29.06.2009

Grade "pass"

Aim and choice of subject

The aim, reasons for the choice of the subject, and starting points of the research are intelligible but not thoroughly clear. The main object of the research may appear slightly vague to the reader because the research questions are not stated clearly enough.

Methods and data

The choice of the research method is argued but not very eloquently. A consideration of different methods and alternative ways of data collecting does not appear in the text. The characteristics of different types of sources are understood. Data collecting seems to have been carried out systematically and logically in places, but some shortcomings can be seen. The analysis of the data offers some interesting contributions, but the research frame as whole may be left slightly unclear.

Use of background literature

The study shows evidence of relevant and appropriate investigation of background literature, but the coverage is either too limited or redundant. Major areas of the subject may have been left out, or if included, may have been treated uncritically.

Treatment of the subject, style and typography

The text is for the most part coherent but does not proceed logically and eloquently on all points. Quotations and references are mainly used in an appropriate way but some faltering can be seen. Layout, presentation and/or language use may leave something to be desired.

Results

The text may be fluent, and the study have some real findings to offer; but nonetheless many elements in the study are weak. The conclusions may be appropriate, but their presentation manifests some short-comings. Not all the research questions raised by the study are clearly addressed.

Overview

The overall picture of the thesis is for the most part positive, even though incoherence and short-comings can be seen at some points. Despite a few good points, the thesis as whole does not merit a higher grade. Possible weaknesses can be seen in the coherence of the study; in the way in which the results are interpreted; in a lack of compatibility between the results claimed, and the data on which these results are based; in the terminology used; and in the way the study is presented; which may be mechanical and monotonous.