Information and Guidelines for Writing Masters Theses

LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY Department of Management and Engineering Business Administration

Information and guidelines for writing Masters’ theses

the Business Administration and Economics Programme 160 p

the International Business Programme 180 p

the single subject course FEK4 10-point D-essay

Contents:

 Criteria  Suggested reading  Guidelines 2

Contents

Welcome to the course Masters’ Theses, 10/20 p...... 3 Introduction...... 4 Criteria for assessing Masters’ theses...... 5 The opposition and the role of the opponents at the final seminar...... 7 As regards the design of the opposition...... 7 The ethics ideal...... 7 The accessibility ideal...... 7 The relevance ideal...... 7 The quality ideal...... 7 One of the most frequently asked questions about the opposition...... 8 Some main points for a “normal” opposition...... 9 Selected references to the literature on methods...... 10 Approach to method – what attitude should be taken towards science, knowledge, and the like?...... 10 3

LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY Department of Management and Engineering Business Administration Welcome to the course Masters’ Theses, 10/20 p

Dear student

You are welcome to the course Masters’ Theses, 10/20 p, for a Master of Science degree in Business Administration and Economics. This is the final course of the general Business Administration and Economics Programme 160 p, and the International Business Programme 180 p as well as of the single-subject course D-essay 10 p. The aim of the course is to give you an opportunity to use the knowledge that you have acquired in the courses you have attended.

The Master’s thesis is important for the Business Administration and Economics students at Linköping University. We have proved that by introducing the Master of Science degree at an early stage, and we aim high. Accordingly, our demands on the quality of the theses is exacting as the theses carry great weight with all of us.

Our aims and demands can be summarized as follows.

 All theses must be of high quality  All theses should contribute to knowledge  The theses should be of interest to the general public, which is indicated by our printing them in the size of a book and by the fact that many theses are sold to external buyers.

We look upon the theses as an example of co-operation between business and Linköping University where the students form an important link.

We also know that Masters’ Theses gives the students an extraordinary opportunity to learn and to show what they have learnt.

In preparing yourself you should, at an early stage, borrow or provide yourself with a copy of a thesis to see what layout, organization and contents may be like.

Good luck! 4

LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY Department of Management and Engineering Business Administration Introduction

The course is based on a scientific, theoretical part and a project part that includes planning, designing, carrying out and reporting a project. The introductory part of the course consists of lectures with reference to theoretical and methodological issues. As to the rest, the course is characterized by a great degree of independence at all stages. The participants work in groups of two people, where the main responsibility for driving the project forward lies within each group.

The course literature is all the reading you have done in earlier courses, and the “pure literature on methods” that you will be referred to during this course. In certain cases, this means that it will be necessary for you to go back to earlier courses and repeat such sections as may contribute substantial knowledge to the project. In other cases, it may also mean that you will be obliged to thoroughly study new, complementary literature in order to acquire in-depth knowledge of a certain theoretical field.

Project. It is up to the group to write a proposal for a final project. Please note that the supervisor must approve the proposal before it can be used as a subject for a Master’s thesis. The groups are themselves responsible for the contacts with firms, organizations, etc that will be necessary for the design and implementation of the project.

Examination. The project work is continuously assessed at supervisors’ sessions and at working seminars. The final examination takes place at a final seminar.

Cost. All production, printing and distribution costs are borne by the groups.

Course co-ordinator. Peter Gustavsson, PhD (Economics), (PG), Linköping University. Telephone 013-28 16 18 (office), e-mail: [email protected] 5

LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY Department of Management and Engineering Business Administration Criteria for assessing Masters’ theses

1 Dealing with the problem Analysis and definition of the problem? Relevance. Establishing the problem theoretically and empirically? Creativity and originality in selecting the problem? Satisfactory formulation of the aim? Has the aim been achieved?

2 Theoretical establishment and frame of reference Exploiting available theory and literature? Reasons for selection of and account of frame of reference? Breadth and depth of the chosen theory? To what extent have the theories been dealt with independently?

3 Scientific approach How well have the writers tried to articulate a scientific approach of their own? How well is this approach established in the literature in this field? In what respect is the writers’ work characterized by (an insight into) a scientific approach? How consistent have they been in this approach?

4 Method The relevance of choice of method in relation to approach, theory and problem? Reasons for choice of method? Description of models, methods and measuring instruments with an account of the reasons for choosing them, where appropriate? How well is the carrying out of the study described? Use, collection, account and critical review of empirical data, where appropriate? Does the concluding discussion give evidence of the limitations of the choice of method? To what extent have the writers taken a self-critical attitude?

