Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit
MANG 6547
BANKING, FINANCE AND RISK DISSERTATION
SBS PGT Dissertation Handbook 2023/24
Welcome to the MANG 6547 Banking, Finance and Risk Dissertation!
Welcome to an exciting and important part of your degree: MSc Finance, MSc International Financial Markets, MSc International Banking and Financial Studies, and MSc Risk and Finance!
This dissertation represents your chance to apply the theoretical knowledge of Banking, Finance and Risk you have gained throughout your programme through a piece of independent study. You will be able to identify your own area of interest to explore in-depth using appropriate research tools. The dissertation will contribute 60 CATS towards the degree (of the 180 CATS needed for the Masters). Please read this handbook carefully and let your supervisor know your questions.
Section 1. How to use this handbook
This handbook has been written to guide you through the key stages of the process of writing your dissertation. It gives you an idea of timings and deadlines so that you can plan your work. Importantly, it includes essential information on how to choose a research topic, how to work with your supervisors, how to structure your dissertation, and guidance on referencing and avoiding plagiarism etc. We encourage you to read the handbook thoughtfully and go back to it as a reference while working on your dissertation. You can get in touch with the module or programme leader if you have any questions regarding this dissertation handbook. We advise you to follow the handbook for your own module/ programme for your dissertation and not refer to other programmes’ guidance since the requirements and information could be different. Likewise, we encourage you to visit the Blackboard site of MANG 6547 Banking, Finance and Risk.
If you are a part-time student, you should check with your supervisor or Programme Leader to plan timescales for your dissertation.
Section 2. Objectives of the dissertation
MANG 6547 Banking, Finance and Risk Dissertation is a core module in four MSc programmes:
MSc Finance
MSc International Banking and Financial Studies
MSc International Financial Markets
MSc Risk and Finance
Section 2.1. Independent research
The dissertation is an extended 15,000-word (±10%) assignment based on an independent study of a topic of your choosing.
Essentially, the dissertation is a test of your ability to create, on your own initiative, a text which demonstrates a Masters-level understanding of a particular issue. You will be assigned a supervisor to advise you on how to approach your work, and it is your responsibility to manage and undertake the necessary work independently.
Your dissertation should draw on concepts, techniques and frameworks from your previous studies to:
· Identify a suitable topic for study
· Plan and manage an appropriate schedule of work
· Design and undertake an appropriate investigation strategy
· Identify and access useful and suitable sources of information
· Ensure that you have ethics approval and undertake a risk assessment before collecting any data for your research
· Write a well-presented dissertation with a logical structure and suitable formatting.
Section 2.2. Learning outcomes
Knowledge and Understanding
A1 how to scope a study in your subject area, stating clear objectives for your study and ensure that the dissertation addresses these objectives;
A2 your chosen subject and related conceptual literature, making appropriate reference to relevant sources of literature;
A3 how to use concepts/techniques/frameworks from one or more of your taught modules.
Subject Specific Intellectual and Research Skills
B1 present a logical, coherent and succinct line of argument throughout your dissertation;
B2 ensure that your ideas and analysis are a prominent part of your dissertation;
B3 provide in depth, critical reflection in your analysis and discussion of results;
B4 evaluate critically current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline;
B5 evaluate methodologies and develop critiques of them and, where appropriate, to propose new hypotheses;
B6 demonstrate the ability to formulate and test new ideas from a variety of approaches and justify the foundation of those ideas;
B7 demonstrate the ability to test ideas including the application of models as appropriate, using a variety of research designs, methodologies, measurements and techniques of analysis;
B8 demonstrate the ability to present ideas and research findings in a well-structured, clear and compact way using a style consistent with an academic journal article;
B9 demonstrate the ability to plan, execute and report a significant piece of research or creative work with at least some element of originality;
B10 demonstrate the ability to synthesise ideas and research findings.
Transferable and Generic Skills
C1 demonstrate your ability to work independently, carry out and evaluate a research project relevant to a business context;
C2 demonstrate the ability to interpret, conceptualise and critically evaluate the literature, and to relate it to practice as appropriate;
C3 demonstrate independent judgement and critical self-awareness.
Subject Specific Practical Skills
D1 demonstrate critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights, at, or informed by, the forefront of your academic discipline or field of study.
Section 2.3. Structuring your dissertation
A key feature of any dissertation is the way in which it is structured or organised. Structure is important because it dictates the topics discussed and the order in which they are discussed. A good structure can considerably enhance the finished quality of a dissertation.
