effortless with practice.

Keep track of your bibliography 

The easiest way to keep the track of all the articles you have read for your research is to create a database where you can summarise each article/chapter into a few most important bullet points to help you remember their content. 

Another useful tool for doing this effectively is to learn how to use specific reference management software (RMS) such as EndNote. RMS is relatively simple to use and saves a lot of time when it comes to organising your bibliography. This may come in very handy, especially if your reference section is suspiciously missing two hours before you need to submit your dissertation! 

Avoid accidental plagiarism

Plagiarism may cost you your postgraduate degree and it is important that you consciously avoid it when writing your thesis or dissertation. 

Occasionally, postgraduate students commit plagiarism unintentionally. This can happen when sections are copy and pasted from journal articles they are citing instead of simply rephrasing them. Whenever you are presenting information from another academic source, make sure you reference the source and avoid writing the statement exactly as it is written in the original paper.

What kind of format should your thesis have?

Read your university’s guidelines before you actually start writing your thesis so you don’t have to waste time changing the format further down the line. However in general, most universities will require you to use 1.5-2 line spacing, font size 12 for text, and to print your thesis on A4 paper. These formatting guidelines may not necessarily result in the most aesthetically appealing thesis, however beauty is not always practical, and a nice looking thesis can be a more tiring reading experience for your postgrad examiner .

When should I submit my thesis?

The length of time it takes to complete your MSc or MA thesis will vary from student to student. This is because people work at different speeds, projects vary in difficulty, and some projects encounter more problems than others. 

Obviously, you should submit your MSc thesis or MA thesis when it is finished! Every university will say in its regulations that it is the student who must decide when it is ready to submit. 

However, your supervisor will advise you whether your work is ready and you should take their advice on this. If your supervisor says that your work is not ready, then it is probably unwise to submit it. Usually your supervisor will read your final thesis or dissertation draft and will let you know what’s required before submitting your final draft.

Set yourself a target for completion. This will help you stay on track and avoid falling behind. You may also only have funding for the year, so it is important to ensure you submit your dissertation before the deadline – and also ensure you don’t miss out on your graduation ceremony ! 

To set your target date, work backwards from the final completion and submission date, and aim to have your final draft completed at least three months before that final date.

Don’t leave your submission until the last minute – submit your work in good time before the final deadline. Consider what else you’ll have going on around that time. Are you moving back home? Do you have a holiday? Do you have other plans?

If you need to have finished by the end of June to be able to go to a graduation ceremony in July, then you should leave a suitable amount of time for this. You can build this into your dissertation project planning at the start of your research.

It is important to remember that handing in your thesis or dissertation is not the end of your masters program . There will be a period of time of one to three months between the time you submit and your final day. Some courses may even require a viva to discuss your research project, though this is more common at PhD level . 

If you have passed, you will need to make arrangements for the thesis to be properly bound and resubmitted, which will take a week or two. You may also have minor corrections to make to the work, which could take up to a month or so. This means that you need to allow a period of at least three months between submitting your thesis and the time when your program will be completely finished. Of course, it is also possible you may be asked after the viva to do more work on your thesis and resubmit it before the examiners will agree to award the degree – so there may be an even longer time period before you have finished.

How do I submit the MA or MSc dissertation?

Most universities will have a clear procedure for submitting a masters dissertation. Some universities require your ‘intention to submit’. This notifies them that you are ready to submit and allows the university to appoint an external examiner.

This normally has to be completed at least three months before the date on which you think you will be ready to submit.

When your MA or MSc dissertation is ready, you will have to print several copies and have them bound. The number of copies varies between universities, but the university usually requires three – one for each of the examiners and one for your supervisor.

However, you will need one more copy – for yourself! These copies must be softbound, not hardbound. The theses you see on the library shelves will be bound in an impressive hardback cover, but you can only get your work bound like this once you have passed. 

You should submit your dissertation or thesis for examination in soft paper or card covers, and your university will give you detailed guidance on how it should be bound. They will also recommend places where you can get the work done.

The next stage is to hand in your work, in the way and to the place that is indicated in your university’s regulations. All you can do then is sit and wait for the examination – but submitting your thesis is often a time of great relief and celebration!

Some universities only require a digital submission, where you upload your dissertation as a file through their online submission system.

Related articles

What Is The Difference Between A Dissertation & A Thesis

How To Get The Most Out Of Your Writing At Postgraduate Level

Dos & Don'ts Of Academic Writing

Dispelling Dissertation Drama

Writing A Dissertation Proposal

Postgrad Solutions Study Bursaries

Exclusive bursaries Open day alerts Funding advice Application tips Latest PG news

Sign up now!

Take 2 minutes to sign up to PGS student services and reap the benefits…

• The chance to apply for one of our 5 PGS Bursaries worth £2,000 each
• Fantastic scholarship updates
• Latest PG news sent directly to you.

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 Write A Research Proposal

A Straightforward How-To Guide (With Examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | August 2019 (Updated April 2023)

Writing up a strong research proposal for a dissertation or thesis is much like a marriage proposal. It’s a task that calls on you to win somebody over and persuade them that what you’re planning is a great idea. An idea they’re happy to say ‘yes’ to. This means that your dissertation proposal needs to be   persuasive ,   attractive   and well-planned. In this post, I’ll show you how to write a winning dissertation proposal, from scratch.

Before you start:

– Understand exactly what a research proposal is – Ask yourself these 4 questions

The 5 essential ingredients:

• The title/topic
• The introduction chapter
• The scope/delimitations
• Preliminary literature review
• Design/ methodology
• Practical considerations and risks 

What Is A Research Proposal?

The research proposal is literally that: a written document that communicates what you propose to research, in a concise format. It’s where you put all that stuff that’s spinning around in your head down on to paper, in a logical, convincing fashion.

Convincing   is the keyword here, as your research proposal needs to convince the assessor that your research is   clearly articulated   (i.e., a clear research question) ,   worth doing   (i.e., is unique and valuable enough to justify the effort), and   doable   within the restrictions you’ll face (time limits, budget, skill limits, etc.). If your proposal does not address these three criteria, your research won’t be approved, no matter how “exciting” the research idea might be.

PS – if you’re completely new to proposal writing, we’ve got a detailed walkthrough video covering two successful research proposals here . 

How do I know I’m ready?

Before starting the writing process, you need to   ask yourself 4 important questions .  If you can’t answer them succinctly and confidently, you’re not ready – you need to go back and think more deeply about your dissertation topic .

You should be able to answer the following 4 questions before starting your dissertation or thesis research proposal:

• WHAT is my main research question? (the topic)
• WHO cares and why is this important? (the justification)
• WHAT data would I need to answer this question, and how will I analyse it? (the research design)
• HOW will I manage the completion of this research, within the given timelines? (project and risk management)

If you can’t answer these questions clearly and concisely,   you’re not yet ready   to write your research proposal – revisit our   post on choosing a topic .

If you can, that’s great – it’s time to start writing up your dissertation proposal. Next, I’ll discuss what needs to go into your research proposal, and how to structure it all into an intuitive, convincing document with a linear narrative.

The 5 Essential Ingredients

Research proposals can vary in style between institutions and disciplines, but here I’ll share with you a   handy 5-section structure   you can use. These 5 sections directly address the core questions we spoke about earlier, ensuring that you present a convincing proposal. If your institution already provides a proposal template, there will likely be substantial overlap with this, so you’ll still get value from reading on.

For each section discussed below, make sure you use headers and sub-headers (ideally, numbered headers) to help the reader navigate through your document, and to support them when they need to revisit a previous section. Don’t just present an endless wall of text, paragraph after paragraph after paragraph…

Top Tip:   Use MS Word Styles to format headings. This will allow you to be clear about whether a sub-heading is level 2, 3, or 4. Additionally, you can view your document in ‘outline view’ which will show you only your headings. This makes it much easier to check your structure, shift things around and make decisions about where a section needs to sit. You can also generate a 100% accurate table of contents using Word’s automatic functionality.

Ingredient #1 – Topic/Title Header

Your research proposal’s title should be your main research question in its simplest form, possibly with a sub-heading providing basic details on the specifics of the study. For example:

“Compliance with equality legislation in the charity sector: a study of the ‘reasonable adjustments’ made in three London care homes”

As you can see, this title provides a clear indication of what the research is about, in broad terms. It paints a high-level picture for the first-time reader, which gives them a taste of what to expect.   Always aim for a clear, concise title . Don’t feel the need to capture every detail of your research in your title – your proposal will fill in the gaps.

Need a helping hand?

Ingredient #2 – Introduction

In this section of your research proposal, you’ll expand on what you’ve communicated in the title, by providing a few paragraphs which offer more detail about your research topic. Importantly, the focus here is the   topic   – what will you research and why is that worth researching? This is not the place to discuss methodology, practicalities, etc. – you’ll do that later.

You should cover the following:

• An overview of the   broad area   you’ll be researching – introduce the reader to key concepts and language
• An explanation of the   specific (narrower) area   you’ll be focusing, and why you’ll be focusing there
• Your research   aims   and   objectives
• Your   research question (s) and sub-questions (if applicable)

Importantly, you should aim to use short sentences and plain language – don’t babble on with extensive jargon, acronyms and complex language. Assume that the reader is an intelligent layman – not a subject area specialist (even if they are). Remember that the   best writing is writing that can be easily understood   and digested. Keep it simple.

Note that some universities may want some extra bits and pieces in your introduction section. For example, personal development objectives, a structural outline, etc. Check your brief to see if there are any other details they expect in your proposal, and make sure you find a place for these.

Ingredient #3 – Scope

Next, you’ll need to specify what the scope of your research will be – this is also known as the delimitations . In other words, you need to make it clear what you will be covering and, more importantly, what you won’t be covering in your research. Simply put, this is about ring fencing your research topic so that you have a laser-sharp focus.

All too often, students feel the need to go broad and try to address as many issues as possible, in the interest of producing comprehensive research. Whilst this is admirable, it’s a mistake. By tightly refining your scope, you’ll enable yourself to   go deep   with your research, which is what you need to earn good marks. If your scope is too broad, you’re likely going to land up with superficial research (which won’t earn marks), so don’t be afraid to narrow things down.

Ingredient #4 – Literature Review

In this section of your research proposal, you need to provide a (relatively) brief discussion of the existing literature. Naturally, this will not be as comprehensive as the literature review in your actual dissertation, but it will lay the foundation for that. In fact, if you put in the effort at this stage, you’ll make your life a lot easier when it’s time to write your actual literature review chapter.

There are a few things you need to achieve in this section:

• Demonstrate that you’ve done your reading and are   familiar with the current state of the research   in your topic area.
• Show that   there’s a clear gap   for your specific research – i.e., show that your topic is sufficiently unique and will add value to the existing research.
• Show how the existing research has shaped your thinking regarding   research design . For example, you might use scales or questionnaires from previous studies.

When you write up your literature review, keep these three objectives front of mind, especially number two (revealing the gap in the literature), so that your literature review has a   clear purpose and direction . Everything you write should be contributing towards one (or more) of these objectives in some way. If it doesn’t, you need to ask yourself whether it’s truly needed.

Top Tip:  Don’t fall into the trap of just describing the main pieces of literature, for example, “A says this, B says that, C also says that…” and so on. Merely describing the literature provides no value. Instead, you need to   synthesise   it, and use it to address the three objectives above.

Ingredient #5 – Research Methodology

Now that you’ve clearly explained both your intended research topic (in the introduction) and the existing research it will draw on (in the literature review section), it’s time to get practical and explain exactly how you’ll be carrying out your own research. In other words, your research methodology.

In this section, you’ll need to   answer two critical questions :

• How   will you design your research? I.e., what research methodology will you adopt, what will your sample be, how will you collect data, etc.
• Why   have you chosen this design? I.e., why does this approach suit your specific research aims, objectives and questions?

In other words, this is not just about explaining WHAT you’ll be doing, it’s also about explaining WHY. In fact, the   justification is the most important part , because that justification is how you demonstrate a good understanding of research design (which is what assessors want to see).

Some essential design choices you need to cover in your research proposal include:

• Your intended research philosophy (e.g., positivism, interpretivism or pragmatism )
• What methodological approach you’ll be taking (e.g., qualitative , quantitative or mixed )
• The details of your sample (e.g., sample size, who they are, who they represent, etc.)
• What data you plan to collect (i.e. data about what, in what form?)
• How you plan to collect it (e.g., surveys , interviews , focus groups, etc.)
• How you plan to analyse it (e.g., regression analysis, thematic analysis , etc.)
• Ethical adherence (i.e., does this research satisfy all ethical requirements of your institution, or does it need further approval?)

This list is not exhaustive – these are just some core attributes of research design. Check with your institution what level of detail they expect. The “ research onion ” by Saunders et al (2009) provides a good summary of the various design choices you ultimately need to make – you can   read more about that here .

Don’t forget the practicalities…

In addition to the technical aspects, you will need to address the   practical   side of the project. In other words, you need to explain   what resources you’ll need   (e.g., time, money, access to equipment or software, etc.) and how you intend to secure these resources. You need to show that your project is feasible, so any “make or break” type resources need to already be secured. The success or failure of your project cannot depend on some resource which you’re not yet sure you have access to.

Another part of the practicalities discussion is   project and risk management . In other words, you need to show that you have a clear project plan to tackle your research with. Some key questions to address:

• What are the timelines for each phase of your project?
• Are the time allocations reasonable?
• What happens if something takes longer than anticipated (risk management)?
• What happens if you don’t get the response rate you expect?

A good way to demonstrate that you’ve thought this through is to include a Gantt chart and a risk register (in the appendix if word count is a problem). With these two tools, you can show that you’ve got a clear, feasible plan, and you’ve thought about and accounted for the potential risks.

Tip – Be honest about the potential difficulties – but show that you are anticipating solutions and workarounds. This is much more impressive to an assessor than an unrealistically optimistic proposal which does not anticipate any challenges whatsoever.

Final Touches: Read And Simplify

The final step is to edit and proofread your proposal – very carefully. It sounds obvious, but all too often poor editing and proofreading ruin a good proposal. Nothing is more off-putting for an assessor than a poorly edited, typo-strewn document. It sends the message that you either do not pay attention to detail, or just don’t care. Neither of these are good messages. Put the effort into editing and proofreading your proposal (or pay someone to do it for you) – it will pay dividends.

When you’re editing, watch out for ‘academese’. Many students can speak simply, passionately and clearly about their dissertation topic – but become incomprehensible the moment they turn the laptop on. You are not required to write in any kind of special, formal, complex language when you write academic work. Sure, there may be technical terms, jargon specific to your discipline, shorthand terms and so on. But, apart from those,   keep your written language very close to natural spoken language   – just as you would speak in the classroom. Imagine that you are explaining your project plans to your classmates or a family member. Remember, write for the intelligent layman, not the subject matter experts. Plain-language, concise writing is what wins hearts and minds – and marks!

Let’s Recap: Research Proposal 101

And there you have it – how to write your dissertation or thesis research proposal, from the title page to the final proof. Here’s a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• The purpose of the research proposal is to   convince   – therefore, you need to make a clear, concise argument of why your research is both worth doing and doable.
• Make sure you can ask the critical what, who, and how questions of your research   before   you put pen to paper.
• Title – provides the first taste of your research, in broad terms
• Introduction – explains what you’ll be researching in more detail
• Scope – explains the boundaries of your research
• Literature review – explains how your research fits into the existing research and why it’s unique and valuable
• Research methodology – explains and justifies how you will carry out your own research

Hopefully, this post has helped you better understand how to write up a winning research proposal. If you enjoyed it, be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach Blog . If your university doesn’t provide any template for your proposal, you might want to try out our free research proposal template .

