Dissertation- Robotics in the architecture, engineering and construction industry

Masters Research Dissertation

Student Guide

School of Architecture, Civil and Building Engineering October 2021 By Dr. Scott Fernie

2

Student Input Outputs Schedule

D eviations from

the schedule m ust be discussed and agreed w

ith your supervisor.

O pen and inform

al sessions occur throughout the year w ith S

cott

SEMESTER 1 Developing

and/or choosing

project idea

Work on developing an idea you want to pursue and/or develop from Project-

List Start reading and analysing relevant

literature

Meeting with potential staff to discuss your own and their ideas for projects Week 1 - 3

Appointment of a supervisor for student-led project

Week 1 - 4

Appointment of a supervisor for Project- List-led projects Week 4

Meet 1 Weeks 1-5. Ongoing research activity to deliver material for the meeting

Submit initial analysis of literature. Roughly detail the idea and problem (4-6 pages for discussion). Prepare questions and actively seek advice.

Week 4-5

Meet 2 Weeks 6-8. Ongoing research activity

to submit Draft Chapter 1 for discussion.

Submit and discuss draft chapter 1 (1000 words). Prepare questions and

actively seek advice. Week 7-8

Meet 3

Weeks 9-11. Ongoing research activity to deliver material for the meeting. Consider the health and

safety and ethical implications of the proposed research.

Present progress on Chapter 1 and literature review. Prepare questions and actively seek advice. Completed School Health and Safety Awareness

form. Completed University Ethics Awareness form.

Week 11 (before the winter break)

Weeks 11-15 of Sem 1. Ongoing research activity to deliver draft

Literature review Submit Good quality Interim Draft Literature Review (4, 000 words)

Negotiated with supervisor but

submit before the end of January

SEMESTER 2

Meet 4 Week 1. Ongoing research activity to develop plan.

Discuss interim lit review. Prepare and present initial plan for empirical

work. Prepare questions and actively seek advice.

Week 1

Week 2–6. Ongoing research activity to develop literature review and outline

methodology. If required, submit Health and Safety Risk Assessment

for approval.

Submit draft Literature review (5-6000 words) for feedback. Submit outline methodology (4 pages) chapter for discussion and your data collection instrument. Prepare questions and

actively seek advice.

Sometime within Week 5-6

Meet 5 Weeks 6-8. Ongoing research activity to further develop literature review and

methodology. If required, submit ethical approval application via Leon.

Get feedback on Lit review and discuss outline methodology chapter

along with instrument and ethics approval. Prepare questions and

actively seek advice.

Week 8

Meet 6

Week 8-11 (including 4 week Easter break). Ongoing research activity to develop methodology, methods, data collection instrument and plan for data

collection

Submit draft methodology chapter (2,000 words) and a data collection

and analysis plan for discussion. Collect data is you are ready. Prepare

questions and actively seek advice

Week 11

SUMMER SESSION

Meet 7&8 Post Exams - Ongoing research

activity to collect data, analyse data and develop findings, discussions and

conclusions

Prepare and discuss the empirical challenges, direction and progress of the work to date. Prepare questions

and actively seek advice.

To be arranged with supervisor

Meet 9 Ongoing research activity to collect

data, analyse data and develop findings, discussions and conclusions.

Develop draft dissertation.

Provide a draft of the dissertation and discuss the structure of the thesis with the supervisor. Prepare questions and

actively seek advice.

To be arranged with supervisor

SUBMIT DISSERTATION Aug 2022

3

Aim The aim of the research dissertation is for students to further develop and demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of designing and delivering a study following a rigorous research process. This will include the planning, execution and presentation of an extended piece of independent research work. The dissertation is an opportunity for students to conduct an in-depth piece of research focusing on contemporary issues and problems in their field. Whilst the research process will be informed by guidance and advice from an academic at specific points throughout the academic year, the responsibility to drive the research dissertation forward and to deliver something rigorous, robust and reliable rests with the student. The focus of the dissertation should be compatible with the specific programme of study undertaken by the student:

• MSc Construction Management • MSc Construction Project Management • MSc Construction Project Management with Building Information Modelling • MSc Sustainable Design and Construction • MSc Low Energy Building Services Engineering

The research dissertation constitutes 60 credits of the overall 180 credits required to complete a Master’s programme within the School. Delivering such a challenging and significant piece of research over an 11-month period requires attention from the outset and careful planning by students. To qualify for the award of an MSc degree, the research dissertation overall mark must be 50% or over.

Please refer to the Dissertation module specification for more information and note that it is anticipated that students are expected to execute 575 Hours of ‘Guided Independent Study’ throughout the process of delivering a research dissertation.

