國外留學生PROPOSAL寫作指南

www.ttc-switch.com

11-22, 2013

國外留學生PROPOSAL寫作指南

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This unit provides an opportunity for the student to research a self selected topic in consultation with the appointed supervisor. This is preceded by a research proposal.

Hughes, Ineson and Stone (2001) point out that, research is an ‘original investigation’ carried out to gain further knowledge and understanding. It should demonstrate both academic rigour and managerial relevance, i.e. it should be directed towards a practical aim and objectives in order to solve a specific problem

2.2 PLANNING AND SETTING UP THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL

As part of the assessment for this unit, students are required to produce an outline plan for an MSc or MA dissertation in the form of a proposal. The student is required to:

Identify a topic as well as the setting and focus of the dissertation

Consult with appropriate supervisor and determine whether s/he is able to supervise your chosen area.

This task requires preliminary investigation and reading round the topic area to identify a working title and, for administrative purposes. This information should be notified to the unit co-ordinator and the potential supervisor.

Complete Research Proposal Form A by the required date (This will be issued to students by the Research Methods unit leader).

Refine ideas in consultation with supervisor

Students are encouraged to explore the topic, (through the literature) to consider and determine aim/objectives/methodology and proposed content structure. Students should meet with supervisor regularly and plan a work schedule

Develop and discuss interim submissions with supervisor

Submit two hard copies and one electronic copy of Research Proposal by required date together with one completed copy of Form B. (see Appendix B) that has the signatures of the researcher and the supervisor.

2.3 LEARNING OUTCOMES:

Upon completion of this unit, students will be able to:

1. produce a research proposal for their MA / MSc dissertation that

demonstrates the ability to critically select, justify and use appropriate enquiry methods and processes;

demonstrates the ability to engage with relevant methodological and substantive bodies of knowledge in a critical and reflective manner; and

reflects upon management theories and current industry practices.

demonstrates and justifies an appropriate and ethical method of investigation to address a problem

THE STRUCTURE OF THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL

A research proposal comprises a:

a) working title,

b) aim,

c) objectives (3-5) which includes,

d) background,

e) proposed method,

f) potential outcomes,

g) key references and additional bibliography.

a) Working title

The working title should be stated in one sentence and capture the essence of the study.

b) Aim

The dissertation must have a clearly identifiable aim, indicating an approach that is analytical and evaluative and not merely descriptive. The aim is a short statement of what the researcher hopes to achieve on completion of the dissertation.

It should be expressed in one sentence! It is good practice to pose "the research question" in one sentence. What question is this research setting out to answer? The aim should be expressed formally but equally succinctly.

The aim should be focused and not general. Usually the narrower the focus the more successful the dissertation is likely to be. The aim should be expressed in such a way as to demonstrate an approach that is not simply investigative. Avoid "to investigate" or "to examine" (unless pure scientific research) and use verbs such "to analyse", "to evaluate", "to assess" and "to determine".

To describe and list facts is not sufficient; there must be evidence of intent to do more. For example,

1. Not: "to investigate leisure centres in local hotels" but:

"to analyse the effectiveness of leisure centres in attracting visitors to local hotels"

2. Not: "to examine customer care in the hospitality industry" but: "to evaluate the customer care strategies of international hotel groups (say 3) in the UK"

c) Objectives

These are "concise statements of expected outcomes" of the exploration - what you want to find out, not how you mean to do it - "to establish X by means of case studies" or "to compare Y and Z by means of a literature survey". It is vital that the objectives are carefully determined because the results of the research will be judged according to whether these objectives have been achieved successfully. Normally 3-5 objectives would be sufficient to achieve an aim.

d) Background (Selection and justification of the topic)

The reasons for the selection of the research topic should be explained, and linked to the literature reviewed.

Raise issues to underpin the research topic and to demonstrate why it is worthy of consideration. This is usually because (a) it has not been explored before in the proposed way and (b) because the study is perceived to be useful.

Show there is a "knowledge gap" to be filled, but it is more important to demonstrate "research competence" than it is to shake the foundations of the academic or management world.

Discuss the nature and significance of the problem/issue to be addressed. Convince the assessor that it is not a trivial topic and show how it may be of practical "use".

It is usually relevant and appropriate to discuss the topic area within the context of previous work (writing or research) and to raise issues pertinent to the proposed research, followed by a clear statement of the precise research area or a key research question or a research hypothesis.

d1). Planning a literature search

The librarian has developed a course on advanced literature searching for coursework and dissertations. It is always useful to use library resources in completing your research.

Begin with key words and then develop a rough framework for the search. Keep a record of all potentially relevant information. Decide on the recording format; for example, a computerised database or a card index.

d2). Referencing

The Harvard system is the preferred method (see postgraduate student handbook)

d3). Accessing external information/making and retaining outside contacts

It is highly likely that external information will be essential to the successful completion of the dissertation.

Most companies are willing to work with students on such projects if they are informed accordingly. Remember to treat all external collaborators with the deserved respect as it is important to maintain a good relationship.

Texts

A very simple introductory text is sufficient. Students are advised to refer to the reading list provided in the postgraduate student handbook. (See Research Methods Unit descriptor at www.hollings.mmu.ac.uk).

e). Proposed method

Students are expected to outline the proposed research design, research population, sampling method, data collection techniques (quantitative, qualitative or both), and data analysis methods. The research method should be justified and appropriate to the achievement of the aim and objectives.

f). Potential outcomes

Brief statement of what the outcomes might be, that is, what knowledge might be advanced from the study.

g). Key references and bibliography

List at least 12 key references, showing familiarity with the literature that can support the study plus an additional bibliography of at least 20 items – texts that are intended to be cited in the final dissertation.

Note: The outline (background & methodology) should be presented as a coherent statement, not just, a series of bullet points across which the assessors are expected to make links.

COURSEWORK BRIEF

The research proposal must be no more than 3000 words in length and excluding the aim, objective and references/bibliography. The references and bibliography should be listed alphabetically at the end of the proposal. Lists of bullet points without justification are not acceptable in the main body of the text, which should be written in essay format. The word count must be stated and marks will be deducted if an outline plan is over this maximum word length.

The minimum pass mark is 50%. A student will be awarded credit for this unit when the Research Proposal has been moderated and the mark has been ratified at an MSc or MA Examination Board as applicable.

To summarise, the Research Proposal should normally include:

a working title

an aim and 3-5 objectives

a background

put research topic into context and raise issues pertinent to research which lead to hypothesis/research question, supported by appropriate, adequate and up-to-date literature

proposed methodology (Ref. Methods of Enquiry reading list in unit handbook)

population definition, sampling and data collection techniques

may be qualitative\quantitative (or both?)

selection of methodology must be justified (there is never one way only – all

approaches have their advantages)

how the data are to be analysed – be specific!

potential outcomes

key references

at least 12 sources (to include academic theory, recent academic journal articles, www sources, recent media reports et al. ), listed alphabetically by author should be used to underpin the proposal then an additional substantial, up-to-date and varied bibliography of at least 20 items.– please use Harvard system

signed, approved Form B

2.5. SUPERVISORS AND ADVISORS/SECOND MARKERS

Each student will be allocated one supervisor who takes responsibility for overseeing the dissertation. Supervisors should have prior successful experience in postgraduate supervision. Students will be allocated a supervisor, with the ultimate decision made by the Head of Department in consultation with the unit leader. The unit co-ordinator will have the ultimate responsibility of publishing and making available to all stakeholders a list of students and supervisors they will be working with. It is suggested that students consult with their supervisor on at least two/three occasions prior to submitting this coursework. Supervisors should be prepared to comment on ways in which draft proposals might be improved. Students may also consult other specialists, either academics or industrialists as required, again with agreement from the individuals concerned; these names should be given to the Dissertation co-ordinator for administrative purposes. All students will be allocated a supervisor for the purposes of the successful completion of the dissertation.

2.5. a. Responsibilities of Supervisors

The supervisors’ main responsibilities are: to make available specialist knowledge to the student; to mentor the student in the research process; to guide the student towards success; and to monitor the progress of the student. At the outset, the supervisor should advise the student on the appropriateness of the proposed aim, objectives and time-scales, as well as identifying possible pitfalls and limitations. The supervisor should try to maintain regular contact with the student as required by the student and within reason. Given that some students will conduct their study in the field, contact is not necessarily limited to face-to-face meetings but can include e-mail, mail, fax, and telephone.

* An overview of the responsibilities of the supervisors

To advise initially on possible topics, aim, objectives and time-scales

To make available specialist knowledge

To give general guidance on matters such as: the nature of research; academic standards; planning; literature and other sources; methods and techniques

To maintain regular and frequent (weekly is sufficient) formal contact with the student

To inform the student of planned absences and procedures for maintaining contact

To obtain progress reports and other written work (including draft chapters) and provide constructive criticism promptly (ideally within 60 hours of the submission)

To make the student aware of inadequate progress or other impediments to successful completion of the Dissertation within the requisite duration

(Too much contact with, and supervision of, a student will probably do less harm than too little)

Note: The student, and not the supervisor, is supposed to do most of the thinking and to plan, and write the Dissertation!!

2.5. b. Responsibilities of the student

The student's responsibility is to maintain regular contact with the supervisor. The nature and type of contact as well as the regularity must be discussed with the supervisor to ensure that the needs of the student are met within reason. In the case of receiving feedback, the students must the supervisor adequate notice (in agreement with the supervisor) for the submission of interim work. Students should seek help when required and inform the supervisor of any problems that they encounter. Furthermore, they must observe the MMU official policies and comply with the procedures documented in this Handbook.

