MSc Occupational Hygiene

MSc Occupational Medicine

Dissertation Guide

2023/2024

General Information

The Dissertation Guide is a reference document that contains information on the University expectations for the MSc dissertation. The dissertation is a 60-credit unit that gives you the opportunity to undertake a detailed independent study into a subject of interest. This guide should be read in conjunction with your Programme Handbook.

Useful Contacts

If you have any questions or encounter any problems during your studies, please contact a member of the Programme Admin team and we will endeavour to deal with your query or re-direct it appropriately.

Key Academic Staff
Melanie Carder	Programme Director MSc Occupational Medicine		melanie.carder@manchester.ac.uk
Anne Clayson	Programme Director MSc Occupational Hygiene		anne.clayson@manchester.ac.uk
Michael Slater	Lecturer in Occupational Hygiene		Michael.slater@manchester.ac.uk
Nicola Gartland	Lecturer in Occupational Health		nicola.gartland@manchester.ac.uk
Programme Admin team
Programme Administration Team		Programme Administrators	shs.programmes@manchester.ac.uk
Other contact
Blackboard & Technical Support	Faculty eLearning Team		elearning@manchester.ac.uk +44(0)161 306 5544

Help with Blackboard

If your Blackboard course unit is not behaving as you expect, you can contact Programme Administrators to get help with content issues (missing notes, etc.).

The University of Manchester Library

Full access to all online books, journals and other publications is available via the University website. There is a dedicated resource for distance learning students at https://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/using-the-library/students/distance-off-campus/. You can use this link to request e-book orders if the library do not hold electronic versions of the texts that you need.

The library offers support on advanced searching and systematic reviews: https://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/using-the-library/specialist-library-support/advanced-searching-and-systematic-reviews/

Statistical analysis teaching and learning, both theoretical and practical, is provided. As an MSc student the expectation is that you undertake the majority of the statistical thinking and analysis yourself.

The University of Manchester library has a number of useful resources relating to data and statistics which can be accessed at: https://subjects.library.manchester.ac.uk/data/home. This also includes maths and statistics support which can be found at https://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/using-the-library/specialist-library-support/maths-and-statistics-support/

Statistical advice and guidance for your project may be available where required and is provided by Statisticians in the University of Manchester’s Biostatistics Group. If you have a statistical query that you, even with the help of your Supervisor, cannot answer, please contact your Programme Director.

If you are having difficulty with the library electronic resources, you should contact the library via My Manchester or the University homepage.

The University Language Centre

A good introduction to writing a dissertation is available from the University Language Centre. It is well-worth spending time looking at what resources they provide to support your academic work. https://www.languagecentre.manchester.ac.uk/

Dissertation Proposal

Developing your dissertation proposal is a critical part of the dissertation process, the purpose of which is to establish clear aims, objectives and methods for your dissertation. This should also include a timeline of activity and any associated costs. This is addressed during your dissertation preparation workshop, the semester launch event at the start of your dissertation year and in conversations with your supervisor.

Further guidance may be found in:

Davies, M (2013) Study skills for international postgraduates, Palgrave Macmillan

Rudestam, KE and Newton, RR (2015) Surviving your dissertation: a comprehensive guide to content and process, 4^th Edition available online via the University Library

Swetnam and Swetnam (2000) Writing your dissertation: the bestselling guide to planning, preparing and presenting first-class work, 3^rd Edition, Available online via the University Library

You and Your Supervisor

Allocation of Supervisor

You will be allocated a supervisor for the duration of your MSc dissertation study. The supervisor’s role is to give advice and help on the nature and standard of the work required and direct you to useful literature and appropriate methodology. It is not feasible for your supervisor to re-draft your work and above all, you must have realistic expectations for the return of comments on your draft. With this in mind, timely requests for supervision meetings are your responsibility. Please bear in mind your supervisor will have other responsibilities. It is recommended that you set out in advance a number of key dates at the start of your supervision. These may be in line with your Gantt chart, or at various other intervals pertinent to your study.

Meeting with your supervisor

Supervisions are usually based on something written by you, so that the supervisor can give you feedback on your ideas and proposed methods. Remember your supervisor will need time to read it and prepare a response.

The impetus for arranging meetings rests with you rather than your supervisor. Remember that s/he can only guide your writing and advise you on areas that require improvement if he/she has seen the text. We advise very strongly that you send your supervisor sections of your document, with a note indicating stage of completion and draft contents, as soon as you complete them and the whole draft at least 6 weeks before the final submission date.

Please note that supervisors are not to be expected to proofread or correct spelling/grammar. Of course, most will advise on presentation and format but for further support for writing skills please refer to the Language Centre detailed on page 4 for access to bespoke help and guidance.

Dissertation Aims and Objectives

The dissertation enables students to demonstrate mastery of a potentially useful area of knowledge in the field of occupational hygiene or medicine. Through the successful design and completion of a dissertation, the student should be able to:

Develop powers of critical appraisal, analytical thinking and logical argument
Critically evaluate ideas and concepts in occupational health and explore other philosophical and practical approaches to minimising ill health in the workplace
Identify alternative solutions to an occupational hygiene/medicine problem and form an opinion on a chosen course of action
Develop, articulate, and sustain individual arguments related to occupational hygiene/medicine issues

By the end of the Dissertation, students should be able to:

Propose a coherent rational for a research question regarding a specific health and well-being issue relevant to Occupational Medicine or Occupational Hygiene
Evaluate a range of research methods to apply an appropriate method to their topic
Collect/use and appropriately analyse relevant data, information and evidence relating to the topic
Present research conclusions and make recommendations for relevant research and practice

You must remember that your dissertation forms part of a Master of Science programme. As such it will be assessed against the framework which is included as Appendix I: Examiner Report Form. You need to ensure that your dissertation, regardless of the approach taken, reflects the different areas in the assessment framework (of which some may need interpretation) and demonstrates your application and reflective thinking of theory and scientific knowledge to a particular research/occupational health or hygiene question.