Dissertation schedule and marking criteria The following schedule provides important submission dates and also some guidance for students regarding expected progress and input. It is important to note that guidance from academics on specific aspects of the research process occurs within specific timeframes. For example, feedback on a student’s draft of their literature review is provided at a specific time in the academic year and guidance on other parts of the research process too. It is therefore the student’s responsibility to deliver something of note at each juncture as it is the only opportunity for guidance on this aspect of the research. Deviation from the schedule is possible once mutually agreed between supervisor and student though under certain circumstances.

4

Dissertation process and schedule

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 Exams

Discuss your own ideas for a research

dissertation with relevant academic staff

– look at their profiles of research interests.

Read and analyse

literature and develop a proposal for discussion

with an academic.

Establish if academic will supervise your idea.

Meeting 2: Submit and discuss draft chapter 1 (1,000

words)

Prepare questions and actively seek

advice.

Explore and analyse relevant literature. Write up a draft of chapter 1 that includes (in about 1,500

words):

1. Arguments to support the existence of the problem

2. An argued rationale for addressing the problem 3. A coherent set of aims and objectives that flow

from the above 4. A broad research design.

Look through the projects on the project list.

Think about topics, issues and

problems that interest you.

Read and analyse relevant literature

Discuss projects on the list with relevant academic.

Provide your preferences on ‘project list’ online system.

‘Project List’ Route

Potential topics suggested to

engage students.

View project list online.

‘Student-led’ ideas Route

Student led topics that

need to engage academics

Arrange ‘deal’/list preferenc

es in ‘project

list’

Explore and analyse relevant literature to deepen your knowledge and arguments of the chosen literature sets for your research. On an ongoing basis, write up your literature review demonstrating:

1. Critical analysis of a good quantity of relevant literature. 2. The development of coherent arguments and positions relevant to your study and its ongoing design. 3. Logical connections between arguments and positions and also parts of your literature review. 4. A coherent and robust set of findings from your literature review and the role they play in the research design as a

departure point for the empirical work and contribution to research objectives.

Meeting 1: Present and discuss initial

analysis.

Explain the idea and problem (4-6

pages)

Meeting 3: Prepare and

present progress on Chapter 1 and literature review.

Meeting 0: Engagement with

potential supervisors about

own ideas and those on the list

SEMESTER 1

Winter Break

Submit Interim Draft Literature Review (4.500

words) for discussion.

Submit Initial analysis and background to the research

problem identified

Submit Interim Draft chapter 1 (1,000 words)

5

Dissertation process and schedule

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 3 week exam block

4 week Easter Break

SEMESTER 2

Continue literature review and its write up to deepen your knowledge and arguments.

Explore and analyse relevant literature to deepen your knowledge and arguments of methodology. Write up draft methodology chapter to demonstrate:

1. Critical analysis of literature related to research design. 2. Coherent arguments and positions to underpin your choices of methodology, methods, instrument

design and data analysis. 3. Logical connections between research aims, objectives, literature review and the methodology,

methods, instrument and data analysis. 4. A coherent and robust strategy for empirically contributing to the research aims and objectives. 5. Submit an ethical approval application via the Leon system.

Start to design, plan, set up data collection ensuring you also:

1. Complete the necessary health and safety approvals for the research (especially if collecting data overseas).

2. Complete the necessary ethics approvals for the research (generally for all research that involves human participants).

3. Provide plenty of time for unexpected delays. 4. Provide adequate time to collect, sort, clean and analyse the data. 5. You could also if appropriate, and if you have ethical approval,

collect data…..

Submit draft Literature review (5-7,000 words) for feedback. Submit outline methodology

chapter for discussion

Continue to explore and analyze relevant methodology literature for write up.

Submit draft methodology for

discussion (2,000 words).

Meeting 4: Discuss interim lit review.

Prepare and present plan for empirical

work.

Meeting 5: Get feedback on Lit

review and discuss outline

methodology chapter.

Meeting 6: Prepare and present draft

data analysis chapter and Plan

summer meetings..

Complete and submit Health and Safety paperwork AND the Ethics approval on LEON

6

Dissertation process and schedule

SUMMER SEMESTER

Meeting 7 & 8: Prepare and discuss the empirical challenges, direction and progress of the work to date

SUBMIT

Data collection, analysis and findings:

1 Physically collecting data and ensuring it is appropriate for the research 2. Rigorous and robust analysis of the data. 4. Write up and present findings.

Develop a discussion and a coherent set of conclusions, recommendations and limitations

1. Reflection of empirical findings against findings from literature review findings or framework.

2. Write up of a robust discussion that makes reliable and useful connections within the research.

3. Provide a set of conclusions that reflects the findings and the discussion.

4. Provide a reflection on what the research has delivered and its original problem, aims and objectives

5. Demonstrate your grasp of the research process and your choices throughout by describing the limitations of the research.

Write up and prepare the submission. Continue literature review to deepen your knowledge and arguments in lit review and methodology

Meeting 9: Provide dissertation draft and discuss the structure of the thesis with the

supervisor.

