Assessment Criteria for MSc Dissertations Empirical/Valuation Project
General Criteria/ Markers Comments
Introduction Literature Review Empirical/Valuation Framework and Data Description
Empirical/Valuation Analysis
Conclusion Written Communication (Presentation)
80+ High
Distinction
-Incisive introduction -Comprehensive and
persuasive rationale -Clear statement of the
research problem and associate objectives
-Sources used with discrimination -Coherent and entirely justified conceptual framework to support the research undertaken -Sophisticated use of examples
-Fully appropriate choice and application of data collection methods which is entirely justified -Correct sourcing -Highly original and creative selection of data
-Strong and broad evidence of an excellent level of analysis and use of appropriate techniques -Exceptional analysis of key concepts with very clear originality and autonomy
-Strong original conclusion -Extensive evidence of the
ability to critically evaluate the research results
-Excellent typography and layout -Lucid expressions -Sophisticated vocabulary -Excellent citation and bibliography norms
70 79.9 Distinction
-Focused introduction -Subject well justified -Clear statement of the research problem and associate objectives
-A wide range of sources consulted -Evidence of a sound discussion of the literature relevant to the study -Good use of examples
– Fully appropriate choice and application of data collection methods, well justified -Correct sourcing -Original, well-researched selection of data
-Critical appraisal and synthetic analysis -Excellent analysis of key concepts demonstrating independence of thought and a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency
-Conclusion advances debates -Extensive evidence of the ability to critically evaluate the research results
-Structured appropriately to the purposes of the assignment -Lucid expression with few flaws -Good use of vocabulary -Excellent citation and bibliography norms
60 69.9 Merit
-Clear and thoughtful introduction -Subject valid and relevant -Appropriate selection and justification of the methodology adopted
-Well selected range of sources consulted -Evidence of a comprehensive review of the literature relevant to the study -Appropriate examples
-Appropriate choice and application of data collection methods which is also well supported. – Well researched selection of data
-Good analysis of key concepts -Development of conceptual structures and argument making consistent use of scholarly conventions
-Clear conclusions -Satisfactory evidence of the ability to critically evaluate the research results
-Good typography and layout -Good expression -Appropriate use of vocabulary -Few errors of grammar -Well structured Accurate and full citation and bibliography
50 59.9 Pass
-Fair introduction -Subject has some validity and relevance -Rationale present but of marginal relevance
-A range of sources consulted -Indication of a satisfactory review of the literature relevant to the study but with some evident gaps and omissions -Limited range of examples sometimes inappropriate ones
-Mainly appropriate choice and application of data collection methods with some evidence of justification -Some errors and omissions in sourcing -Mainly standard range of data used
-Evidence of a satisfactory level of analysis and of use of appropriate techniques -Satisfactory knowledge of key concepts, descriptive in parts but some ability to synthesize scholarship and argument.
-Fair conclusions – Some evidence of appropriate justification for critical comment on and logical development but incomplete and / or illogically developed.
-Adequate typography and layout -Few serious errors of grammar; -Limited vocabulary -inconsistent citation and bibliography with significant omissions
<50 Fail -Weak introduction -Descriptive with large gaps or misses the point -Minimal range of sources consulted -Little attempt to support any assertions -Minimal range use of examples -Inappropriate choice and application of data collection with no justification -Narrow or unskilled range of data used -Limited knowledge of key concepts -Use of scholarly conventions inconsistent, largely descriptive with little synthesis of existing -Weak conclusions -Conclusions sketchy or ill- matched -Poor presentation -Flawed expression -Inaccurate citation and gaps in bibliography scholarship and limited argument