The Master’s degree is awarded to students who have demonstrated:

A systematic understanding of knowledge, and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights, much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of their academic discipline, field of study or area of professional practice
Comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to their own research or advanced scholarship
Originality in the application of knowledge, together with a practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline
Conceptual understanding that enables the student:
to evaluate critically current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline
to evaluate methodologies and develop critiques of them
where appropriate, to propose new hypotheses

Typically, holders of the qualification will be able to:

Deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, make sound judgements in the absence of complete data, and communicate their conclusions clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences
Demonstrate self-direction and originality in tackling and solving problems, and act autonomously in planning and implementing tasks at a professional or equivalent level
Continue to advance their knowledge and understanding, and to develop new skills to a high level

And holders will have:

The qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring:
the exercise of initiative and personal responsibility
decision-making in complex and unpredictable situations
the independent learning ability required for continuing professional development

These objectives are in line with the UK quality code for higher education available from the Quality Assurance Agency website https://www.qaa.ac.uk/quality-code .

When must I finish?

All students have up to 12 months (September to September) to complete their dissertation once they have registered for the dissertation unit.

The date for submitting your completed dissertation is 12:00 noon (BST), 2 September 2024.

Types of Study Design

This section outlines some of what is required for the different dissertation options, intended as a guide or framework. Different research questions will present various challenges for the way in which the work is examined and reported.

You can currently choose from one of three different types of study design. These are empirical research report, adapted systematic review or research grant proposal. A description of each of these study designs is provided below.

Empirical Research Report

This option takes the format of a quantitative or qualitative research project. You may also choose to carry out a ‘mixed-methods’ study with both quantitative and qualitative elements.

Quantitative – analysis of numerical data. These data may not necessarily be numerical in origin, for example, ‘male and ‘female’ but would be converted to numerical forms for analysis (‘1’ = male and ‘2’ = female).
Qualitative – analysis (for example, to identify ‘themes’) of non-numeric information such as interview transcripts, notes, video and audio recordings, images and text documents.

An empirical research project provides an opportunity for students to work from a dataset to answer research questions. A more detailed guide on some potential sources of existing data/datasets is available in the list of resources in Dissertation Skills in Blackboard. Talk to your supervisor or Programme Director to discuss further. In all circumstances, you must have sufficient permission to access and use the data for the purposes of your dissertation. In some cases you will be asked to provide a formal letter of access from the person/organisation responsible for the data.

Sources of data are likely to include routine datasets / surveillance information, such as those accessed from the World Health Organisation (WHO) or national surveys such as the Health Survey for England. You might have access to more locally based sources of data, such as routine statistics from a health care provider. It is also possible to use data from an established research project with which you yourself might have been involved.

You might be collecting your own data as part of an exploration of a workplace issue. Where you are collecting raw data, you will have to justify your methods in your proposal and discuss in detail with your supervisor. You will need to follow the ethics procedures outlined in the Ethics Guide.

An empirical research report for the dissertation is likely to include the following sections, across a number of different chapters:

Introduction, Background & Critical Review of Existing Literature. This section will include a detailed critique of existing literature relating to the topic and bring in other information to highlight the case for the chosen topic. You will acknowledge and critique existing studies or data sources and explain the problems with these – in other words, why more research is needed. It is important to reflect on the implications of the proposed research in terms of future healthcare policy/planning or interventions and how it might benefit potential users of your findings.
Methods & Study Design. Here you will need to provide a detailed description of the methods of your data collection or those associated with the existing data set, including how the information was obtained, over what time period, using what methods, who was invited to participate and who actually took part. You will also need to be clear about the aims of the main data set/research project, AND of your specific aims that you are seeking to address in the dissertation. This will be followed by your proposal to answer those questions yourself using all or part of the dataset of choice. In a way, you might be performing a sub-study nested within a much broader and larger information/research project. At some point in your dissertation you will need to give attention to the integrity of the data, and how reliable it might be.
Analysis & Results. This will form a key part of your dissertation, along with the other sections. You will need to provide a detailed plan, and justification for your proposed methods of analysis. Before starting the analysis, you will need to familiarise yourself fully with the dataset and ensure that you understand the meaning of each variable. You will need to check that the data are free from errors and presented in a workable format for your dissertation. Do not underestimate the time involved in this ‘cleaning and preparation’ stage. In the analysis you will need to justify any deviances to your original plan and be clear about any assumptions that you make. In presenting your results, think about the most effective ways to present and communicate your findings. Remember that you want to capture key findings from the study in a clear and meaningful way; otherwise the reader will find it difficult to identify what you found. But don’t go overboard with the number of tables, charts and graphs. Stick to presenting what the reader needs to know to understand what you found in relation to your study objectives. A key skill is in knowing what and how much needs to be presented by way of analysis output and results.
Discussion and Conclusion sections. The discussion section is one of the most important parts of any dissertation. Here you will reflect on the relevance/importance of your research question, the quality of your research findings, and set these into the current context of existing knowledge. You can bring in some of the wider literature/evidence to develop arguments to highlight the internal and external generalisations or strengths and weaknesses of your research and show what value can be placed on your actual findings. It is important to discuss the value of the existing data source and to consider alternative / superior ways to answer your research question in future. In other words, what recommendations might arise from your work. It is not uncommon to find dissertations and academic papers finishing with the phrase “more research is required” – this obvious statement conveys little information to the reader about what you actually know about the subject. If questions remain unanswered then provide some direction in terms of how they might be answered.

Other sections are likely to include references, appendices etc.

Indicative references

Chapman, S & McNeill, P. (2003). Research Methods. London. Routledge.

Bowling, A. (2011). Research Methods in Health: investigating health and health services. Buckingham. Open University Press.

Bland M. (2000). An Introduction to Medical Statistics. Oxford. OUP.

Research Methods Knowledge Base Guidelines for Presenting Quantitative Data: https://www.hfes.org/Portals/0/Documents/HF1998GillanGuidelines.pdf

Adapted Systematic Review

The option of completing an adapted systematic review provides an opportunity for students to develop skills in systematically collating, assessing and summarising existing sources of evidence. The number of studies that could be included in the review can influence the amount of work involved. For the purposes of this dissertation, students can limit the number of studies in their review (see below) to ensure that the dissertation can be completed within the time/resources available. The review does not have to focus on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and other types of evidence can be used. Note that you are not expected to complete a meta-analysis for the dissertation though you can include one if appropriate.