7

Dissertation process and schedule

MSc GRADE DESCRIPTORS (60 credit modules) Version 4 ILOs ASSESSMENT CRITERIA GRADE DESCRIPTORS

A* Excellent (>80%) A Very Good (70-79%) B Good (60-69%) C Satisfactory (50-59%) D Poor (40-49%) E Very Poor (30-39%) F Unsatisfactory (0-29%)

1a, 1b, 2a, 4a, 4b

1) DEFINITION of the research problem including the background to the study, clear aim and objectives, and an overview of current knowledge and perspectives on the research problem(s).

Development of problem

As for A, but greater reflection and depth provided regarding relevant, contemporary, and novel research problems within the field coupled with a detailed rationale for the problem chosen.

As for B, but contains new insights into the nature of the problem, a mature understanding of the problem domain.

As for C, but evidence of analysis and categorisation of issues.

As for D, but developed from a mobilisation of a good literature set.

Basic exploration and background provided for research context.

Research context partially explored but very limited.

Research context and problem unclear, lacks focus and coherence.

Clear aims & objectives

As for C, but strong arguments mobilised from good literature set.

As for D, but supporting arguments provided via a good literature set.

Problem located within context and supported by simplistic arguments.

Aim, objectives, or hypotheses do not logically flow from the problem.

Little or no research aim, objectives, propositions or hypotheses offered.

Insights and benefits

As for C, but connections well- crafted, logical and clear.

As for D, but connections are reasonably rigorous.

Basic logic connecting problem with aim and objectives provided.

Research problem lacks support and arguments. No research problem

Design As for C, but robust arguments. As for D, with good explanation. Basic research design/process presented. Vague research design offered. No research design.

1d, 2b, 3a

2) KNOWLEDGE of the subject developed through a critical literature review of published information, including evidence of the scientific principles relating to the research problem.

Literature mobilised

As for A, but the work is well crafted and, of a quality that the literature review could be submitted as a conference or review paper in the relevant field.

As for B, but, includes critical engagement with, and comprehensive analysis of a substantial body of high quality, contemporary and relevant literature from within and, where appropriate, outwith the field.

As for C, but extensive quantity of high quality literature reviewed.

As for D, but suitable quantity and quality of contemporary sources.

Reasonable number and quality literature analysed and mobilised.

Limited number and poor quality of literature sources analysed.

Some evidence of literature reviewed but quality is poor.

Analysis and arguments

As for C, but good evidence of rigorous critical analysis.

As for D, but gaps in literature identified via thorough critical analysis.

Basic solid arguments presented Superficial arguments presented. Few arguments presented.

Knowledge & interpretation Has potential to influence the field or

includes a novel critical evaluation of previous work.

As for C, but robust, interconnected and well presented.

As for D, but supported by quality insights and interpretations.

Knowledge and synthesis of relevant theory, debates and perspectives.

Simplistic knowledge of relevant theory, debates, and perspectives.

Poor knowledge of theory, debates, and perspectives.

Findings and framework

As for C, but, findings and framework are skilfully crafted.

As for D, but logical set of findings support a robust framework.

Logical findings developed and basic framework constructed.

Very basic findings developed and no attempt to construct framework.

Few findings developed from analysis of literature.

1c, 2c, 3a, 3b

3) METHODOLOGY that uses suitable tools and techniques to capture and analyse data, and produce results relevant to the solution of the defined problem.

Coherence & connections

As for A, but the work is well crafted and of a quality that the methodology could be submitted as a conference or review paper in the relevant field.

As for B, but a critical analysis of contemporary literature deployed to develop highly relevant, sophisticated and robust methodological position.

As for C, but rigorous connections, well-crafted and presented.

As for D, but detailed connections well explained and argued.

Basic but connections are explained and follow a logic.

Limited connection with findings above and research problem/aims.

Little connection with findings above and research problem/aims.

Literature mobilised

As for C, but significant rigor used to develop strong arguments.

As for D but detailed arguments are developed from critical analysis.

Basic but sufficient relevant and quality literature mobilised.

Superficial engagement with or mobilisation of relevant literature

Poor engagement with or mobilisation of relevant literature.

Methodology, methods and instruments

Methods chosen may be novel, perhaps drawn from another research field.

As for B, but methods and data collection instruments, assumptions and limitations rigorously crafted and clearly communicated.

As for C, but arguments, positions and choices are robust and should include development of methods where appropriate

As for D, but accompanied by a thorough evaluation of alternatives.

Basic but detail and arguments provide reasonable logic for choice.

Basic justification and description of choices

Poor justification and description of choices.

Assumptions & limitations

Detailed and critical insights into the limitations of the research demonstrate depth

As for C, impact of applying instruments on findings explained.

