Faculty of Economics and Management

Approved under Decision of the Council of the Faculty of Economics and Management on 17 June 2015 (proceedings No. T-07/2015)

ALEKSANDRAS STULGINSKIS UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT DESCRIPTION OF REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR PREPARATION AND DEFENCE OF FINAL WORKS OF THE FIRST CYCLE (BACHELOR'S) STUDY PROGRAMMES

1. Purpose and Aim of the Description 1.1. Description of the regulations and procedures for preparation and defence of final works of the first (bachelor's) cycle study programmes at the Faculty of Economics and Management (hereinafter - the Faculty) of Aleksandras Stulginskis University (hereinafter - the Description) lays down the main requirements to students of the first cycle study programmes and other participants of the process of preparation and defence of final works: supervisors, reviewers, directors of Institutes, Faculty administration, and defines the procedures to be followed by all participants of the process. 1.2. The aim of the Description is to improve the quality of preparation and defence of the first (bachelor's) cycle final works by establishing systematic requirements to the process and associating them with the expected learning outcomes. 1.3. The Description has been developed according to the Law on Higher Education and Research of the Republic of Lithuania (Official Gazette, 2009, No. 54-2140), Description of General Requirements on First Cycle and Integrated Degree Study Programmes (approved by the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania, 9 April 2010, No. V-501), Statute of the University, Quality Handbook of the University (approved by Rector's order No. 246-KB on 31 August 2012); Description of the System of Internal Assurance of Study Quality (approved at the session of the University Senate on 18 June 2012, proceedings No. 521), Regulations of the Faculty of Economics and Management (approved at the session of ASU Senate on 1 March 2013, proceedings No. 526), General Methodological Guidelines on Academic Paper Writing for Students of Social Sciences (approved by the Council of the Faculty of Economics and Management on 11 February 2015, proceedings No. T-01/2015).

2. Glossary Final work of the first (bachelor') cycle study programme (hereinafter – Final Work) – final paper summarising the learning outcomes of the learning outcomes under the respective first cycle study programme. Requirements on final works under the first (bachelor's) cycle study programme are provided under the Description of the First (Bachelor') Cycle Study Programme for the respective study programme, while the provisions on preparation and execution of the works - under the General Methodological Guidelines on Academic Paper Writing for Students of Social Sciences of the Faculty of Economics and Management. Supervisor of final work of the first (bachelor's) cycle studies (hereinafter – the Supervisor) – a scientist or researcher supervising the student's preparation of the final work. Supervisor's position may be held by scientists and researchers in the respective field of research corresponding to the study programme, holding at least Master's qualification degree or equivalent higher education degree. Committee for evaluation of the final works of the first (bachelor's) cycle studies (hereinafter – the Evaluation Committee) – a group of scientists, researchers and social stakeholders approved by the Rector who, as a collegiate body, verify student's achievements in terms of the expected learning outcomes of the study programme upon familiarising themselves with the final work submitted for defence, hearing the presentation and verifying compliance with these requirements applicable to the final works, and determines student's eligibility for bachelor's degree award. Committee for evaluation of the first (bachelor') study cycle learning outcomes and final works of the Institute (hereinafter – the Institute Committee) – a group of scientists and researchers formed by the Director of Institute who, upon familiarising themselves with the submitted final work and its presentation, determines its compliance with the requirements applicable to these final works and decides on whether or not the student may be advised to defend the final work at the Evaluation Committee. Reviewer of final work of the first (bachelor's) cycle studies (hereinafter – the Reviewer) – a scientist of researcher assigned by the Dean of Faculty who, upon examining the final work submitted for defence, scores its compliance with the applicable requirements and issues the conclusion on award of the bachelor's qualification degree. Reviewer's position may be held by scientists and researchers in the respective field of research corresponding to the study programme, holding at least Master's qualification degree or equivalent higher education degree.