5 Account of empirical evidence and analysis Does analysis and interpretation show an insight into and knowledge of theory as well as empirical evidence? Have the writers conveyed the bases of their analysis? Does the analysis give the impression of credibility? How well is the result related to problem and aim? Does the result indicate insight and learning? Does the character of the results agree with the scientific approach? 6

6 Conclusions and contributions to knowledge What is the main result? How well is the result supported by the writing and work previous to conclusions? What have the writers and we learnt from the work? Is the aim achieved?

7 Originality, independence, creativity and maturity Both the report and the process are considered here. The maturity aspect also includes the writers’ own learning process in writing the thesis.

8 Presentation, organization, readability and formal aspects of the thesis It goes without saying that we expect that the theses will be correct from a formal point of view since the writers have written at least one essay previously. Particularly important is the attention paid to the treatment and presentation or references and sources. (We will of course tolerate a few spelling mistakes even in a “formally correct” thesis.)

9 Whether the writers have succeeded in meeting the deadline for performing tasks set Planning one’s own limited time resources is a learning component of thesis work. Compared with the 10-point essays, it should be easier to meet the deadline for an essay allotted twenty weeks’ preparation.

10 Opposing another thesis The quality of the opposition, that is, were interesting as well as relevant questions raised during the opposition? Was the time planned so that the issues considered the most important were prioritized and discussed at the seminar? Were the opposition capable of engaging all seminar members in the discussion, that is, did the opponents invite the members to take an active part in the discussion? Did the opposition succeed in conveying their opinion of the thesis under discussion and in giving a final verdict on that occasion?

11 The overall impression and the defence of the thesis The overall impression is what we often call the red thread: Can the thesis be regarded as a whole round a problem? A good defence and a poor defence may “tip the scale” in borderline assessment cases. 7

LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY Department of Management and Engineering Business Administration The opposition and the role of the opponents at the final seminar

As regards the design of the opposition

Questions are frequently asked about the opposition, for example, how it should be designed and if it is to be handed in beforehand, etc. The point of departure is that the opposition should be written and handed in one day in advance to the writers and the supervisor and co-examiner.

An advantage could be gained by supplementing the opposition with the opponents’ own ideas of how well the writers have dealt with the questions taken up above under “Criteria for assessing Masters’ theses”. Besides, it could be a good thing for the opponents to bring up for discussion:

The ethics ideal  All personal information should be checked and released for publication by the respondent/s/.  If there is no release for publication, the respondents should remain anonymous.

The accessibility ideal  The contents of the thesis should be immediately comprehensible to the target group intended.  Descriptions and analyses (interpretations) should be clear as well as detailed.

The relevance ideal  The thesis should contain results which have news value or in some other way are of interest to the target groups.  It should be clear in what way results contribute to the development of knowledge or how they should be applied in practice (see criteria for assessment).

The quality ideal  Problematization, method awareness, strong support in theory, credibility.  Formal layout (see “Criteria for assessing Masters’ theses”). 8

One of the most frequently asked questions about the opposition is who is to present the thesis. The answer is that it is the opponents who present it and the time allotted is 15 minutes at the maximum.

The seminar is usually opened by the seminar leader (that is, the co-examiner) asking the writers if they have anything they want to say before the floor is given to the opponents (if that is the case, what is communicated should be information on matters that can clarify the contents of the report). The opponents begin by presenting how they have planned to organize the opposition and after that they go on to present the contents of the report. Here the opponents should avoid the “page-by-page” variant, as there is a risk that important and unimportant matters will be mixed and that the opponents, if pressed for time, will not find the time to deal with important questions. Consequently, the opponents should develop an order of precedence and start with the points they consider the most important and then proceed to the questions they want to discuss, following the order of precedence. The opponents finish by giving their opinion on the report.

How should the opponents prepare themselves? Do they have to use transparencies, etc? The answer is that this is ultimately a question of how seriously the opponents take their roles and how important it is for them to receive a good assessment for this item in the seminar activities. On one hand, everybody is judged on the quality of their own report, how well it is defended, and so on. On the other, they are appraised by how successful they are in opposing another report.