Introduction/background: This is similar to that described above, where you are making a case for the rationale and justifying through critical review.
Study design/methods: You need to develop a suitable review methodology appropriate to your research question. There are reporting guidelines for systematic reviews (see PRISMA guidelines in bibliography below), which can help with identifying relevant information to include. The structure of the review is likely to include:
1. Clearly defined research question
2. Definition of intervention
3. Criteria for inclusion/exclusion of studies
4. Definition of study populations
5. Primary and secondary outcomes for the review
6. Methods of analysis/summarising data
7. Methods for assessing study quality
8. Search strategy & sources of literature/information
Results including:
1. Flow chart of search process/included & excluded studies
2. Summary of data extraction
3. Summary of included studies
4. Assessment of methodological quality
5. Summary of treatment effects
Discussion: this is likely to cover some of the areas/issues described in the proceeding dissertation option “Empirical Research Report”
Other sections are likely to include conclusion, references, appendices etc.

Dealing with too many or too few studies

Good quality search strategies for some research questions can identify hundreds, sometimes thousands of potentially eligible studies to be reviewed. Students are unlikely to have sufficient time (and do not have support from a second reviewer) to suitably deal with this. It is possible to limit the number of studies for the dissertation. This could be done for example, by limiting the years of publication in the search strategy, or only including UK studies (or for that matter non UK studies), or limiting studies by population such as just women, or by a specific age group. If you use one of these approaches then it needs to be clearly stated in the methods, results and discussion section.

In some cases, you might find less than a handful of potentially eligible studies for your review or none at all. This does not rule out conducting a systematic review for your dissertation though it can make it more challenging. You could still complete all of the sections outlined above until the results section. You could then explore possible strengths and weaknesses of your search strategy, or inclusion/exclusion criteria for example, before providing a more narrative review of some of the ‘weaker’ forms of evidence that did not pass your criteria. It is unlikely that nothing has been published on your research question at all. You could then conclude with recommendations about what research was needed, what form this might take, and why it was important. Students embarking on this approach should ensure they have regular discussions with their supervisor early in the dissertation process.

Bibliography

Akobeng, A.K. (2005) Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analysis, Arch.Dis.Child, vol. 90, no. 8, pp.845-848 [online].

CASP CHECKLISTS – CASP – Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (casp-uk.net)

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions http://www.cochrane.org/training/cochrane-handbook/

CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/Systematic_Reviews.pdf

Davies, M (2013) Study skills for international postgraduates, Palgrave Macmillan

Greenhalgh, T. (1997) Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses), BMJ, vol. 315, no. 7109, 672-675 [online]

Hall, GM (2013) How to write a paper, 5^th Edition. Online course via University of Manchester Library

PRISMA – TRANSPARENT REPORTING of SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS and META-ANALYSES (prisma-statement.org)

Rudestam, KE and Newton, RR (2015) Surviving your dissertation: a comprehensive guide to content and process, 4^th Edition available online via the University Library

Swetnam and Swetnam (2000) Writing your dissertation: the bestselling guide to planning, preparing and presenting first-class work, 3^rd Edition, Available online via the University Library

Research Grant Proposal

This option is likely to appeal to students who have identified the need for a particular area of research or those keen to develop a research project after completing their MSc. It will also be helpful for students looking to start a more research intense course of study in the future. The research grant proposal dissertation option will reflect some of the main sections of a research grant proposal, such as that used by the Medical Research Council (MRC) or the Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC).

The dissertation for this option is likely to consist of three broad sections, broken down into individual chapters.

1. Case for support .This section needs to show:

Why does this particular research need to be done?
Why should resources be dedicated to this topic and what gaps in knowledge does the research seek to address?
How might it lead to an improvement in a particular setting/context/population?

You will clearly formulate the problem, setting it in context of scientific and/or theoretical debates. You need to show how it is relevant to trying to improve the health of a particular group of workers. This section will include a detailed critique of existing literature relating to the topic and bring in other information to highlight the case for support. You will acknowledge and critique existing studies or data sources and explain the problems with these – in other words, why more research is needed. It is important to reflect on the implications of the proposed research in terms of future healthcare policy/planning or interventions and how it might benefit potential users of your findings. Thus you could include at some point in the dissertation a clear dissemination policy of your findings.

2. Research/study methods

The detailed study design must be directly related to your stated primary and secondary objectives and capable of answering the proposed research question. Whilst you are not asked to go on and do the actual study, the proposal must be related to current circumstances and existing evidence – it must be a study design that could actually be carried out in practice. You will give a clear rational for the particular elements of the research project, using appropriate references to support specific parts of your study design. For example, your methods of sampling (if relevant) and evidence to support the sample size for the project need to be clearly justified. Similarly you need to justify your choice of data collection methods/measurement tools, and what can be expected in terms of response rates. Part of the study design will include an analysis plan of your collected data. It is not sufficient to just say that “methods suitable for continuous data will be used” for example – you need to give a detailed plan and again support your methods. A section on resources/costings is required. Here you need to provide information on the direct costs to carry out the research project. For example, how many research assistants will interview people and how much will it cost to employ them? This section must be realistic, set in a particular context/country and where possible, supported with evidence. This will coincide with a detailed time plan which can be helpful to present as a Gantt chart.

All research needs to follow accepted ethical principles such as the Declaration of Helsinki and research governance. Whilst these may vary across different countries, remember that your final postgraduate award (if successful) is from the University of Manchester – as such you would be expected to show your understanding and application of research ethics and governance expected from research conducted in the United Kingdom and apply this as appropriate to your own setting. This will include an assessment of risks to different stakeholders and how you have tried to minimise any risks, including contingency plans, in your research design.

3. Discussion

Here you need to reflect on the relevance/importance of your research question and of your proposed research design. This can bring in some of the wider literature/evidence to develop arguments to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of your proposed research. You can discuss and reflect on some aspects of the study design, including a critique of your methods, and show how you have tried to use rigorous methods for your research that reflect the body of existing knowledge in that area. Research rarely goes to plan and you can show how you have considered some of the potential difficulties in completing the research and how you have tried to overcome these in your proposal (perhaps through contingency plans). Whilst you will not have any actual findings to discuss, you can postulate what these might be and the implications of a positive or null-finding from your research in terms of service delivery/health policy for example.

4. Other sections are likely to include references, appendices etc.

Bibliography

Chapman, S & Mcneill, P. (2003). Research Methods. London. Routledge.

Bowling, A. (2011). Research Methods in Health: investigating health and health services. Buckingham. Open University Press.

Crosby R. DiClemente RJ & Salazar LF. (2006). Research Methods in Health Promotion. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.

Ulin, P, Robinson ET & Tolley EE. (2004). Qualitative Methods in Public Health: A Field Guide for Applied Research. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.