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

30 Comments

Thank you so much for the valuable insight that you have given, especially on the research proposal. That is what I have managed to cover. I still need to go back to the other parts as I got disturbed while still listening to Derek’s audio on you-tube. I am inspired. I will definitely continue with Grad-coach guidance on You-tube.

Thanks for the kind words :). All the best with your proposal.

First of all, thanks a lot for making such a wonderful presentation. The video was really useful and gave me a very clear insight of how a research proposal has to be written. I shall try implementing these ideas in my RP.

Once again, I thank you for this content.

I found reading your outline on writing research proposal very beneficial. I wish there was a way of submitting my draft proposal to you guys for critiquing before I submit to the institution.

Hi Bonginkosi

Thank you for the kind words. Yes, we do provide a review service. The best starting point is to have a chat with one of our coaches here: https://gradcoach.com/book/new/ .

Hello team GRADCOACH, may God bless you so much. I was totally green in research. Am so happy for your free superb tutorials and resources. Once again thank you so much Derek and his team.

You’re welcome, Erick. Good luck with your research proposal 🙂

thank you for the information. its precise and on point.

Really a remarkable piece of writing and great source of guidance for the researchers. GOD BLESS YOU for your guidance. Regards

Thanks so much for your guidance. It is easy and comprehensive the way you explain the steps for a winning research proposal.

Thank you guys so much for the rich post. I enjoyed and learn from every word in it. My problem now is how to get into your platform wherein I can always seek help on things related to my research work ? Secondly, I wish to find out if there is a way I can send my tentative proposal to you guys for examination before I take to my supervisor Once again thanks very much for the insights

Thanks for your kind words, Desire.

If you are based in a country where Grad Coach’s paid services are available, you can book a consultation by clicking the “Book” button in the top right.

Best of luck with your studies.

May God bless you team for the wonderful work you are doing,

If I have a topic, Can I submit it to you so that you can draft a proposal for me?? As I am expecting to go for masters degree in the near future.

Thanks for your comment. We definitely cannot draft a proposal for you, as that would constitute academic misconduct. The proposal needs to be your own work. We can coach you through the process, but it needs to be your own work and your own writing.

Best of luck with your research!

I found a lot of many essential concepts from your material. it is real a road map to write a research proposal. so thanks a lot. If there is any update material on your hand on MBA please forward to me.

GradCoach is a professional website that presents support and helps for MBA student like me through the useful online information on the page and with my 1-on-1 online coaching with the amazing and professional PhD Kerryen.

Thank you Kerryen so much for the support and help 🙂

I really recommend dealing with such a reliable services provider like Gradcoah and a coach like Kerryen.

Hi, Am happy for your service and effort to help students and researchers, Please, i have been given an assignment on research for strategic development, the task one is to formulate a research proposal to support the strategic development of a business area, my issue here is how to go about it, especially the topic or title and introduction. Please, i would like to know if you could help me and how much is the charge.

This content is practical, valuable, and just great!

Thank you very much!

Hi Derek, Thank you for the valuable presentation. It is very helpful especially for beginners like me. I am just starting my PhD.

This is quite instructive and research proposal made simple. Can I have a research proposal template?

Great! Thanks for rescuing me, because I had no former knowledge in this topic. But with this piece of information, I am now secured. Thank you once more.

I enjoyed listening to your video on how to write a proposal. I think I will be able to write a winning proposal with your advice. I wish you were to be my supervisor.

Dear Derek Jansen,

Thank you for your great content. I couldn’t learn these topics in MBA, but now I learned from GradCoach. Really appreciate your efforts….

From Afghanistan!

I have got very essential inputs for startup of my dissertation proposal. Well organized properly communicated with video presentation. Thank you for the presentation.

Wow, this is absolutely amazing guys. Thank you so much for the fruitful presentation, you’ve made my research much easier.

this helps me a lot. thank you all so much for impacting in us. may god richly bless you all

How I wish I’d learn about Grad Coach earlier. I’ve been stumbling around writing and rewriting! Now I have concise clear directions on how to put this thing together. Thank you!

Fantastic!! Thank You for this very concise yet comprehensive guidance.

Even if I am poor in English I would like to thank you very much.

Thank you very much, this is very insightful.

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

How to Write a Dissertation Proposal | A Step-by-Step Guide

Published on 14 February 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on 11 November 2022.

A dissertation proposal describes the research you want to do: what it’s about, how you’ll conduct it, and why it’s worthwhile. You will probably have to write a proposal before starting your dissertation as an undergraduate or postgraduate student.

A dissertation proposal should generally include:

• An introduction to your topic and aims
• A literature review  of the current state of knowledge
• An outline of your proposed methodology
• A discussion of the possible implications of the research
• A bibliography  of relevant sources

Dissertation proposals vary a lot in terms of length and structure, so make sure to follow any guidelines given to you by your institution, and check with your supervisor when you’re unsure.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Step 1: coming up with an idea, step 2: presenting your idea in the introduction, step 3: exploring related research in the literature review, step 4: describing your methodology, step 5: outlining the potential implications of your research, step 6: creating a reference list or bibliography.

Before writing your proposal, it’s important to come up with a strong idea for your dissertation.

Find an area of your field that interests you and do some preliminary reading in that area. What are the key concerns of other researchers? What do they suggest as areas for further research, and what strikes you personally as an interesting gap in the field?

Once you have an idea, consider how to narrow it down and the best way to frame it. Don’t be too ambitious or too vague – a dissertation topic needs to be specific enough to be feasible. Move from a broad field of interest to a specific niche:

• Russian literature 19th century Russian literature The novels of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky
• Social media Mental health effects of social media Influence of social media on young adults suffering from anxiety

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

Like most academic texts, a dissertation proposal begins with an introduction . This is where you introduce the topic of your research, provide some background, and most importantly, present your aim , objectives and research question(s) .

Try to dive straight into your chosen topic: What’s at stake in your research? Why is it interesting? Don’t spend too long on generalisations or grand statements:

• Social media is the most important technological trend of the 21st century. It has changed the world and influences our lives every day.
• Psychologists generally agree that the ubiquity of social media in the lives of young adults today has a profound impact on their mental health. However, the exact nature of this impact needs further investigation.

Once your area of research is clear, you can present more background and context. What does the reader need to know to understand your proposed questions? What’s the current state of research on this topic, and what will your dissertation contribute to the field?

If you’re including a literature review, you don’t need to go into too much detail at this point, but give the reader a general sense of the debates that you’re intervening in.

This leads you into the most important part of the introduction: your aim, objectives and research question(s) . These should be clearly identifiable and stand out from the text – for example, you could present them using bullet points or bold font.

Make sure that your research questions are specific and workable – something you can reasonably answer within the scope of your dissertation. Avoid being too broad or having too many different questions. Remember that your goal in a dissertation proposal is to convince the reader that your research is valuable and feasible:

• Does social media harm mental health?
• What is the impact of daily social media use on 18– to 25–year–olds suffering from general anxiety disorder?

Now that your topic is clear, it’s time to explore existing research covering similar ideas. This is important because it shows you what is missing from other research in the field and ensures that you’re not asking a question someone else has already answered.

You’ve probably already done some preliminary reading, but now that your topic is more clearly defined, you need to thoroughly analyse and evaluate the most relevant sources in your literature review .

Here you should summarise the findings of other researchers and comment on gaps and problems in their studies. There may be a lot of research to cover, so make effective use of paraphrasing to write concisely:

• Smith and Prakash state that ‘our results indicate a 25% decrease in the incidence of mechanical failure after the new formula was applied’.
• Smith and Prakash’s formula reduced mechanical failures by 25%.

The point is to identify findings and theories that will influence your own research, but also to highlight gaps and limitations in previous research which your dissertation can address:

• Subsequent research has failed to replicate this result, however, suggesting a flaw in Smith and Prakash’s methods. It is likely that the failure resulted from…

Next, you’ll describe your proposed methodology : the specific things you hope to do, the structure of your research and the methods that you will use to gather and analyse data.

You should get quite specific in this section – you need to convince your supervisor that you’ve thought through your approach to the research and can realistically carry it out. This section will look quite different, and vary in length, depending on your field of study.

You may be engaged in more empirical research, focusing on data collection and discovering new information, or more theoretical research, attempting to develop a new conceptual model or add nuance to an existing one.

Dissertation research often involves both, but the content of your methodology section will vary according to how important each approach is to your dissertation.

Empirical research

Empirical research involves collecting new data and analysing it in order to answer your research questions. It can be quantitative (focused on numbers), qualitative (focused on words and meanings), or a combination of both.

With empirical research, it’s important to describe in detail how you plan to collect your data:

• Will you use surveys ? A lab experiment ? Interviews?
• What variables will you measure?
• How will you select a representative sample ?
• If other people will participate in your research, what measures will you take to ensure they are treated ethically?
• What tools (conceptual and physical) will you use, and why?

It’s appropriate to cite other research here. When you need to justify your choice of a particular research method or tool, for example, you can cite a text describing the advantages and appropriate usage of that method.

Don’t overdo this, though; you don’t need to reiterate the whole theoretical literature, just what’s relevant to the choices you have made.

Moreover, your research will necessarily involve analysing the data after you have collected it. Though you don’t know yet what the data will look like, it’s important to know what you’re looking for and indicate what methods (e.g. statistical tests , thematic analysis ) you will use.

Theoretical research

You can also do theoretical research that doesn’t involve original data collection. In this case, your methodology section will focus more on the theory you plan to work with in your dissertation: relevant conceptual models and the approach you intend to take.

For example, a literary analysis dissertation rarely involves collecting new data, but it’s still necessary to explain the theoretical approach that will be taken to the text(s) under discussion, as well as which parts of the text(s) you will focus on:

• This dissertation will utilise Foucault’s theory of panopticism to explore the theme of surveillance in Orwell’s 1984 and Kafka’s The Trial…

Here, you may refer to the same theorists you have already discussed in the literature review. In this case, the emphasis is placed on how you plan to use their contributions in your own research.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

You’ll usually conclude your dissertation proposal with a section discussing what you expect your research to achieve.

You obviously can’t be too sure: you don’t know yet what your results and conclusions will be. Instead, you should describe the projected implications and contribution to knowledge of your dissertation.

First, consider the potential implications of your research. Will you:

• Develop or test a theory?
• Provide new information to governments or businesses?
• Challenge a commonly held belief?
• Suggest an improvement to a specific process?

Describe the intended result of your research and the theoretical or practical impact it will have:

Finally, it’s sensible to conclude by briefly restating the contribution to knowledge you hope to make: the specific question(s) you hope to answer and the gap the answer(s) will fill in existing knowledge:

Like any academic text, it’s important that your dissertation proposal effectively references all the sources you have used. You need to include a properly formatted reference list or bibliography at the end of your proposal.

Different institutions recommend different styles of referencing – commonly used styles include Harvard , Vancouver , APA , or MHRA . If your department does not have specific requirements, choose a style and apply it consistently.

A reference list includes only the sources that you cited in your proposal. A bibliography is slightly different: it can include every source you consulted in preparing the proposal, even if you didn’t mention it in the text. In the case of a dissertation proposal, a bibliography may also list relevant sources that you haven’t yet read, but that you intend to use during the research itself.

Check with your supervisor what type of bibliography or reference list you should include.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2022, November 11). How to Write a Dissertation Proposal | A Step-by-Step Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved 3 June 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/proposal/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, what is a dissertation | 5 essential questions to get started, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, what is a research methodology | steps & tips.

Master Thesis/Project Report Format

Guidelines for preparation of master thesis/project report, overview of the steps.

• Select master project/thesis advisor.
• Select a project topic.
• Select a committee.
• Obtain approvals for committee, advisor.
• Register for the master project/thesis course with thesis advisor. (A section number will be provided to you by your project/thesis advisor.)
• Start Research on your master project.
• (Optional)  Present a thesis proposal to the committee during mid-way of the thesis.
• Write project report/thesis.
• Present your master project and/or defend thesis.
• Submit your master project report, or publish thesis.

Project/Thesis Option

Discuss with your master project advisor at the beginning to decide whether your master project will be more suited for the project or thesis option.

Questions to ask when evaluating your master project topic:

• Is there current interest in this topic in the field?
• Is there is a gap in knowledge that work on this topic could help to fill?
• Is it possible to focus on a manageable segment of this topic?
• Identify a preliminary method of data collection that is acceptable to your advisor.
• Is there a body of literature is available that is relevant to your topic?
• Do you need financial assistance to carry out your research?
• Is the data necessary to complete your work is easily accessible?
• Define the project purpose, scope, objectives, and procedures.
• What are the potential limitations of the study?
• Are there any skills called on by the study that you have yet to acquire?

Master level project involves:

• Analyzing the problem or topic.
• Conducting extensive research.
• Summarizing findings from the research investigation.
• Recommending additional research on the topic.
• Drawing conclusions and making recommendations.
• Documenting the results of the research.
• Defending conclusions and recommendations.

Pre-Thesis Planning

When you’re contemplating a thesis topic, you should discuss your interests with as many people as possible to gain a broad perspective. You will find your faculty advisor knowledgeable and willing to offer excellent suggestions and advice regarding an appropriate thesis topic.

Give considerable thought to the identification and planning of a thesis topic. Review literature related to your interests; read a variety of research papers, abstracts, and proposals for content, methods and structure. Looking at completed master’s theses will be a useful activity toward expanding inquiry skills and thought processes.

After the thesis advisor is selected, you may register on-line for a thesis section. You will need to see your thesis instructor to obtain the thesis section number.

Suggested Master Project/Thesis Completion Timeline

Below please find a suggested timeline. Individual timelines may vary from one student to another.

Required Deadlines

• The approval page with all signatures must be submitted to the graduate advisor prior to the last day of the semester.
• The thesis must be submitted electronically prior to the last day of classes. The last day of class can be identified in the on-line Academic calendar.

Scholarship Possibilities

Funding is usually available to students with expertise to the specific area. You will want to research scholarship options during the pre-project planning as many scholarship applications are due months before the award is granted.

• Research assistantship with a faculty advisor related to the topic of research
• Teaching assistantship to teach an undergraduate laboratory
• Check with  Career Center  for on-campus positions
• Attend all career fairs that would be of interest to consider summer internships
• SPIE (The International Society for Optics and Photonics)
• ISA (International Society of Automation)

More opportunities exist; you will need to search for scholarships based on your topic of research.

Citing Sources

The Technology Division at the Cullen College of Engineering* does not mandate citation styles, but you must cite your sources and cite them consistently. Here are some helpful links to assist you with citation:

• Landmark's Son of a Citation Machine
• Wikipedia Citation Templates

*The   Human Development Consumer Science department   prefers you to use the APA style. Please consult with your thesis advisor when choosing a citation style .

Thesis Quality

The Technology Division at the Cullen College of Engineering has significant expectations with regard to thesis quality. Poor or average level theses will not receive college approvals. It is the joint responsibility of the student and the committee to ensure that the thesis is of acceptable quality. Ultimately, the task is one borne by the student as the thesis is a reflection of the quality of their work. The thesis committee can direct the student to seek assistance if quality issues are noticed as the chapters are developed. The student should take quality feedback seriously and not wait until the end to attempt to fix this type of problem as it can result in significant delays and postponement of graduation. When you write and defend your thesis, keep the following guidelines in mind:

• Shows a cursory examination of the topic.
• Makes little use of existing data sources.
• Fails to examine primary sources.
• Shows little comprehension of crucial texts or research in the subject matter.
• Lacks adequate organization.
• Treats the topic in a competent, straightforward way.
• Shows a good grasp of the material.
• Makes use of existing data sources in a competent fashion or shows a good acquaintance with primary sources and current research.
• Shows a solid comprehension of research in the subject matter
• Sustains a line of argumentation throughout the thesis
• Shows all of the above qualities of a quality thesis as well as some measure of originality in research. Originality is defined as developing new data; treating existing data in an original or particularly compelling way; developing new or particularly compelling theoretical arguments; interpreting existing research in an original or particularly compelling way; or bringing primary or secondary materials and research together to sustain a new, comprehensive or compelling interpretation. In general, a thigh quality thesis either shows some measure of originality in its argument or empirical base; or is in some other way striking or new.