To be considered

The opposition forms an important part of the course. It examines the seminar assignments that are submitted for the examination of the course. In this context, as well as in all other contexts where there may be reasons for examining documents, the presentation of the opposition and the opposition itself form an integral part of the assessment of a report or an investigation. The purpose of the opposition is that the opponents should critically review the report with the explicit aim of judging its merits as well as demerits. 9

Some main points for a “normal” opposition

 Introduction, where the opponent presents the organization of the opposition as it has been planned.  It is important for the opponent to keep in mind that he/she is responsible for the discussion being held in such a way that all relevant questions are dealt with. The relevance may lie in, on one hand, factual matters giving rise to questions or discussion, on the other, observations leading to questions for further clarification.  Thus it is the opponent’s job to act as discussion leader, seeing to it that all the important aspects which are interesting to illustrate with reference to the report under discussion, are brought up for discussion during the seminar.

The purpose of discussing the reports in connection with the final seminar is that we should learn something from each report. Accordingly, it is important that we focus the discussion on what is special and unique in the report, how different problems researched into have been dealt with – and whether they could have been handled otherwise.

In conclusion – some truths that cannot be repeated too often.  It is always the reader who is the final “judge” of the product. Therefore, see that it is not only worth reading but also readable.  The opponents’ most important task is to deliver their criticism in a pedagogical way so that the writers will understand it. 10

LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY Department of Management and Engineering Business Administration Selected references to the literature on methods

Below is a small selection from the literature on methods, which is divided under two headings. The first deals mainly with an approach to the research assignment. The second is more of a handbook character. See the references as an optional tool. You may already have found or received advice on method literature that you consider to be good. Otherwise, a tip is to choose one or two books on method under each heading. Remember that it is your interpretation of the problem dealt with in the thesis which is of importance to your choice of method. And do not forget – a critical approach to both the literature on method and other literature!

Approach to method – what attitude should be taken towards science, knowledge, and the like?

 Alvesson, Mats & Sköldberg, Kaj, Tolkning och reflektion, Studentlitteratur, 1994.  Andersen, Heine, (red), Vetenskapsteori och metodlära. Studentlitteratur, 1994.  Andersson, Sten, Positivism kontra hermeneutik. Korpens Förlag, 1982.  Arbnor, I., Borglund, S-E. & Liljedahl, T., Osynligt Ockuperad. Liber, 1980.  Arbnor, I., Ingeman & Bjerke, Björn, Företagsekonomisk metodlära. Studentlitteratur, 2:a uppl, 1994.  Asplund, Johan, Essä om Gemeinschaft och Gesellschaft. Korpen, 1991.  Asplund, Johan, Om undran inför samhället. Argos, 1987.  Berger & Luckman, 1966, The social construction of reality.  Bergström, Lars, Objektivitet. Prisma, 1972.  Bjerke, Några tankar inför företaget. Studentlitteratur, 1989.  Brunsson, Nils (red), Företagsekonomi – sanning eller moral? Studentlitteratur, 1981.  Burrel & Morgan, 1977, Sociological Paradigms.  Chalmers, A. F., What is this thing called Science? 2nd ed. Open University Press, 1990.  Egidius, H., Positivism, fenomenologi – hermeneutik, Studentlitteratur, 1986.  Engvall, Lars (red), Företagsekonomins rötter. Studentlitteratur, 1980.  Engvall, Lars, Mercury Meets Minerva. Pergamon, 1992.  Feyerabend, Paul, Ned med metodologin! (Tema Teori 13) Zenit Rabén & Sjögren, 1977.  Föllesdal, D., Wallöe, L. & Elster, J. Argumentationsteori, språk och vetenskapsfilosofi. Thales, 1993.  Gilje, N. & Grimen, H., Samhällsvetenskapernas förutsättningar. Daidalos, 1993.  Guillet de Monthoux, Pierre, Läran om Företaget. Från Quesnay till Keynes. Norstedts, 1983. 11

 Gummesson, Evert, Forskare och konsult – om aktionsforskning och fallstudier i företagsekonomin. Studentlitteratur, 1985.  Hansson, Bengt (red), Metod eller anarki, Doxa, 1992.  Harré, R. The Philosophies of Science. An Introductory Survey. Oxford University Press, 1974.  Homer, Jan & Starrin, Bengt, Deltagarorienterad forskning, Studentlitteratur, 1993.  Håkanson, Kaj, Ovetande och vetande, Korpen, 1982.  Jarrick, Arne & Josephson, Olle, Från tanke till text, Studentlitteratur, 1988.  Johansson-Lindfors, Maj-Britt, Forskningsstrategi, Studentlitteratur, 1993.  Johnson, T., Dandeker, C., Ashworth, C., The Structure of Social Theory, Contemporary Social Theory, 1984.  Lindholm, Stig, Kunskap – från fragment till helhetssyn. Allmänna Förlaget, 1990.  Molander, Bengt, Vetenskapsfilosofi. En bok om vetenskapen och vetenskapande människan. Bokförlaget Thales, 1990.  Månson, Per (red), Moderna samhällsteorier. Prisma, senaste upplagan.  Månson, Per, Båten i parken, Rabén & Sjögren, 1985.  Mårtensson, B., Praktisk vetenskapsteori, Studentlitteratur, 1988.  Nordenfelt, Lennart, Kunskap –Värdering – Förståelse. Introduktion till humanvetenskapernas teori och metod. Liber, 1982.  Rosing, Hans, Vetenskapens logiska grunder. 1993.  Wandén, Stig, Ekonomiskt tänkande.  Ödman, P-J., Tolkning, förståelse, vetande. AWE/Gebers, 1979.