Links: How to Write a Research Proposal Medical Research Council – guidance on grant applications The Economic & Social Research Council How to Write a Research Proposal: http://ielcass.tripod.com/proposalwriting.pdf

Ethics Decision Tool & Ethical Approval

Please refer to the ‘Ethical Approval Guide September 2023/24’ in the Dissertation Information area in the Programme Community space on Blackboard and in the Dissertation Unit area on Blackboard.

Possible Problems and How to Avoid Them

Time management

The dissertation is a period of independent study, and you will be responsible for managing your own time. Time management is a key skill required to successfully complete the dissertation. You will need to reflect on your own work-life balance and commitments over the academic year and consider these as part of your planning. We encourage you to develop and discuss a Gantt chart or other method of time management planning with your supervisor and to regularly refer to it throughout the year. Some students find it helpful to share their planning with members of their family, friends or manager and to consider when they will be taking holidays, for example.

Careful advance planning pays dividends in the success of any research, and particularly so when you are liaising with your employer. Your GANTT chart can be flexible as long as it is regularly reviewed. You should also give careful consideration to the following points:

What particular scientific question am I hoping to answer?
What benefits might my employer (if relevant) gain from supporting my research?
Might it lead to any unwelcome findings detrimental to the company?
Are there any foreseeable industrial relations implications/problems?
Who will pay the costs of research? (Note that these are not the same as the course fees and research fees can mount up):
Depending upon the type of project, project costs can be supported up to a specific amount determined by the Faculty. Your Programme Director or Supervisor can provide more information.

Remember: Your research should be small scale but high quality and make a (modest) contribution to scientific knowledge. Be realistic – do not expect to answer fundamental questions about the universe!

If you experience problems with your research project contact your supervisor as soon as possible. S/he may either be able to suggest ways of overcoming problems or advise on alternative arrangements.

Even if all goes smoothly with your research you are likely to hit the “why am I doing this – is it all worth it” phase at some point. Don’t give up! Persevere – if you need encouragement to bolster signs of flagging motivation, contact us; a friendly voice sometimes helps enormously in overcoming the feeling of isolation which is often the root cause of such feelings. The longer your research and writing up takes, the more likely you are to become disheartened. This is one of the main reasons we encourage you to get on with your dissertation and submit it as early as possible.

Here is a suggested framework to help you plan your own milestones for the dissertation unit. If you start later in the academic year then you will have less time for the milestones outlined below.

Milestone
1. Background reading/idea generation/proposal discussion	Pre-dissertation year
2. Study ideas/proposal will be approved (usually at the first or second attempt), including time plan	September – October
3. Detailed study proposal	October – November
4. Literature review & critical appraisal of methods and materials	December
5. Data collection	January – April
6. Write up methods	January – May
7. Analysis/synthesis	May- July
8. Discussion & conclusion	July – August
9. Final changes	August
10. Submit Dissertation for marking	September

The plan above is an example and you may decide to start work on your dissertation later in the year. However, starting early means you have more time to study.

Please do not overlook the amount of time it can take to proof read and submit your dissertation.

Other things to consider

It takes time for your dissertation proposal to be reviewed by the academic team, for comments to be sent out and for you to make any necessary changes
It is important that you let your supervisor know when you are planning to take your holidays, and similarly, to ask your supervisor when they may be having time away (keep in mind that in the UK, July and August are a popular time for people to take their holidays – therefore you cannot expect your supervisor to be available just because your submission date is approaching)
You need to follow the information in the sections above to check that you do or do not require ethical and other regulatory approval. If you do, then you must account for this in the planning stages of your dissertation – it takes at least several weeks from submitting your application to receiving the decision
Changes in your working or home life might put pressures on your time at certain periods in the year

If there are any exceptional factors affecting your studies and progress, please notify your supervisor, programme director or the programme administrators at the earliest opportunity. Please refer to Mitigating Circumstances section below.

Academic and Administrative Procedures

Attendance and Student Engagement Monitoring

The following guidance outlines the requirements of the School in relation to the monitoring of attendance and engagement for part-time PGT students during the research component of a Master’s level degree. This is in accordance with the University’s expectations in monitoring attendance (Regulation XX – Monitoring Attendance and Wellbeing of Students).

Full and part-time PGT students are required to maintain regular contact with their dissertation supervisor throughout their degree
The School’s expectation is that there is a minimum of one contact point per month. This can be via email, telephone, Teams/Zoom, face-to-face etc.
The attendance/engagement of PGT students must be recorded by the supervisor
The Programme Administrator will request confirmation from the supervisor on a monthly basis that the PGT student has adhered to the required attendance/engagement points
Where a student fails to attend/engage on two consecutive months or where a pattern of non-attendance/engagement becomes apparent it is the supervisor’s responsibility to notify the Programme Admin team immediately
Where students are identified as meeting one of the above trigger points, the process as outlined in section 4 of the University’s ‘Policy on Recording and Monitoring Attendance’ will be employed.

The University offers a range of advice and support to students experiencing problems with attendance. Further information is available at Student Support http://www.studentsupport.manchester.ac.uk/. You can also speak to your Programme Director and/or one of the Student Support Tutors and Programme Administrators.

Mitigating Circumstances

Mitigation describes the process by which a student may be compensated for poor assessment performance, or when they are not able to complete an exam/assessment, as a consequence of unforeseen or unpreventable circumstances. Mitigation can be submitted for exams/assessments that have been completed but have been adversely affected, or for exams/assessments a student has been unable to complete.

A student must submit a request for mitigation to the Programme Admin team, in advance of their assessment submission deadline or exam, together with supporting 3^rd party evidence. Your Programme Admin team will provide you with the Mitigating Circumstances form to complete.

Retrospective mitigation requests will only be considered, if presented at least 2 weeks prior to the exam board and there are compelling reasons as to why the circumstances could not be made known or presented prior to the assessment submission deadline/exam.

Any requests for mitigation will be considered confidentially by a mitigating circumstances panel. This will include a nominated School contact and will meet the quorum guidelines of the University regulations. Where a request for mitigation is supported, a recommendation will be made to the exam board for them to decide on the best course of action for the student.

Students are also advised to consult the ‘A Basic Guide to Mitigating Circumstances’, which directs them to seek advice and support before and whilst submitting a request for mitigation.

Interruption and Extension to Submit Dissertation

It is the expectation of the University that postgraduate taught students pursue their studies on a continuous basis for the stipulated duration of their programme. However, it is recognised that students may encounter personal difficulties or situations which may seriously disrupt or delay their studies. In some cases, an interruption or extension to your programme of study may be the most sensible option.