As for D, but critique and deeper understanding provided.

Clear assumptions and limitations consider bias, sources of error and sampling approaches.

Simple exploration and explanation of assumptions and limitations.

Little attempt to explore assumptions and limitations.

1c, 2d, 3a, 3c

4) DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS of results using appropriate tools/ techniques (with ethical approval if required), placing the results from study in context.

Data As for A, but the arguments for, approach to and execution of analysis could be submitted as a conference paper in the relevant field.

As for B, but the analysis and results presented clearly flow from a rigorous, high quality application of research methods and data collection instruments.

As for C, but substantial data set has been collected and analysed.

As for D, but a solid set of data from robust explanation and use.

Basic data set drawn from detailed explanation of instrument used.

Minimal data set drawn from poor use of instrument.

Little attempt to collect data or invalid data collected because ethical approval was required but not secured.

Quality and depth of analysis

As for B, but due account taken of data uncertainty and validity of the results.

As for C, but substantial rigor and depth underpins extensive analysis.

As for D, but detailed analysis demonstrates sound knowledge and research skills.

Significant analysis attempts to address shortcomings and limitations.

Simplistic analysis that lacks clarity with obvious areas of investigation ignored.

Analysis is unclear, poorly presented and extremely limited

Quality of results

As for B, but deep understanding of the pathway between method, data collection and results demonstrated.

As for C, but extensive results logically provide a substantial and robust set of findings.

As for D, but well developed results provide valid findings.

Clear set of results that provide findings presented via texts, graphs, pictures and tables.

Results are opaque, unclear and do not easily flow from the analysis. Very few results of note obtained.

2d, 2e

5) DISCUSSION of findings; and

Discussion & connections

As for A, but the discussion demonstrates significant insights, rigorous reflections and detailed connections.

As for B, but insights into the deeper meaning of the findings and attendant shortcomings are presented.

As for C, but robust discussion demonstrates a firm grasp of the findings in the context of existing theories, debates and perspectives.

As for D, but discussion clearly identifies pivotal key features arising from the study.

Basic discussion that attempts to interpret and connect data analysis findings with prior literature review findings and framework.

Discussion is overly superficial, and reflections are weak and unstructured.

Limited discussion of findings that fails to connect with prior literature review findings and framework.

Presentation of specific CONCLUSIONS related to the evidence, research problem and objectives/questions.

Conclusions and connections.

As for A, but conclusions and recommendations are comprehensive, strongly supported and robustly presented.

As for B, but conclusions are rigorous, comprehensive, well crafted and presented.

As for C, but conclusions clearly defended and draw from connecting a robust discussion and detailed reflections. Limitations demonstrate a deeper understanding of research process.

As for D, but conclusions demonstrate some critical thinking about significance and implication.

Basic conclusions that attempt to reflect upon, and connect discussion with, research aim, objectives, problems, propositions, hypotheses or questions.

Poor set of conclusions with simplistic reflections that lack critical thought and understanding of the research process.

Extremely limited conclusions that fail to reflect upon discussion, aim, objectives, problems, propositions, hypotheses, or questions.

Limitations & recommend- ations

The wider significance of the work for academia, industry, policy and other stakeholders is also discussed as appropriate.

As for B, but presented with great depth and sensitivity to other avenues of research and a mature appreciation of the limitations of the work.

As for C, but imaginative suggestions for further research and wider implications are presented and reflections upon.

As for D, but greater logic and detail provided that demonstrates good reflection upon and understanding of the research process adopted.

Limitations and recommendations provided are basic and attempt to reflect upon research process adopted.

Recommendations and limitations lack depth.

Recommendations and limitations of the research study are limited.

3c, 4c

6) PRESENTATION of the dissertation in a readable, structured manner that flows, including appropriate typography, diagrams, sketches, language, and referencing.

Quality of academic writing.

As for A, but written work is structured concisely, precisely and focused on the subject. Has a strong narrative with natural, evidence-based flow.

As for B, but written work is structured correctly, appropriately and reasonably concisely. Style is clear, unambiguous and avoids unnecessary repetition.

As for C, but written work is free from basic errors and written in a style that is mostly appropriate.

Written work is readily readable, even if it contains small grammatical and spelling errors and/or is in an inappropriate style.

Written work is substandard, containing significant grammatical and spelling errors.

Substandard and, in places, incomprehensible or contains inappropriate or irrelevant material.

The dissertation as a whole is inadequate and unintelligible.

Figures, tables, illustrations, style.

As for A, but figures/tables allow much of the work to be appreciated by reference to them alone e.g. through the use of imaginative graphs or diagrams.

As for B, but full use made of figures and tables and these are clearly understandable fully annotated and enhance reader’s understanding.

As for C, but illustrations/tables are appropriate and clear enough to understand. All figures/tables referenced in text an accepted style.