Organization of Thesis

The original and copies of the thesis MUST include the following items  IN THE ORDER LISTED :

• Blank sheet of bond paper at the beginning of each copy submitted.
• Copyright page (optional).
• Title Page (must show month and year of graduation - see example).
• Signature page (see example). All three required copies must have ORIGINAL SIGNATURES of the committee and the student. Signatures must be in black ink. This page should be omitted from the electronic thesis.
• Acknowledgment (optional).
• Abstract Title Page (optional - must show month and year of graduation - see example).
• Abstract (optional - University Microfilms, Inc. requires abstracts be no longer than 150 words.).
• Table of Contents.
• References.

Style Requirements

Although there is no prescribed style for the completed thesis, there are several style manuals available which may prove helpful. The student should contact the thesis advisor to discuss the style manual to be used.  Above all, it is important to be consistent throughout the entire thesis.  Decide how you wish to structure your manuscript and be consistent throughout it.

Steps in the Submission of Electronic Dissertation/Thesis

• Write your thesis per Technology Division at the Cullen College of Engineering thesis guidelines.
• Successfully defend your thesis. Make corrections per the thesis committee.
• Committee signs the approval page.
• Submit a copy of the final thesis version to the Associate Dean for Research for Graduate Studies or your graduate advisor for formatting review a minimum of two weeks prior to the end of the semester.
• Wait for formatting approval before beginning electronic submission process.

Electronic Submission

• Create a single pdf file of the thesis. The signature page is NOT included in the online submission.
• Submit the signed approval page to your graduate advisor. Approval page is stored in the student’s file. ET students must also submit rubric sheets, one for each committee member.
• Please note you will be asked if you would like to embargo your work, request a journal hold or a patent hold. Be sure to check with your committee chair about these features and whether your committee chair will approve them.
• Uploading the thesis requires an active Cougarnet account and log in. If you have not used your Cougarnet account in more than 90 days, please contact the ETD administrator for assistance.
• You will receive an e-mail confirming your upload to TDL. Please forward this email to your graduate advisor.
• Wait for confirmation from your faculty chair and graduate advisor that your document has been accepted.
• Email your committee chair requesting approval of your submission. Also request approval of the embargo, if applicable.

Specifications

The font should be Times New Roman, 12 pt. font

The margins should be one inch (1") each

Electronic Copy Submission

All CCE Technology Division theses submitted in an electronic format may be hosted on the College webpage. You must submit an electronic copy of the thesis in pdf format that accurately represents the printed version of the final document.

• Copyright Page Example
• Title Page Example
• Signature Page Example
• Acknowledgements Page Example
• Abstract Title Page
• Abstract Page
• A Message from the Senior Associate Dean
• Giving to the CCE Technology Division
• Our Mission
• Our History
• Technology Division Facilities
• Assessment & Accreditation
• Instructional Design
• Technical Support
• Web Technologies
• Information for Undergraduate Students
• Information for Graduate Students
• Transfer Students
• Veteran Students
• Contact + Request Info
• Student Experience Workshops
• See an Advisor
• Advising Forms
• Scholarships
• Career Services
• Laptop Policy
• Construction Management
• Engineering Technology
• Human Development and Consumer Sciences
• Information Science Technology
• Undergraduate Degree Programs
• Undergraduate Minors
• Graduate Degree Programs
• Professional & Certificate Programs
• Online Programs
• For Recruiters
• Career Resources
• Faculty & Staff
• Administrative Staff
• Boards of Advisors
• For Faculty and Staff
• Transition to UH at Sugar Land

MSc thesis projects - Plant Ecology and Nature Conservation Group

Our research can roughly be divided into three themes. Below you will find general information on these themes, but first we would like to provide you with some guidelines on how to select the right thesis project.

How to choose a thesis project?

The MSc thesis projects are clustered in research themes that cover the fields of interest of our lecturers, post-docs and PhD students. They are listed as supervisors. Many subjects are also suitable for a BSc thesis. Length and content of a thesis project may be tailored to your wishes. An overview of available project can be found in the TIP-database http://tip.wur.nl . New projects will be added to this database throughout the year.

If you are interested in a particular thesis project you can contact the supervisor of the project directly. Alternatively, if you are interested in a theme but you cannot find a suitable project, you may consult the contact person of the theme. When you have difficulties choosing a theme, please contact Juul Limpens ( [email protected] ).

You can also do a thesis project at a research institute or a different university in the Netherlands or abroad, on the condition that the project and the supervision are of sufficient scientific quality (PhD supervisor) and a supervisor from PEN is involved.

Start in time with looking for a thesis project and contacting people: preferably 3 to 9 months before the start of your project. Preparations for projects abroad take a long time. Some projects may require following an additional course.

Information on procedures around theses and internships and instructions for doing a thesis project are presented in the ‘Guidelines for preparing an MSc-thesis’. A hard copy can be obtained at the secretary’s office after registration for a thesis. The Guidelines also give an overview of prerequisite and recommended courses for a thesis PEN.

Theme 1 Environment and ecosystem functioning

Contact person: Juul Limpens

Other supervisors: Monique Heijmans, José van Paassen, Rúna Magnússon

Background: This theme covers our research on large-scale human influences on ecosystem functioning. Increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, climate change and nitrogen deposition strongly affect nutrient- and water cycling within ecosystems, plant growth, and competitive relations between plant species. Such effects may change vegetation succession and biodiversity. Conversely, the resulting changes in the vegetation can have important consequences for ecosystem processes such as biomass production, carbon sequestration and emission, evapotranspiration, erosion, absorption and reflection of solar radiation.

Research: Peatlands equal forests as carbon (C) stores due to slow decomposition of the water-locked plant material. Large-scale draining of peatlands and extraction of peat have removed the lock on the stored carbon, turning them into sources for greenhouse gasses. At PEN we study functioning of intact, degraded and rewetted peatlands in the Netherlands and abroad to 1) understand how the ecosystem services change with environmental and human stressors and 2) how we can use these relationships to best manage and restore these ecosystems. (José van Paassen, Juul Limpens)

Northern ecosystems are facing rapid climate warming. In response, shrub vegetation is expanding. Good news, as shrubs can store carbon and protect permafrost soils from warming up in summer through shading. Bad news, as shrubs can warm up the soil in winter by capturing snow. Climate change, shrub expansion, permafrost degradation and vegetation succession - and their many interactions! - make for an exciting puzzle to work on in challenging environments. (Rúna Magnússon, Juul Limpens, Monique Heijmans)

Coastal ecosystems protect a large part of the world’s shores against flooding, harbour their own special species and often serve as recreation areas. One of the big questions is to what extent these ecosystems can keep on offering these services as the sea level keeps on rising: how resilient are salt marshes and dunes? (Juul Limpens)

Type of work: The research involves field observations, experimental work in field, garden or greenhouses, remote sensing, simulation studies on long-term dynamics of ecosystems and tree-ring studies on polar shrubs.

Theme 2 Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning

Contact person: Fons van der Plas

Other supervisors: Amanda Taylor, Coline Boonman, Philippine Vergeer

Background: The biodiversity within ecosystems is an important aspect of the conservation value of ecosystems, because species rich communities are rare and many endangered species occur mainly in species rich communities. After many years of research the regulation of biodiversity is still poorly understood. How can we explain that 40 or more plant species of higher plants per m2 coexist in some communities, while other communities contain only a few species? How do species manage to survive under the pressure of competition, stress and disturbance? What circumstances are favourable to species richness and how can we promote and maintain or destroy these circumstances? The role of biodiversity in ecosystem functioning is even more obscure. Species richness could have important impacts on other ecosystem properties and functions such as resource use, biomass production, and resistance to invasions.

Several projects are united under this theme.

A. The importance of biodiversity for ecosystem processes

The rapid loss of species has inspired ecologists to investigate the importance of biodiversity for the functioning of ecosystems. For some ecosystem processes, such as primary productivity in grasslands, several experiments have shown loss of plant species is detrimental. This negative effect has been ascribed to a loss of beneficial interactions among species. However, we still do not fully understand which interactions and, more importantly, how they work. In addition, the importance of biodiversity for many other ecosystem processes, in different ecosystems, is unclear. For example, some experiments have shown biodiversity effects for decomposition of dead organic material, a crucial process driving C and N cycles and ultimately productivity, but other studies found no effect or even negative effects! So far, we cannot explain these conflicting results. New clever experiments are strongly needed.

B. Regulation of plant species richness

In nature conservation it is important to know which circumstances are important for the development of species rich communities and how can we restore species rich communities. The relation between species richness and nutrient availability is especially important, since nutrient availability is influenced unintentionally by environmental problems, like eutrophication, and agricultural practices, like drainage. It can also be manipulated deliberately by conservation management practices (like grazing, mowing, sod cutting, hydrological measures, and fertilisation). The highest species richness is usually found at intermediate levels of biomass production, as set by the availability of the most limiting nutrient. We investigate how species richness depends on biomass production, above-ground structure of the vegetation, identity and number of (co-)limiting nutrients. To determine which factors limit the various coexisting species we measure biomass nutrient concentrations and  responses to fertilisation with separate nutrients in the field. To understand differences in response we investigate nutrient uptake efficiency and nutrient use efficiency in pot and water culture experiments in the greenhouse.

C. Ecological patterns in biodiversit y

Spatial patterns in biodiversity may determine the location of specific ecosystem services and may guide conservation efforts. ecological questions regarding a shift in spatial patterns or community adjustments due to disturbance (e.g. climate change, fire, management) can be answered at various scales, from local to global and from species to community levels. the research focus of pen lies within grasslands, urban environments, and global spatial scale patterns, where field studies and large database analyses are combined. applying the latest biodiversity models enables us to link patterns in biodiversity to environmental conditions and functional traits., theme 3 nature conservation in agricultural and urban landscapes.

Contact person: Prof.Dr. David Kleijn. E-mail

Other supervisors: Jeroen Scheper, Thijs Fijen

Background: Some of the most species rich European ecosystems have developed as a result of creation and/or  prolonged and extensive use by mankind (e.g. chalk grasslands, sub-alpine meadows, walls). Currently, the diversity and species richness is being threatened seriously, especially in agricultural areas. Policy makers of EU and national governments s have recognised this and have started large-scale conservation initiatives. One of the initiatives to reverse the trend of progressive bio-diversity loss, the ‘agri-environment schemes’, aims to re-integrate nature conservation with farming.

Research: The research within the theme ‘Nature conservation in agricultural and urban landscapes’ focuses on the examination and evaluation of nature conservation efforts on farms and other multifunctional areas.

A range of species groups is included in the research (plants, birds, bees and hover flies). Previous research has demonstrated that agri-environment schemes on Dutch farms are not as effective as we hoped. Future research will have to demonstrate the most important factors that render the schemes ineffective. On one hand we intend to concentrate on specific species groups or even species (for instance, meadow birds or the black tailed godwit – Limosa limosa) to gain insight in what their ecological response is to the factors that are being modified to by the agri-environment schemes (e.g. nutrient supply, food supply, reproductive success). On the other hand, we plan to examine the role of environmental variables and how they may interfere with the effects of agri-environment schemes (e.g. landscape structure, groundwater table). Some of these questions will have to be addressed by research that will be executed in The Netherlands as well as neighbouring countries.

Additionally, we approach this theme from another angle by carrying out research in agricultural systems that are still very species rich. Investigating what the primary factors are that control species richness in these systems may help us understand why many nature conservation efforts in intensively used agricultural landscapes fail. This research will be carried out in the Swiss Pre-Alps where land-use is still extensive and extremely species-rich grasslands occur. Eventually, both approaches will have to lead to the protection of bio-diversity in agricultural landscapes.

Type of work: Development of an appropriate study design and sampling protocol, sampling of plants/birds/insects in the field; determination and sampling of the most important biotic and abiotic factors, compilation of data set, statistical analysis, reporting the results orally and verbally.

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.

MSc thesis examples

Brand Development in technical start-ups

This integrated master thesis presents the outcomes of a conducted research to obtain a double master degree of the masters Strategic Product Design and Science Communication. This research focused on brand development in technical start-ups before product launch. Both a practical and a theoretical study has been conducted, which resulted in a new brand and market introduction plan for the technical start-up Magic Mitad and a brand identity development tool for technical start-ups, the Brand-ID tool. A physical tool in the form of a booklet that guides entrepreneurs in the creation of a brand identity until the design of a logo.  Read more.

Resilience in Information Centric Networks and the Analogy with Human Collaborative Networks

In this thesis, we look into two different researches with the same basis; information centric networking. Enhanced resilience is one of the often mentioned advantages of this paradigm shift in internet networks. However, this resilience is not quantified in literature so far. In this thesis the information resilience of hierarchical ICN topologies is analytically approached, allowing us to quantify the enhanced information resilience. Furthermore, understanding information sharing in human collaborative networks is shown to be very complex. The caching mechanisms in ICN are very suitable for building up an analogy with human collaborative networks, to increase the understanding of information sharing in human collaborative networks. We build up the analogy, and investigate the notion of resilience in a human collaborative network through 3 consecutive experiments. The aim of this part of the research is to enhance insights in human collaborative networks from a cybernatic point of view.  Read more.

An approach for businesses to increase customer's willingness to share personal information online

Double degree of Master of Science in Science Communication & Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis, and Management / SEPAM: Technology Policy and Management / Department: Engineering, Systems and Services + SEC: Applied Physics / Department: Science Communication - In the era of digital communication, the relationship between businesses and customers has changed. Businesses provide online personalized services within their ecosystem based on customer data, but at the same time, customers are reluctant to share personal information. In this article, an online trust building tool is proposed to increase customer’s willingness to share information. A conceptual model is constructed on the relationship between customers sharing information in an online context and businesses providing online personalized services. Customer conditions for information sharing from the conceptual model are validated by a survey under a selection of Transavia airlines’ customers. After conducting a principal component and linear regression analysis, it is found that these customers do not necessarily find monetary or non-monetary benefits the most important conditions for online sharing information. Moreover, gender and age do not have influence. The factor that appears most important for sharing information relates to trust. Customers with a higher general trust and higher institutional trust, are willing to share more personal information with the company. Therefore, literature on trust building is reviewed and four trust building principles are constructed: experience, security, transparency, and trusted sources. For each of the principles, constructs are identified in literature and validated by exploratory customer interviews. The list of constructs is the input for a trust building tool for companies to increase their online trustworthiness. The tool is a basis for a discussion with businesses. These discussions can create insights in how a business can become more trustworthy in the eyes of the customer, and can as a result lead to gaining more customer information.  Read more.

Real time communication in shipbuilding

This integrated master thesis presents the outcomes of a research conducted to obtain a double master degree of the masters Strategic Product Design and Science Communication. The research focusses on the communication and collaboration between the engineering and a remote production department in during the ship production phase. A communication process and tool are proposed to improve the collaboration between engineering and production and to create closed feedback loops and shared responsibility fro the quality of the ship. The process focusses on the detection, indication and correction of problems in the ship production phase.  Read more.