Characteristics of a good dissertation structure include:
· Chapters and sections that are ordered in a logical way
· A contents page that clearly differentiates chapter titles and major sub-headings
· Chapter and section headings that are informative, concise and accurate
· Discussion and analysis that develops logically – from general principles or concepts to more specific or detailed analysis and discussion
· Repetition of points is minimal.
The structure of your dissertation will vary depending on whether it is primarily literature based (e.g., a systematic literature review), empirical research (e.g., a survey of company employees), or action research (e.g., an application of theory or concept in a real-world setting).
Additional Resources: An example of the structure and format of a typical dissertation is provided in Appendix 1.
Additional Resources: How to conduct a systematic literature review, please refer to our online resources at the University of Southampton Library https://library.soton.ac.uk/systematic-reviews.
Section 3. How will your dissertation be assessed?
Masters’ Dissertations are assessed according to the indicative criteria set out below [weightings are provided in brackets]:
1. Introduction, including Aims & Objectives, Research Questions, Contributions to Knowledge [15%]: Clarity and suitability of the aims & objectives, research questions, significance of the research problem
2. Literature Review & Hypothesis Development [20%]: Does it provide evidence of appropriate selection and discussion of relevant literature in Banking, Finance, and Risk. Does it provide evidence of understanding and critical engagement with the discipline? Does the literature add to the understanding of the problem or planned development through effective evaluation and synthesis of a range of literature? Does the literature provide provides a balanced and unbiased view of any competing theories or views? Does the literature review lead to hypotheses development?
3. Data [15%]: Are the sources of data appropriately acknowledged in the dissertation? What is the structure of the dataset (cross-sectional, time-series, or panel)? Are the variables selected adequately explained, justified, appropriate to the aims & objectives, research questions, hypotheses (or problem)? Are the data described with sufficient detail? Are there any limitations envisaged in the data? Are key descriptive statistics summarised and analysed? Are time-series variables visualised via time-series plots (where relevant) and inspected?
4. Research Methodology [15%]: Is the research methodology adequately explained, justified, appropriate to the aims & objectives, research questions, hypotheses (or problem), and data? What are the strengths and limitation of the chosen research methodology? What are alternative methodologies?
5. Analysis of Research Findings [15%]: Does the analysis/discussion of findings address the aims & objectives, research questions? Do your research findings provide sufficient ground for rejection or non-rejection of financial and/or statistical hypotheses? Are your research findings contextualised within the related literature? Do they provide evidence of understanding of the implications and limitations? Is the discussion of research findings supported with robustness tests? Are there any unexpected findings? Are your research findings visualised in tables and/or diagrams? Are these tables and/or diagrams self-contained?
6. Conclusion [10%]: Do the conclusions do more than re-state your research findings? Do they provide implications for financial practice, policy and/or regulation? Do they discuss limitations of your research design (if not discussed in the previous chapters or steps)? Does the concluding chapter identify avenues for future research?
7. Presentation, Structure & Language [10%]: Is your dissertation well executed? Is it clearly written? Is it presented using appropriate graphics, tables? Are the external sources of information accurately cited/referenced? Is it well structured, logical and coherent, using appropriate chapter headings?
Section 3.1. Specific marking criteria
Your dissertation will be marked by two examiners, one of whom is normally your supervisor. Marking follows the University of Southampton Double-Blind Marking and Moderation Policy.