Illustrations and tables are present where appropriate, but may be too few, not clear or an inappropriate format.

Illustrations and tables are appropriate to narrative but often simplistic, incomprehensible or inappropriate.

A few appropriate illustrations and/or tables are present, but add little to understanding.

Figures and/or tables would be helpful but very poor or absent.

Referencing As for A, but referencing of a standard that is suitable for external publication.

All references fully comply with ISO 690.

References, with minor exceptions, in the appropriate section with the necessary bibliographical detail, complying with ISO 690.

Referencing is basically complete and correct, using an accepted style, although it may contain some errors or omissions.

Too much use of inappropriate, unqualified, Internet references rather than peer reviewed and published work.

Referencing incomplete, inconsistent or inadequate.

Referencing contains serious errors or omissions.

8

Dissertation process and schedule

Suggested structure and outputs from meetings The schedule for semester 1 begins with the ability for students to take two separate routes to establishing the idea and the topic for their research dissertation.

1. The ‘Student-led’ ideas route provides the opportunity for students to pursue ideas they may already have about problems and issues they would like to address in a research dissertation. It is necessary for the student to engage with academic staff to discuss such ideas and to establish agreement on the idea and, if an academic would consider supervising such a student and their idea. In discussions with academics, students should provide a two-page proposal on the arguments for their idea and the problem the research would address. This two-page proposal will act as a basis for the discussions and any agreed position after discussions. An agreement between the student and the supervisor must be in place prior to the Project List deadline date and must also be recorded by the supervisor on Project List.

2. The ‘Project List’-led route provides the opportunity for students to engage with a significant list of topics (called projects – see http://projectlist.lboro.ac.uk) that academics in the School have provided and are willing to supervise. Students must engage the academics in a discussion of topics that interest them to establish ideas and problems they would like to further develop and pursue within a research dissertation. In discussions with academics associated with topics on Project List, students should provide a brief proposal for the ideas and the problems they consider appropriate within the topic area. Students must then, prior to the indicated deadline, select, in order of preference, their top three topics in Project List (http://projectlist.lboro.ac.uk). Based on preferences and the availability and capacity of academic staff, students will be allocated a supervisor and a topic from the list.

It is important to make an appointment for engaging with academics in either of the above routes chosen and the meetings should follow the following format:

• Pre allocation Meetings – In this meeting(s) students could approach academics to either broadly discuss the topics in short 5-minute meetings (to broadly understand the topic) and/or longer 10+-minute meetings armed with a written proposal of specific ideas and a potential problem to be discussed as the focus of the research.

Once students have been allocated a supervisor via Project List or, have secured a student-led allocation with a specific supervisor, a structured literature review begins. This review underpins the development and submission of a draft chapter 1 and a coherent draft literature review. Note, the literature review is expected to continue throughout the entire 11 months but substantial progress must be made in semester 1 to establish a strong guide for the research. Progress in the writing up of this review and associated arguments and positions can only be achieved by finding, reading, critically analyzing and mobilizing good quality and relevant literature. To ensure progress, the structure of meetings with supervisors in semester 1 suggested could adopt the following as a guide to discussions:

• Meeting 1 – by week 5 the student should have had the opportunity to begin the literature review and to have collected, read and understood enough about the subject matter to have written down a background section to the topic and a set of arguments and positions about the rationale for the idea and the research problem. This should be written up in a 4-6-page document to be sent to the supervisor and used as the

9

Dissertation process and schedule

basis of a discussion. The student should seek advice about the research process and attendant ideas at the meeting via questions during the meeting. In this first meeting, students should bring along a copy of the marking criteria and discuss this with the supervisor as well as the students plans and ideas regarding how they can or will access and collect data relevant to their study.

• Meeting 2 – During week 8, the student should submit to the supervisor a draft chapter 1 of not more than 1,500 words for discussion at this meeting. This should be submitted 2 days prior to the meeting. It would also be advisable to use the marking criteria for MSc dissertations as a way to reflect upon the content of the draft in these discussions. Note, the intention is for the student and supervisor to discuss the draft and for the student to seek advice on how to refine and develop it. Discussions should focus upon the rigor in the way in which the research problem is argued and defined as well as the logical flow from the problem to the research aims and objectives. The discussion should also explore the way in which students are referencing and citing others’ work and reinforce messages about how to avoid poor academic practice and plagiarism if necessary.