Facilitating promotive voice for contributing to sustainable innovation

Sustainable innovation is essential for companies to stay in competition. The first phase of sustainable innovation is idea generation. Ideas for improvement can come from all employees, among whom employees that operate machines. The problem is that companies that strive for sustainable innovation often do not use the potential of their operators’ ideas for improvement. Therefore, this research aims to gain insight in how companies that strive for sustainable innovation can facilitate operators to display promotive voice. When operators share their ideas for improvement, this is called promotive voice. This leads to the research question: How can changes in the organizational context increase the probability that operators display promotive voice in companies that strive for sustainable innovation? Sub-questions are (i) What stimulates and limits promotive voice, according to literature? (ii) To what extent do operators, team leaders and management at Van Houtum B.V. find sustainability an important motive for improvement? (iii) To what extent do operators at Van Houtum B.V. perceive barriers and stimulants to display promotive voice? (iv) How can Van Houtum B.V. increase the likelihood that operators display promotive voice by changing the organizational context? This research question will be answered for one case company, by performing a design-based research. A theoretical framework is constructed and applied to this case study. An intervention aims to change an element of the organizational context. The effect of this intervention is used to reflect on the theoretical framework. According to the theoretical framework, companies that strive for sustainable innovation can increase the likelihood that operators display promotive voice by influencing a set of individual and contextual constructs, or by influencing how important their employees value different motives for an idea. (A motive for an idea is how important the individual assesses the envisioned outcome of the idea.) At the case company, eight motives for an idea were identified; to make work processes safer, more sustainable, cheaper, cleaner, easier, faster, give more production, or produce products with better quality. According to importance, respondents ranked the motive more sustainable on the third place, out of eight. Besides, operators appeared to experience many barriers and stimulants for promotive voice, of which the greatest barrier was the feeling that their ideas are not heard. An intervention that aimed to reduce this barrier indeed resulted in an increased likelihood that operators display promotive voice, but this effect was limited. According to team leaders, the likelihood that operators display promotive voice had slightly increased, because operators felt more heard. Yet, operators did not notice this change. In conclusion: In theory, there are many starting points for companies to increase the likelihood that operators display promotive voice, but in practice it is not easy to effectively change the organizational context in favor of promotive voice. The revised theoretical framework replaced individual and contextual constructs by critical variables for promotive voice. By validating `being heard' as a critical variable and identifying more critical variables, further research can develop a model that describes the decision of individuals to display promotive voice.  Read more.

Idea Generation in University Cities

New ideas and innovation are the fuel to the modern knowledge economy. The university has for centuries been part of the innovation system responsible for the development of new ideas. Today, the interdisciplinary character and complexity of societal issues makes that there is a need for new methods to support innovation development at university. This thesis has sought for these methods from two different perspectives: that of the urban design of the university city (Section 1) and that of the learning process of its students (Section 2). Section 1 aims at developing an urban design approach for creating innovation space in the university city by conducting design-based research. Section 2 uses critical reflection as a method to give insight in the integration of design and research in Section 1.  Read more.

Smart Support: Design and implementation of a man-machine interaction to increase group collaboration and decision making for marketers in the energy sector.

Collaborating and communicating across disciplinary boundaries in Biomedical Engineering

This graduation thesis forms an inquiry into the cross-disciplinary collaborative practice in Biomedical Engineering in the Netherlands. The rationale of this study was provided by Professor Jenny Dankelman (BioMechanical Engineering, TU Delft) who indicated that she would like to gain better understanding of the collaboration process of technical experts and health care experts. Professor Dankelman’s experiences and a literature study showed that cross-disciplinary collaboration is challenging because of diverse group of disciplinary experts with differing perspectives need to develop a common working understanding in their collaborative project. To explore how these challenges took form in cross-disciplinary collaboration in Biomedical Engineering in the Netherlands, we conducted a qualitative case study of a cross-disciplinary project between a technical university and a peripheral hospital (the DORA project). The main goal was to create more awareness within team DORA of the challenges and opportunities of the collaboration process. We used Deanna D. Pennington’s framework of team actualization as a conceptual springboard to empirical investigation. She maintains that effective cross-disciplinary collaboration depends partly on a group’s capacity to value different disciplinary perspectives appropriately and to accommodate those perspectives in a shared research vision that makes full use of the diverse expertise available in the group. Team actualization represents an ideal type of situation in which cross-disciplinary experts can work autonomously but the team is effective because every expert knows how his/her fits in the shared vision that drives the team effort. The main research question of this research project was as follows: To what extent does team actualization enable participants of the DORA project in the collaboration process? To answer this research question we employed a qualitative research strategy and an inductive-deductive approach to data analysis. The concepts constituting team actualization were used as sensitizing concepts in setting up an interview guide for semi-structured interviewing. Sensitizing concepts are often used in qualitative research as springboards to investigate empirical instances. The main research method comprised 9 semi-structured interviews with key participants of the DORA project. These data were complemented by observations of interactions between participants in the DORA project at 11 meetings. We used a thematic analysis to analyze the data. This process was initially inductive of nature, which means that the first interviews were coded using ‘open’ codes that stayed close to the data. These codes were used to set up a ‘closed’ coding framework with which the remaining interviews were coded. The observational notes were used as aid in the interpretation of themes that emerged from the interview data. The findings of this study suggest that team actualization within the context of the DORA project is characterized by the following: •The research vision of the technical university researchers incorporated the interests of the hospital and acted as an important driver of this collaboration. The vision was broadly supported by the team members and seemed to mediate the different perspectives that were present in this collaboration. •The team of researchers and health care professionals had a contact group as the main decision-making organ. The long-standing relationships and familiarity between key members of the contact group had resulted in a firm basis of trust, which manifested itself in informal decision-making based on verbal agreements. •One team member played a crucial role in safeguarding the substantive progress of the collaboration by monitoring research activities in the hospital. In this way she was pivotal to the effectiveness of team DORA’s collaboration process and therefore helped team DORA to become actualized. Based on our findings we want to raise team DORA’s awareness for the following points: •Team DORA is effective in reaching their goals due to the presence of a content manager in the collaboration process. This is potentially a good strategy for effective collaboration because the team does not need to set up a very dense substantive shared vision in which all individual perspectives of team members are incorporated. Then the team should enable one member to be the manager of the collaboration process and explicitly discuss what he or she needs to make the collaboration move forward. •When a content manager is elusive, team members will probably have to build a substantive shared vision for the collaboration to progress. The firm basis of trust can then be used a springboard to a substantive shared vision that integrates different disciplinary perspectives present in the collaboration. •According to the points above, there are two ways for team DORA to expand their network. First, a new actor may be familiar with the common history of interaction and the long-standing relationships of team DORA. The basis of trust of team DORA will probably ensure an easy entry of the new actor into the team. Second, a new actor may be interested to join the collaboration, but not have the proper social connections with team DORA. According to our understanding of the collaborative process of team DORA, this means that the content manager will be the main entry point for the new actor. According to our knowledge, this is the first social scientific study into cross-disciplinary collaboration in Biomedical Engineering in the Netherlands. We hope that this inspires further study of the collaborative practice in this field and we recommend the following topics for future research: • What organizational structured and management styles are required for effective cross-disciplinary collaboration (in terms of reaching intended goals) in Biomedical Engineering? • How do the social relationships between different disciplinary experts in a collaboration affect communication in cross-disciplinary problem solving in Biomedical Engineering? •How do individual differences in framing of the content of a collaboration (research problem, goals etc.) affect communication in cross-disciplinary problem solving in Biomedical Engineering?  Read more.

Social desirability and mobility impacts of early forms of automated vehicles

Double degree thesis: Part A: Civil Engineering Part B: Science Communication The first forms of automated vehicles (level 1 and 2) are already available at dealers, and next levels are being developed at this moment (level 3 and up). Literature indicates two development paths for automated vehicles: an autonomous and a cooperative path. Autonomous vehicles only monitor the driving environment, whereas cooperative vehicles also communicate with other vehicles or roadside systems. This thesis consists of two parts: one (part A) researching the mobility impact of these two development paths, the second (part B) develops a method to include the public in decision making around automated vehicles. Part A: Modelling the mobility impacts of automated vehicles Governments are eager to know the impacts that automated vehicles have on mobility. Investment plans and policies can be made with this information. Current macroscopic models that assess the large-scale impacts of automated vehicles are complex, unsuitable for explorations with many uncertainties and are not able to simulate multiple vehicle types. This thesis aims to explore the impacts of early forms of automated vehicles (level 1, 2 and 3) on mobility. To cope with this problem a System Dynamics model (SD-model) is built. This model is based on the structure of the ScenarioExplorer, a model developed by TNO in the 1990s. The SD-model is strongly explorative and does not make use of an explicit road network. The goal of this model is to capture the most important effects of automated vehicles, but not to go into all the details. As the structure is simple and the run time is short, the model can be used to assess different scenarios. In this model the road capacity, value of time and fuel economy effects of automated vehicles are researched. The different levels of automated vehicles are modelled as different user classes in the mode choice, time of day choice and the assignment. This is novel for modelling automated vehicles on a large scale. In the assignment PCU factors depended on the penetration rate are used per vehicle automation class. This PCU makes it possible to translate results of microsimulations easily to large scale models and to simulate mixed traffic. The SD-model is compared to three macroscopic models and historic data and shows similar results. In addition, other tests point out that the model is suitable for explorative studies. Simulations with the SD-model show that due to the benefits automated vehicles bring, they will lead to extra car traffic in all researched scenarios. In the cooperative development path, the travel times on characteristic relations will roughly stay the same due to capacity benefits. In the autonomous development path, the average speeds drop due to less capacity benefits. The model shows that early forms of automated vehicles will not reduce congestion and in most scenarios have a negative effect on mobility. The only benefits early forms of automated vehicles entail are for the drivers, but not for mobility as a whole. Governments should therefore invest in other measures to stimulate the mobility. Due to the increase in car traffic, more emissions are expected. Part B: A more responsible innovation through the use of a constructive dialogue Societal impacts of automated vehicles can be large, not only on mobility, but also on safety, privacy or security. Complicating aspect is that automated vehicles both influence the living environment of the consumers and other road users. Literature indicates that at this moment the public (both user and other road users) are important stakeholders, but are not enough involved in the automated vehicle innovation. Due to this, and other flaws, the automated vehicle innovation cannot be called a responsible innovation. not involving the public constitutes the risk of neglecting their fundamental ethical principles, as their opinions remain unheard. This research aims to develop a method to involve important actors and to translate their ethical principles into starting points for a design of future automated vehicles. The values of four important actor groups (the government, manufacturers, consumers and non-consumers) are investigated. The method aims to be a constructive dialogue method. The value profiles created from the questionnaire show that opinions of the various actors differ. All actors agree that safety is the most important value. Differences are that the government and non-consumer value traffic flow, whereas the car manufacturers value spending time differently and self-determination for the driver. The cooperative path therefore seems attractive for the government and the non-users, whereas the car manufacturers are most likely to be in favour of the autonomous path. The survey shows no preference for one of the two paths from the consumer. The value profiles created from the questionnaire show that opinions of the actors differ. All actors agree that safety is the most important value. Differences are that the government and non-consumer value traffic flow, whereas the car manufacturers value spending time differently and self-determination for the driver. The cooperative path therefore seems attractive for the government and the non-users, whereas the car manufacturers are in favour of the autonomous path. The survey shows no preference for one of the two paths for the consumer. To create a common value profile a dialogue is needed, this is done in workshops. Tests with the constructive dialogue workshops show promising results: tensions in values become clear and the students reach consensus in the workshop. This is empirical evidence for what Van de Poel (2013) describes in his paper on specifying values to design requirements. The set-up seems to be a way to involve the different actors. This method is therefore a step towards a more responsible innovation for automated vehicles. Another promising aspect of the method is that the new ideas which are not mentioned in literature on self-driving cars arise in the sessions. This research contributes to a more responsible innovation as stakeholders are involved. Still, other important steps have to be taken. The method which is developed in this thesis should be used by manufacturers to give input to future designs or by governments for policies. Future research should focus on the validation of the workshops and the embedding of the method.  Read more.

Reciprocity in Wind Farm Development: An Applied and Theoretical Approach

Communication in wind farm development is complex. A relationship between wind farm developers and residents which is based on reciprocity can lead to the trust and commitment necessary to deal with these complexities. The role of reciprocity is researched in a case study and a network model of reciprocity is developed. Implementing the findings of the case study in the model gives insight in the conditions for which communication leads to mutual advantage for wind farm developers and residents.  Read more.

Video-based assessment of communication during cardiopulmonary bypass & a case on responsible innovation

This report is written for partial fulfillment of two master degrees. Part A1 and A2 are written for the master Science Communication, whereas Part B is written for the master Biomedical Engineering. The goal of this thesis therefore was twofold. The goal of part A was to formulate recommendations on the responsible use of video recordings in operating team research. To this end first a theoretical framework was developed on Responsible Research and Innovation and then this framework was applied in a case study at the Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC), where video recordings were used to study communication during cardiac surgery. The same video recordings were used in part B of this thesis to develop a quality standard for the verbal interactions of surgeon, anesthetists and perfusionists during cardiopulmonary bypass procedures.  Read more.

Responsible Digital Hospitality Quality Measurement to Facilitate Reflective Communication

In this study, a unique combination of concepts such as hospitality, digitalisation and responsible research and innovation is brought together in the Responsible Digital Hospitality Quality Scale. This conceptual tool is more than a website benchmark or customer satisfaction measurement tool. It measurably defines responsible digital hospitality in six key domains and twenty-three elements using a visual representation of individual element scores and thereby enables digital brand owners, designers and communication experts to constructive communication and self-reflection on a status of a digital brand. The aim of reflexivity and real time assessment are tested in a small focus group session with digital experts. Literature study and expert insights are combined in an iteration process of tool design in order to develop a valid tool in survey format. Additionally, a theoretical framework is developed that combines theories of electronic service quality, user experience, RRI and interactivity. This framework could possibly function as talkative tool alone, however is not further researched within this study. More extended research on figure representation and inclusion of fun elements could provide extra value to the RDH quality tool design in the future.  Read more.

Social learning for sustainable food: Recommendations to facilitate social learning in practice within the governmental programme Knowledge and Education Deal Food.

The networked brand identity: Management support tool for tension analysis in brand identity networks concerning privacy

A corporate brand is a complex construct, which might be difficult to manage because of a lack of insight into the network of relevant influencers. Sense Observation Systems (Sense) is a small software company developing software that helps users to get information from the sensor data of their telephones. Sense is aware of the possible threats to privacy users of their products might perceive and wishes to express their vision on privacy in the corporate brand. The communication manager aiding Sense in their external communications works for their parent company Almende. Almende advocates self-organization and the bottom-up approach that goes with it. Sense therefore wishes to manage their corporate brand with as little management as possible. The proposed self-organizing approach is a novelty in corporate brand management. This research aims to aid the communication manager of Almende in managing Sense’s corporate brand. To help the communication manager in this management task, we defined the following research question: How to manage the corporate brand of Sense Observation Systems so as to encompass the principles on end-user privacy present within the corporation? --Method-- Semi-structured interviews were used to gather insight into how principles on end-user privacy are present within the corporation. A total eight respondents were interviewed: six employees of Sense, and two of the parent company Almende. The respondents cover different functions in the company: four software developers, two managers, and two other members of staff. A conceptual model for brand management was developed from relevant literature and used to structure the interviews. Six identity types were linked to the corporate brand to distinguish between personnel, products, corporate communication, clients, market, and vision. In the interviews was searched for Sense-specific actors (humans, artefacts, policy, organizations, etc.) represented in these identity types. The interviews provided the following information needed for the conceptual model: • 75 actors from all identity types influencing the corporate brand; • 7 aspects of privacy relevant for Sense; and • the distribution of privacy aspects over the actors. --Results-- From the 75 actors we defined 10 representative actor clusters, each cluster consisting of actors with similar associated privacy aspects and from identical identity types. For each of the privacy aspects, we visually analysed the tension within the actors network using the privacy landscapes defined in the conceptual model. Based upon the preference of Sense employees and network analysis results, we advised Sense to focus on the privacy aspect use limitation. We also advised to add more stable elements to the actor network, so that core values become more embedded in the network. The practical suggestions of such stable elements were to develop a corporate slogan, build a product showcasing the corporate values, develop a market strategy leading to clients fitting the corporate values, write out the corporate vision so that it becomes more public. --Conclusion and discussion-- The developed privacy landscapes enable us to indicate points of attention in the actor network attributing to the corporate brand of Sense. Also, the advice to manage the company brand using stable elements increases the practical applicability; the effort for the communications manager at Almende can therefore decrease over time. The developed method is a novelty in brand management because of its ability to visually point out actors unaligned to the (preferred) corporate brand. Furthermore, the method provides insight not only in misalignments between but also within identity types by the use of actor clusters. Information privacy research might benefit from the observation of the following privacy aspects that were not found in literature: ownership of the data collected about a person, restriction of access to user data for the company where data is stored, how ownership is distributed in issues concerning multiple parties, and the depersonalisation of data so that it can not be traced back to an individual. We believe that the developed method and resulting privacy landscapes can be applied to other companies using different concepts in order to find points of attention within the corporate actor network. We recommend to reduce the possibilities for observer bias in the methodology by replacing the individual semi-structured interviews with group sessions. with Participants in such sessions have limited observer influence and can determine concepts for the brand identity and label and cluster actors. Instead of a research approach, the group sessions would be more similar to creative sessions.  Read more.