GRADE DESCRIPTOR AND MARKING CRITERIA
|
Criteria |
0 - 24% |
25 - 34% |
35 - 49% |
50 - 59% Pass |
60 – 69% Merit |
70 - 79% Distinction |
80 - 100% Distinction |
|||
|
1. Introduction, including Background, Motivation Aims & Objectives, Research Questions, Contributions to Knowledge [15%]
· Background · Motivation · Aims & objectives · Research questions or · Problem definition · Contribution to knowledge |
Not stated, confusing, unrelated to title, difficult to understand, inappropriate study |
Very limited lacks effective focus and clear rational Too ambitious or too basic |
Poorly defined and presented, some confusion in rationale
|
Clearly stated, some relevance, straightforward |
Well stated purpose, appropriate and realistic explanation of the context and/or problem |
Very clearly stated, feasible, innovative |
Exceptionally well stated, interesting, sophisticated, original, full and convincing justification |
|||
|
2. Literature Review & Hypothesis Development [20%]
· Is there evidence of appropriate selection and discussion of relevant literature? · Is there evidence of understanding of, and critical engagement with what has been read? · Does the literature add to the understanding of the research problem/topic through effective evaluation and synthesis of a range of literature? · Does the literature provide provides a balanced and unbiased view of any competing theories or views? · Does the literature review lead to hypotheses development? |
Inadequate and/or irrelevant evidence, virtually no evidence of appropriate selection, no discussion of selection criteria, unsystematic or omitted referencing; no gaps identified; no hypotheses developed
|
Rudimentary coverage, very limited evidence of understanding, predominantly descriptive writing; disconnect between the selected literature and the hypotheses; irrelevant gaps are identified |
Lacks structure with clear gaps, no discussion of selection criteria, unsystematic referencing; limited evidence of understanding and evaluation of the selected literature; limited support provided to the hypotheses; insufficient gaps are identified |
A basic coverage of relevant literature; inconsistent referencing; the literature offers some additional understanding of the research problem/topic; the hypotheses are informed by the literature; adequate gaps are identified |
Good coverage, awareness of relevant prior research, clear structure, stated selection criteria, consistent referencing, clarity of understanding, the literature, informs and adds to the research problem / topic; reasonable gaps are identified |
Comprehensive and inclusive use of highly relevant literature, evidence of critical engagement / writing, good structure, clearly articulated discussion that relates to the topic of research, clear flow of argument leading to the hypotheses; important gaps are identified |
Exceptional section that fully demonstrates a discerning, creative and critical engagement the existing literature. Key and latest developments in the literature are discussed. The hypotheses address major gaps in the literature; very important gaps are identified |
|||
|
3. Data [15%]
· Are the sources of data appropriately acknowledged in the dissertation? · What is the structure of the dataset (cross-sectional, time-series, or panel)? · Are the variables selected adequately explained, justified, appropriate to the aims & objectives, or research questions, hypotheses, or problem? · Are the data described with sufficient detail? |
None, totally inappropriate and unrelated |
Extremely limited collection of data, poorly identified, insufficiently justified data, limited explanations, limited connection to aims & objectives, or research questions, hypothesis, or problem |
Limited collection of data, poorly identified, lack of justification, insufficient or superficial explanations, poorly connected to aims & objectives, or research questions, hypotheses, or problem |
Satisfactorily identified, adequately justified, explained; satisfactorily connected to aims & objectives, or research questions, hypotheses, or problem |
Good approach to collection, clear validity and reliability, critical analysis using appropriate techniques and appropriate criteria; reasonably connected to aims & objectives, or research questions, hypotheses, or problem |
Advanced approaches of collection, clear validity, critical analysis using appropriate techniques and appropriate criteria, fully justified; well connected to aims & objectives, or research questions, hypotheses, or problem |
Outstanding analytical techniques and approaches, evidence of creation of new approaches (if appropriate), thorough and rigorous analysis, exceptionally well justified; clearly connected to aims & objectives, or research questions, hypotheses, or problem |
|||
|
4. Methodology [15%]
· Is the research methodology adequately explained, justified, appropriate to the aims & objectives, or research questions, hypotheses, problem, and data? · What are the strengths and limitation of the chosen research methodology? · What are alternative methodologies? |
No theoretical basis; no discussion or justification of the methodology; highly inappropriate to the aims and objectives, or research questions, hypotheses, or problem; no evidence of critical evaluation |
Irrelevant, very limited justification and explanation of the methodology; inappropriate to the aims and objectives, or research questions, hypotheses, or problem; limited evidence of critical evaluation |
Insufficient justification and explanation of the methodology. The methodology is weakly connected to the aims & objectives, or research questions, hypotheses, or problem; limited evidence of critical evaluation |
Satisfactory justification and explanation of the methodology; reasonably connected to the aims and objectives, or research questions, hypotheses, or problem; some evidence of critical evaluation |
Clear and relevant criteria used to identify the methodology; the methodology is supported with evidence, appropriate to the aims & objectives, or research questions, hypotheses, or problem; some awareness of strengths and weaknesses of the approach. |
Very clear and relevant criteria used to identify the methodology; persuasive rationale for the selected methodology; addressed the aims & objectives or research questions, hypotheses, or problem; awareness of strengths and weaknesses, alternative methodologies |