3. Preparation of final works of the first (bachelor's) cycle study programme 3.1.In preparation of final works, students shall demonstrate their achievement of the learning outcomes of study programme and ability to apply them in a consistent and integrated manner to solution of a chosen research problem. Preparation of the final works is supervised by the Supervisor. 3.2.Requirements applicable to final works are presented in the subject description section Final Work. Requirements on preparation and execution of final works are presented in the following publications: Methodological Guide on Academic Paper Writing for Students at ASU and a Methodological Guide on Academic Paper Writing for Students of Social Sciences. 3.3.Full-time students shall select the topic of their final works during the first month of the seventh semester (4-year study programme) or sixth semester (3.5-year study programme). The decision shall be expressed by the student in the request submitted to Director of the Institute supervising the study programme. 3.4.Part-time students may select the topic of their final works upon completion of all subjects and passing of the exams under the study programme. The decision shall be expressed by the student in the request submitted to Director of the Institute supervising the study programme by the 1st day of the second month of the last academic semester. 3.5.The list of final work topics is issued by the Institute supervising the study programme. The list of final work topics shall be considered at the session of the Institute teachers and researchers and signed by the Director of Institute. 3.6.The proposed final work topics shall correspond to the study field and the field of research conducted by the teachers and researchers at the Institute supervising the study programme. 3.7.Supervisors are assigned to full-time first cycle students by the Director of Institute during the third month of the seventh semester (4-year study programme) or sixth semester (3.5-year study programme). Assignment of Supervisors shall be considered at the session of the Institute teachers and researchers. 3.8.Supervisors are assigned to students of part-time studies who have submitted applications under the procedure established by the Director of Institute. Assignment of Supervisors shall be considered at the session of the Institute teachers and researchers. 3.9. Final work is prepared according to the Terms of Reference of the Final Work of the First Cycle (Bachelor's) University Studies developed in advance collectively by the student and Supervisor. The Terms of Reference shall be prepared and approved by the Director of Institute within one month upon assignment of the Supervisor. 3.10. Students preparing their final works shall: 3.10.1. Communicate and cooperate with their respective Supervisors consistently, consult with their Supervisors on preparation of final works. 3.10.2. Comply with the time schedule for preparation of final works, notify their respective Supervisors regularly on research activities conducted, findings generated and progress of their final works during the semester, and submit individual parts of their final works and the complete final work to their respective Supervisors for familiarisation. 3.10.3. Submit the complete final work complying with the execution requirements by the established deadline. 3.10.4. Defend the work at the Institute Committee, if the requirement on defence at such Committee applies to the student's work. 3.10.5. Comply with the requirements of academic ethics. 3.11. Students preparing their final works have the right to: 3.11.1. Select or propose a topic of the final work corresponding to the curriculum of the study programme. 3.11.2. Conduct research on behalf of the University and under commission of the chosen organisation. 3.11.3. Consult with the Supervisor according to the Supervisor's work schedule or at any other time agreed upon with the Supervisor. 3.11.4. Receive methodological assistance in preparation of the final work. 3.12. Supervisors of final works shall: 3.12.1. Provide the respective students with methodological information related to the Terms of Reference of the Final Work under the First Cycle (Bachelor's) University Studies and to preparation of the final work. 3.12.2. Monitor preparation of the Final Work within the time schedule under the Terms of Reference of the Final Work under the First Cycle (Bachelor's) University Studies. 3.12.3. Read the final work submitted by the student within the time limits under this Description, provide own observations and recommendations. 3.12.4. Inform the Director of Institute on the progress in preparation of the final work, notify him/her on the student's failure to comply with the time schedule for preparation of the Final Work under the Terms of Reference of the Final Work under the First Cycle (Bachelor's) University Studies. 3.12.5. Objectively evaluate the student's final work, testify concerning compliance of the final paper with the established requirements presented in the subject description section Final Work. 3.12.6. Actively participate in work of the Institute Committee. 3.13. Supervisors of the final works shall have the right to: 3.13.1. Recommend the student to change or amend the selected topic of final paper accounting for recent developments in science and business. 3.13.2. Receive information from the student on progress in preparation of the final work with the time schedule under the Terms of Reference of the Final Work under the First Cycle (Bachelor's) University Studies and documents providing evidence of the progress (references gathered, calculations performed, parts of the work completed, etc.). 3.13.3. Refuse to supervise preparation of the student's final work, if the student has committed gross violation in terms of compliance with the time schedule for preparation of the final work, provisions of this Description or academic ethics. The Director of Institute shall be notified on the refusal in writing. 3.14. Students shall submit their works to their respective Supervisors no later than 3 weeks prior to defence of the Final Work at the session of the Evaluation Committee. Supervisor shall evaluate the final work, student's efforts in its preparation and provide the review within 6 working days.