* An overview of the responsibilities of the student

To initiate and maintain regular contact with supervisor

To seek help as required and to provide the supervisor with contact details

To negotiate with the supervisor to establish what kind of help and guidance is appropriate and what form it should take

To comply with ‘official procedures’ and be ‘ethical’ at all times

To attend the timetabled classes and to take advantage of the drop-in data analysis workshops as appropriate

To maintain regular and frequent (on average, once a week for a maximum of 15 minutes) formal contact with the supervisor

To maintain progress with the Dissertation along lines agreed with the supervisor

To inform the supervisor, or the unit or course leader, of any problems or difficulties and seek appropriate help or advice, completing a mitigating circumstances form and providing documentary evidence as appropriate

To prepare and deliver progress reports and other written work (including draft chapters) as required in sufficient time (usually 60 hours minimum prior to the meeting) to allow adequate comment and discussion

To ensure that the Dissertation is of an adequate standard for the MA / MSc award

To submit the Dissertation in compliance with the FCTHM School, Faculty and the University’s regulations

The supervisor of the Research Proposal will normally serve as the supervisor for the Dissertation. In the event that circumstances warrant a change in the supervisor, the Dissertation Unit Co-ordinator will take the appropriate action as required. A revised Form B will serve as the official record of the newly appointed supervisor.

2.6 ETHICS OF RESEARCH

Please refer to www.rdu.mmu.ac.uk/ethics/mmuframework

Note: The ethics of research and the principles below apply to all coursework not just dissertations

There are a number of basic principles of which students should be made aware:

informed consent:: the researcher must inform all parties of why the material/data are being collected (the purpose of the research) and must obtain their consent;

informants and respondents have the right, and must be permitted without question, to withdraw from the research process at any time;

there must be no ill effects on any individual, Company, School or Institution associated with the research process;

confidentiality and privacy must be respected; confidentiality of any information passed to or obtained by the researcher must be maintained;

no unprofessional behaviour should be required of participants

respondents must be given the opportunity to learn from the research

all researchers are responsible to:

the subjects of the research

colleagues

sponsors (if any)

the institution(s) in which research occurs

Consent should usually be obtained in writing though it is recognised that this is not always practicable.

Consent is also an issue when the researcher is ‘covert’; in such cases; it is advised that approval be sought beforehand from an appropriate body such as an ethics committee.

Note: with the exception of employee researchers, data collection in UK schools and hospitals is not permitted for postgraduate dissertations due to local regulations regarding ethics, and time constraints.

Reference:

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill A. (2003) Research Methods for Business Students, Chapter 5, Negotiating access and research ethics, Prentice Hall , London.

Section 3

THE DISSERTATION

3.1 REQUIREMENTS

The research proposal is implemented through the writing of a dissertation. This must not exceed 16000 words excluding tables, diagrams and appendices.

Students should justify and examine the research aim and objectives, consider and select from a range of methodologies appropriate to their achievement, demonstrate an awareness and understanding of the literature relevant not only to the issues under investigation but also to the approach adopted, justify the methodological approach; analyse, synthesise, evaluate the data; underpin decisions and findings with appropriate and up to date literature; draw conclusions and make recommendations. Students are also expected to reflect on the research process.

Each participant will have one dissertation supervisor. The supervisors are responsible for monitoring their students’ progress. Where appropriate, industrial mentors may be involved in an advisory capacity

LEARNING OUTCOMES FROM THE DISSERTATION UNIT DESCRIPTOR:

Upon completion of this unit, the student will be able to:

develop aims and objectives for term papers [assessments] and the dissertation / research project

review literature analytically and use appropriate citation referencing techniques

select and evaluate appropriate research methodologies including ethics for term papers and the dissertation / research project and report appropriately on findings

3.2 ELEMENTS OF A DISSERTATION

The following elements should appear at the beginning of the submission.

(i) Title page

(ii) Declaration

(iii) Abstract

(iv) Acknowledgements

(v) Contents' page/Table of contents

(vi) Table of figures, tables et al.

(vii) List of abbreviations

(i) Title page (See Appendix E)

(ii) Declaration (See Appendix F)

(iii) Abstract

The abstract provides a short summary of the research to introduce the reader to the Dissertation. This does not normally exceed one page/300 words. It includes a statement of the topic that has been studied, why the topic was chosen, an overview of the method(s) employed, key results, main conclusion(s) and the key recommendations).

(iv) Acknowledgements

The acknowledgements should refer to those people who have been of assistance in the completion of the research. For example, thank the supervisor, advisor, industrialists, administrative and technical staff, respondents, interviewees, family et al. and check that you have spelled all names correctly. Remember to take account of ethical issues – companies and individuals who have provided data/personal information must not be named.

The abstract and acknowledgements should appear on separate pages before the table of contents. These are not usually numbered.

(v) Contents' page/Table of contents

The Table of Contents is the “map” of the dissertation. It should list all the chapters, sections and subsections of the dissertation, followed by references and then appendices. The title of each appendix should be given and it is common practice to number the pages in the Appendices A1, A2, and A3 etc. The pages of the Table of Contents are usually numbered in small case Roman numerals.

(vi) Table of figures, tables et al.

List of all figures, tables, diagrams et al. by number and title with page numbers.

All staff does not insist on this list – please check with individual supervisors.

(vii) List of abbreviations

All abbreviations may be cumulated and listed at the front of the document for reference purposes. Abbreviations should be used in the text only after the first mention of the abbreviated expression, which should be written in full. For example, Hotel and Catering International Management Association (HCIMA) on first mention, then subsequently use HCIMA.

3.2.1 A TYPICAL DISSERTATION WILL INCLUDE:

(Note: These need not be the actual chapter headings.)

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 2 Literature review

Chapter 3 Methodology

Chapter 4 Results/findings

Chapter 5 Conclusions, practical recommendations, reflections/limitations and areas for further research

References

Appendices

Note: The word count boundaries apply to all Students and are indicative and not prescriptive

Chapter 1 Introduction (about 1000 words)

Function

The introduction provides the reader with a background which justifies the need for the research. It raises a series of issues that result in the formulation of an aim and objectives and perhaps the formulation of a preliminary but key research question or hypothesis.

Process

(i) Begin with an overview of what the dissertation is about; introduce the topic.

(ii) In the background to the study, give the reader a brief insight into the topic – usually a few key references are included.

(iii) Raise the issues that focus on/led to the study of the key area and state the aim/objectives/hypothesis/key research question(s).

(iv) Explain the structure of the document (brief summary of the contents) for the benefit of the reader.

Chapter 2 Literature review (about 5000 words)

Function

To explore the aim/objectives/hypotheses/key research questions in the context of previous research / documented evidence.

Note: Keywords are essential in order to identify the topics for exploration. These may be used, perhaps in combination, to structure the content.

The literature review should ascertain and evaluate current knowledge and provide necessary background information to study. It involves a survey of existing work on the topic in order to “set the scene” in the context of current knowledge. The literature review should culminate in a series of research questions or hypotheses related to an “unknown area” which is to be explored by the student. Therefore, there is a need to classify, summarise, synthesise and comment on the existing literature (books, academic and industrial journal articles, trade magazines, newspapers, company information, and electronic sources. Where there may not appear to be much existing literature to review, there are always associated areas that can be consulted, for example: theories and practices from other industries or disciplines. This approach can sometimes be used to demonstrate gaps or to apply alternative approaches or theories. In some cases, in the absence of existing literature, some preliminary primary data may have to be generated, for example by preliminary interviews.

The review should not only cover the topic itself (and associated areas) but also associated concepts. It should be a source of theoretical ideas and should establish the theoretical and conceptual context of the study. The findings from the review might necessitate modification/refinement of the initial key research question or hypothesis. Whether these are modified or not, at the culmination of the literature review, specific research questions/hypotheses to be answered/tested through the methodology should be identified.

Process

Collect information on previous research in the field, or in associated fields, together with any other background information necessary to put the study into context. In diagrammatic form, the literature review may be thought of as a triangle on its apex, i.e. begin with the broader issues and sequence the topics to focus the reader’s attention of the key issues that might impinge on the chosen topic. Collate information in sections and subsections (maybe linked to keywords) paying particular attention to similarities and differences. Highlight key information, which is especially useful to the development of the study in question. Either quote directly (with full acknowledgement including page number) or paraphrase (and acknowledge author or group of authors). Remember to comment on previous work. Do not just import quotations and string them together – effectively or otherwise!

Structure

The literature review comprises a number of sections and subsections. It is usually written in one chapter but may be divided into two or three chapters if appropriate. It is of great benefit to the reader if the structure and specific purpose of the literature review is explained at the outset.

On completion

At the end of the literature review, a summary of the key findings helps the reader to focus on the topic under study. Also, at this stage, the objectives may be refined in the light of the findings from the literature. A set of research questions or hypotheses for exploration may be included also.

Insufficient literature?

If it is considered that there is `insufficient’ literature within hospitality, tourism or consumer marketing on the topic under study, it may be necessary to explore other applications or profiles, such as: (i) similar applications in the service sector generally; (ii) systems in other locations or industries; (iii) visitors to, or consumers in, other areas; (iv) workers in other fields. Furthermore, the collection of some preliminary primary data to identify key dimensions for exploration is sometimes of value.

Chapter 3 Methodology (about 2000 words)

Function

The methodology comprises an explanation of how the research was carried out, including: research design; population and sampling methods; the selection and collection of secondary and primary (if applicable) data and an outline of the method(s) of data analysis. Comment on and give reasons for any restrictions encountered and analytical procedures, with justification from the literature (and appropriate references) for the methods selected. Is the methodology appropriate and will it yield the information required to satisfy the appropriate objectives? This chapter should not only argue for the methods used but include discussion as to why certain potential methods were not used. (Include libraries used, bibliographies, abstracts and databases consulted).

Process

Begin with an overview of what is in the chapter. Include information on:

(i) research design; nature, type and form of requisite data;

(ii) definition of research population and discussion of sampling method(s) with justification;

secondary and primary data collection, including justification of method(s) chosen and of the content of

instrument (underpinned by literature);

(iv) method(s) of analysis;

(v) limitations.

The selection of methods in this chapter should be underpinned by a few references. Also, if primary data are employed, the literature should be used to underpin the content of the data collection instrument.

Chapter 4 Results/findings, including analysis, evaluation and discussion (5000 words)

Function

In this chapter, the hypotheses is tested/research questions are answered. The aim/objectives should be kept in mind. There statement of the results must demonstrate ability to analyse and synthesise not just to regurgitate information collected. Alongside or following the results, there must be discussion/evaluation of the findings.

Note: it is not appropriate to merely list the responses to questionnaires/interviews in question order (q1, q2, q3 etc) but presented as `results’.

Try to determine the key elements of the study (perhaps from the literature base) or utilise the objectives for section headings.