Share this page:

MSc-Thesis Project

Description.

The MSc-Thesis Project  (MTP) is the final individual research project of the MSc Robotics programme of 40 EC. It is recommended to perform the MSc-thesis project at one of the research groups of the UT, but it can be done outside the UT. This is only allowed if no internship outside the UT has been performed, so variant 3 of Year 2. Note that in all cases, the research group is in the lead of drawing up the project topic.

After the MSc-Thesis project has been completed, the student is able to: •      apply a suitable research or design methodology in a scientific manner. •      deliver an original contribution to the research group. •      run a scientific project within its time frame. •      write a scientific report and hold a public presentation. •      communicate to peers and non-specialists.

The MSc-Thesis Project is about further specialising in the direction of the expertise of the robotics research group of the UT where this project is performed. Usually, the MSc-Thesis Project is part of ongoing research at the research group so the research group is in the lead of drawing up the project topic. An Internship is about gaining work experience on an academic level of course by conducting a small project outside UT. This makes the MSc-Thesis Project and Internship quite distinct from each other: only running a project on a robotics topic is similar.

The MSc-Thesis Project is carried out within a robotics-related research group of the UT. The list of recognised robotics-related research groups is indicated in the table. <to be added> This list is also in the EER-B, Article B4.7.2, Table 16.

The topic of the MSc-Thesis Project must be in the scientific fields on which the Specialisation of the student is grounded. Furthermore the MSc-Thesis project must address aspects being taught in the Profile of the student.

CBL-like techniques can be applied, as the MSc-Thesis Project is formulated as a rather open problem. In fact, MSc-Thesis Projects are CBL projects avant-la-lettre, as conducting thesis projects has its origin far earlier then CBL way of working. 

Students must report on CBL activities applied during the MSc-Thesis Project in their portfolio of the course CBL in MSc Robotics 2 ( 202200121 ), for which you must enrol (open all year). As usual for CBL work, the CBL contribution to the portfolio is assessed separately from the MSc-Thesis Project. 

Note that this CBL assessment (and finishing) is done in the beginning of the third phase of the Thesis work, in order  not  to interfere with the finalisation of the MSc-Thesis Project.

There is no Canvas page of the MTP, as there is no synchonised start each year, the work is in the research groups, and the forms needed for doing the MTP are available on this website: the  Forms and Procedures Page .

Entry Requirements

To start your MSc-Thesis project (MTP), a maximum of 10 EC next to the MSc-Thesis Project may be open, whereby the six compulsory courses of the chosen specalisation and CBL Year 1 ( 202200115 ) must have completed. See also EER, Article B3.12. In case of variant 2 of Year 2, so taking the Academic-Skills Project ( 202200119 ), this project must also have been completed before starting the MSc-Thesis Project.

You must satisfy these requirements at the moment you actually start the MSc-Thesis Project. You can start acquiring an MSc-Thesis Project before you meet these entry requirements, as it takes a month or two to acquire an MSc-Thesis Project.

You may start the MSc-Thesis project at a moment that results of examinations are still pending. However, in case these results appear to be insufficient later, the Examination Board may order you to interrupt your MSc-Thesis Project to repair these insufficient results.

The study load of an MSc-Thesis Project is 40 EC, being 28 weeks of full-time work.  Any day off, public holiday, or time spend on other courses or jobs extends the wall-clock time (calendar time) of this period. This 28 weeks is the minimal duration of an MSc-Thesis Project project. You have to set up a planning, in which all extra days are taken into account, such that netto 28 full-time working weeks are mapped onto Calendar days. As some time is consumed due to organisational issues, 4 weeks are added to compensate for this. It is advised to spend at least 80% of full time to your MSc-Thesis project to keep the project going and not to lose too much time to get started again and again.  

Regulations in force

The regulations to which the MSc-Thesis project must comply are in the Education and Examination Regulations ( EER ). The text here is based on those regulations. In case of discrepancy between this website text and the EER, the EER is leading. 

Acquiring an MSc-Thesis Project

As a student, you must find an MSc-Thesis Project yourself. Robotic research groups often advertise student projects on their website or provide information on research projects they conduct. Together with the envisaged supervisor(s) an MSc-Thesis Project is defined, either (partly) by the student or by the supervisor(s). This holds for both an internal-at-UT project as for an external-outside-UT project. The research group, however, is in the lead of drawing up the topic of the MSc-Thesis Project in all cases.

The supervisor(s) check explicitly whether the proposed MSc-Thesis-Project idea is doable by the student, with respect to time budget, expected knowledge and skills, academic level, and whether it matches with the specialisation and the profile the student has chosen. 

The MSc-Thesis Supervision Committee consists of at least a senior examiner chairing this committee, and a day-to-day supervisor. These two roles may be combined in one person. The MSc-Thesis Assessment Committee is the MSc-Thesis Supervision committee plus the external examiner, see EER-B Article B4.7. The supervisors are responsible for the composition of both the Supervision Committee and the Assessment Committee.

It is important to start in time preparing for the MSc-Thesis-Project, as consulting scientific staff and asking them about an MSc-Thesis-Project, takes time. We advise you to start looking for an MSc-Thesis-Project about two months before the expected start of it.

As student, you must register your MSc-Thesis-Project in the Mobility Online system, and send the MSc-Thesis Project Planning Form (also signed by the chairperson of your Supervision Committee) to the administration. The Examination Board checks composition of the Supervision Committee and the topic of the MSc-Thesis-Project using this information.

Running the MSc-Thesis Project

Use the  Doing Projects  approach: splitting project time into three equal parts: exploration, production, finalisation, with a project plan after 1/3, a ‘demo’ after 2/3, and a report and presentation at the end (obviously).

More details are in the DoingProjects document (to be linked to here, see for the current draft the MSc-Robotics Canvas site), and an overview is below.

Starting and Exploration Phase

At the beginning of the project, make agreements concerning:

• Milestones of 1/3, 2/3 and final date These dates mark the ends of the Exploration Phase, Production Phase, and Finalisation Phase, respectively. This implies a meeting in which the Project Plan respectively Demo are discussed, and the final presentation and thus assessment is held. These dates must be put on your MSc-Thesis Project Planning Form such that these are known by the administration.  Note that the planning of these milestones is the initial planning, which may be updated during the course of the project. Obviously, updates must be send to the administration, see below at the "Feedback, Assessment, Extension" subsection.
• Practical issues Like workplace, access to Lab, where to go for support, use of tools and servers etc. This is of course specific to the research group where the work is conducted.
• Weekly PIP meetings On Progress, Issues, Plans: once per week with the student and at least day-to-day supervisor. 
• Monthy PIPPF meetings Monthly meetings on Progress, Issues, Plans, and next to that, Planning and Formal Formative Feedback: once per month with Supervision Committee and student. It is about PIP on project level, and on the global planning of the whole project. Furthermore, the Supervision Committee gives formative feedback to the student. 

When the work is done part-time, this rhythm can be scaled accordingly. It is advised to spend at least 80% of full time to your MSc-Thesis Project to keep the project going and not to lose too much time to get started again and again. 

Note that the planning of these milestones at the start of the project is the initial planning and thus provisional. These may be updated during the course of the project. 

The result of the Exploration Phase is the Project Plan, covering the following topics:

• Introduction to the project Context, problem statement, goals of the project. The goals can be formulated as research questions or design objectives, depending on the nature of the project.
• Analysis / Feasibility Literature review, analysis of the problem resulting in requirements (for design work) / how to proceed; test experiments to support feasibility reasoning. Especially for design-oriented projects, this includes possible approaches with advantages / disadvantages, presented in Design-Space Exploration tables, for example. 
• What to show at Demo Meeting Describe the testing (verification / validation approach), especially what is needed to get out of tests, to support the scientific reasoning, and as such goes into the final report. Describe what to show at the Demo milestone. And thus, to know what to work for in the Production Phase.
• Initial Structure of the final report To give a target to work towards, and pinpoints to what must be delivered in the final report.
• Action plan Tasks and the planning of the work to be done in the production phase.

At the end of this Exploration Phase, during that PIPPF meeting, the Project Plan is discussed, and formal formative feedback is given. The date of this meeting is reported to the administration by the supervisor. 

If the Supervision Committee expects no pass to be achieved at the planned end date, repair actions can be set up, ranging from updating the project content, changing / extending supervision, adapting student’s way of working. If at a next PIPPF the performance of the students is still below par, the resit policy can be started: project time is extended with 2 months, and the grade is maximally a 6 for a Pass or a Fail.

Production Phase

This is executing the project plan and document the progress (logbook like) as that contributes to the final report. 

In these kind of scientific projects, often work appears to be different than originally planned. This is due to growing insight, growing experience, unforeseen issues popping up, etc. To keep on track tasks, priorities of tasks, and thus planning need to be reconsidered and updated when necessary. This is part of the  doing projects  activity. Decisions on changing the plan must be taken together with the supervisors.

Especially at PIPPF meetings, the plan and progress of the project as a whole is discussed, and the Supervision Committee gives formative feedback. If necessary, repair actions can be started, or the resit policy can be set up. See EER Article B4.7, especially Paragraphs 3 – 7.

The Demo (showing essential results) at the end of the production phase, needs to be carefully prepared. This demo is a kind of  (design) review  to discuss and gather feedback from the supervisors. Next to that, it is to become clear and to decide that the work is good enough to enter the Finalising Phase. Often, many new ideas arise, so the left-over work and new things must be prioritised to avoid overloading and thus unnecessary extending the Finalisation Phase. The date of this demo meeting is reported to the administration by the supervisor. 

Finalising Phase

First is to update / detail out the planning of this phase: plan the left-over work agreed to be done at the demo meeting, and plan the report writing, taking into account feedback moments and reading time for reviewing by supervisors.

On report writing: discuss the articulated outline first ( rich report outline ), that is a global line of thought of the report, so more then only chapter and section headings. For the review process, check the process as is used at the research group. Often, the day-to-day supervisor reviews draft-thesis chapters in between.  Use earlier made documentation, including material of the project plan, obviously. 

At least four weeks before the presentation day, the so-called  green-light  meeting is held, in which the draft report is discussed with / scrutinised by the Supervision Committee. For this, the report must be submitted one week earlier, so five weeks before the presentation day. The Supervision Committee decides on green light, that is, the work and draft report are good enough to give a final presentation and can be assessed after the presentation, provided the work to be done is of same quality as shown before. The senior examiner co-signs the Master-Examination Application Form, and the student sends it to the administration. This form must be at the administration at least four weeks ahead of the presentation day (the administration needs some time to process all checks, etc).

The green-light meeting can best be planned at the first PIPPF meeting after the Demo meeting (so one month after the Demo meeting). Also, the presentation day can be decided upon. The Supervision Committee can start looking for the external examiner, or wait for the green-light decision to do this.

The presentation takes 30 minutes, and after that, a Q&A session of about 20-30 minutes is held.

After presentation and assessment, deliver all the artifacts (including documentation and data) according to the process as used at the research group, and clean up lab space if applicable. This must be done within one week after the presentation and assessment.

Next to the report on the content of the work, as student, you must write and submit on CBL activities and add that to the CBL portfolio of the course CBL in MSc Robotics 2 ( 202200121 ). Best is to submit this report in the beginning of the Finalising Phase. As usual for CBL work, this CBL contribution to the portfolio is assessed separately from the MSc-Thesis Project.

Feedback, Assessment, Extension

Feedback during the project is embedded in the workflow of the MSc-Thesis Project:

• During each PIPPF meeting, the supervision committee give a formal formative assessment on the process including planning and content. This feedback is related to the assessment criteria as presented on the assessment form.
• This formative feedback can trigger the repair policy : in case it turns out that the original project appears to be too much / too complex for MSc-thesis work, the project can be updated w.r.t. topics and/or planning, arrangement of extra technical support, adaptation of supervision approach / policy, etc.
• If at the next formative feedback (the next PIPPF meeting), so, after working a month according to this repair policy, the student’s work is not back on track (that is, the student’s work is still not good enough to achieve a pass at the very end of the MSc-thesis project), the resit policy can be started. In case the level of results are beyond the control of the student, the repair policy can be reviewed and adapted, which may cause a delay of the project.
• Resit policy implies that the student can extend the project with a maximum of 2 months. Assessment of this extended MSc-thesis project results in a pass with grade of 6 or a fail.  This implies that the resit policy can already be started before the summative assessment at the 'normal' end of the project.
• In case the repair policy implies the project gets delayed (so due to reasons beyond the control of the student), the planning must be updated accordingly, and agreed upon as such by the examiner. In case no agreement on the rescheduling of the plan is reached, the student can request the EB to mediate. 
• In case of a delay due to the repair policy, or if the resit policy is started, the superviser must send the updated milestone(s) and planned enddate to the student administration (BOZ), acting as the registrar of the EB. 

Final summative assessment of the MSc-thesis project is done by at least two examiners, one being responsible for the day-to-day supervision and the other being an independent colleague from outside the research group of the supervisor, who is  not  involved in the supervision. Criteria for grading, including rubrics, are in the assessment form . When at assessment it turns out that the work is insufficient, the resit policy can be started. In case the assesment is still a Fail after the resit, the student has to look for another MSc-thesis project.