• Meeting 3 – During week 11 the student should report on and present progress made on the development of chapter 1 (including a draft research design) and the ongoing literature review for discussion at the meeting. Discussions should include the quantity and quality of literature mobilized and the analysis and synthesis conducted by the student to develop arguments and positions adopted for the research. Discussions should include what progress needs to be made to deliver a good quality and fully edited interim literature review prior to the start of semester 2 (approx. 4,500 words). Reference to the marking criteria could form some of the basis for discussion with supervisors at this meeting. It might also be prudent at this point to consider in discussion with the supervisor the need for a health and safety risk assessment and/or ethical approval. The School provides a “Health and Safety Awareness” form to help you consider this need. This form must be completed in all cases. Please note the following.

o Failure to comply with the School Health and Safety guidance is considered a serious breach of conduct and may also invalidate any University insurance cover for the activities you undertake for your study.

o Failure to comply with the need for ethical approval will lead to the data, its analysis and findings being discarded in the process of marking which may lead to heavy losses of marks when the work is assessed by supervisor and moderator in September. It is also a disciplinary matter.

• Suggested outcomes from Semester 1 o An understanding of the research process and challenges ahead o Good quality draft chapter 1 o A well-developed interim literature review o An understanding of progress and direction o An understanding of the marking criteria o An understanding of health, safety and ethical approvals required for your study

and measures taken to get such approval o Understanding of citing others work, referencing, poor academic practice and

plagiarism o Submission of health and safety risk assessment (if necessary) o Submission of application for ethical approval (if necessary)

10

Dissertation process and schedule

The schedule for semester 2 initially focusses on the development of a robust draft of the literature review and the development of draft methodology/methods chapter. The semester is broken up with a 4-week spring break that should be used to provide momentum to the development of methodology. As ever, progress in the writing up of arguments and positions in the review and methodology can only be achieved by finding, reading, critically analyzing and mobilizing good quality and relevant literature. To aid progress, the structure of meetings with supervisors in semester 2 could use the following as the basis for discussion:

• Meeting 4 – During week 1, the student will have had the opportunity to discuss with the supervisor progress made with the literature review and the key arguments and positions adopted for the research using the recently submitted interim literature review. At this meeting the students should also provide, for discussion, a coherent draft research design and plan for the empirical work. The intention is for the student to be aware of progress that needs to be made in delivering a literature review late in week 6 or early in week 7. There is also a need for the student to demonstrate they have explored and developed a rough plan for developing methodological positions, methods of data collection & analysis and the design of the research instrument for collecting data.

• Meeting 5 – Prior to this meeting scheduled for week 8 (or week 9 if agreed more suitable by supervisor or student), the students should have submitted a draft literature review in weeks 6 in order to receive formal feedback during the meeting and also have brought to the meeting an outline methodology for discussion. This leaves open the opportunity for students to use some of their Spring break to develop the literature review. An agreement must be in place though before the Spring break. During the meeting, the students should engage in a discussion with the supervisor on the feedback provided on their lit review. The students should also discuss their arguments and positions in the outline methodology chapter submitted. The intention is to have a clear steer on the development of the lit review prior to the empirical work beginning. It is also necessary for the student to have developed and discussed arguments and positions on the use of an appropriate methodology and research methods. Please make use of the marking criteria as a guide.

• Meeting 6 – This meeting in week 11 closes out the engagement between the supervisor and the student for semester 2. The student should prepare and present progress on the draft methodology chapter and also the development of their plans for data collection and analysis. The discussion should make reference to the marking criteria. There should also be a discussion about agreed dates during the summer for meetings 7, 8 & 9. The intention here is for the student to explore and discuss with the supervisor any positions and methods they have adopted and to receive broad guidance of developing an instrument for data collection that reflects the needs of the research process and design adopted, and which is ethically-sound. The concern here is to ensure that all pieces of the research connect and are integrated in a coherent and robust design prior to data collection. The marking criteria should be used by the student throughout to shape ongoing work and also as a basis of discussions with supervisors.

• Suggested outcomes from semester 2 o A well developed and argued literature review o A coherent and well developed draft methodology chapter o A coherent and carefully chosen research method o A logical and well developed data collection instrument and method of analysis o Submission of health and safety risk assessment (if necessary) o Submission of application for ethical approval (if necessary)

11

Dissertation process and schedule

The schedule for the summer has been left largely open for the student to manage independently but the expectation is that students stay in Loughborough and study within the School and/or library. Students should maintain a rigid study pattern and meet with their supervisors in the School. With a coherent literature review in place and a well developed methodology and chosen method, the student’s focus will be predominantly on the empirical part of the research at meetings 7 & 8. The end of the summer session includes the submission of the thesis and a viva to determine the mark for the student’s dissertation. The marking criteria is then used as a guide for supervisors and moderators to agree marks.

• Meetings 7 & 8 (dates agreed in meeting 6) - will allow the student to demonstrate progress towards developing and executing data collection, analysis and the writing up of the thesis. This is a fundamental and challenging part of the thesis development and should not be underestimated – especially the collection and analysis of data. Note, it is the responsibility of the student to identify and contact potential industrial collaborators. Discussions at the meetings should include what progress needs to be made to deliver good quality data analysis & presentation, findings from the data analysis, a coherent discussion section and advice on how to present the dissertation as a whole. The discussions should be driven by the student who should be actively developing questions and seeking the advice necessary.