Process

Analyse the research findings and evaluate the data/information generated; synthesise the data/information into summaries using appropriate and recognised (underpinned by literature) analytical technique. The outcomes should at some point be subject to evaluation/testing/discussion/interpretation as applicable and as appropriate with reference to the research objectives/questions/hypotheses. The results should be written as a coherent whole in academic style, not merely reported. A summary of the key findings makes a useful conclusion to the results chapter.

It is tempting to include all the material/information collected. Ensure that only material which helps achieve the aim is included. Be relevant! Any material, which is not relevant, should be discarded. The inclusion of irrelevant material will affect the overall mark since it will suggest lack of thought, logic or focus.

All raw data should be included in an Appendix. In the case of qualitative research one complete example, such as a transcript, should be included in an appendix plus an aggregated summary of the all of the data.

The whole study should be balanced and objective; evidence should lead to the conclusions and not vice versa. Researchers should not start with pre-conceived ideas and set out to confirm them, however strongly and earnestly those ideas are felt or believed in. They should be “enquiring” and be prepared for outcomes and conclusions contrary to the beliefs and ideas initially expected.

Chapter 5 Conclusions, practical recommendations, reflections/limitations and areas for further research (1500 words)

The conclusions should be based on the research findings and should identify the extent to which the aim/objectives have (or have not) been met. The examiner should be able to see easily where and why the conclusions originated. They should not be produced out of `thin air’! The research process (es) should lead naturally to the conclusions. Conclusions should relate not solely to the problem(s) or question(s) that has/have been explored but also related to the body of knowledge generally and theories, models, etc. They should be considered in the context of the literature review so that the previous findings of other researchers/theories/models/systems can be confirmed, further refined or refuted. If the research is of an applied nature, the practical implications of the findings should also be identified and the implications discussed. Also include an appraisal of the significance for the field of study/domain within which the research has taken place.

Recommendations should consider applications to current industrial practice. Appropriate recommendations should be made for all interested parties, for example, the industry (specific subgroups of personnel, such as company directors, group or unit managers or operatives as appropriate) and the customers (if applicable).

The research reflections/limitations are an evaluation of the research process, for example: methods used including how they could have been improved. The student is expected to comment on any mistakes, errors and/or omissions. Are there any lessons to be learned? How might the study have been done differently in the light of experience? Are there any other sources of information that might have been tapped? The reflections should indicate whether the researcher has learned how to research. Self-criticism is valuable but should be made with care – how could the research be improved it if it were to be started again? What problems were encountered? How were they dealt with? What internal/external limitations were imposed and how did they affect the work – the process and the product? Finally, recommendations for further research should be considered. What is left to do for future researchers? What are the future avenues for research?

References

References and citations should follow a recognised system. Harvard (school style as per Appendix C) is recommended. All those references used, i.e. cited either directly with quotation marks and page numbers or indirectly (paraphrased or summarised) in the main body of the dissertation should be listed. The list of references is compiled in alphabetical order by authors’ surnames.

Note: If an author is cited more than once, chronological order is used. If the author has two or more references from the same year differentiate this by year followed by a letter, i.e. 2003a, 2003b, 2003c etc.

Appendices

The appendices include additional material or supportive information to expand on the content or to assist the understanding of the text. They should be numbered for reader to refer to or to expand on text. Material necessary for the reader to understand the text should be in the main body not in an appendix. The appendices might contain information that would be too ‘bulky’ or complicated to include in the main body of the dissertation, or detail, which might distract the reader. In the main body of the text, briefly summarise the detail and then refer the reader to the appendix for further information.

Appendices are placed after the reference list and are listed in alphabetical order (A, B, C, D, etc.).

3.3 PLANNING, RECORDING AND WRITING

Planning the work schedule

Students are advised to arrange a regular day/time to meet the supervisor and to plan a schedule for the completion of tasks with dates, interim and final deadlines.

Note: It is extremely important that:

Comprehensive and accurate notes are kept from the outset

A plan, with interim deadlines, is adhered to – this is a test of competence in self-management and should impress the supervisors /assessors.

Writing begins and sections are handed to the supervisor for comment as soon as possible.

Electronic backups are kept as well as hard copies of all the work, including the primary data collected and the computer printouts of the data analysis

All students have a maximum period (normally one to three years according to the mode of study and the nature of the course) within which they need to complete the course. Below is a draft-plan for consideration by the student who wishes to complete the Dissertation in seven months. This plan is merely indicative and should be adapted or changed subject to suit the individual’s needs.

3.4 SUGGESTED DRAFT PLAN FOR STUDENTS (Full-time over 12 months)

MONTH 1 & 2 Generate ideas for topic

(September / October) Begin preliminary research in field(s) of enquiry, i.e. background reading and initial information collection

Select topic and agree supervisor

MONTH 3 Complete proforma (Form A) to confirm choice of topic

(November) Determine focus of study and begin to draft the Research Proposal (i.e.

(12th November, 2010) background, aim, objectives and proposed methodology) in consultation with supervisor

MONTH 4; 5 & 6 Focused in-depth reading and detailed information collection on topic area

(Dec; Jan; Feb) Plan methodology; refine the Research Proposal

MONTH 7 Complete and submit the Research Proposal (with Form B to confirm supervisor

(March) – 19th March 2010).

(18th March 2011) Start write up of Chapters 1; 2 & 3 and seek supervisor advice

Design data collection instrument and conduct pilot study (if applicable)

MONTH 8 & 9 Collect secondary/primary data and supportive information

(April / May) Draft table of contents (chapters and sections)

Draft literature review (review of previous research) chapter

Draft methodology chapter

MONTH 10 Analyse data and information

(June) Evaluate results

Edit/update table of contents (chapters, sections and subsections)

Draft statement of results, analysis, discussion and interpretation.

MONTH 11 Re-visit introduction; literature research and methodology

(July) Draw conclusions, reflections and make recommendations.

Write abstract

Submit draft to supervisor

Tidy up tables, figures, diagrams, citations, references; insert page numbers; attend to presentation etc.

Write acknowledgements

Complete appendices

MONTH 12 Incorporate supervisor's final comments

(August) Complete final edit. Make two ring-bound copies.

(2nd September 2011) Submit the Dissertation for assessment

3.5 PREPARATORY READING AND WRITING

The literature review

In the literature review, it is important to show evidence of critical thinking (e.g. compare, contrast, analyse, evaluate, synthesise, and integrate) and to question the underlying assumptions and body of knowledge that authors employ.

When reading a text or article, consider the following questions:

　　　Is the writing objective?

　　　Do(es) the author(s) use a theoretical base?

　　　Do(es) the author(s) use the results of previous studies to build an argument?

　　　Is the literature current and relevant?

　　　Is the research issue stated and explained clearly?

　　　Is the research issue worthy of exploration?

　　　Is the hypothesis clearly or implicitly stated?

　　　Is the hypothesis clearly measurable?

　　　In the research method applicable?

　　　Are the data clearly presented and consistent?

　　　Are the data relevant?

　　　Are the results consistent with those of other studies? Why, or why not?

　　　Have appropriate conclusions been drawn?

　　　Have the limitations been stated clearly?

　　　How might the study have been improved?

　　　Has/can someone else research a similar issue in a similar or different setting?

(Hint: also, use the above criteria to judge the completed work)

Plagiarism and Quotations

Students are encouraged to consider and develop the ideas of other authors. Quotations are used when copying word for word (verbatim) what someone else has said and the page number should be given. If paraphrased (put into our own words) text, the original author(s) should also be acknowledged. If someone else’s work is copied word-for-word, or if the ideas of someone else (for example, a researcher, author or a previous student) are used without acknowledging that person, you have committed plagiarism–the most serious academic offence equivalent to cheating in an examination.

Plagiarism is not tolerated at MMU – it is very easy to detect and results in no marks for the dissertation and no MSc/MA!

The Plagiarism Advisory Service at http://www.jiscpas.ac.uk/

Students work may be checked for plagiarism using TurnitinUK. The Plagiarism Advisory Service provides generic advice and guidance on all aspects of plagiarism prevention and detection to institutions, academics and students.

The service promotes a holistic approach to plagiarism prevention, incorporating consideration of institutional policies and procedures, teaching practice and study skills. The approach is supported by:

Identification and dissemination of examples of best practice.

Sourcing and evaluation of appropriate learning materials.

Supporting an electronic discussion forum to stimulate awareness and debate.

Organising regional training workshops designed to promote prevention and detection strategies.

Providing access to, and support for, the TurnitinUK plagiarism detection software.

Writing objectively

The writing in a dissertation should flow logically with evidence of reasoning, objectivity and a well-developed argument. The author’s personal opinion or experiences should not be used to generalise or to make a point. Consider the following criteria:

write in the third person (i.e., do not use “I”, “We”);

base writings on fact, observation or evidence and not the student’s personal opinion;

base writings on the established knowledge of experts;

use gender-inclusive language. In other words do not say, “the manager….he”;

do not use stereotyping of any kind that makes reference to gender, race, creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc.;

When making deductions, based on the literature, use:

“It is evident” or “As can be deduced” or “As cited in the literature” or “Based on the previous arguments” or “It can be ascertained that” or “As the evidence suggests” or “Based on these observations”, “As the literature suggests”, et al.

Interim submissions/drafts

It is advantageous to begin writing as soon as possible in order that an acceptable quality may be determined. Students are encouraged to submit drafts of their writing for discussion at least 48 hours before each meeting. In particular, it is suggested that at each interim stage (draft/pilot and main study), the student should submit data collection instruments for checking and comment by the supervisor. Students should not wait until they have completed all or even most of the Dissertation before they obtain feedback from the supervisor, as it may be too late to rectify any serious deficiencies in either content or style. Although the work is normally submitted in parts, it is suggested that students supply their supervisors with the final draft document (including a contents page) at least one month prior to the submission deadline so that sufficient time is left to incorporate changes.