<aftermath>

For the Supervisors

Supervising as examiner / senior examiner an MSc-Thesis project of MSc Robotics implies

• Check and approve explicitly whether the proposed MSc-Thesis-Project idea is doable by the student, with respect to time budget, expected knowledge and skills, academic level, and whether it matches with the specialisation and the profile the student has chosen.  This approval must be done before the student starts their MSc-Thesis-Project. 
• As senior examiner, co-sign the the MSc-Thesis Planning Form, and Mobility Online form of the student.  All forms used for the MTP are on the Forms and Procedures page .
•  Act as a supervisor and arrange day-to-day supervision, that is, compose the Supervision Committee. Use the DoingProjects supervision scheme for the actual supervision.
•  Provide formal formative feedback at each PIPPF meeting. The PIPPF meetings at the end of the Exploration Phase and Production Phase, deal with reviewing the project plan and demo respectively. Inform the administration (BOZ) by sending the dates of these meetings to BOZ.
•  If needed, formulate repair actions, or start the resit policy. See EER Articles B3.12 and B4.7. In case these change in plans cause delay (always so in case of the resit policy), inform the administration (BOZ) on the new planned intermediate milestone date(s) and new foreseen end date.
• Green-light meeting: Review / scrutinise the draft report, consolidate the presentation date, and arrange the external examiner. As senior examiner, co-sign the the master-examination application form of the student.
• After presentation and Q&A session, and based on the work and report, assess the project by the Assessment Committee. Use the specific assessment form to record and file the assessment. An editable and prefilled form will be sent to you by BOZ shortly before the assessement day. Also at this moment, the resit policy can be applied if need. However, try to avoid applying the resit policy so late in the process. The resit policy implies 2 months extra time and grading with a 6 in case of a Pass, or a Fail. See EER Article B4.7, Paragraphs 5 and 4.
• Send the filled-in and signed assessment form to the administration, often via your secretariat, after the student has submitted all data / documents / artefacts, but not later than one week after the presentation and assessment.

Home > PMGT > Dissertations and Theses

Dissertations and Theses

Theses/dissertations from 2020 2020.

Challenges to Adopting Hybrid Methodology: Addressing Organizational Culture and Change Control Problems in Enterprise IT Infrastructure Projects , Harishankar Krishnakumar

The Difficulty With Introducing Project Management Techniques in Digital Startups , Isabela Mantilla

Theses/Dissertations from 2018 2018

Reasons for Success and Failure of Projects , Tamunogbenye Dago

Impediments in Transitioning to Agile Time-boxing Testing Efforts , Taniya Dasgupta

Implementing Agile Methodology Techniques in Automobile Industry , Nikhil Kranthi Datrika

The Role of Project Management in Fostering Creativity: Towards Successful Architectural Design Projects , Angeliki Giannoulatou Destouni

Implementing Project Management Principles in Digital Advertising Age , Yuanqing Jiang

BIM and Project Management in AEC Industry , Nazanin Kamyab

IMPACT OF MOTIVATION ON PROJECT TEAMS’ PERFORMANCE IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY , RAMU KARANAM

Adopt Agile Methodology for Building Wealth Management Platform Building , Mandar Shripad Kulkarn

STUDY ON RECOVERY OF BAD SOCIAL MEDIA REVIEWS IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY USING PROJECT MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES , FRANCK LEGRAND

AGILE ADOPTION IN INVESTMENT BANKS , JIAYIN LIANG and Suman Shekhar

SCRUM IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY TO IMPROVE PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN DESIGN PHASE , YINGCHEN LIU

IMPROVING SOFTWARE PROJECTS WITH CLOUD COMPUTING , SUNIL MADDIPATLA

BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE E-BANKING SYSTEMS IN INDIA , DIVYA NALLURI

Applying the Agile Mechanism in the Clinical Trails Domain for Drug Development , Jitendrakumar Narola

IMPLEMENTING AGILE LEAN IN TELECOM INDUSTRY , SWAPNIL NARVEKAR

Internet of Things (IoT) and Changing Face of Project Management , Vikram Singh Prasher

Risk Management in Telemedicine Projects in Healthcare , Shalini Sakinala

Study of the impact of team morale on construction project performance , Adrian Gerard Saldanha

Key Competencies for Project Managers: An Empirical Study , Sahil Sandhu

IDENTIFICATION OF RIGHT LEADERSHIP STYLE FOR AGILE TEAMS , AASHIK SEKHARAN

ROLE OF EFFECTIVE QUALITY RISK MANAGEMENT IN DRUG SAFETY PROJECT , Bhawna Sharma

SOFT SKILLS INFLUENCE IN PROJECT MANAGERS IN THE CLOUD SPACE , KATHERINE SILVA

Managing Business Process Transformation Projects Using Contextual Hybrid Agile Methodology , John Tu

Using IOP as a mechanism for project team management , Maryam Selah Varzi

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERSHIP STYLES AND JOB SATISFACTION IN LUXURY RETAIL PROJECT , CUIPING ZHANG

Theses/Dissertations from 2017 2017

Applying Agile Lean to Global Software Development , Piyansh Gupta

Agile in Construction Projects , Chen Jin

Role of Agile Methods in Global Software Development , Dinesh Chandra Kalluri

Innovation through Agile Project Management , Raju Kona

The Use of Effective Risk Management in Cloud Computing Projects , Usha Kiran Marichetty

Feasibility in Applying Agile Project Management Methodologies To Building Design and Construction Industry , Roy S. Moriel

Pharmacovigilance: The Role Of Pharmaceutical Companies To Protect Patients From Adverse Drug Reactions , Srikanth Nukala

Team Performance and Project Success , Ijeoma Okoronkwo

Key to Success of Offshore Outsourcing , Deep Patel

Implementation of Agile Methodology in Public Sector , Kajal Patel

Project Manager’s Perception of Agile Methods Success , Ankit Sachdeva

Adapting Agile in Regulated (Pharmaceutical) Environment , Prachiben K. Shah

The Implication of Agile & Traditional Method as a Practice in Pharmaceutical Industry , Vishant Shah

Project Management for E-Commerce Businesses , Jui Tamhane

Critical Risk Assessment and Management in Pharmaceutical Industry , Abida Zameer

Theses/Dissertations from 2016 2016

Improved Sprint Results with Offshore Indian Teams , Fnu Abdul Hasheem

A Different Approach to Project Management: The Use of Soft Skills , Hannah Adams

ERP Critical Success Factors: Importance of ERP Consultants in ERP Implementation , Adekunle S. Balogun

Scrum Sim - A Simulation Game to Learn the Scrum Agile Framework , Anshuman Bassi

Hybrid Project Management Approach for Software Modernization , Chintan Bhavsar

Adopting Agile Scrum , Anirudh Chaganti

Supply Chain Risks: Causes & Mitigation Strategy for the Medical Device Companies , Dipak Patil

Research Paper on Content Management Systems (CMS): Problems in the Traditional Model and Advantages of CMS in Managing Corporate Websites , Elanchezhian Ramalingam

Challenges When Using Scrum in Globally Distributed Teams , Sweta Shah

A Case Study on PPL's Journey to Agile Transition , Jayalakshmi Tenali

To Overcome Communication Challenges in Distributed/Virtual Scrum Teams , Priyamvada Walimbe

Hybrid Agile Approach: Efficiently Blending Traditional and Agile Methodologies , Rashmi Wankhede

• Collections
• Disciplines

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS

Author Corner

• Submission Guidelines and Policies

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

• Press Enter to activate screen reader mode.

Dept. of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering

Projects and master's thesis.

Master's students are required to complete one (2018 regulations) or two (2008 regulations) semester projects and one Master's thesis. The projects and the thesis are supervised by a professor of the Department (including adjunct professors ) or by a Download professor associated (PDF, 97 KB) vertical_align_bottom with the Department. Most projects are carried out under the guidance of, and in close contact with, a PhD student of the supervising professor. If two semester projects are carried out, to broaden your horizon, they should be carried out with two different professors.

Semester projects

A semester project should take about half of a student‘s time during one semester, i.e., about 300 to 400 hours has a duration of 14 weeks . It is possible to do a semester project in 7 weeks full-time outside a semester, but it is not recommended. The project includes an oral presentation and a written report, and it is graded. Before starting, the project must be registered in mystudies ("Projects/papers/theses").

Students from outside ETH are advised to pick and to start a semester project right at the beginning of their first semester at ETH and to take these projects seriously.

Master's thesis

The Master's degree programme concludes with a Master's thesis that lasts six months. The project includes an oral presentation and a written report (the Master's thesis), and it is graded. Before starting the project, the Master's thesis must be registered in mystudies ("Projects/papers/theses"). You will be admitted to the Master's thesis only if both semester projects (2008 regulations) are or one semester project (2018 regulations) is successfully completed.

Once the Master's thesis is successfully finished and all credits are obtained, students may request their diploma .

Information: Publication of Master Thesis in the Research Collection

Students have the possibility of publishing their master theses in the Research Collection . To publish master theses in the Research Collection, a letter of recommendation from the respective supervisor is needed. You can find further information on the webpage .

Semester project, Bachelor's and Master's theses offers at D-ITET:

If projects are taken, sometimes related projects may be available. Often, labs are willing to customize a project to match the students' interests. Many labs welcome students' own ideas for projects.

Below an overview of labs offering semester project and Master's thesis by specialisation:

• chevron_right Communication Technology Laboratory
• chevron_right Signal and Information Processing Laboratory
• chevron_right Chair for Mathematical Information Science
• chevron_right Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory
• chevron_right Computer Vision Laboratory
• chevron_right Chair for Computer Science
• chevron_right Computer Security Group
• chevron_right Computer Architecture (SAFARI Research Group)
• chevron_right Institute for Electronics
• chevron_right Institute of Electromagnetic Fields
• chevron_right Integrated Systems Laboratory
• chevron_right Millimetre-wave Electronics Laboratory
• external page call_made Laboratory for Thin Films and Photovoltaics at EMPA
• chevron_right Photonics Laboratory

Booklet Download Semester/Master's theses "Energy and Power Electronics" (PDF, 78.2 MB) vertical_align_bottom

• chevron_right Advanced Power Semiconductor Laboratory
• chevron_right Laboratory for High-power Electronics Systems
• chevron_right Power Electronic Systems Laboratory
• chevron_right High Voltage Laboratory
• chevron_right Power Systems Laboratory
• external page call_made Institute of Neuroinformatics
• chevron_right Institute for Biomedical Engineering

For further ITET projects see external page SiROP website call_made .

Interdisciplinary integrative capabilities as a catalyst of responsible technology-enabled innovation: A higher education case study of Design MSc dissertation projects

• Open access
• Published: 03 June 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Federico Colecchia   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7447-7117 1 ,
• Fabrizio Ceschin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7273-9408 1 &
• David Harrison   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1180-8924 1  

It has been acknowledged that global challenges are in the way of delivering responsible innovation, as reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals – a set of strategic objectives formulated by the United Nations General Assembly, to promote environmentally, societally, and economically-sustainable development. Design higher education has an important role to play in equipping the next generation of professionals with knowledge and skills for tackling pressing system-level challenges. Sustainable design research and ways of integrating emerging technologies in future design higher education curricula have, separately, attracted significant interest in recent years. However, comparatively little effort has concentrated on the role that a broader range of technologies can play in shaping the design higher education provision with system-level sustainability challenges in mind. This article presents an analysis of 180 Design MSc dissertation projects, implemented at a UK higher education institution between 2019 and 2022, focusing on research challenges of societal and industrial relevance. The data set includes a mapping of dissertation projects to relevant technologies, industry sectors, and Sustainable Development Goals. Data analysis suggests a balanced distribution of projects across a range of sustainability goals, although under-represented thematic areas have also been highlighted. The methods adopted for this study, based on a systematic study of relational patterns reflecting associations of dissertation projects with technologies, industry sectors, and sustainability goals, provide a blueprint for future data-driven research on the role played by technologies within student projects in design higher education, with an emphasis on their relevance to sustainable innovation challenges.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

It has been recognised that major global challenges, including those underlying the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN SDGs, n.d.) are inherently complex and, as such, can often only be tackled effectively from a systems design perspective (Chen et al., 2021 ; Maier et al., 2022 ; Reynolds et al., 2018 ).

A visual representation of the 17 UN SDGs and their main purposes from (Leal Filho et al., 2022 ) is provided in Fig.  1 .

Visual representation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and their main purposes (Leal Filho et al., 2022 )

The increasing degree of attention that interdisciplinary research methodologies and practices have received in recent years reflects, in part, this demand for innovation across traditional epistemological and methodological silos (Ashby & Exter, 2019 ; Body & Habbal, 2016 ). “Healthcare, climate change, food security, energy, financial markets and quality of life are just a few examples of issues that require scientists and academics to work in a crossdisciplinary way” (Menken et al., 2016 ).

This has implications for design higher education, which has increasingly focussed on developing knowledge and skills across discipline boundaries over recent years, so that future graduates can be equipped for addressing challenges requiring the adoption of system-level strategies (Menken et al., 2016 ). Broader scope of interdisciplinary dialogue has been advocated with reference to research training programmes (Tobi & Kampen, 2018 ), combined with stronger links between academic and industry stakeholders towards the solution of well-defined problems (Mainzer, 2011 ). The fast-paced change to the role that design has been playing in the research and innovation landscape is highlighted by the evolution of the field from an initial emphasis on product and service design to a focus on socioeconomic challenges such as those associated with delivering equitable healthcare provision and addressing climate change (Khayal & Farid, 2021 ; Lawrence et al., 2020 ; Ceschin & Gaziulosoy, 2016 ). As a result, design has grown into an interdisciplinary field of enquiry and locus of academic and industrial innovation. The field is therefore in a privileged position for shaping graduate profiles to address future workforce requirements, particularly considering the critical role played by user-centred and system-level design in research and innovation (Kumar, 2009 ). Considering the extent of recent technology development, especially in relation to information technology and computing, it has also been argued that polymathic thinking, i.e. the ability to establish connections and to examine “the intersection of ideas to understand how different 'trades' link, overlap, impact or depend upon one another”, building on “proficiency and expertise across multiple fields” (Manoharan, 2019 ), is needed for tackling contemporary challenges (Rodgers, 2007 ).

Whereas interdisciplinarity in design research has been praised as often essential for tackling complex societal challenges, a close relationship between interdisciplinary academic research and industry practice has been recognised as an important source of competitive advantage, which further highlights the value of interdisciplinarity in design as a catalyst of innovation (Hacklin & Wallin, 2013 ). This underlines the value of design higher education programmes that rely on an overlap of multiple theoretical and methodological lenses for tackling concrete design research challenges of relevance to private sector organisations. Successful design interdisciplinary programmes in higher education, with an emphasis on project-based integration between design and engineering skills (Self et al., 2019 ; Voûte et al., 2020 ), illustrate the value of “an intertwining of education, research, and practices in the industrial and wider societal context” (Voûte et al., 2020 ).

Considering the potentially-disruptive opportunities associated with the adoption of emerging technologies including Artificial Intelligence (AI), immersive technologies such as Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality, and the Internet of Things, it has been recognised that design higher education programmes can benefit from innovation, if future graduates are to be prepared to tackle the above-mentioned system-level challenges effectively. Increased breadth and depth of interdisciplinary collaboration as well as strengthened connections across design researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders including third-sector and clinical organisations, have been advocated with a view to “addressing real problems and attempting to craft more sustainable futures” (Voûte et al., 2020 ).

It has been observed that “new insights and better answers to complex problems” often originate from “contrasting, connecting, adding and adapting concepts, theories and methodologies from different disciplines” (Menken et al., 2016 ). This underlines the importance for the design higher education provision to embed interdisciplinary skills development in their programmes and to facilitate student exposure to multiple perspectives around well-defined design challenges across a range of stakeholders, including universities, research institutions, and private organisations (Voûte et al., 2020 ).

This priority, in turn, requires academics to be familiar with research cultures and methodologies across discipline boundaries, beyond their core areas of expertise and across multiple research and innovation contexts, so that students can be exposed to a range of methods across disciplines and professional practices and learn how to bring them together.