• Meeting 9 – a week prior to the submission date the student will provide a draft of the dissertation and discuss the structure of the document and the ways in which the research has been communicated and its constituent parts integrated to tell a story.

• Pre-viva outcomes from summer session o A coherent and well-developed data analysis and findings chapter o A coherent and well-developed discussion chapter o A coherent and well-developed conclusions, recommendations and limitations

chapter o A well-presented and full edited thesis submitted in hard copy and to Turnitin

(for plagiarism detection) via Learn. • Submission and marking – the thesis must be submitted on time and in both hard

copies (2) and an electronic version submitted to TurnItIn. The thesis must be: o maximum word count typically no more than 15,000 words (Excluding abstract,

tables of content, references and appendices) o formatted using HARVARD referencing o Be double-sided o Be bound o Formatted (see section 4)

• The dissertation is marked independently by a moderator and the supervisor using the marking criteria as a guide to that process. Once marked, the moderator and the supervisor meet to discuss their judgements and what it is they wish to explore further at a viva.

• The viva – the viva is used to allow students the opportunity to discuss in greater detail the work they have completed and also the journey they have travelled and the lessons they have learned about the research process. The viva is also an opportunity for the supervisor and the moderator to get greater clarity on some aspects of the thesis that they have agreed need to be explored at the meeting and allows them more information to come to an agreed judgement on the marks for the dissertation. The viva takes place in September and typically lasts 45 minutes to 90 minutes.

• Post-viva outcomes – After the viva, the moderator and the supervisor agree a

12

Dissertation process and schedule

provisional mark for the dissertation and typically, meet with the student to inform them of this provisional mark within 2 days. The marking criteria could be used to explain to the student the judgement arrived at by the supervisor and the moderator.

13

Dissertation process and schedule

Ethical Considerations Ethical Considerations The completion of a dissertation requires the student to fully comply with Loughborough University’s expectation of ethically-sound research. As an institution, Loughborough University operates an ethical clearance process to ensure that all research activities it performs are conducted in a way that protects the dignity, rights, health, safety, and privacy of all involved. Ethical standards in research are largely concerned with protecting individuals: the study participants and also the researcher. The nature of your proposed study will determine the extent to which it must engage and comply with the University’s ethical clearance process. To determine this, every taught student must complete the University’s “Ethics Awareness Form” (Note 1). This will help you understand whether or not you must secure independent approval of your study design to establish its ethical soundness. This form must be bound into your submitted dissertation as an appendix. Ethical procedures The University’s “Ethics Awareness Form” (see Note 1) will direct you to consider the ethical appropriateness of your study design, if required, and will require that design to be approved BEFORE you commence your fieldwork/data collection. Obtaining ethical approval signifies the University’s acceptance that there is an appropriate balance between the research question(s) you need to answer and the risks of emotional, psychological, etc. harm that your study exposes its participants (and, usually to a lesser extent, you) to. The full ethical approval procedure is fully detailed in the “Ethical Approval” section of the “School Information” module on Learn. All students must familiarise themselves with this procedure and ensure that they comply with its requirements. Please note the interaction between the School’s health and safety approval process and its ethical approval process. If required (see Note 2), you must secure health and safety approval before attempting to secure ethical approval. Your attention is drawn to the health and safety and ethical approval process flowcharts that are available in the Ethical Approval section of the School Information module on Learn. These will guide you through these processes. Please ensure you leave adequate time in your work programme to secure both health and safety approval and, subsequently, ethical approval. These processes can take several weeks and require careful planning beforehand. You must integrate these procedures into your work programme and agree it with your supervisor. Ethical risk and securing ethical approval As implied by the presence of this ethical approval process, all research introduces its participants (and the researchers) to an inherent level of risk. It is the researcher’s moral obligation to ensure this risk is appropriate to the insight sought and is mitigated as far as possible. Loughborough University divides its research into three categories: • Research with a low ethical risk raises no undue concerns and adopts largely standard processes

and engages with standard participants using standard instruments such as online questionnaires and in-person or online interviews.

• Research with a medium ethical risk raises some concerns that require consideration by the Secretary of Loughborough University’s Ethics Review Sub-Committee. These studies often involve aspects such as the possibility of identifying individuals when reporting results. Usually this is not appropriate, but it can be necessary in certain disciplines and contexts.

• Research with a high ethical risk raises significant concerns that require detailed consideration by members of Loughborough University’s Ethics Review Sub-Committee. These studies often involve issues such as working with vulnerable individuals or tackling emotionally or psychologically sensitive topics.