Students who wish to interrupt the programme or extend the dissertation deadline should discuss their plans and reasons with the Programme Director or Dissertation Supervisor (if requesting and extension) in the first instance.

Please contact the Programme Admin team to obtain the relevant form for completion. Once completed, return your form and relevant documentary evidence, for example: doctor’s letter, sick note, supporting statement from dissertation supervisor, etc., for School consideration.

Academic Malpractice

Academic malpractice is any activity – intentional or otherwise – that is likely to undermine the integrity essential to scholarship and research. It includes plagiarism, collusion, fabrication or falsification of results, and anything else that could result in unearned or undeserved credit for those committing it. Academic malpractice can result from a deliberate act of cheating or may be committed unintentionally. Whether intended or not, all incidents of academic malpractice will be treated seriously by the University.

The procedures and penalties for dealing with academic malpractice are covered by the same regulation as apply to Conduct and Discipline of Students (Regulation XVII).

You are responsible for ensuring that you understand what academic malpractice is, and how to avoid committing it. If you are unsure, ask your supervisor or programme director.

Guidance for students on plagiarism and other forms of academic malpractice can be found here.

The University Library also has an interactive presentation on Avoiding Plagiarism.

All typed summative assessments (including dissertations) should be submitted online and be subject to plagiarism detection software.

The University uses electronic systems for the purposes of detecting plagiarism and other forms of academic malpractice and for marking. Such systems include Turnitin, the plagiarism detection service used by the University.

Turnitin is an online ‘text matching’ system for marking your assessments which provides both you and your tutor with verification that the work is original. It checks for unoriginal content by comparing your work with a wide variety of resources. The system helps tutors assess the quality of your work. There are two reasons for this; to identify content from other sources, which you pass off as your own, and whether poor academic writing means that your work cannot meet the intended learning outcomes.

Be aware of cutting and pasting sections into your work without citation. This would be plagiarism. Large sections of cut and paste work with a citation is considered poor academic writing and is likely to fail. This also applies to the reproduction of module and unit notes/handouts in your assignment.

There are several reasons why students might plagiarise:

Poor time management, leaving completion to the very last minute
Issues with managing workload
Lack of understanding of the task
Doing whatever it takes to pass, without learning the material
Using only course materials and not undertaking additional reading on the topic

The system can be useful for improving academic writing as it uses a similarity score – or ‘simscore’- to ‘count’ the unoriginal work in the text. For example, frequent, yet referenced, colour coded sections, would be indicative of a poor writing style. Some students may have a high similarity score or index but have used few direct quotes with correct citations and instead included extensive references in the text to support their own written word. This would be considered good practice. We look into the scores carefully to understand how the piece is constructed.

It is important to remember that the work you are submitting must be a fully referenced representation of your knowledge and understanding of the assessment task.

As part of the formative and/or summative assessment process, you may be asked to submit electronic versions of your work to Turnitin and/or other electronic systems used by the University (this requirement may be in addition to a requirement to submit a paper copy of your work). If you are asked to do this, you must do so within the required timescales.

The School also reserves the right to submit work handed in by you for formative or summative assessment to Turnitin and/or other electronic systems used by the University. Please note that when work is submitted to the relevant electronic systems, it may be copied and then stored in a database to allow appropriate checks to be made.

Prior to submitting your final dissertation through Turnitin in Blackboard, you are strongly advised NOT to ask friends/colleagues to submit any draft work through Turnitin at another institution because this will be added to Turnitin’s repository and generate an Originality Report.

If draft work has been submitted to Turnitin at another institution and you subsequently submit your final dissertation, your final dissertation will be matched to draft work previously submitted which could flag potential academic malpractice and would be investigated.

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

We urge students to be cautious when using a chatbot or AI tool within their learning. Chatbots and AI tools can be useful, but there are a number of risks associated with using them. Please ensure that you are aware of what is permissible use of AI for each assignment. You can utilise AI to generate ideas, key themes, and plan your assessment but not to write your assessment. Do not use AI to generate text, or partial text for use in your assessment unless the assignment brief explicitly states that this is permitted, otherwise use will be deemed academic malpractice. This is academic malpractice because the words and ideas generated are not your own and not an accurate reflection of your learning. Further to this, the words and ideas generated by the chatbot or AI tool may make use of other, human authors’ ideas without referencing them, which is plagiarism. Where a chatbot or other form of AI has been used, make sure you acknowledge that use. Information on how to cite can be found here: https://manchester-uk.libanswers.com/teaching-and-learning/faq/264824 Some units, for example those on AI and technology, permit the use of AI. However, they require you to sign a code of conduct which must be adhered to. Make sure you understand and follow these codes. If you are unclear on what is permissible, speak to the unit lead.

Word Count

It is acceptable, without penalty, for you to submit an assessment within a range that is plus 10% of the word limit. If you present an assessment with a word count exceeding the specified limit +10%, the assessment will be marked but 1% will be deducted from this mark for every 100 words over the limit given.

For an original word limit that is 1000 words and an assignment that is marked out of 100. If a submission is made that is 1101 words then it exceeded the 10% leeway, and is more than 100 words over the original limit and should receive a 1 mark deduction.

In accordance with accepted academic practice, when submitting any written summative assessment, the notion of a word count includes the following without exception:

All titles or headings that form part of the actual text. This does not include the fly page or reference list
All words that form the actual essay
All words forming the titles for figures, tables and boxes, are included but this does not include boxes or tables or figures themselves
All in-text (that is bracketed) references
All directly quoted material

For more information, please refer to Appendix II: Word Count Guide.

Important: The word count for the dissertation is 10,000 to 15,000 words. However, in some special circumstances, it may be appropriate to exceed the upper limit. However, please consult with your supervisor prior to submission if this is acceptable. If you don’t agree this with your supervisor before submission, and you present your dissertation with a word limit substantially exceeding the upper banding, then your dissertation will be marked but 1% will be deducted from the mark for every 100 words over the limit given.

Presentation, Submission and Marking

Presentation of your Dissertation

The University requires dissertations to be presented in a standard way. This is an important academic and professional skill for you to develop. It also facilitates the marking process and students can lose valuable marks if their presentation is poor. Looking at examples of previous dissertations available to you in Blackboard, and at published academic papers and reviews can give you better insight into this. Examiners will also look at the way in which you present your references. On this programme, we prefer references to be presented in the Harvard format. However, Vancouver is also acceptable.