Education for sustainable development (Kioupi & Voulvoulis, 2022 ), design for sustainability (Ceschin & Gaziulusoy, 2016 ), research into the potential of design for addressing the UN SDGs (Chou, 2021 ), and strategies for embedding emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, and the Internet of Things in future design higher education curricula (Self et al., 2019 ; Voûte et al., 2020 ) have, separately, attracted significant attention in recent years. However, a comparatively-smaller body of research has focused on the role that technologies can play in design higher education with reference to the UN SDGs. CERN IdeaSquare, an innovation space with access to technology and expertise from the European Organization for Nuclear Research, has been facilitating initiatives towards radical innovation capable of addressing societal needs (Thong et al., 2021 ). However, the emphasis is on ‘deep technologies’, namely technologies with potential for disruptive change that “demand significant intellectual and economic capital to pursue” (Siegel & Krishnan, 2020 ). Despite the recognition of a need for additional investment in technologies and infrastructures towards achieving the UN SDGs (Leal Filho et al., 2022 ), little research has concentrated on the role that a broader range of technologies can play in design higher education, with a view to equipping future design professionals with knowledge and skills for tackling system-level challenges.

This article contributes to filling this gap by reporting and analysing data from 180 Design MSc dissertation projects completed at Brunel University London between 2019 and 2022. The aim is to generate objective representations of the role played by a range of technologies in the students’ work, with reference to sustainable design research themes reflected in the UN SDGs.

The objectives of the study are listed below:

Objective 1. To assess how balanced the distribution of dissertation projects is across technologies, industry sectors, and UN SDGs;

Objective 2 . To identify areas for improvement to the MSc programme, with a view to encouraging a more balanced distribution of dissertation projects across the SDGs.

Following a discussion of the methods adopted for this study (Section " Methods "), results are presented (Section " Results ") in the form of network graphs, made available online for interactive exploration, providing a visual representation of relational patterns relevant to associations of dissertation projects with technologies, industry sectors, and sustainability themes. The manual annotations of individual dissertation projects, identified by custom keywords reflective of project scope, are provided as part of the results with reference to technologies, industry sectors, and sustainability themes. A discussion of the results from data analysis is presented (Section " Discussion "), followed by conclusions and recommendations towards further development (Section " Conclusions and recommendations ").

A Design MSc dissertation module at Brunel University London was used as a case study to assess the extent to which technologies, industry sectors, and UN SDGs are represented across student projects. Dissertation projects provide students with an opportunity to pursue a piece of interdisciplinary research driven by a contemporary design challenge. The projects, implemented each year over a period of five months, address design challenges of societal and global relevance.

As part of their dissertation work, students research and evaluate well-formulated specialist integrated design research questions, based on review of published academic research and other information available in the public domain, and through engagement with research participants following approval by the Brunel Research Ethics Committee. Students can demonstrate appropriate use of methods relating to digital design, design and innovation management, and product design simulation and manufacture, as appropriate depending on project scope, aim, and objectives. The projects require integration of knowledge, methods, and skills across user-centred design (Blessing & Chakrabarti, 2009 ), established systems engineering principles (Albers et al., 2005 ), and product engineering design methodology (Pahl & Beitz, 2013 ), depending on project scope.

The project specifics are the outcome of a consultation process involving students and academics. Where projects are proposed by (and implemented in collaboration with) UK businesses, the specifics of the work are defined jointly by students, academic supervisors, and business representatives. The primary goal behind this decision is to achieve alignment of the design research with the relevant business development strategies, while at the same time ensuring compliance with academic requirements.

Data about 180 Design MSc dissertation projects implemented at Brunel University London over three academic years (2019–20, 2020–21, 2021–22) were analysed, following a categorisation of projects by relevant technologies, industry sectors, and sustainability themes. The categorisation was performed manually by the authors based on the full dissertation reports submitted by the students. Technologies were extracted from the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Technology Classification (Schmoch, 2008 ). A list of industry sectors was obtained from the Industry Classification Benchmark (ICB) (FTSE Russel, n.d. ). Custom keywords were employed for highlighting sustainability and more general design research themes of relevance to individual dissertation projects. The assignment of technologies, industry sectors, and design research themes to dissertations was iteratively refined following review by all authors. All 17 UN SDGs were considered, with a view to assessing the degree to which the dissertation projects are relevant to individual sustainability themes without enforcing any a-priori selection.

A total of 102 dissertations were associated with one or more WIPO technology fields, 90 with one or more ICB industry sectors, and 134 with one of more UN SDGs. Out of 134 projects deemed relevant to one or more UN SDGs, 121 were associated with at least one technology or industry sector. The remaining student projects addressed design research topics that were not relevant to any WIPO technologies or ICB industry sectors or did not directly address any of the UN SDGs. Examples include design of inclusive support services for parents, children, and pet owners, design for reduced levels of occupational stress and increased workplace productivity, and design of innovative solutions for the retail sector.

The academic team comprised 23 supervisors, with core expertise spanning user-centred design, design for manufacture, computer-aided design, design for sustainability, emerging technologies and innovation, inclusive design, immersive technologies, robotics, product and furniture design, industrial design, narrative design, electronics and sensors, design innovation, design history, graphic design, and healthcare design innovation. Academic supervisors had 5 + to 40 + years of professional experience, with research and innovation profiles often spanning academic research and industry practice. The broad spectrum of expertise of the academic team facilitated allocation of individual dissertation projects to a suitable academic for supervision. Each project was assigned a second supervisor in a supporting role, typically with complementary expertise to the first (or primary) supervisor. Second supervisors played an important role during assessment of the dissertations, as they were less significantly involved in the implementation of the projects.

The WIPO technology classification adopted for this study (Schmoch, 2008 ) was developed with the aim of facilitating cross-country analysis of international patent records. It is based on International Patent Classification (IPC) codes and builds on a previous classification, namely ISI-OST-INPI, proposed by Fraunhofer ISI and by the Observatoire des Sciences et des Technologies (OST) with the French patent office (INPI) in 2005. The 2008 WIPO technology classification covers 5 technology areas and 35 technology fields. Technology fields cover electrical engineering, audio-visual technology, telecommunications, digital and computer technology, control systems, and medical technology, among others. A full breakdown by technology areas and technology fields is reported in Table A1 (FTSE Russel, n.d. ).

Whereas ISI-OST-INPI reflects an international trading landscape driven by a small number of countries at an advanced stage of industrialisation, the update to the 2008 WIPO classification was driven by a need to include emerging countries. Key requirements in the development of the 2008 WIPO technology classification were (i) to cover all IPC codes, (ii) to select technology field size in such a way that numbers of international patent applications could be evened out across technology fields, and (iii) to ensure an appropriate level of differentiation in order to avoid excessive detail blurring general structures (Schmoch, 2008 ). Whereas it was acknowledged that a degree of heterogeneity within technology fields can hardly be avoided, experience with ISI-OST-INPI and with prior classifications highlighted that introducing specific technology fields on grounds of topical interest is ultimately of limited usefulness, as topicality is often short-lived. The 2008 WIPO classification was designed to operate at a higher aggregation level towards longer relevance as the technological landscape evolves. Moreover, the area of information technology is associated with a higher number of technology fields than in ISI-OST-INPI, therefore providing a higher degree of granularity. The MSc dissertation topics covered in this study were selected based on relevance to current challenges in design research and design industry practice, and there is no requirement on dissertation projects to cover a range of technologies. For this reason, not all WIPO technology areas and fields are represented in the MSc dissertation projects analysed in this study.

Table 1 summarises the scope of the 2008 WIPO technology fields relevant to the MSc dissertations reported in this article, and provides additional information about the corresponding dissertation topics.

For this study, industry sectors were obtained from the Industry Classification Benchmark (ICB) (FTSE Russel, n.d. ). The ICB classification was designed to aid international comparison of companies and is based on four levels, namely ‘Industry’, ‘Supersector’, ‘Sector’, and ‘Subsector’. To illustrate the level of detail associated with the different levels, information from the ICB classification for ‘Industrials’ is given in the Appendix (Figs. A1 , A2 , A3 , A4 and A5 ). Whereas ICB is used for allocating businesses to Subsectors based on revenue sources, the classification was not used with reference to individual businesses in the context of this study. Instead, Design MSc dissertation projects were associated with relevant industry sectors based on project scope, aim, objectives, and nature of the outputs. Considering the topics of the design dissertations analysed for this study, ICB information at the Sector level was deemed appropriate for mapping dissertation projects to industry sectors.

Information about ICB Sectors relevant to the MSc dissertations considered as part of this study, adapted from (FTSE Russel, n.d. ), is provided in Table 2 . Dissertation projects deemed relevant to industry sectors in Table 2 were not necessarily implemented in collaboration with an industry partner, but rather reflect the relevance of dissertation work to selected industry sectors.

Network graphs were generated from the data, in order to provide interactive visual representations of how individual dissertation projects are positioned with reference to technologies and industry sectors. The data were processed using Python 3.6.9 custom scripts relying on the following libraries: NetworkX 2.5.1, Pyvis 0.1.9, VisJS 4.16.1. Interactive network graphs were generated, providing access to keywords reflecting themes relevant to individual dissertations as well as labels from the manual annotation process based on the WIPO Technology Classification (Schmoch, 2008 ), the Industry Classification Benchmark (ICB) (FTSE Russel, n.d. ), UN SDGs, as well as custom keywords reflecting design research themes, extracted from the body of the student dissertations.

A full anonymised list of dissertation projects with the corresponding manual annotations (technologies, industry sectors, UN SDGs, and design research themes) is provided in Table A2 . Information relevant to individual dissertation projects can also be accessed interactively via the network graphs.

Figure  2 displays a network graph showing the mapping of individual student projects (red nodes) to technologies according to the 2008 WIPO classification (blue nodes). Technology node labels are displayed in the graph. An edge between a red and a blue node indicates that the corresponding technology was relevant to the dissertation project. The size of the blue nodes is proportional to the corresponding number of edges. Larger blue nodes therefore relate to technologies relevant to a higher number of dissertation projects within the dataset analysed in this study. Nodes were positioned using the Barnes Hut force-directed layout algorithm (Díaz et al., 2002 ), whereby connected nodes are brought closer together and a trade-off with repulsion between nodes leads to a surveyable layout. Individual node locations ultimately reflect the relational embedding of each node in the context of the entire network as opposed to local properties exclusively. This results in nodes with a higher number of edges and a higher degree of ‘topological importance’ within the network being positioned towards the centre of the graph, which in turn improves the interpretability of the visual representation.

Network graph showing individual MSc dissertation projects (red circles) and the technologies relevant to them (blue circles). Technologies have been labelled in the graph

A network graph displaying a mapping between dissertations and ICB industry sectors is displayed in Fig.  3 . Red and blue nodes correspond to individual dissertations and to industry sectors, respectively. Key industry sectors are labelled in the graph, the four unlabelled smaller network fragments corresponding to ‘Waste and Disposal Services’, ‘Travel and Leisure’, ‘Retailers’, and ‘Gas, Water and Multi-utilities’. Edges between red and blue nodes indicate which dissertations are relevant to which industry sectors. As in Fig.  2 , blue node size is proportional to the corresponding number of edges. The network graph shows a hierarchical arrangement of clusters, with ‘Health Care Providers’, ‘Technology Hardware and Equipment’, ‘Software and Computer Services’, ‘Industrial Engineering’, and ‘Household Goods and Home Construction’ forming a larger cluster distinguished from smaller and often isolated clusters. It is worth noting that node position in the network graphs is determined by graph layout algorithms and reflects local relational patterns as well as global network connectivity. For example, ‘Health Care Providers’ being closer to ‘Technology Hardware and Equipment’ and ‘Software and Computer Services’, and farther from ‘Household Goods and Home Construction’, carries information about ‘Health Care Providers’ having higher thematic similarity with ‘Technology Hardware and Equipment’ and ‘Software and Computer Services’ than ‘Household Goods and Home Construction’, as reflected in the data. Smaller clusters disconnected from the rest of the network correspond to industry sectors that have been discussed in one or more dissertations in isolation, i.e. without reference to any other industry sectors. Examples are ‘Food Producers’, ‘Personal Goods’, ‘Industrial Transportation’, and ‘Alternative Energy’. The presence of such isolated clusters highlights an opportunity for encouraging dissertation topics and projects of relevance to multiple industry sectors, which is expected to increase further the economic and societal relevance of the student dissertations. The corresponding network graph showing associations between dissertation projects (red nodes) and UN SDGs (blue nodes) is displayed in Fig.  4 .

Network graph showing individual MSc dissertation projects (red circles) and the Industry Classification Benchmark industry sectors relevant to them (blue circles). Industry sectors have been labelled in the graph

Network graph showing individual MSc dissertation projects (red circles) and the UN SDGs relevant to them (blue circles). SDGs relevant to a higher number of dissertations have been labelled in the graph

The network graphs displayed in Figs. 2 , 3 and 4 are available online and can be explored interactively via the following links: technologies network graph , industry sectors network graph ; UN SDG network graph . Text containing additional information about individual nodes can be accessed by hovering over the nodes of interest. All personal identifying information (relating to both students and academic supervisors) was removed from the data for the purpose of publication.

Given the nature of the layout algorithm employed for node positioning, the position of each node in the graphs displayed in Figs. 2 , 3 and 4 reflects the corresponding relational patterns with other nodes, considering not only local connections but also the topology of the graph in its entirety. As a result, nodes connected via edges to a higher number of other nodes across the network tend to be positioned more centrally in the graph. Such network graph features are useful for visualising complex relational patterns and have been relied upon in a range of studies across research domains such as bibliometrics, focusing on statistical analysis of publications including academic literature and patents (Glänzel, 2012 ), and social network analysis (Meghanathan, 2017 ), among others.

Key technologies of relevance to the MSc dissertation projects analysed in this study stand out in Fig.  2 as having a higher number of edges connecting them to individual projects, and therefore correspond to blue nodes with larger size. Whereas some (red) project nodes cluster around one single (blue) technology node, e.g. with reference to environmental technology and medical technology, others are connected to more than one technology node and are therefore visualised as nodes positioned more centrally in the graph. These include projects relying on Information Technology as well as on technology relevant to systems control and digital communication.

The graph displayed in Fig.  3 shows dissertation projects clustering around industry sectors, most projects being relevant to a single sector. A smaller number of projects, primarily relevant to hardware equipment and software services – in some instances in relation to healthcare provision – have more than one industry sector relevant to them. This often reflects broader research interests of students and academics.

Regarding pertinence of the dissertation projects to the UN SDGs, a prominent number of projects is relevant to sustainable cities and communities and to health and wellbeing, as shown in Fig.  4 . Most projects tend to cluster around a single SDG, although some span more than one sustainability theme. This minority of projects which span more than one SDG, including health and wellbeing, sustainable cities and communities, and reduced inequality, again reflects the range of interests of the students and of the academics involved.

It should be noted that there is currently no academic requirement for dissertation projects to span multiple technologies, industry sectors or UN SDGs, and the relational pattens highlighted in Figs. 2 , 3 and 4 reflect the students’ design research interests and the supervisors’ research expertise. On the other hand, it can be argued that a more balanced distribution of dissertation projects across SDGs could be a desirable feature of the MSc teaching provision. To achieve this in future, students and supervisors could be encouraged to address a broader range of design research themes relevant to sustainable innovation.

Conclusions and recommendations

This analysis of 180 Design MSc dissertation projects implemented at Brunel University London from 2019 to 2022 has highlighted relevance to a range of technologies, industry sectors , and sustainable design research themes. A good degree of project diversification was observed across the UN SDGs. Technologies relevant to digital communication, systems control, and data processing software, as well as medical technology, were found to be pertinent to a higher number of dissertation projects in the dataset analysed. Regarding industry sectors, a significant number of student projects were relevant to healthcare provision, household goods and home construction, personal goods, as well as software and computer services. Approximately 20 dissertation projects were implemented in close collaboration with a UK-registered business qualifying as a Small and Medium Enterprise. In those instances, the project briefs were initially proposed by the businesses, primarily operating in the healthcare, software and computer services, and household goods sectors, and refined in collaboration with Design academics. Industry partners contributed to the projects with a varying degree of involvement, typically by providing feedback on design concepts and additional guidance to the students. Planned improvements to the Design MSc provision include enhancing the number and scope of such collaborative projects in the future, to increase further the economic and societal relevance of the student dissertations.