Note: This final task takes longer than imagined

3.6 GENERAL PRESENTATION AND LAYOUT OF COURSEWORK

After full-stops (periods) leave one or two spaces free;

Brackets (parentheses) should not have any spaces between them and the first/last word they are enclosing;

Never begin a sentence with a number – e.g., 3 managers …... write instead – Three managers....... ;

Spell out numbers fewer than ten, e.g. There were four responses….…..;

Do not use contractions, e.g. “did not”, not “didn’t”;

Do not use the Latin acronyms “i.e., e.g., viz………”. Spell them out: “that is, for example, namely…..”;

Spelling and punctuation should be consistent (English not American) throughout the paper;

Use commas to separate every three digits in numbers, e.g. 2,000 or 350,000;

When using bullet lists, sentences should end in semi-colons (;), except for the last sentence which end in a full stop (just like this example); and

Write in the past/present as opposed to the future tense.

Note:

1. There should be an argument running throughout the document

It is common to draft the chapters as units but then the whole should be linked together

with checks to ensure effective sequencing of information and no repetition

Check spell and grammar including the consistency of the tenses

Number pages

Take care with the presentation

Preparation of the dissertation for submission

Work (TWO complete copies required for submission) should be word-processed on A4 paper.

Word processing should be 1.5/2.0 spaced (except in the case of references, tables and appendices, which may be, single spaced). Students should confirm their intentions with their supervisors some of whom insist on double spacing. Some supervisors prefer the students to save paper

There should be a margin of 3 cm on the left-hand side and 2 cm on the right hand side. Please leave 3 cm margin at the top of the page and 2 cm at the bottom of the page

Pages should be numbered sequentially. A font size of 10 to 12 is ideal for the main text

Chapters, sections and subsections and appendices should be indexed. Sub-subsections within subsections do not need to be numbered

All tables, figures and diagrams should be titled and numbered. There is no need to index these although some supervisors request them so check with the supervisor

The dissertation must be no more than 16,000 + / - 10% words in length.

Students are requested to state the word length excluding contents, tables, diagrams, list of references and appendices and to submit a copy on diskette or CD. The internal assessors and the external examiners will not be impressed by work that is more than 10% outside these specified guidelines

The minimum pass mark is 50%. A student will be awarded credit for this unit when the Dissertation has been moderated and the mark has been ratified at an MSc or MA Examination Board as applicable

The final copies should be ring-bound with a card cover.

Section 4

SUBMISSION, ASSESSMENT AND MODERATION

SUBMISSION, ASSESSMENT & MODERATION OF THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Students are required to complete the Proformas (Appendices A and B) by the dates specified).

All students are required to submit two hard copies and one electronic copy of the Research Proposal together with Form B to the Faculty Office

Students who do not meet the coursework deadlines are subject to the conditions of the MSc or MA regulations (please refer to course handbook).

The course team, with the approval of the external examiner, decide what happens to students who do not meet deadlines. Supervisors can advise on, but not approve, exceptional factors.

Assessment criteria:

the selection and justification of the topic area;

the clarity and feasibility of the proposed aim and objectives;

the selection of an appropriate literature base (to include references and additional bibliography);

the use of the literature base to justify an exploration of the proposed research issue(s)

the appropriateness and feasibility of the proposed methodological approach;

the overall quality, logic and coherence of the written statement.

Moderation:

Involves each proposal being moderated by second marker whose attention is focused on whether:

the aim and objectives are clear, achievable and M-level

the issues raised (a) justify the study of the topic and (b) are underpinned with appropriate, up-to-date and sufficient literature

the research methodology is appropriate to the achievement of the aim and objectives, justified and feasible

Moderation is also:

to evaluate the relative equity of the initial assessments

to ensure fairness in the rank ordering of the proposals

Moderation may produce further comments which are added to those of the first supervisor and fed back to student. Marks may be changed as a result of moderation

Assessment feedback:

Students will be notified of their provisional marks, together with any relevant comments (available from supervisors for transmission to students), as soon as possible

Resit attempt

Students who do not achieve a pass mark on the first formal submission attempt will be allowed one attempt to re-submit the Research Proposal. Any student who fails to submit a satisfactory Research Proposal by the final submission date will be deemed to have failed the unit.

4.2 SUBMISSION OF THE DISSERTATION

Date

There is only one submission date: 2nd September 2011 at 3.30pm for all first attempts, referrals, students with mitigating circumstances and part-time students. The Examination Board is in October 2011and the annual graduation ceremony will be held in July 2012.

Submission of the document

Two hard copies of the completed Dissertation should be handed to the Faculty Office on the due date. Also, an electronic copy (WORD formatted) of the dissertation and the raw data (in SPSS, Excel or similar) should be submitted on disk or CD with the hard copies. All of these copies will remain the property of MMU that holds the copyright.

Receipt

Each student must obtain a signed receipt for the copies from a member of the Faculty Office staff.

Supervisors

As soon as possible after each submission date, supervisors and second markers should collect one copy of each Dissertation that they are responsible for assessing, and sign accordingly on a master list for the receipt. Supervisors should collect the electronic copy. The marks (ideally agreed) are moderated by members of the supervisory team and then moderated by the external examiners.

External Examiners

The dissertations are dispatched to External Examiners (usually at least two weeks) prior to the Board of Examiners meeting.

4.3 ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

Dissertations are marked by a supervisor and a second marker, bearing in mind that 50% is a pass and 70% is a distinction. A proforma is provided for comments and marks. Both copies of the Dissertation plus both assessment Proformas, indicating an agreed overall mark if possible, are passed to the Dissertation Unit Coordinator by an agreed date.

Assessment criteria

Although the range and format of dissertations varies according to the nature of the exploration undertaken, the assessment criteria normally taken into account are:

the quality and originality of the issue(s) selected for consideration;

the selection, application and critique of ideas, concepts, theories and empirical research relevant to the issue(s) in question;

the quality and appropriateness of the analysis;

the presentation, interpretation and evaluation of the findings;

the reliability, validity, relevance and research context of the findings and the appropriateness of the conclusions;

the reflections, practical implications and recommendations for future research;

the quality of the presentation in terms of logic, structure and coherence;

Introduction - 10%

Literature review - 25%

Methodology - 15%

Results and analysis of data - 25%

Conclusions/Recommendations - 15%

Critical reflection - 10%

Total -100%

The relative weightings of these criteria are determined by the nature of the enquiry undertaken, and are subject to the agreement of the examiners;

Method of assessment

There is no simple formula for assessing any dissertation. Essentially examiners are concerned with whether there is a clear enquiring aim, whether appropriate expertise in achieving that aim is demonstrated and whether conclusions are drawn which are reasonable in the light of the investigation. In addition the submission needs to demonstrate a clear grasp of the existing literature and to review and discuss the topic clearly, logically and coherently. The Dissertation should demonstrate understanding and insight, with a clear argument running throughout.

Most examiners assess dissertations according to the criteria listed below:

significance of the topic

a clear, concise, attainable aim and a series of achievable objectives.

a relevant and focused literature review followed by -

a series of specific research questions or hypotheses

an appropriate, clearly described and justified methodology

analysis (depth), synthesis, evaluation and discussion:

a logical development and structure

an appropriate and concise style

a reasoned, cogent, lucid argument throughout

perceptiveness and insight

coverage of topic area - is it complete or are there serious omissions?

complexity and challenge

originality, innovation and creativity

relevant, appropriate, valid, significant conclusions, reflections and

recommendations

references - all texts used cited in appropriate format (school style) - within and following the main document.

A typical approach to assessing a dissertation:

Introduction

Does the introduction set the scene by explaining the context of the study and raising key issues and justify the choice of topic?

Is there a clear explanation of the structure of the study?

Aim and objectives

Are these clearly defined for the topic under consideration?

Are they achievable, sufficient and focused?

Is the problem new or well known from the literature or practice?

Review of literature

Have all sources relevant to the topic been evaluated critically?

Are any key sources missing?

Are all of references acknowledged and cited; Are the citations correct?

Is their reference to a variety of literature sources including academic theory, up-to-date academic journal articles and electronic sources?

Does the discussion move from the general to the particular so that the focus is on the subject of the study?

Is there evidence of analysis and synthesis of the literature?

Methodology

Is the methodology appropriate and justified?

Is the methodological approach difficult/innovative?

Has the literature been used to effect to justify the methodological approach and to underpin the data collection?

Are there any mistakes or omissions?

Analysis, synthesis, evaluation and discussion of the findings

Have the results/findings been analysed, interpreted and then evaluated by the student?

Is the work analytical or simply are the results merely descriptive?

Have the findings been synthesised or simply narrated?

Are the issues under study supported/proved by the results?

Has the student provided an objective discussion/evaluation of the findings?

Is there evidence of an ongoing argument?

Quality and logic of the content

Does the work read well, and is it focused?

Is the work difficult to understand, lacking style and precision?

Is the reader guided through the text?

Are the tables, figures etc. explained and discussed for the benefit of the reader?

Conclusions, recommendations and reflections

Are the conclusions valid and set into the context of the literature review?

To what extent has the submission achieved the aim and objectives?

Has the student recognised the limitations of the study and reflected on the research process?

Have suggestions for further research been made?

Have the implications of the study been carefully and extensively discussed?

Are the recommendations appropriate and adequate?

Layout and presentation

Does the work fulfil the dissertation requirement?

Are there appropriate supporting materials (tables, figures, appendices)?

Is the grammar correct and is an ‘academic’ style of writing apparent?

Is the layout clear and logical? Are there any omissions?

Are there any spelling or typographical errors?

Has the word count been stated?

Have copies of the research proposal and an electronic copy been included?

The criteria listed above are used to complete the dissertation assessment sheet.

Allocation of marks

Each dissertation is marked by the supervisor and a second marker, who are advised to agree a mark, and then moderated to ensure fairness across all the submissions.

4.4 MODERATION

Any of the MSc/MA supervisors may be asked to moderate a dissertation. The responsibility of the team is to discuss any problems, review issues raised by supervisors and to finalise the marks prior to them being sent to the External Examiner.

Aims: To resolve any differences between first and second markers’ assessments.

To ensure that the dissertations have been assessed fairly relative to one another.

Procedure:

Team members may be asked to moderate several dissertations, ideally a few that have been awarded marks within a certain range. The role of the team is twofold: (i) to determine whether the marks awarded to each of the dissertations are equitable taking into account the assessment criteria (ii) to ensure that the rank order of the marks awarded to the dissertations is appropriate.