4. Defence of Final Work of the First (Bachelor's) Cycle Studies 4.1. Final works are eligible for defence upon completion of all procedures of final work preparation. 4.2. Defence of final works at the Institute Committee is not mandatory. Defence of a final work at the Institute Committee is organised under the decision adopted at the session of Institute teachers and researchers in charge of the study programme, at the Supervisor or student's request. 4.3. Procedure for defence of a final work at the Institute Committee: 4.3.1. Session of the Institute Committee is organised at least 2 weeks before the first day of session of the Evaluation Committee. Composition, time and place of the session of the Institute Committee are announced by Director of the Institute in charge of the study programme. 4.3.2. Session of the Institute Committee is headed by its chairman. Resolutions adopted at the session of the Institute Committee are deemed legitimate, if at least half of the Committee members are present at the session. Supervisors of final works participate at the session of the Institute Committee even if they are not members of the Institute Committee. 4.3.3. Defence of a final work at the Institute Committee shall be performed consistently under the following order: 4.3.3.1. The student shall present the final work in brief (max. 7 minutes) by emphasizing its relevance, importance to the theoretical and practical domain, describes the research object, indicates the aim and objectives of the work, provides brief reference to the research methods and techniques, demonstrating application of the knowledge gained and competences developed during the studies to preparation of this work and presents the generated conclusions. 4.3.3.2. Members of the Institute Committee ask the student their questions and comment on the work presented and provide recommendations on improvement of the work and hear the student's answers and explanations. 4.3.3.3. The Supervisor provides own review of the final work and its results in writing. 4.3.4. After the session of Institute Committee has ended, members of the Institute Committee decide on the student's ability to apply the achieved learning outcomes in a consistent and integrated manner at the closed session and provide recommendation on eligibility/non-eligibility for defence at the Evaluation Committee. Decision of the Institute Committee is executed by the session proceedings. 4.3.5. Decision by the Institute Committee is only a recommendation. The student is entitled to defend the final work at the Evaluation Committee regardless of the recommendation issued by the Institute Committee. 4.4. Review of final works: 4.4.1. Reviewers of final works are assigned and the schedule of defence of final works is announced by the Dean of Faculty at least one month prior to the first day of session of the Evaluation Committee. 4.4.2. The student shall submit the bound hard copy of final work as well as its digital copy as a PDF file stored on a CD, together with the Supervisor's review, extract of the proceedings of the Institute Committee (if the final work has been defended at the Institute Committee), declaration of authorship at least 8 working days prior to defence of the work at the Evaluation Committee to the Dean's Office, where the final work is registered in the Register of Final Works of the First Cycle (Bachelor's) studies. If the work has been commissioned by a business organisation, the copy of order and feedback may be enclosed. 4.4.3. The Reviewer collects the final work for review at the Dean's Office of the Faculty, prepares the review in the form established by the Dean's Office and returns the review and the final work to the Dean's Office at least two working days prior to the day of defence at the Evaluation Committee. 4.4.4. The Reviewer shall score compliance of the final work with the established requirements under the 10-point scale according to all criteria for evaluation of work quality and submit proposal on award of the respective bachelor's qualification degree. 4.4.5. The Reviewer is entitled to refuse to review a final work that has been submitted outside the established time limit. Dean of the Faculty shall be notified on the refusal in writing. 4.4.6. Any corrections to the final work after the review are prohibited. 4.4.7. Members of the Evaluation Committee are entitled to familiarise themselves with the final works to be defended one day before the defence at the Evaluation Committee. A member of the Evaluation Committee collecting a final work for familiarisation shall sign in the register for final works of the first (bachelor's) cycle studies. 4.5. Defence of final works at the Evaluation Committee: 4.5.1. Composition of the Evaluation Committee for defence of final works for each study programme is approved by the Rector of University at least two months prior to the expected first day of session of the Evaluation Committee. The Evaluation Committee is headed by an invited scientist representing another University whose field of research corresponds to the field of studies. The Evaluation Committee is formed for one calendar year. 4.5.2. Final works are defended at a public session of the Evaluation Committee strictly according to the defence schedule approved by the Dean's Office. A student may address the Dean of Faculty with a written request to change the date of defence in case of particularly serious reasons only. The session is headed by the chairman of the Evaluation Committee or a member of the Committee authorised by the chairman. The session is deemed legitimate, if more than half of the members of the Evaluation Committee participate at the session. The Supervisor and the Reviewer are invited to participate at the session. In case of Supervisor or Reviewer's negative review, their participation is mandatory. 4.5.3. Defence of final works at the Evaluation Committee shall be performed consistently under the following order: 4.5.3.1. The Chairman of the Evaluation Committee introduces the students to the general procedure of defence, reminds of the duration and structure requirements applicable to the presentations. 4.5.3.2. The students are called to defend their final works in the order established in the defence schedule by announcing the defendant's name and surname, topic of the final work, Supervisor's academic title and degree, name and surname, Reviewer's academic title and degree, name and surname. The student uses demonstration material to present the final work and its main findings by emphasizing its relevance, importance to the theoretical and practical domain, describes the research object, indicates the aim and objectives of the work, provides brief reference to the research methods and techniques, demonstrating application of the knowledge gained and competences developed during the studies to preparation of this work and presents the generated conclusions. Duration of presentation: 7-10 minutes. 