Developing wine tourism in France

The document remains essentially descriptive (i.e.

it includes only some tables and pie-charts...). For example, the new

point 2.2. on "Regions in France and the types of wines they produce"...

(Alsace, Bordeaux, Burgundy, Champagne, Loire valley). Why did you

included only this regions ? why not Provence, Languedoc, Cognac,

Armagnac, Beaujolais...? And, why do you think the contents included in

the description is essential ? Any wine student know where are those

regions located, the type of grape varietals produced in those regions,

etc. Everyone knows that Champagne is only produced in one region, not

in Burgundy...

OR.... What relevant insights do you expect to add in the thesis from

general/vague sentences like the following one ?.

"The purity and unique taste of real champagnes are due to the fertile

soils and climatic conditions that surround the champagne region. The

area has many growers who cultivate on family vineyards which are very

large, the growers then sell their grapes to champagne houses while some

retain the grapes to make their own Champaign. There are many

communities within the Champaign region like the Cote de bar which

produces white grapes to make the sparkling white wines.  The region

also has many hotels and restaurants strategically located for tourists

who come to the wineries. Additionally, the people are hospitable thus

attracting more tourists to the place."...

The above statement adds no value to a master thesis. Therefore, this

paragraph and other similar sentences should not be included in a master

thesis. Thesis can have some descriptive parts but it should be mainly

explanatory.

Please note it seems unlikely that we can validate a Master thesis only

with a few tables, pie-charts, and percentages. You need to analyse the

data using appropriate statistical methods (multivariate data analysis,

tests, etc).

Therefore, you need to narrow the research question and to proceed with

an appropriate methodology design and analysis.

You mentioned in the document "The researcher applied both the

quantitative and quantitative/experimental methods of data

collection...". I do not think you did this. You need to use an

appropriate software to undertake a multivariate data analysis and/or

tests.

Please find hereafter again my comments shared with the Jury members

last December (and again communicated to you this early March). Only

some of these points were partly addressed in the document you sent to

me last Friday:

-    The contents of you document is mainly descriptive. A thesis can

have some descriptive parts but it should be mainly explanatory;

-    There are a lot of vague sentences, repetitions, normative, and

general statements/comments. E.g. on page 35 “The questionnaire revealed

a lot of things”. This has absolutely no value at all.

-    There is no scientific literature review on management focused on

your problem statement. For example, what did the main authors wrote and

found about the key success factors in the wine tourism ?. All those

factors must be identified, put into context, and criticized;

-    References are not standardized and do not comply with the

requirements;

-    The explanation of the methodology is vague and it includes

misleading information. Where in the thesis did you conduct your

quantitative and experimental analysis ?. I do not think you did this!.

-    You should suppress all the sections related to research

philosophy, epistemology, ontology, and research approach (sections 3.2.

to 3.5). It adds absolutely no value to your thesis and those sections

are disconnected with the contents of the thesis.

-    The methods for data collection and instruments of research need to

be precised and closely linked with what you really did in the thesis;

-    Further, where in the thesis did you conducted a reliability and

validity tests ?. There is no information about this. What tests ? where

are those tests ?

-    You mentioned you used SPSS. There is absolutely no multivariate

data analysis. Only descriptive data is presented. You need to use

factor analysis, principal component analysis or other statistical

methods;

-    You use likert questions in the questionnaire. You need to

calculate the Cronbach’s Alpha to test the internal reliability of the

items in the scale;

-    The use of the KMO (Keyser-Meyer-Olkin) test seems also to be

necessary: measure of sampling adequacy;

-    The discussion is vague and needs to be entirely rewritten;

-    The graphs are not well presented, remain incomplete, and include

mistakes;

-    The discussion is vague and purely descriptive. The discussion

should be linked with the problem statement and with the findings in the

literature review. Saying that “France has various regions to produce

wine…” or “France is a connection for different people who travel to

Europe” are vague statements and it explains absolutely nothing. You

need to rewrite entirely the findings after doing the literature and the

appropriate multivariate data analysis.

-    At the end, a proper conclusion should be written.