Guidance on writing your dissertation is available throughout the year, using this document, during the dissertation days, and with your supervisor. However, prior to submitting your work you should refer to the University’s Guidance for the Presentation of Taught Dissertations.

All dissertations are to be written in English, although quotations may be given in the language in which they were written.

As per the University’s Guidance for the Presentation of Taught Dissertations, the final word limit must be included at the bottom of the contents page.

Submitting your Dissertation

Dissertations must be submitted electronically to Blackboard and are subject to the University’s plagiarism detection software (Turnitin). Students can produce bound versions for their own purposes if they prefer.

The University of Manchester Library is an agent for the commercial online binding service called Hollingworth and Moss Ltd. Other companies are available and some will print, bind and post the dissertation on your behalf. The University is not responsible for any aspects of printing, binding and submitting your dissertation, nor any costs incurred.

You must submit your dissertation on or before the submission deadline: 12 noon (BST), Monday 2 September 2024.

You are strongly advised to ensure your work has been submitted at least 3 hours before the deadline. This will allow for any technical difficulties you might encounter. Such difficulties cannot be relied upon as mitigating circumstances in the event that your work is submitted after the deadline.

Dissertation submission links

There are 2 submission links available in the Dissertation Submission area in Blackboard:

DRAFT Dissertation and FINAL Dissertation.

You have the opportunity to make DRAFT submissions. These submissions are not marked, but allow you to view a Turnitin Similarity Report only. We strongly suggest that you complete the Turnitin Guide Overview to help you interpret and download the Turnitin report generated from your DRAFT submission. This is to help you check the originality of your work and to improve your academic writing and referencing techniques.

Once you are happy that you have been able to update your work following receipt of your DRAFT Turnitin Report and in consultation with your supervisor, you must submit your finalised version to a FINAL Dissertation link. We advise you to do this well before the deadlines to avoid late or missed submission.

How to submit your dissertation

Once logged into the POPH69000 Dissertation for Occupational Medicine & Occupational Hygiene 2022-23 unit in Blackboard, navigate to Dissertation Submission area from the left-hand menu.

If you are submitting a draft dissertation then click on the View/Complete link within the DRAFT Dissertation area:

If you are submitting your final dissertation then you MUST ensure that you have read the Final Submission Checklist and Declaration and clicked the Marked Review button to release the FINAL Dissertation link:

Select your name from the drop down ‘Author’ list and enter your dissertation title in the ‘Submission title’ box:

NB. Ensure your student ID number is included within the Submission title

Click on one of the location options to select your dissertation file to upload and click Upload:

NB. Ensure your dissertation is a Word document or PDF.

You will see a progress window showing your submission uploading:

Once the upload has completed, the confirm button will become enabled. Make sure you click on CONFIRM to complete the submission process:

You will receive a digital receipt via email and see the following message:

Once submitted no changes/resubmission can be made. Please ensure that you inform your supervisor once you have submitted, by forwarding the digital receipt email. This submission will be marked and graded in 30 working days from the due date or from the submission date if submitted late.

Late Submission Policy

Work submitted after the deadline without prior approval will be subject to a late penalty in accordance with the University Policy on Submission of Work for Summative Assessment on Taught Programmes. The penalty applied is 10% of available marks deducted per day/24 hours (from the time of the original or extended deadline), until the assignment is submitted or no marks remain.

Penalties for late submission relate to 24 hours/calendar days, so include weekends and weekdays, as well as bank holidays and University closure days.

The mark awarded for the piece of work will be reduced by:

10% of the available marks deducted if up to 24 hours (1 day) late
20% of the available marks deducted if up to 48 hours (2 days) late
30% of the available marks deducted if up to 72 hours (3 days) late
40% of the available marks deducted if up to 96 hours (4 days) late
50% of the available marks deducted if up to 120 hours (5 days) late
60% of the available marks deducted if up to 144 hours (6 days) late
70% of the available marks deducted if up to 168 hours (7 days) late
80% of the available marks deducted if up to 192 hours (8 days) late
90% of the available marks deducted if up to 216 hours (9 days) late
100% of the available marks deducted if up to 240 hours (10 days) late

If the assessment is submitted within 10 days of the deadline the assessment should be marked and feedback to the student provided. If this mark before the penalty is applied reaches the appropriate pass mark but the applied penalty results in a fail of the assessment, the student should not be required to resit the assessment as the original mark can be taken as the resit mark but the result will be capped at the pass mark. Further information and examples can be found in the Policy and associated Guidance documents.

For work submitted more than 10 days late, it is regarded as a non-submission and need not be marked. In this case a mark of zero will be awarded and normal resit regulations will apply. A resit for the Dissertation Unit is a resubmission of the original work, having satisfied the guidance for corrections and improvements. Students who are referred in the Dissertation receive feedback on how to pass the resubmission.

The sliding scale should only be applied to first-sit submissions. For all referred (resit) assessments, any late submission will automatically receive a mark of zero.

For further information please see Guidance on Late Submission.

Marking of the Dissertation

Your dissertation will be marked by two examiners, who will make an independent judgement of the suitability of your work for the award of MSc.

The marking turnaround time for releasing provisional mark and feedback (internal marking process) is 30 working days from the due date or submission date if submitted late. However, the whole marking process, including external examiner moderation and exam board ratification, usually takes up to 12 weeks.

As per the University’s Guidance on External Examiner Procedures, the Programme External Examiner will have the responsibility for the moderation of a sample of all dissertations, as set out in the University’s Policy on Marking.

Postgraduate Taught degrees at the University of Manchester are based on the UK Quality Code for Higher Education. This framework requires students to achieve credit at Master’s level in order to get an award. For a standard postgraduate taught Master’s programme this will normally mean achieving >50% in 180 credits, with an award determined by one of the grade bands detailed in section 10 ‘Marking Criteria’. Please refer to your programme handbook for further information about postgraduate taught degree regulations, with regard to the taught part of your programme. This should be read in conjunction with the applicable university policies and guidance.

All dissertation marks are agreed and (if submitted in September) finalised at the November Examination Board. Please refer to Appendix I: Examiner Report Form for the marking scheme (at the end of this document). When writing your dissertation, you need to ensure that you pay attention to particular aspects relating to this marking scheme. Whilst this is a generic scheme, it provides an overview of the key areas that markers will be looking for in your dissertation, and the level of understanding you need to demonstrate for a particular grade.