As a result of this process, there may be some adjustment to the marks. Normally, a few notes are provided for the benefit of others (including the External Examiner), giving reasons why those dissertations selected for further discussion have had their marks adjusted.

A master list of dissertations and supervisors is kept by the dissertations’ unit co-ordinator.

Failure to meet deadlines

Students who do not meet the deadlines are subject to the conditions and regulations stipulated in this Handbook and by the University.

Students may request that exceptional factors are taken into consideration. All such cases must be initiated in writing, along with documented evidence, and forwarded to the Chair of the Examination Board. The Examination Board will make the final decision.

APPENDIX A

MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND TOURISM MANAGEMENT

RESEARCH METHODS

Research Proposal Form A

Please complete this form and hand in to the faculty office by 3.30 pm on 12h November, 2010

NAME: ................................................................................................

COURSE: ................................................................................................

WORKING TITLE/AREA OF RESEARCH:

....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

SUPERVISOR: ......................................................................................

BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROGRESS MADE TO DATE

Do not write more than you can fit on these lines.

APPENDIX B

MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND TOURISM MANAGEMENT

RESEARCH METHODS

Research Proposal Form B

Please complete this sheet in BLOCK CAPITALS and return it with one copy of your proposal to Hollings Faculty Office by 3.30pm on 18th March 2011

NAME: .........................................................................................................

COURSE: .........................................................................................................

Signed: ...........................................................................................................

PROPOSED TITLE

SUPERVISOR...............................................................................................

Signed:......................................................................................................

Date:.........................................................................................................APPENDIX C

MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND TOURISM MANAGEMENT

Referencing: The Harvard system

References

In academic writing students are expected to read around the subject. Referencing is a way of demonstrating that appropriate and adequate reading has taken place. It is necessary to reference secondary sources (information taken from other people’s writing) as a courtesy to the originator and to avoid PLAGIARISM (the act of presenting the ideas or discoveries of another person as your own), to verify the source of ideas, to substantiate arguments and to enable readers to follow-up source material.

PLAGIARISM is a very serious issue which is not dealt with in detail in this handout. ‘Students who attempt to gain an unfair advantage in this way will be punished appropriately’ Prof. Richard MURRAY – Dean of Hollings Faculty

Reference list

A list of references must be provided at end of all coursework, including projects and dissertations. This reference list contains details of all of the works used (cited either: (i) directly with quotation marks and page numbers or (ii) indirectly – paraphrased or summarised) to produce text of your work so that the source/author of all of ‘your’ submission may be identified. Page numbers are compulsory for direct quotations. Works are listed in alphabetical order by author; surname first followed by initials. If there is more than one work by the same author they are placed in date (chronological) order, earliest first. There is no need to separate books, journals and other sources; simply list all references in alphabetical order using the system outlined blow.

Note: If an author is cited more than once, chronological order is used. If the author has two or more references from the same year differentiate this by year followed by a letter, for example, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c etc.

Bibliography

A bibliography may be requested in addition to references or in place of references as part of the coursework assignment – check with your tutor.

A bibliography is a complete list of all the works you have consulted in preparing the coursework or dissertation. Usually, it includes works that you have read but not actually cited in the text. If there is no reference list, the bibliography may also include references. The bibliography should comprise only items that you considered to have been important in forming your views.

INDEX Page

1. Book 23

　　　　a. One author 23

b. Two authors 23

c. Three or more authors 23

d. Anonymous/no author 23

e. Two or more texts by different authors 23

　　　　f. More than one work by the same author 23

　　　　g. Secondary sources 23

2. Chapter in book 24

3. Journal article 24

a. One author 24

b. Two or more authors 24

c. Anonymous 24

4. Government publication 24

5. Newspaper article 24

6. Thesis or dissertation 24

7. Illustration 25

8. Published music 25

9. Patent 25

10. Personal communication 25

(such as letter, conversation, and interview)

11. Electronic Sources 25

　　　　a. Internet source 25

　　　　b. Electronic book (e-book) 25

c. Electronic (journal) article (e.g. from Emerald database) 25

d. Journal articles from CD-ROM 26

　　　　e. Film, Video recording or TV broadcast 26

　　　　f. Electronic discussion list 26

　　　　g. Personal electronic communication 26

12. Tables, figures and diagrams 26

13. Quotations and plagiarism 26

Examples

Methods employed for:

(i) direct quotations (copying words form a secondary source);

(ii) paraphrased information (use of ideas but with rearrangement or synthesis of words from one or more sources); and

(iii) listing references are exemplified:

1. Book

The information required for referencing a book is:

author/s and/or editors (or the organisation/association if no author is listed or the title if no author or organisation is listed) - year of publication - title (in italics) - edition, volume number and translation (if applicable) - publisher - place (city) of publication

Take the title and author's name from the title page, not the cover.

The details of publication (publisher's name, place of publication and year of publication) can usually be found on the reverse of the title page. Sometimes there might be more than one year given. In that case, look for the word ‘edition’, or abbreviation ‘edn’. Use the latest year associated with this. If a book lacks details, it may be referenced using n.d. meaning no date and/or, n.p., no place.

a. One author

(i) “copy words from book within quotation marks and then cite author, date and page number” (Brown, 2000, p.33).

(ii) Brown (2000) maintained that ... or

…..management had limited responsibility (Brown, 2000).

(iii) Brown, W. L. (2000). Consumer Behaviour, Wiley & Sons, New York.

b. Two authors

(i) “copy words from book within quotation marks and then cite author, date and page number” (Black and White, 2001, p.33).

(ii) Black and White (2001) maintained that ... or

…..management were innovative but not autonomous (Black and White, 2001).

(iii) Black, C. and White, Z. (2001). Psychology, 2nd. edn., Harper & Row, New York.

c. Three or more authors

(i) “copy words from book within quotation marks and then cite author, date and page number” (Brown, Black, White and Grey, 2002, p.33)

(ii) Brown, Black, White and Grey (2002) maintained that ... or

…..management had limited responsibility (Brown, Black, White and Grey, 2000)

and then for (i) and (ii) use (Brown et al., 2002) subsequently to replace full list of names.

(iii) Brown, W.L., Black, C., White, Z. and Grey, K. (2002). Managers, Addison Wesley, Wokingham.

d. Anonymous/no author

If no specific author is given but an organisation is named, use organisation name, for example. (Mintel, 1999). When no identification is possible, use either (Anon. 2003) or the title - (Management Styles, 2003) – if it is not too long.

e. Two or more texts by different authors

Separate text author(s)/dates with a semicolon and list either in:

(i) chronological order

e.g. (Brown, 2000; Black and White, 2001; Black, White and Grey, 2002) or alphabetical order

　　　　e.g. (Black and White, 2001; Black, White and Grey, 2002; Brown, 2000)

f. More than one work by the same author

(i) e.g. (Brown, 2000; 2001a; 2001b)

　　　　if Brown’s ideas have been summarised from three works written in 2000 and 2001.

g. Secondary sources

Secondary sources refer to the work of one author from within that of another being cited. It is preferable to consult and cite the parent source. However, if it is necessary to refer to a secondary source, both/all authors’ names should be provided. For example:

(i) ‘management by objectives was outdated’ (Violet, cited by Brown, 2000, p.23).

(ii) Violet (cited by Brown, 2000) maintained that….

(iii) Violet, X. (2000). Management in the future. In R. Brown (ed.) Management paradigms, Blackwell, Oxford, p.108.

NOTE: Secondary references or reference abstracts should be used only if the original text cannot be located / obtained. The use of too many secondary sources reduces the credibility of the writing.

2. Chapter in book

As for books but record both author(s) of chapter and author(s)/editor(s) of book and page numbers in

(i) or (iii), as appropriate.

(i) “copy words from book within quotation marks and then cite author, date and page number” (Grey, 2001, p.33)

(ii) summarised by Grey (2001) or

…..management had limited responsibility (Grey, 2001)

(iii) Grey, K. (2001). The management contract. In P. Blue and S. Pink (eds.) The Way Forward, Blackwell, Oxford, pp.31-42.

3. Journal article

The information required for referencing a journal article is:

author(s) - year of publication - title of article - name/title of journal - volume and issue number of the journal (if applicable) - page numbers

Publication details for journals are usually found on the front cover. If there is nothing there, see the title or contents page.

a. One author

(i) “copy words from journal article within quotation marks and then cite author, date and page number” (Gold, 1998, p.162).

(ii) Gold (1998) maintained that ... or

…..management did not take responsibility for their actions (Gold, 1998).

(iii) Gold, D. (1998). Humour, Management Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.161-167.

b. Two or more authors

As for books but with journal title in italics, i.e. format as above

c. Anonymous

(i) Cite journal name and date - (Management Today, 1999) or (Anon., 1999) if journal name is very long

(ii) Cite journal name, date and page number (Management Today, 1999, p.42) or (Anon., 1999, p.42) if journal name is very long

(iii) Management Perspectives (1998). The untouchables, Sept., p.3.

4. Government publication

As for books but, normally, no author is listed. If there is an author, then place his/her name first, if not cite the name of the compiler/commissioning organisation:

5. Newspaper article

The information required for referencing a newspaper article is:

author(s) - year of publication - title of the article - name of newspaper - day/month of publication - page number(s).

If there is no author simply begin with the title of the article. Use the full name of the newspaper as shown on the masthead on the front page.

(i) and (ii) as for books

(iii) Not again! (2002). The Guardian, 4 December, p3.

or Brickred, J.P. (2002). The service domain, The Guardian, 5 December, p.A10.

6. Thesis or dissertation

The information required for referencing a thesis or dissertation is:

author - year of completion - title - page number(s) for direct quotation - nature of work – parent department/school - institution of study, location.

(i) and (ii) as for books

(iii) Mustard, J.L. (1998). Managing international events, Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of International Tourism, Wyefield University, Lessiter.

7. Illustration

The information required for referencing an illustration is:

originator (e.g. artist or sculptor) - year - title - medium (e.g. aquarelle, stone) - location - place - section/department - register number.

(i) and (ii) as for books but with artist (for example) replacing author

(iii) Crimson, N.N. (2001). The man, Whitstable Gallery, Lowchester, Department of Fine Art, Register number 2002-88-14.