Provides excellent understanding, rigorously argued methodology, strongly supported with evidence; fully addresses the aims & objectives, research questions, hypotheses, or problem; full awareness of strengths and weaknesses, alternative methodologies |
|||
|
5. Analysis of Research Findings [15%]
· Does the discussion of findings address the aims & objectives, research questions? · Do your research findings provide sufficient ground for rejection or non-rejection of financial and/or statistical hypotheses? · Are your research findings contextualised within the related literature? · Do they provide evidence of understanding of the meaning and implications of research findings? · Is the discussion of research findings supported with robustness checks/tests? · Are there any unexpected findings? Are your research findings visualised in tables and/or diagrams? · Are these tables and/or diagrams self-contained? |
No attempt to relate findings to theory |
Findings are not effective, discussion shows no learning from the evidence presented |
Discussion shows a very limited awareness of theory and attempt to link this to the findings; insufficient discussion of the meaning and implications of research findings, limited effort to contextualise research findings within the related body of research; no robustness checks |
Adequate level of critical analysis of research findings. Adequate discussion of the meaning and implications of the findings; the findings are reasonably connected to the aims & objectives, or research questions, problem or hypotheses; research findings are satisfactorily positioned within the related literature |
Some links with aims & objectives, research questions, theories, and hypotheses; discussion supported with appropriate evidence, good critical analysis of the implications of the findings; good visualisation of research findings; research findings are positioned within the related literature; some attention is provided to any unexpected findings |
Comprehensive links with aims & objectives, research questions, theories, and hypotheses; complete justification with appropriate evidence, very good critical analysis of the meaning and implications of the findings, and reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the research or development; research findings are positioned within the related literature; any unexpected findings are discussed |
Strong links with aims & objectives, research questions, theories, and hypotheses. Sophisticated and critical discussion of the issues involved, outstanding reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the research, offers fresh/new insights on the problem or topic; research findings are clearly positioned within the related literature; in-depth discussion is provided about any unexpected findings |
|||
|
6. Conclusion [10%]
· Do the conclusions do more than re-state your research findings? · Do they provide implications for financial practice, policy and/or regulation? · Do they discuss limitations of your research design (if not discussed in the previous chapters or steps)? · Does the concluding chapter identify avenues for future research?
|
Conclusions are not justified by evidence, they do not relate to the topic of the dissertation, their development is unclear and incomplete; no implications for practice, policy or regulation; no recommendations/ opportunities for further development |
Conclusions poorly justified by evidence, they have a poor relationship to the topic of the dissertation, their development is of poor quality; limited implications for practice, policy or regulation; recommendations/opportunities for further development are not of practical use |
Conclusions have limited justification in the evidence, there is limited relationship to existing theory and the topic of the dissertation; insufficient implications for practice, policy or regulation; very limited recommendations / opportunities for further development |
Adequate attempt to use evidence to reach appropriate conclusions that relate to the topic of the dissertation, conclusions may be general and uncritical; satisfactory implications for practice, policy or regulation; adequate recommendations / opportunities for further development |
Clear conclusions relating to the topic of the dissertation and justified by the evidence. Reasonably discusses implications for practice, policy or regulation. Identifies clear recommendations / opportunities for further development |
Clear conclusions with a very good relationship to the topic of the dissertation and justified well by the evidence. Research findings are well connected with practice, policy or regulation. Identifies clear and practical recommendations / opportunities for further development |
Exceptional conclusions that relate strongly to the topic of the dissertation with excellent justification in the evidence. Research findings are clearly connected with practice, policy or regulation. Conclusions add new insight to the topic of the dissertation and identify clear and practical recommendations/ opportunities for further development |
|||
|
7. Presentation, Structure & Language [10%]
· Is it written in good English? · Is it presented using appropriate graphics, illustrations and accurate referencing? · Is it well structured, logical and coherent, using appropriate chapter headings?
|
Mostly inarticulate and incomprehensible, very hard to understand and follow, confused and unstructured |
Poor presentation, many spelling and grammatical errors, difficult to understand, inappropriately structured |
Basic layout, inconsistent flow of argument, a few spelling and grammatical errors, poor citation and reference list, poor structure, confused. |
Adequate use of graphics and charts, good command of spelling and grammar, some typos, some omissions or inconsistencies in the reference list, most sections have a logical flow and structure |
Clear and effective use of graphics and charts, no spelling or grammatical errors, appropriate and consistent referencing, logical, clear and coherent structure |
Very good logical flow and cohesion, Discerning use of graphics, charts and tables, no spelling or grammatical errors, appropriate and consistent referencing, well developed and appropriate structure |
Outstanding logical flow, excellent use of language, appealing and effective use of graphics, charts and tables, appropriate and consistent referencing, very skilfully developed structure, outstanding logical flow, most effective use of conventions appropriate for purpose |
|||