It is not possible to state which of these risk profiles is appropriate to your study. You must carefully consider this and resolve it in debate with your supervisor. You must do what is right rather than, necessarily, what is easiest or quickest. Loughborough University’s online ethical approval process (Leon) will guide you through the ethical risk assessment that helps you understand the nature of the ethical risk in your proposed study

14

Dissertation process and schedule

design. When indicated by the Ethical Awareness Form – typically, but not limited to, when gathering data from people – you MUST apply for ethical approval through the Leon system. See Note 3. Guidance on ethically-sound study design To help you develop an ethically sound study design that will stand a good chance of being approved, the University makes ample guidance and supporting materials available. Guidance Notes can be found on the research ethics webpage (see Note 4). These materials are being continually updated and currently cover such issues as designing online questionnaires, securing the informed consent of all participants, and maintaining the confidentiality or anonymity of participants as appropriate to the nature of your study. Queries on ethical standards and study appropriateness Queries regarding ethical standards and their appropriateness to your individual research study must be resolved in dialogue between the student and supervisor. This is because ethical soundness is domain specific and specific measures that may be appropriate in one subject area may not be appropriate in another. This is a nuanced discussion that requires careful debate and consideration between student and supervisor. They must convince themselves that the proposed study design strikes an appropriate balance between research need and the risk to which participants and researchers will be exposed when performing the study. Queries on ethical approval procedures Please direct all queries regarding the University’s ethical approval procedures to abce- [email protected] Key takeaways:

• Read the information on Ethical Approval in the School Information module on Learn.

• Complete the Ethics Awareness Form, in consultation with your supervisor, to know whether ethical approval is needed for your study. Remember to bind it into your submitted dissertation, irrespective of whether you need ethical approval or not.

• Discuss the appropriateness of the risk vs. research need in your project with your supervisor.

• If required, submit your application for ethical approval through LEON as soon as you have developed a study design and know what data gathering, analysis and reporting methods you will use.

Note 1: The Ethics Awareness Form is available here: https://www.lboro.ac.uk/internal/research-ethics-integrity/research-ethics/project-need-ethical-review/ DO NOT complete the “Ethics Quick Test” – that is for PhD students and University staff. Note 2: Please see the School’s Health and Safety approval documentation for guidance. This is available in the “School Information” module on Learn. Note 3: Loughborough University Ethics ONline (Leon) can be accessed here: https://www.lboro.ac.uk/internal/research-ethics-integrity/research-ethics/ethical-review/leon/ Please read the guidance on how to complete your application within the Leon system. An instructional video is available, for example. Note 4: Guidance Notes are available here: https://www.lboro.ac.uk/internal/research-ethics-integrity/research-ethics/guidance-investigators/ This is a continually updating resource and should be checked often.

15

Dissertation process and schedule

Main Elements of the Dissertation The dissertation should aim to include the following elements, usually in the listed order:

TITLE PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORSHIP (Attached to back of this guide) ABSTRACT (not more than 250 words and state word count at bottom of page) TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES (or GRAPHS) LIST OF TABLES (including tables in appendices) LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (and SYMBOLS if any) MAIN CHAPTERS REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHY (where applicable) APPENDICES DISSERTATION DEFINITION DOCUMENT HEALTH AND SAFETY AWARENESS FORM (included as an appendix) ETHICS AWARENESS FORM (included as an appendix) ETHICAL APPROVAL, if required (copy of e-mail providing approval)

16

Dissertation process and schedule

Responsibility for dissertation The student is fully responsible for all aspects of the research dissertation including but not limited to: • The development of the research problem • The development of arguments and a rationale for the study • Specifying and detailing the focus of the study • Establishing aims and objectives • The research design • Finding, critically analyzing and synthesizing relevant literature • Delivering a coherent and robust literature review with findings • Designing and delivering an appropriate and well-argued methodology • Arguing for and choosing an research strategy and/or research methods • Designing an appropriate data collection instrument • Identifying and engaging with sources of data • The collection of an appropriate quantity of relevant data • Obtaining information from external bodies where necessary • Analysis of the data using appropriate data analysis techniques • Development of findings from the data analysis • Delivering a discussion of the findings and developing a coherent and reliable set of

conclusions • Presenting the research throughout • Meeting submission dates for work • Preparing for and reporting on meetings • Gaining appropriate approval for the research such as health, safety and ethics • Submitting written work to Turnitin • The oral examination

17

Dissertation process and schedule

Certificate of Authorship

I certify that:

I am the sole author of this dissertation and that any assistance I have received in its preparation is fully acknowledged and clearly disclosed in the report.

I have cited correctly any sources from which I have used data, illustrations, ideas or words, either in the form of a direct quotation or paraphrase.

I additionally certify that this dissertation was prepared by me specifically for the MSc [insert programme title]

NAME (IN CAPITALS):

SIGNATURE:

DATE:

* cross out the options that do not apply

Word count

18

Dissertation process and schedule