8. Published music

The information required for referencing published music is:

author - year - title – subsidiary originator – publisher – place,

(i) and (ii) as for books

(iii) Lemon, Q. (2001). Twelve rounds, J. B. Sage (ed.), London, Foxall Music.

9. Patent

The information required for referencing a patent is:

inventor(s) - year – assignee - title - patent number.

(i) and (ii) as for books but with inventor(s) replacing author(s)

(iii) Salmon, A. (2002). FC airlines. Biodegradable in-flight service tray UK Pat. 9,999,999.

10. Personal communication (such as a letter, conversation, interview)

The information required for referencing a personal communication is:

author/speaker - date - nature of communication - month and day.

(i) and (ii) Either as for books or insert (Sandy Teal, personal communication, 29th July, 2003) in the text and do not include any further information in the final list of references

(iii) Teal, S.I. (2003). Personal letter, 29 July or see above

11. Electronic Sources

Electronic sources vary widely in type. They may be defined as any information sources that require an electronic machine to play or display them. They encompass www addresses, computer accessible databases, audio and videotapes, laser disks and computer programmes. The information required for referencing an electronic source is generally:

author - title [on-line] - source - type of medium - availability (date and site (URL) of access)

URL is defined as: Uniform Resource Locator (such as address of page on the internet)

PLEASE NOTE: There is no consensus regarding the method of citation of electronic sources.

ALL INFORMATION (URLs etc.) USED BELOW IS MERELY ILLUSTRATIVE

a. Internet source

Include elements which are available from:

author(s) - year of publication - title of the study [on-line] - location - place - URL - date of access - page numbers if applicable.

(i) and (ii) as for books

(iii) Lavender, L. (1999). Role play [on-line]. Royal University, London. Available from: http://travel.com.travel.co.uk/training/training:index.html/ [accessed 27 July 2003].

b. Electronic book (e-book)

The elements required for referencing an electronic book are those which are available from:

author(s) - year of publication - title [on-line] - location - place - URL - date of access - page numbers if applicable.

(i) and (ii) as for books

(iii) Silver, T. (1995). Management innovations [on-line]. Olive University, Coral Bay. Available from:

c. Electronic (journal) article (e.g. from Emerald database)

The elements required for referencing an electronic journal article are those which are available from:

author(s) - year of publication - title of the study - title of journal if applicable [on-line] - volume and issue number of the journal (if applicable) - page numbers - URL - date of access.

(i) and (ii) as for journals

(iii) Plum, P. (1998). How to get ahead, Management in organisations [on-line]. Available from:

d. Journal articles from CD-ROM

The information required for referencing a CD-ROM article is:

author(s) - year of publication - title of the study - name of journal [CD-ROM] - volume or month of publication (if applicable) - issue number (if applicable) - page numbers - company/database - item number

(i) and (ii) as for journal articles

(iii) Heather, M. (1994). Management ‘knowhow', Information [CD- ROM], August, pp.1-2.

Available from VIOLET database, Item: 94-222007.

e. Film, Video recording or TV broadcast

The information required for referencing a film, video recording or TV programme is:

title - year - material designation - subsidiary originator (preferably director - details of production - organisation - place.

(i) “report words from video recording within quotation marks and then cite title and date” (Yellow Moon, 1999).

(ii) In the video recording, Yellow Moon (1999), it was implied by Rosemary Rose that ... or

….. many incentives were associated with pecuniary rewards (Yellow Moon [video recording], 1999).

(iii) Yellow moon (1999). [Video recording], directed by Amber Ruby, Warner Brothers, USA.

f. Electronic discussion list

The information required for referencing an e-mail discussion list:

author - year - subject of message - discussion list [on line] - available from (list of e-mail addresses) - [accessed month and date].

(i) and (ii) as for books

(iii) Orange, V. (2003). Re: Managing the workforce. Workmail-link [on-line], available from:

[email protected] [accessed on 1 August].

g. Personal electronic communication

The information required for referencing a personal electronic communication is:

author - e-mail address of author - date, including year - title of e-mail - name and e-mail address of recipient

(i) and (ii) as for books

(iii) Buff, R.K. ([email protected]), 7 July, 2002. Re: Matters of concern, e-mail to Y. Marine [email protected]

12. Tables, figures and diagrams

All tables, figures, diagrams et al. should be referred to/discussed in the text. They should not be included and just left for the reader to interpret/evaluate. If they are taken directly, or adapted, from other people’s work (e.g. from books or journals), they should be sourced (either above or below the table etc. in brackets, as for similar citations within the body of the text) and then the source should be included in the list of references.

The information required for referencing a table from a book with one author, for example, is:

(i) insert table and cite using (Brown, 2000, p.33) above or below table.

(ii) insert adapted table and cite using (adapted from Brown, 2000, p.33) above or below the table.

(iii) Brown, W. L. (2000). Consumer Behaviour, Wiley & Sons, New York.

13. Quotations and plagiarism

Correct quotations

If you quote the exact words from somebody else's work are quoted, the author must be acknowledged otherwise the offence of plagiarism has been committed. Below are some acceptable examples:

(i) A direct citation is shown by enclosing the words in quotation marks:

“Not to do so is plagiarism” (Peach, p.42).

(ii) If only part of a sentence or phrase is employed, dots are used to show that something is missing:

“Not ... is plagiarism.” or “... to do so ...” (Peach, p.42).

(iii) If anything is added within a quote, it must be enclosed within square brackets:

“Not to do so [acknowledge other people's work] is plagiarism” (Peach, p.42).

(iv) Long quotes may be indented and/or italicised and/or single spaced:

“If you use the exact words from somebody else's work, you are quoting them and you must acknowledge that you have done so. Not to do so is plagiarism” (Peach, p.42).

Having completed the quote, revert to the previous method of spacing.

APPENDIX D

MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND TOURISM MANAGEMENT

DISSERTATION

Name of Student:...........................................................................................

Course:................................................................... Date:.............................................................

Supervisor/Examiner:.....................................................................................

Assessors should bear in mind the learning outcomes of the dissertation unit. Upon completion of this unit, students will be able to:

undertake a self-initiated and self-motivated investigation into a current issue within the field.

demonstrate the use/application of an enhanced level of skills and abilities in problem identification, analysis and evaluation;

apply a rigorous academic methodology and a critical, constructive and creative approach to the issue under consideration;

communicate the results and conclusions of their investigation clearly to both specialists and non - specialists.

Although the range and format of dissertations varies according to the nature of the exploration undertaken, the assessment criteria to be taken into account are:

the quality and originality of the issue(s) selected for consideration;

the selection, application and critique of ideas, concepts, theories and empirical research relevant to the issue(s) in question;

the quality and appropriateness of the analysis;

the presentation, interpretation and evaluation of the findings;

the reliability, validity, relevance and research context of the findings and the appropriateness of the conclusions;

the reflections, practical implications and recommendations for future research;

the quality of the presentation in terms of logic, structure and coherence;

The relative weighting of these criteria will be determined by the nature of the enquiry undertaken, and will be subject to the agreement of the examiners (The minimum pass mark is 50%; 70% is required for a distinction).

Assessor's comments:

Please continue overleaf Assessor's comments:

Mark:…………... Signed:……………........................... Date:.……….........APPENDIX E

SAMPLE

Title of your Dissertation

by Your name

Manchester Metropolitan University

Submitted to Manchester Metropolitan University Department of Food and Tourism Management as part of the requirement of the MSc / MA [Award Title]

Date. _______________________

APPENDIX F

SAMPLE

Declaration

No portion of the work referred to in this dissertation has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this University or any other institution of learning.

APPENDIX G

General Regulations

All students are advised to refer to the course handbook and to read the general university regulations pertaining to assessment, re-assessment, the award of qualifications, and issues pertaining to failure, mitigating circumstances and the student’s right to redeem failure.

Assessment schedule

The purpose of assessment is to enable students to demonstrate that they have fulfilled the objectives of the programme of study, and have achieved the standard required for the award they seek. Assessment is a matter of judgement, not simply of computation. Marks, grades and percentages are not absolute values, but symbols used by examiners to communicate their judgement of different aspects of a student's work in order to provide better information on which the final decision of a student's fulfilment of course objectives may be based. Thus, in determining the final recommendation to be made in respect of a student, the Board of Examiners shall take into account such matters, as in its judgement, are relevant. The assessment programme, which enables students to demonstrate that they have fulfilled their objectives, also acts as a constraint. Within this constraint, and the course assessment regulations generally, examiners have wide discretion. They are responsible for interpreting the regulations for the programme if any difficulties arise in the light of good practices in Higher Education; and their academic judgements cannot, in themselves, be questioned or overturned.

Qualifications

Candidates, who attain 180 M-level credits and achieve a pass (minimum 50%) in each unit, will be awarded an MSc / MA in their chosen award title.

The degree of MSc or MA will be awarded as follows: (Modular weighted average according to CATs points)

Percentage Classification Award

0%-49% Fail Not Applicable – None

50%-59% Pass MSc/MA

60% - 69% Merit MSc/MA with Merit

70% or above Distinction MSc/MA with Distinction

General Provision

The award of MSc/MA is dependent on completion of the Research Proposal and the Dissertation by the deadlines given. On no account can any candidate have APL/APEL credit for the Research Proposal or the Dissertation.

Provisions regarding Assessment and Re-Assessment

General Powers

The MSc/MA units shall be assessed by such combination of course work assignments as documented in the syllabi.

Except insofar as it is specially provided for below, the following provisions apply to the assessments.

Definition of Failure

For the purposes of this and subsequent sections, 'failure' refers to failure to meet the minimum requirements for progression to the award of MSc/MA. A student shall be deemed to have failed an MSc/MA unit if he/she fails to obtain 50% mark for that unit. In such a case, no CATS points may be earned by that student.

Students may be deemed to have failed the assessment element if:

They fail to obtain 50% of the marks specified for that assessment element

In the absence of proven illness, or any other valid cause, they fail to submit work for the assessment on or by the due date, or to submit themselves for examination on the due date; or

They fail to comply with the provisions regarding assessments.

Right to Redeem Failure

Students shall have the right to redeem failure for the Research Methods and/or the Dissertation unit, subject to the following:

Students successful as a result of reassessment in either unit will only be awarded the minimum pass mark (50%); and

Students are not permitted to retake any assessment elements or units in which they have been successful in order to improve their marks.