MFOM

MSc Occupational Medicine students ONLY: Once the Examination Board has awarded your MSC, you can submit your MSc dissertation for the award of MFOM. Please refer to the details at the FOM website.

References and Hyperlinks

Akobeng, A.K. (2005) Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analysis, Arch.Dis.Child, vol. 90, no. 8, pp.845-848 [online]

Bland M. (2000). An Introduction to Medical Statistics. Oxford. OUP

Bowling, A. (2011). Research Methods in Health: investigating health and health services. Buckingham. Open University Press

Chapman, S & McNeill, P. (2003). Research Methods. London. Routledge.

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions https://training.cochrane.org/handbook Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.

CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/Systematic_Reviews.pdf

Davies, M (2013) Study skills for international postgraduates, Palgrave Macmillan

Greenhalgh, T. (1997) Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses), BMJ, vol. 315, no. 7109, 672-675 [online]

Hall, GM (2013) How to write a paper, 5^th Edition. Online course via University of Manchester Library

Research Methods Knowledge Base Guidelines for Presenting Quantitative Data. https://www.hfes.org/Portals/0/Documents/HF1998GillanGuidelines.pdf

Rudestam, KE and Newton, RR (2015) Surviving your dissertation: a comprehensive guide to content and process, 4th Edition available online via the University Library

Swetnam and Swetnam (2000) Writing your dissertation: the bestselling guide to planning, preparing and presenting first-class work, 3rd Edition, Available online via the University Library

University of Manchester Presentation of Dissertations Policy http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=2863

Policy on Submission of Work for Summative Assessment on Taught Programmes http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=24561

Policy on Marking

University Library interactive presentation on Avoiding Plagiarism

Appendices: Examiner Report Forms (subject to changes)

Details for the Examiners for the degree of	Choose an item.
Programme Director	Choose an item.
Student Name
Student ID
Research based dissertation type	☐ Empirical Study
	☐ Adapted Systematic Literature Review
	☐ Research Grant Proposal
Title of Dissertation

The University and the student reserve the copyright and all other intellectual property rights in both the Dissertation and the data which it contains. The contents of the Dissertation and the data are proprietary, and must be held strictly in confidence. No copies may be taken, and no disclosure of the contents may be made without (in each case) the prior written permission of the University.

Examiner Report Form

The Master’s degree is awarded on the basis of coursework and/or examinations plus a dissertation.

The examination system requires independent examination of the dissertation by two examiners, one of whom will be the supervisor. Following completion of the form, the examiners should confer to agree a final mark (see Guidance Notes).

There MUST be a seamless link between your written comments AND your mark. Please expand to ensure each section has supportive feedback.

The dissertation should be given a percentage mark according to the above marking scheme. Examiners who consider that the dissertation has passed at distinction (>70%), or merit level, should indicate this clearly.

NOTE: Under the terms of the Data protection Act, effective from 1st March 2000, all sections of this report will be made available to the candidate.

Please ensure that the comments on the written feedback form are in line with the actual marks given.

Examiner No. 1 Feedback

The examiners are required to give feedback to the student on the following aspects of the dissertation. Please expand to ensure each section has supportive feedback.

The extent to which the project reported on within the dissertation is based upon a clearly formulated problem/research question and sound rationale informed by a critical understanding of relevant existing evidence/knowledge base.

The clarity, depth and repeatability of methods of the study/review (including detail re: ethical/regulatory issues).

The clarity of key study/review findings and reporting of any statistical tests and or narrative/qualitative synthesis.

The depth of discussion including summary of key findings, critical appraisal of study/review reported upon in the dissertation, degree of self-reflection and implications for practice, policy and/or research.

In addition, please give further detail regarding the strengths of the dissertation providing encouragement and guidance for any future academic study, submission for publication and so on.

Examiner No.1 Marks

	Mark	Weighting	Weighted Mark*
Introduction/Literature Review		15%	0.0
Case for the study/Hypothesis/Aims/Objectives		15%	0.0
Design of study or Methods (only a grant proposal would have costings in it)		20%	0.0
Results (this section is omitted for the Research Grant Proposal, with the 20% distributed evenly for Design of study and Discussion)		20%	0.0
Design of study or Methods (if Results section is omitted)		30%	0.0
Discussion		20%	0.0
Discussion (if results section is omitted)		30%	0.0
Presentation		10%	0.0
Total Weighted Mark %			0.0

*Please ensure that you right click on 0.0 and choose ‘update field’ in each relevant section and the total weighted mark

Examiner No.1 Name:
Examiner No.1 Signature:
Examiner No.1 Date:

Examiner No. 2 Feedback

The examiners are required to give feedback to the student on the following aspects of the dissertation. Please expand to ensure each section has supportive feedback.

The extent to which the project reported on within the dissertation is based upon a clearly formulated problem/research question and sound rationale informed by a critical understanding of relevant existing evidence/knowledge base.

The clarity, depth and repeatability of methods of the study/review (including detail re: ethical/regulatory issues).

The clarity of key study/review findings and reporting of any statistical tests and or narrative/qualitative synthesis.

The depth of discussion including summary of key findings, critical appraisal of study/review reported upon in the dissertation, degree of self-reflection and implications for practice, policy and/or research.

In addition, please give further detail regarding the strengths of the dissertation providing encouragement and guidance for any future academic study, submission for publication and so on.

Examiner No.2 Marks

	Mark	Weighting	Weighted Mark*
Introduction/Literature Review		15%	0.0
Case for the study/Hypothesis/Aims/Objectives		15%	0.0
Design of study or Methods (only a grant proposal would have costings in it)		20%	0.0
Results (this section is omitted for the Research Grant Proposal, with the 20% distributed evenly for Design of study and Discussion)		20%	0.0
Design of study or Methods (if Results section is omitted)		30%	0.0
Discussion		20%	0.0
Discussion (if results section is omitted)		30%	0.0
Presentation		10%	0.0
Total Weighted Mark %			0.0

*Please ensure that you right click on 0.0 and choose ‘update field’ in each relevant section and the total weighted mark

Examiner No.2 Name:
Examiner No.2 Signature:
Examiner No.2 Date:

Final Agreed Mark (subject to Exam Board Ratification)

Total Agreed Mark %

Examiner Resolution of Discrepancy Comments

(please provide detail about how differences in marks were resolved between examiners, where there was a greater than 5% difference between the marks)