Method

 Andersson, Bengt-Erik, Som man frågar får man svar, Rabén & Sjögren, 1985.  Backman, Jarl, Att skriva och läsa vetenskapliga rapporter. Studentlitteratur, 1984.  Bell, Judith, Introduktion till forskningsmetodik, Studentlitteratur, 1993.  Berfing, Edvard, Forskningsmetodik och statistik, Studentlitteratur, 1993.  Bergman, Lars R. & Wärneryd, Bo, Om datainsamling i surveyundersökningar. Vilken metod är bäst och vad får vi egentligen veta? SCB, 1982.  Dahmström, Karin, Från datainsamling till rapport. Studentlitteratur, 1991.  Ejvegård, Rolf, Vetenskaplig metod, Studentlitteratur, 1993.  Ekholm, M. & Fransson, A., Praktisk intervjuteknik, AWE Gebers, 1989.  Glaser & Strauss, 1966, The discovery of grounded theory.  Halvorsen, K., Samhällsvetenskaplig metod, Studentlitteratur, 1992.  Hellevik, Ottar, Forskningsmetoder i sociologi och statsvetenskap. Natur och Kultur, 1984.  Holme, Idar Magne & Solvang, Bernt Krohn, Forskningsmetodik. Om kvalitativa och kvantitativa metoder. Studentlitteratur, 1991.  Jacobsen, Jan Krag, Intervju. Konsten att lyssna och fråga. Studentlitteratur 1993. 12

 Kjellén, B. & Söderman, S., Praktikfallsmetodik. SIAR, Liber, 1980.  Kvale, Steinar (Ed), Issues of Validity in Qualitative Research. Studentlitteratur, 1989.  Lantz, Annika, Intervjumetodik, Studentlitteratur, 1993.  Lekvall, Per & Wahlbin, Clas, Information för marknadsföringsbeslut. IHM Läromedel, 1987.  Lundahl, Ulf & Skärvad, Per-Hugo, Utredningsmetodik för samhällsvetare och ekonomer. Studentlitteratur, 1982.  Naert, P. & Leeflang, P., Building implementable marketing models, Martinus Niijhoff Social Sciences Division. Leiden/Boston, 1978.  Nilsson, Björn & Waldemarson, Anna-Karin, Kommunikation, Studentlitteratur, 1990.  Nilsson, Björn, I ord och handling, Studentlitteratur, 1993.  Patel, Runa & Davidson, Bo, Forskningsmetodikens grunder, Studentlitteratur, 1991.  Patel, Runa & Tebelius, Ulla (red), Grundbok i forskningsmetodik. Studentlitteratur 1987.  Peterson, Lars-Erik, Undersökningsplanering och urvalsmetodik. IHM Läromedel, 1979.  Rombach, Björn, Med hänvisning till andra. Nerenius & Santérus Förlag, 1994.  Selander, Staffan, (red) Kunskapens Villkor, Studentlitteratur, 1986.  Starrin, B., & Svensson, G., (red), 1994, Kvalitativ metod & Vetenskapsteori, Studentlitteratur, Lund.  Stauss & Corbin, 1990, Basics of Qualitative Research, Sage.  Strauss, A. L., Qualitative Analysis For Social Scientists, Cambridge University Press, 1987.  Swedner, Harald, Sociologisk metod. En bok om kunskapsproduktion och förändringsarbete. Liber, 1982.  Trost, J., Enkätboken, Studentlitteratur, 1994.  Walla, Erik, Så skriver du bättre tekniska rapporter. Studentlitteratur, 1990.  Wiedersheim-Paul, Finn & Eriksson, Lars Torsten, Att utreda och rapportera. Liber, senaste upplagan.  Wärneryd, Bo m fl, Att fråga. Om frågekonstruktion vid intervjuundersökningar och postenkäter. SCB, 1990.  Yin, R. K., Case Study Research, Applied Social Research Method Series, 1984.