Failure in the Event of Illness or Other Valid Cause

If failure in any assessment is because of proven illness or any other cause found valid on the production of acceptable evidence, the Board may allow the student to resubmit the assessment.

Assessments taken or retaken as a result of proven illness or other valid cause shall take the place of the attempt affected by the illness or other valid cause.

Failure by Reason of Dishonest Cause

If it has been established that a student has cheated, or is proven guilty of plagiarism, or any form of dishonest conduct, the Board may deem this to constitute failure in respect of the Course as a whole and may, at its absolute discretion, refuse the student any further attempt.

Failure By Reason of Unsatisfactory Work

The Board may recommend a student for exclusion, if the student's attitude and level of motivation has conclusively demonstrated unsuitability for progression of an award in light of the vocational and personal objectives of the Course, irrespective of whether the student has satisfied the academic requirements of the Stage. The Board may hold an Extraordinary Meeting to consider such cases.

In any such case, The Board must be satisfied that the student in question has received a formal warning that this regulation be invoked, and that this warning adequately specified the basis for such action. If this warning was issued in time to allow the student to demonstrate the required change in attitude and/or motivation prior to the Board's meeting, a student who has failed to do so, shall be deemed to have exhausted their right to redeem failure and the Board shall recommend exclusion forthwith. APPENDIX H

How to lose marks/credit

Figures/diagrams without numbers/titles or not acknowledged (author, date, page number)

Figures not referred to/discussed in the text

Inconsistent/incorrect referencing/citation.

Missing references (from final list)

Poor grammar

Bullet points/lists (use only in exceptions)

Headings/subheadings – vague, not correctly numbered

No page numbers or contents page

No primary data summary (SPSS results/sample interview)

No copy of research instruments in appendix

Conclusions not based on findings

No reflections

Very limited recommendations

No justification for methodology

No guidance for reader

Not linking of findings to previous research/literature

APPENDIX I

ETHICS CHECK FORM

Instructions on completion of the form:

The Researcher (or person undertaking the proposed activity) should answer the questions in the table below by ticking the appropriate column. The responses given must be discussed and confirmed with the supervisor (or line manager, if relevant).

Note:

The presence of a tick in any of the NO boxes requires additional guidance and formal approval is obtained before any aspect of the proposed activity commences

This completed form must be submitted along with the completed and signed proforma shown on the reverse side of this page.APPENDIX I(i)

ETHICS CHECK FORM

Name(s) of Applicant: ___________________________________________

2 Department: ___________________________________________

3 Name of Supervisor: ___________________________________________

4 Title of Project: _________________________________________________

5 Resume of ethical issues: _________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

6 Does the project require the approval of any external agency? YES/NO *

If YES has approval been granted by the external agency? YES/NO *

　　　　* delete as appropriate

7 Statement by Applicant

I confirm that to the best of my knowledge I have made known all relevant information and I undertake to inform my supervisor of any such information which subsequently becomes available whether before or after the research has begun

Signature of Applicant: ________________________ Date: _____________

8 Statement by Supervisor/Line Manager (please sign the relevant statement)

** For work forming part of an MMU taught programme– refer to Faculty Academic Standards Committee23 ETHICS

23.1 Academic Ethical Procedures

23.1.1 In its Vision the University aims to “behave professionally and ethically in all [its] activities”. The University therefore requires that its staff and students are mindful of the ethical implications of activities with which they engage and remain committed to discharging their responsibilities to the University in an ethical manner conforming to the highest professional standards of conduct. Issues of morality, safety and personal and institutional liability affect the University at many levels. The University must be seen to be acting with propriety and care for the welfare of staff, students and other sentient beings with which it engages.

23.1.2 It is the responsibility of staff and students within the University to consider the ethical implications of all academic activities.

23.1.3 On 21 February 2001 Academic Board approved the Ethical Framework for the consideration of academic ethical issues arising from the work of staff and students of the University, proposed by the University Academic Ethics Committee (UAEC).

23.1.4 The framework points to a set of obligations to which all staff and students should normally adhere as principles for guiding their conduct. The framework is meant, primarily, to inform ethical judgement rather than to impose a set of standards. The purpose of the framework is to make staff and students aware of the ethical obligations that may arise in their academic activity, and to\encourage them to behave ethically, conducting their business in a disciplined manner within legal and other regulated constraints and with minimum impact and detriment to others.

23.1.5 The UAEC has agreed that a completed Ethics Check Form (Appendix I (i) ) should accompany project proposals, which involve interaction with sentient beings or raise any questions of legality, in order to demonstrate that due consideration of ethical issues has been given and, where needed, explicit approval has been granted to undertake a particular study or project.

23.1.6 The Ethics Check Form should be completed and approval granted before the academic activity is undertaken.

23.1.7 The Ethics Check Form may be accompanied by further documentary evidence, where necessary, which fulfils the specialist needs of particular subjects within the university and/or requirements of the external body with which they are engaged.

23.2 University’s Academic Ethical Framework

Introduction

23.2.1 This document sets out a framework through which staff and students of the University give consideration to the ethical implications associated with any academic activities with which they engage. The framework and its application will be kept under review by the Academic Board’s Ethics Committee and, where considered necessary, further Guidance Notes consistent with the principles and requirements of the framework will be produced so as to inform and disseminate good practice.

Preface

23.2.2 The Board of Governors approved the establishment of the Academic Board’s University Academic Ethics Committee (UAEC) in February 1999. The key functions of the Committee are to propose ethical guidelines which will inform the work of the University and to advise the Academic Board on policies in relation to ethical issues.

23.2.3 This framework has been informed by practices and processes operating within the University, many of which themselves draw from the principles and requirements of external bodies.

23.2.4 This ethical framework must be read and operated in conjunction with such other policies of the University’s Board of Governors or Academic Board as may have a bearing on the matters raised herein.

23.2.5 This framework does not attempt to define or alter the obligations of staff or students under English law (please refer to 23.3).

23.2.6 The framework points to a set of obligations to which all staff and students should normally adhere as principles for guiding their conduct. The purpose is to make staff and students aware of the ethical obligations that may arise in their academic activity, and to encourage ethical behaviour. The framework does not, therefore, provide a set of answers to all ethical dilemmas, and the researcher is required to make specific decisions on the basis of careful consideration of all contributing factors.

Ethical Statement

23.2.7 In its Vision the University aims to “behave professionally and ethically in all [its] activities”. The University therefore requires that its staff and students engaged in scholarly and other activities are aware of the ethical implications of such activities and are committed to discharging their responsibilities to the University in an ethical manner conforming to the highest professional standards of conduct.

23.2.8 Issues of morality, safety and personal and institutional liability affect the University at many levels. The University must be seen to be acting with propriety and care for the welfare of staff, students and the wider public.

23.2.9 The practice of ethics is about conducting one’s business in a disciplined manner within legal and other regulated constraints and with minimal impact on and detriment to others.

23.2.10 It is the responsibility of staff within the University to consider the ethical implications of all academic activities using the framework as a guide to fulfilling their obligations.

Definition of Terms

23.2.11 In the context of this framework the following definitions of terms apply:

Academic Activity

Research, project, investigation, enquiry, survey, placement, or any other interaction with sentient beings, including the use of data derived from that interaction.

Researcher

A member of staff or student engaged in academic activity.

Participant

Individuals and/or organisations that come into contact with the University through academic activity.

Principles for the Consideration of Ethical Issues

23.2.12 Staff and students shall be made aware of their responsibilities and obligations to consider ethical

　　　　issues arising from their activities or study at or on behalf of the University.

23.2.13 The ethical implications of academic activities shall be assessed through, inter alia, a

　　　　consideration of:

(i) any sensitive data that may be collected, with particular regard to matters such as age, colour, race/ethnicity, nationality, disablement, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, personal medical records and political beliefs;

(ii) the arrangements for the security of data, participants and confidentiality;

(iii) the arrangements for ensuring the anonymity of participants;

(iv) whether any payments are to be made to the participants or other rewards granted and the integrity of that provision;

(v) whether any special indemnification arrangements may be required;

(vi) the desirability of an objective assessment being conducted of the ethical implications of the proposed academic activity by a competent person who has no direct association with it or the researcher(s) involved;

(vii) the ethical issues/guidelines of any third party involved in the University’s activities, e.g. as a provider of research funding.

23.2.14 Where applicable, academic activities must comply with the following requirements:

(i) the size of sample proposed for any group enquiry shall not be larger than justifiably necessary;

(ii) lines of enquiry must be pertinent and must not cause undue distress;

(iii) any relationship, other than that required by the academic activity, between the researcher(s) and the participant(s) must be declared and shall not normally result in approval of the academic activity;

(iv) participants shall be made fully aware of the true nature and purpose of the study except where there is satisfactory justification (such as the likelihood of the end results being affected) for withholding that information;

(v) participants shall have given their explicit consent except where there is satisfactory justification for not obtaining this consent;

(vi) participants must be informed at the outset that they can withdraw themselves and their data from the academic activity at any time and they must not subsequently be put under any pressure to continue;

(vii) due processes shall be in place to ensure that the rights of those participants who may be unable to assess the implications of the proposed work are safeguarded;

(viii) risks to the researcher(s), the participant(s) or the University shall be assessed;

(ix) any potential risk to the University must be outweighed by the value of the academic activity;

(x) if any academic activity is concerned with studies on activities which themselves raise questions of legality there must be a persuasive rationale which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the University that:

the risk to the University in terms of external (and internal) perceptions of the worthiness of the work has been assessed and is deemed acceptable;

arrangements are in place which safeguard the interests of the researcher(s) being supervised in pursuit of the academic activity objectives;

special arrangements have been made for the security of related documentation and artefacts.

23.2.15 Effective procedures to consider ethical issues within the University shall be established at the

Faculty /Department/Group or Unit level which shall comply with any specific requirements by the Academic Board or the UAEC on its behalf. Such procedures shall provide for:

an Ethics Check Form for affirming that ethical issues have been satisfactorily addressed and, where appropriate, granting assent (a common university proforma is to be used for this purpose);

published requirements which describe the approvals process to which each academic activity is to be subject;

published information on designated staff with responsibilities for managing the procedures;

procedures for intervention where breaches of guidelines are alleged;

the need to submit to the UAEC statistics relating to academic activities which have been subject to such procedures;

the review of mechanisms for considering ethical issues to ensure their currency, effectiveness and consistency with best practice.