The results hold potential for informing future revision of the Brunel Design MSc provision at module and programme level. A current minority of dissertation projects, often corresponding to nodes positioned outside graph relational cores, were found to be relevant to multiple technologies and sustainable design research themes. It is argued that conditions could be put in place for such projects, complementing others addressing a single technology or SDG, to play a more prominent role in future, with a view to encouraging students to develop broader skillsets. The analysis also suggests that academic supervisors with broader knowledge and more pronounced integrative capabilities, often but not always reflecting a higher number of years in professional practice including experience outside academia, can be equally well suited to supervision of dissertation projects around contemporary design challenges as are those with more specialised academic profiles.

Except for a minority of dissertation projects that were directly initiated by students based on own research ideas, most project briefs were based on preferences expressed by students across a range of design research themes and topics suggested by academics. Raising academic supervisor awareness of how dissertation projects have been associated with technologies, industry sectors, and sustainable design research themes in recent years, and encouraging academics to consider a broader range of technologies and UN SDGs when presenting dissertation project ideas to the students are therefore expected to be beneficial with a view to promoting a more balanced distribution of future projects across SDGs. More generally, the methods employed in this study provide a blueprint for future data-driven analyses of the role played by a range of technologies in the context of student projects in higher education, with an emphasis on their relevance to sustainable design research themes. Insights generated from such analyses can, in turn, inform interventions to strengthen further the design higher education provision, with a view to empowering future design professionals to become catalysts of responsible technology-enabled innovation over the course of their careers.

Albers, A., Burkardt, N., Meboldt, M., & Saak, M. (2005). Spalten problem solving methodology in the product development. In Proceedings ICED 05, the 15th International Conference on Engineering Design , Melbourne, Australia.

Ashby, I., & Exter, M. (2019). Designing for Interdisciplinarity in Higher Education: Considerations for Instructional Designers. TechTrends, 63 , 202–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0352-z

Article   Google Scholar  

Blessing, L. T. M., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). A Design Research Methodology. Springer, Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1

Body J, Habbal F (2016) ‘The Innovation Ecosystem’. In: Banerjee B, Ceri S (eds) 'Creating Innovation Leaders. Understanding Innovation', Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20520-5_2 .

Ceschin, F., & Gaziulusoy, I. (2016). Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design to design for system innovations and transitions. Design Studies, 47 , 118–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.002

Chen C, Jayaraman V, Chen Y (2021) ‘Pursuing Sustainability: An Interdisciplinary Perspective’. In Chen C, Chen Y, Jayaraman V (eds) ‘Pursuing Sustainability’. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science’, 301. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58023-0_1 .

Chou, J. R. (2021). A Scoping Review of Ontologies Relevant to Design Strategies in Response to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Sustainability, 13 , 10012. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810012

Díaz, J., Petit, J., & Serna, M. (2002). A survey of graph layout problems. ACM Computing Surveys, 34 (3), 313–356. https://doi.org/10.1145/568522.568523

FTSE Russel (n.d.) Industry Classification Benchmark. https://classification.codes/classifications/industry/icb . Accessed Apr 2024

Glänzel, W. (2012). The role of core documents in bibliometric network analysis and their relation with h-type indices. Scientometrics, 93 (1), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0639-3

Hacklin, F., & Wallin, M. W. (2013). Convergence and interdisciplinarity in innovation management: A review, critique, and future directions. The Service Industries Journal, 33 (7–8), 774–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2013.740471

Khayal IS, Farid AM (2021) ‘Healthcare System Design’. In: Suh NP, Cavique M, Foley JT. (eds) ‘Design Engineering and Science’. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49232-8_19 .

Kioupi V, Voulvoulis N (2022) ‘Education for Sustainable Development as the Catalyst for Local Transitions Toward the Sustainable Development Goals’, Front. Sustain . 3 , Article 889904. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2022.889904 .

Kumar, V. (2009). A process for practicing design innovation. Journal of Business Strategy, 30 , 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660910942517

Lawrence, J., Blackett, P., & Cradock-Henry, N. A. (2020). Cascading climate change impacts and implications. Climate Risk Management, 29 , 100234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2020.100234

Leal Filho, W., Vidal, D. G., Chen, C., et al. (2022). An assessment of requirements in investments, new technologies, and infrastructures to achieve the SDGs. Environmental Sciences Europe, 34 , 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00629-9

Maier A, Oehmen J, Vermaas PE (2022) ‘Introducing Engineering Systems Design: A New Engineering Perspective on the Challenges of Our Times’. In ‘Handbook of Engineering Systems Design’, pp. 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_1-2 .

Mainzer, K. (2011). ‘Interdisciplinarity and innovation dynamics. On Convergence of Research, Technology, Economy, and Society’, Poiesis & Praxis, 7 , 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-011-0088-8

Manoharan A (2019) ‘Creating connections: polymathy and the value of third space professionals in higher education  Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education’ 24 (2):56–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2019.1698475 .

Meghanathan N (2017) ‘Graph Theoretic Approaches for Analyzing Large-Scale Social Networks’, IGI Global. ISBN13: 9781522528142. https://www.igi-global.com/book/graph-theoretic-approaches-analyzing-large/178732 . Accessed Apr 2024

Menken S, Keestra M, Rutting L, Post G, de Roo M, Blad S, de Greef L (eds) (2016) ‘An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Research: Theory and Practice’, Amsterdam University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1bc540s . Accessed Apr 2024

Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (2013). Pahl/Beitz Konstruktionslehre : Methoden und Anwendung erfolgreicher Produktentwicklung / herausgegeben von Jörg Feldhusen , Karl-Heinrich Grote.

Reynolds M, Blackmore C, Ison R, Shah R, Wedlock E (2018) ‘The Role of Systems Thinking in the Practice of Implementing Sustainable Development Goals’. In Leal Filho W (eds) ‘Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research. World Sustainability Series’, Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63007-6_42 .

Rodgers P (2007) ‘"Polymath Interpolators" - the next generation of designers’, Proceedings of E&PDE 2007, 9th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education , University of Northumbria, Newcastle, UK, 13.-14.09.2007, pp 375–80.  https://www.designsociety.org/download-publication/28423/polymath_interpolators-the_next_generation_of_designers . Accessed Apr 2024

Schmoch U (2008) ‘Concept of a Technology Classification for Country Comparisons - Final Report to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)’, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe, Germany. https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/ipstats/en/docs/wipo_ipc_technology.pdf . Accessed Apr 2024

Self, J. A., Evans, M., Jun, T., & Southee, D. (2019). Interdisciplinary: Challenges and opportunities for design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29 (4), 843–876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9460-5

Siegel, J. E., & Krishnan, S. (2020). Cultivating Invisible Impact with Deep Technology and Creative Destruction. Journal of Innovation Management, 8 (3), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_008.003_0002

Thong, C., Cotoranu, A., Down, A., Kohler, K., & Batista, C. (2021). Design innovation integrating deep technology, societal needs, radical innovation, and future thinking: A case study of the CBIA3 program. CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation, 5 (1), 32–39.  https://doi.org/10.23726/cij.2021.1291

Tobi, H., & Kampen, J. K. (2018). Research design: The methodology for interdisciplinary research framework. Quality & Quantity, 52 , 1209–1225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0513-8

UN SDGs, n.d., https://sdgs.un.org/goals , last accessed June 2023.

Voûte, E., Stappers, P. J., Giaccardi, E., Mooij, S., & van Boeijen, A. (2020). Innovating a Large Design Education Program at a University of Technology. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6 (1), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.12.001

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all academic staff in the Brunel Design School for their important contribution supervising the MSc dissertation projects that have provided the data for this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Design School, Brunel University London, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH, UK

Federico Colecchia, Fabrizio Ceschin & David Harrison

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and data analysis were performed by Dr Federico Colecchia in coordination with Dr Fabrizio Ceschin and Prof David Harrison. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Dr Federico Colecchia and all authors commented on versions of the manuscript prior to submission. The data underpinning this publication can be accessed from the data repository of Brunel University London, Brunel Figshare, under a CCBY-NC licence: https://doi.org/10.17633/rd.brunel.25555212.v1 . All authors read and approved the final manuscript. No funding was received for conducting this study. The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Federico Colecchia .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

(XLSX 201 KB)

(PNG 174 KB)

(PNG 134 KB)

(PNG 172 KB)

Table A1 provides a breakdown of the 2008 WIPO technology classification by technology areas and fields. The relevant IPC codes are included. The hash symbol in the right-most column is used to indicate all IPC codes starting with the relevant string. Parentheses are used in conjunction with logic NOT operators where ambiguity could otherwise arise. Commas in the right-most column correspond to logic OR operators.

Table A2 contains a full anonymised list of the MSc dissertation projects analysed for this study, including manual annotations (technologies, industry sectors, UN SDGs, and design research themes)

Figures  A1 , A2 , A3 , A4 and A5 illustrate the level of detail associated with ‘Industry’, ‘Supersector’, ‘Sector’, and ‘Subsector’ in the ICB classification with reference to ‘Industrials’ (FTSE Russel, n.d. ).

ICB classification with reference to ‘Industrials’: ‘Industry’, ‘Supersector’, ‘Sector’, ‘Subsector’. (FTSE Russel, n.d. )

ICB classification with reference to ‘Industrials’: ‘Industry’, ‘Supersector’, ‘Sector’, ‘Subsector’ (continued from Fig. A1 ). (FTSE Russel, n.d. )

ICB classification with reference to ‘Industrials’: ‘Industry’, ‘Supersector’, ‘Sector’, ‘Subsector’ (continued from Fig.  A2 ). (FTSE Russel, n.d. )

ICB classification with reference to ‘Industrials’: ‘Industry’, ‘Supersector’, ‘Sector’, ‘Subsector’ (continued from Fig.  A3 ). (FTSE Russel, n.d. )

ICB classification with reference to ‘Industrials’: ‘Industry’, ‘Supersector’, ‘Sector’, ‘Subsector’ (continued from Fig.  A4 ). (FTSE Russel, n.d. )

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Colecchia, F., Ceschin, F. & Harrison, D. Interdisciplinary integrative capabilities as a catalyst of responsible technology-enabled innovation: A higher education case study of Design MSc dissertation projects. Int J Technol Des Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-024-09901-w

Download citation

Accepted : 18 April 2024

Published : 03 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-024-09901-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Design higher education
• Technologies
• Industry sectors
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Network analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

How to write a PhD thesis: a step-by-step guide

A draft isn’t a perfect, finished product; it is your opportunity to start getting words down on paper, writes Kelly Louise Preece

Kelly Louise Preece

• More on this topic

Created in partnership with

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} How to develop a researcher mindset as a PhD student

Formative, summative or diagnostic assessment a guide, emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn, how to assess and enhance students’ ai literacy, how hard can it be testing ai detection tools.

Congratulations; you’ve finished your research! Time to write your PhD thesis. This resource will take you through an eight-step plan for drafting your chapters and your thesis as a whole. 

Organise your material

Before you start, it’s important to get organised. Take a step back and look at the data you have, then reorganise your research. Which parts of it are central to your thesis and which bits need putting to one side? Label and organise everything using logical folders – make it easy for yourself! Academic and blogger Pat Thomson calls this  “Clean up to get clearer” . Thomson suggests these questions to ask yourself before you start writing:

• What data do you have? You might find it useful to write out a list of types of data (your supervisor will find this list useful too.) This list is also an audit document that can go in your thesis. Do you have any for the “cutting room floor”? Take a deep breath and put it in a separate non-thesis file. You can easily retrieve it if it turns out you need it.
• What do you have already written? What chunks of material have you written so far that could form the basis of pieces of the thesis text? They will most likely need to be revised but they are useful starting points. Do you have any holding text? That is material you already know has to be rewritten but contains information that will be the basis of a new piece of text.
• What have you read and what do you still need to read? Are there new texts that you need to consult now after your analysis? What readings can you now put to one side, knowing that they aren’t useful for this thesis – although they might be useful at another time?
• What goes with what? Can you create chunks or themes of materials that are going to form the basis of some chunks of your text, perhaps even chapters?

Once you have assessed and sorted what you have collected and generated you will be in much better shape to approach the big task of composing the dissertation. 

Decide on a key message

A key message is a summary of new information communicated in your thesis. You should have started to map this out already in the section on argument and contribution – an overarching argument with building blocks that you will flesh out in individual chapters.

You have already mapped your argument visually, now you need to begin writing it in prose. Following another of Pat Thomson’s exercises, write a “tiny text” thesis abstract. This doesn’t have to be elegant, or indeed the finished product, but it will help you articulate the argument you want your thesis to make. You create a tiny text using a five-paragraph structure:

• The first sentence addresses the broad context. This locates the study in a policy, practice or research field.
• The second sentence establishes a problem related to the broad context you have set out. It often starts with “But”, “Yet” or “However”.
• The third sentence says what specific research has been done. This often starts with “This research” or “I report…”
• The fourth sentence reports the results. Don’t try to be too tricky here, just start with something like: “This study shows,” or “Analysis of the data suggests that…”
• The fifth and final sentence addresses the “So What?” question and makes clear the claim to contribution.

Here’s an example that Thomson provides:

Secondary school arts are in trouble, as the fall in enrolments in arts subjects dramatically attests. However, there is patchy evidence about the benefits of studying arts subjects at school and this makes it hard to argue why the drop in arts enrolments matters. This thesis reports on research which attempts to provide some answers to this problem – a longitudinal study which followed two groups of senior secondary students, one group enrolled in arts subjects and the other not, for three years. The results of the study demonstrate the benefits of young people’s engagement in arts activities, both in and out of school, as well as the connections between the two. The study not only adds to what is known about the benefits of both formal and informal arts education but also provides robust evidence for policymakers and practitioners arguing for the benefits of the arts. You can  find out more about tiny texts and thesis abstracts on Thomson’s blog.

• Writing tips for higher education professionals
• Resource collection on academic writing
• What is your academic writing temperament?

Write a plan

You might not be a planner when it comes to writing. You might prefer to sit, type and think through ideas as you go. That’s OK. Everybody works differently. But one of the benefits of planning your writing is that your plan can help you when you get stuck. It can help with writer’s block (more on this shortly!) but also maintain clarity of intention and purpose in your writing.

You can do this by creating a  thesis skeleton or storyboard , planning the order of your chapters, thinking of potential titles (which may change at a later stage), noting down what each chapter/section will cover and considering how many words you will dedicate to each chapter (make sure the total doesn’t exceed the maximum word limit allowed).

Use your plan to help prompt your writing when you get stuck and to develop clarity in your writing.

Some starting points include:

• This chapter will argue that…
• This section illustrates that…
• This paragraph provides evidence that…

Of course, we wish it werethat easy. But you need to approach your first draft as exactly that: a draft. It isn’t a perfect, finished product; it is your opportunity to start getting words down on paper. Start with whichever chapter you feel you want to write first; you don’t necessarily have to write the introduction first. Depending on your research, you may find it easier to begin with your empirical/data chapters.

Vitae advocates for the “three draft approach” to help with this and to stop you from focusing on finding exactly the right word or transition as part of your first draft.

This resource originally appeared on Researcher Development .

Kelly Louse Preece is head of educator development at the University of Exeter.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter .

How to develop a researcher mindset as a PhD student

A diy guide to starting your own journal, contextual learning: linking learning to the real world, what does a university faculty senate do, hybrid learning through podcasts: a practical approach, how exactly does research get funded.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site