Comments/show how resolved:
Date of Discussion:
	Yes	No
Confirmation if 3^rd Examiner is required to adjudicate between examiner 1 and 2 (marks > 5% difference)	☐	☐

Examiner No. 3 Resolution of Discrepancy (ONLY to be completed if ‘Yes’ is marked in box above)

Examiner No.3 Name:
Examiner No.3 Signature:
Examiner No.3 Date:

Guidance notes and marking scheme

Mark the dissertation giving a separate percentage mark under each category marked on the report form, using the marking scheme provided. Note that separate descriptors are given for dissertation content and presentation.
Calculate the weighted total for each category and indicate this in the relevant box at the bottom of the form. Sum the weighted totals to give a final percentage mark.
Presentation – although the marking scheme refers to work that requires correction, such corrections will only be required if the dissertation is referred. Thus if a dissertation fails on the presentation element, but obtains a pass mark overall, the student will not be required to submit a corrected dissertation. However, in such cases where the student chooses to make the corrections, the original mark will not be altered.
Comment on the dissertation under each category 1 to 5 in the feedback section. Note that the whole of the dissertation examiner report is made available to the student.
On completion of the form confer with the other examiner:
Where there is a relatively small difference (i.e. <=5%), the agreed mark is reached by taking the mean of the two marks.
In cases where the difference between the two markers is <=5% but one marker has awarded a pass and the other awarded a fail, then the final mark is agreed through discussion and negotiation.
Where differences are greater than 5% and in particular when they straddle critical boundaries, markers should endeavour to come to an agreed mark through discussion and negotiation.
Where agreement cannot be reached, a third internal marker, will examine the work (including the original examiners’ reports, comments and marks) and award the mark.
The Chair of the Examination Board (or nominee) will have responsibility for the appointment of a third marker. In such cases, the third marker’s decision is final.
All work where this occurs will be sent to the external examiner with an explanation of the original discrepancy between markers, the process that has been followed and the final mark awarded. The external examiner will be asked to particularly comment on any such pieces of work. In all cases of assessment feedback, students will be given one agreed mark only.
Fail (2016 PGT Regulations) – students may be referred for any marks achieved between 49-30%. Students achieving a mark below 30% for their dissertation are not permitted to resubmit and will be given an exit award.
Fail (2012 Regulations) – students may be referred for any marks achieved below 50%.
Referral – A candidate who is referred may be given the opportunity to resubmit their dissertation within 6 months. The reasons for referral may be investigated by Faculty. In the case of referrals, assurances will be required that supervisory support is available to enable the student to attempt a revised dissertation.

N.B. When examiners recommend a referral, they must provide a statement (in addition to the report) which can be sent to the candidate. This statement should indicate quite clearly, what revisions are required to be made to the dissertation.

The following table gives a breakdown of the standard required to achieve a grade within a particular marking band:

Mark	Explanation
90-100%	Exceptional (allows award of distinction): Exceptional work, nearly or wholly faultless for that expected at Master’s level. Perfect presentation.
80-89%	Outstanding (allows award of distinction): Work of outstanding quality throughout. Excellent presentation.
70-79%	Excellent (allows award of distinction): Work of very high to excellent quality showing originality, high accuracy, thorough understanding, critical appraisal. Shows a wide and thorough understanding of the material studied and the relevant literature and the ability to apply the theory and methods learned to solve unfamiliar problems. Very good presentation.
60-69%	Good Pass (allows award of merit): Work of good to high quality showing evidence of understanding of the research topic, good accuracy, good structure and relevant conclusions. Shows a good knowledge of the material studied and the relevant literature and some ability to tackle unfamiliar problems. Good presentation.
50-59%	Pass: Work shows a clear grasp of relevant facts and issues and reveals an attempt to create a coherent whole. It comprises reasonably clear and attainable objectives, adequate literature review and some originality. Presentation is acceptable, minor errors allowed.
40-49%	Referral: Work shows a satisfactory understanding of the research topic and basic knowledge of the relevant literature but with little or no originality and limited accuracy. Shows clear but limited objectives, and does not always reach a conclusion. Presentation adequate but could be improved.
30-39%	Referral: Work shows some understanding of the main elements of the research topic and some knowledge of the relevant literature. Shows a limited level of accuracy with little analysis of data or attempt to discuss its significance. Presentation poor.
	Students starting their programme:
	From September 2012	From September 2016
20-29%	Referral: Limited relevant material presented. Little understanding of research topic. Unclear or unsubstantiated arguments with very poor accuracy and understanding. Presentation unacceptable.	Fail with no opportunity to resubmit: Limited relevant material presented. Little understanding of research topic. Unclear or unsubstantiated arguments with very poor accuracy and understanding. Presentation unacceptable.
10-19%	Referral: Limited understanding of the research process. The topic is largely without evidence to support its exploration for research and the arguments are supported by poor sources of evidence. The dissertation is disjointed and does not demonstrate logical coherent thinking with unacceptable presentation.	Fail with no opportunity to resubmit: Limited understanding of the research process. The topic is largely without evidence to support its exploration for research and the arguments are supported by poor sources of evidence. The dissertation is disjointed and does not demonstrate logical coherent thinking with unacceptable presentation.
0-9%	Referral: The text demonstrates no understanding of the research process. The topic is totally inappropriate and there is no evidence to support its exploration as an area of interest for research. Presentation is extremely poor and is not in an appropriate format for submission as a Master’s dissertation. The topic would need to be reconstructed and totally rewritten if it were to be presented for resubmission.	Fail with no opportunity to resubmit: The text demonstrates no understanding of the research process. The topic is totally inappropriate and there is no evidence to support its exploration as an area of interest for research. Presentation is extremely poor and is not in an appropriate format for submission as a Master’s dissertation. The topic would need to be reconstructed and totally rewritten if it were to be presented for resubmission.

Appendix II: Word Count Guide

What is and what is not included in the word count:

Title page	No
Contents	No
List of tables, figures	No
Glossary of Terms	No
Page numbers	No
Abstract	No
Declaration	No
Intellectual Property	No
Acknowledgements	No
Introduction	Yes
Background, Critical Review of Existing Literature	Yes
Aims	Yes
Methods	Yes
Results	Yes
Discussion	Yes
Conclusions	Yes
Recommendations	Yes
Citations in the main text	Yes
Directly quoted material in the main text	Yes
List of References	No
Appendices	No
Tables and Figures	The titles, footnotes and citations for Tables and Figures are included but the actual text within them is not