23.2.16 Mechanisms for the Consideration of Ethical Issues

(i) An appropriate entry to be included in the Staff Manual drawing the attention of every member of employed/contracted staff to their obligations and, if and when approved by Academic Board, associated University policies;

(ii) The incorporation within faculty handbooks of a statement informing students of their ethical obligations and responsibilities;

(iii) Faculty Research Degrees Committees to affirm that ethical issues in relation to each individual research degree application have been satisfactorily considered. Such affirmation may require the assent of a committee (which may be an ad-hoc one) established by the relevant Faculty Board to consider ethical issues across the faculty;

(iv) The Academic Board’s Research Degrees Committee to affirm that ethical issues in relation to each individual research degree application for the PhD by published work have been duly addressed;

(v) Where individual students propose to undertake an academic activity as an element of assessment within a taught programme of study, procedures must operate to ensure that the relevant Board of Examiners shall be apprised that ethical issues have been satisfactorily addressed. Such confirmation may require the assent of a committee (which may be an ad hoc one) established by the appropriate Faculty Board to consider ethical issues across the faculty;

(vi) Where a course team proposes to introduce an element of curriculum or assessment which gives rise to ethical issues, such issues shall be considered by the committee or group charged with considering the academic validity of the proposal, i.e. the Programme Approval/Review/Modification Panel or Faculty Academic Standards Committee or other relevant body as determined by the University’s quality assurance procedures;

23.3 Appendix to Ethical Framework

23.3.1 This ethical framework does not attempt to define or alter the obligations of staff or students under

English law, for example:

Data Protection Act 1998

Children Act 1989

Human Rights Act 1998 (Amended 2001)

Race Relations Act 1976, The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Disability Rights Commission Act 1999

Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001

Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Sex Discrimination (Indirect Discrimination and Burden of Proof ) Regulations 2001

Freedom of Information Act 2000

23.3.2 Staff and students should also be cognisant with, and abide by, the published codes of conduct, ethics

　　　　principles and guidelines of those professional bodies associated with their discipline.

APPENDIX J

In a nutshell: Examples of Harvard Referencing Style

Citations in text

Author’s/s’ surnames and date of publication with page number if direct quotation has been used, i.e. (Author, date) or (Author, date, p.1).

Note: When quoting from chapter in book, cite chapter authors’/s’ not editor(s) in the main body of your work.

Reference list

Books

Beck, P., Mast M. and Tapper, P. (1997). The History of Eastern Europe for Beginners (Writers and Readers), Writers & Readers Publishing Inc., New York.

Burkart, A.J. and Medlik, S. (1989). Tourism: Past, Present and Future, 2nd edn. Heinemann, Oxford.

Hoad, T.F. (ed.) (1996). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Chapter in book

Jenkins, C.L. (1997). Third World Issues – Tourism Policies in Developing Countries. In S. Medlik, Managing Tourism, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 269-277.

Mitchell, R. and Hall, C. M. (2003). Consuming tourists: Food tourism consumer behaviour. In C.M. Hall, L. Sharples, R. Mitchell, N. Macionics and B. Cambourne, (eds.) Food Tourism Around the World, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 60-80.

Newspaper

McCarthy, M and Kirby, T. (2004). More Taste Less Speed, The Independent, 1 April, pp. 14-15.

Journal articles

Hall, D. and Brown, F. (1996). Towards a Welfare Focus for Tourism Research, Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 2, pp. 41-57.

On-line publications

World Health Organisation (2003). Controlling the Global Obesity Epidemic, World Health Organisation, [on line] available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/foodjunkies/chrono_ fastfood.shtml, [accessed June 17th 2004].

Office of National Statistics (2004a). Overseas Travel and Tourism-April 2004, [on line] available from: http://www.statistics.gov.uk, [accessed June 7th 2004].

Central Intelligence Agency (2003). The World Fact Book [on-line], available from: http://www.cia.gov/cia/ publications/factbook/[accessed March 24th 2004].

Appendix K

Dissertation Supervision Meeting Log

MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND TOURISM MANAGEMENT

Dissertation

Supervisor / Tutee Time Sheet [Meetings Log]

TUTEE’S NAME:................................................

SUPERVISOR’S NAME:...................................................

Date

[Meeting with the Supervisor] Discussion Topic / Concerns

[Specific to the Dissertation] Supervisor’s Advice Actions Taken by the Tutee Date

[Next Meeting]

Meet the Supervisor to discuss Research Area

Submission of the Research Area: Aims & Objectives

Approval of the Research Area: Aims and Objectives

Meet the Supervisor to discuss Assessment 2 submission

Research Methods Assessment 2 - Approval

Appendix L

A typical approach to assessing a dissertation:

Introduction

Does the introduction set the scene by explaining the context of the study and raising key issues and justify the choice of topic?

Is there a clear explanation of the structure of the study?

Aim and objectives

Are these clearly defined for the topic under consideration?

Are they achievable, sufficient and focused?

Is the problem new or well known from the literature or practice?

Review of literature

Have all sources relevant to the topic been evaluated critically?

Are any key sources missing?

Are all of references acknowledged and cited; Are the citations correct?

Is their reference to a variety of literature sources including academic theory, up-to-date academic journal articles and electronic sources?

Does the discussion move from the general to the particular so that the focus is on the subject of the study?

Is there evidence of analysis and synthesis of the literature?

Methodology

Is the methodology appropriate and justified?

Is the methodological approach difficult/innovative?

Has the literature been used to effect to justify the methodological approach and to underpin the data collection?

Are there any mistakes or omissions?

Analysis, synthesis, evaluation and discussion of the findings

Have the results/findings been analysed, interpreted and then evaluated by the student?

Is the work analytical or simply are the results merely descriptive?

Have the findings been synthesised or simply narrated?

Are the issues under study supported/proved by the results?

Has the student provided an objective discussion/evaluation of the findings?

Is there evidence of an ongoing argument?

Quality and logic of the content

Does the work read well, and is it focused?

Is the work difficult to understand, lacking style and precision?

Is the reader guided through the text?

Are the tables, figures etc. explained and discussed for the benefit of the reader?

Conclusions, recommendations and reflections

Are the conclusions valid and set into the context of the literature review?

To what extent has the submission achieved the aim and objectives?

Has the student recognised the limitations of the study and reflected on the research process?

Have suggestions for further research been made?

Have the implications of the study been carefully and extensively discussed?

Are the recommendations appropriate and adequate?

Layout and presentation

Does the work fulfil the dissertation requirement?

Are there appropriate supporting materials (tables, figures, appendices)?

Is the grammar correct and is an ‘academic’ style of writing apparent?

Is the layout clear and logical? Are there any omissions?

Are there any spelling or typographical errors?

Has the word count been stated?

Have copies of the research proposal and an electronic copy been included?

The criteria listed above are used to complete the dissertation assessment sheet.

2010/2011

SUBMISSION DATES

Form A hard copy to faculty office

Friday, 12th November 2010 by 3.30pm

Research proposal (1 hard copy together with a completed Form B to Faculty Office)

Friday, 18th March 2011 by 3.30pm

Dissertation (2 hard copies including MMU Ethics Form, spirally bound plus an electronic version) to be submitted to the Faculty Office. One copy will be put in the library.

Friday, 2nd September 2010 by 3.30pm

Subsequent submission date:

September 2012 [date & time to be confirmed] after Exam Board

Dissertation Assessment Moderation Record Sheet

Unit Title: Dissertation

Unit Number: 33DSM005

Unit Leader: Dr Dinah-Ann Rogers

Internal Moderator: Dr Tim Knowles

External Examiner: Peter Schofield

To be completed by the Internal Moderator if “YES”, if “NO”

Assessment Aspect Yes No

Are the assessments’ objectives / rationale clear? √

Are the unit’s learning outcome(s) being assessed

in the work? √

Is the type of work/answer required clear? √

Are the instructions to students clear? √

Will the wording / demands of the task / question be clear? √

Is the time and / or word limit clear and appropriate? √

Are the assessment criteria and / or marking scheme appropriate? √

Is any weighting made clear? √

Is the hand-in date and time stated? √

If appropriate, is there adequate differentiation in the tasks

and assessment criteria between degree and HND students? N/A

Do the assessments adequately measure all of the Unit

Outcomes? √

Is there inappropriate overlap between questions / assessments? X

Internal Moderator’s Comments

This unit has been comprehensively written to a very high standard to meet all the criteria of a postgraduate unit. It really is an excellent piece of work, which meets all the learning aims and objectives.

Signed: Dr Tim Knowles Date: June 2010

Unit Leader’s Response to Internal Moderator Comments

I agree with the comments made by the internal moderator

Signed: Dinah-Ann Rogers Date: June 2010

External Examiner Comments

Signed: Date:

Unit Leader’s Response to External Examiner Comments

Signed: Date:

Dissertation Assessment Moderation Record Sheet

Unit Title: Dissertation

Unit Number: 33DSM005

Unit Leader: Dr D. Rogers

Internal Moderator: Dr Tim Knowles

External Examiner: Peter Schofield

To be completed by the Internal Moderator if “YES”, if “NO”

Assessment Aspect Yes No

Are the assessments’ objectives / rationale clear? √

Are the unit’s learning outcome(s) being assessed

in the work? √

Is the type of work/answer required clear? √

Are the instructions to students clear? √

Will the wording / demands of the task / question be clear? √

Is the time and / or word limit clear and appropriate? √

Are the assessment criteria and / or marking scheme appropriate? √

Is any weighting made clear? √

Is the hand-in date and time stated? √

If appropriate, is there adequate differentiation in the tasks

and assessment criteria between degree and HND students? N/A

Do the assessments adequately measure all of the Unit

outcomes? √

Is there inappropriate overlap between questions / assessments? X

Internal Moderator’s Comments

An excellent unit handbook. This unit handbook covers all the learning outcomes and meets the aims and objectives.

如果您有論文代寫需求，可以通過下面的方式聯系我們

點擊聯系客服