4.5.3.3. Members of the Evaluation Committee ask the student questions, and the student answers them. Each member of the Committee is allowed to ask the maximum of 2 questions, unless they are related to elaboration of the answer to previous question. Questions must be related directly to the topic of the final work and address theoretical methodological and practical aspects of the analysed topic and the obtained findings. Members of the Committee may verbalize the mistakes that have been noticed in the final work or demonstration material. 4.5.3.4.Chairman of the Evaluation Committee introduces the participants to the strong and weak aspects of the work listed in the Reviewer's review and reads the Reviewer's conclusion. 4.5.3.5. The student gives answers to the Reviewer's remarks. 4.5.3.6. Questions to the defendant may be asked by other persons present at the defence (students, teachers, social stakeholders, business representatives), if allowed by the chairman of the session. Their questions must also be related directly to the topic of the final work. 4.5.3.7. Chairman of the session announces the end of the final work defence. 4.5.4. After the defence of Final Works in the Final Works Defence Schedule has ended, members of the Evaluation Committee discuss and score the presented works, their presentation quality and answers to questions under the 1 to 10-point scale at a closed session. Members of the Committee are entitled to express their arguments in relation to evaluation. The chairman draws up the summary of evaluations by the members of the Committee, adds the Reviewer's score and calculated the average evaluation score. In case the Supervisor of the final work has worked at the Evaluation Committee, the Supervisor shall withdraw from evaluation of the work. Final results of evaluation of final papers are written down into the proceedings of the established form, signed by the chairman and all members of the Evaluation Committee who have been present at the session. 4.5.5. The final work is deemed to have complied with the established requirements and its author is deemed to be eligible for award of the respective qualification degree, if the final evaluation score is at least 5 (five). 4.5.6. Chairman of the Evaluation Committee (in public or not in public, as requested by the students) notifies on the final evaluation scores of the final works and proposal to award the respective qualification degree to the authors of successfully defended works. 4.5.7. If the final work has been given insufficient evaluation score, the key motives for the adopted decisions are entered additionally into the proceedings. 4.5.8.Decisions of the Evaluation Committee on compliance of the final work with the established requirements and acknowledgement or non-acknowledgement of the author's qualification, if adopted pursuant to legal acts, regulations of the University first cycle (bachelor's) studies and this Description, are final and not subject to any appeal under administrative order. 4.5.9. Having noticed any violations of procedures provided for under this Description or other violations of academic ethics during preparation of the final work and/or defence, authors of final works may address Administration of the University under the procedure established in the Description of ASU Students' Appeal Procedure and ASU Code of Academic Ethics. 4.5.10. In this case, if an author has failed to defend the final work at the Evaluation Committee or has failed to arrive at the defence without any serious reason, the final work may be defended repeatedly in the following academic year, but no later than within 3 years. 4.5.11. In case of repeated defence of the final work, all stages of the process of defence of final works must be completed repeatedly. Compliance of the final work with the established requirements and quality are evaluated according to the requirements effective during the defence. 4.5.12. In case of unsuccessful repeated defence of the final work at the Evaluation Committee, the student is definitively deprived of the right to defend the final work. 4. 6. Graduates who have completed all subjects under the study programme and passed the exams, but failed to defend the final works, are issued with an academic certificate listing the studied subjects, their volume in credits and assessment of the learning outcomes at the graduates' request. 4. 7. Author of the final work under defence shall: 4.7.1. Submit the final work complying with the execution requirements to the Supervisor and Dean's Office of the Faculty within the time limits and under the procedure referred to in this Description. 4.7.2. Arrive at the sessions of the Institute Committee and Evaluation Committee by the time indicated in the schedule and present the completed work and its findings, answer the questions and remarks of the members of the respective Committees and Reviewers under the established procedure. 4.7.3. Improve the final work and its presentation in view of the remarks and proposals provided by the Supervisor and members of the Institute Committee. 4.7.4. To fill in and submit the signed declaration of authorship to the Dean's Office of the Faculty together with the final work. 4.8. Author of the final work prepared for defence has the right to: 4.8.1. Familiarise himself/herself the Reviewer's review at least 2 working days prior to presentation and defence of the final work at the Evaluation Committee. 4.8.2. Choose the techniques and means for presentation of the final work in view of technical capabilities. 4.8.3. Receive an extract of the proceedings of the Institute Committee within 2 working days after the session of the Committee. 4.8.4. Address the Dean of Faculty in writing with the request to consider violations and limitations of student's rights related to defence of the final work.

5. Monitoring and improvement of the process of studies and defence of final works Monitoring of the process of evaluation of the first (bachelor's) cycle studies and students' knowledge and the process of defence is performed by the Directors of Institutes supervising the study programme, Vice Dean and Dean of the Faculty supervising the first (bachelor's) cycle studies, the Faculty Council, and its Study Committee.