case study bachelor thesis

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods

Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods

Published on 5 May 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 30 January 2023.

A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organisation, or phenomenon. Case studies are commonly used in social, educational, clinical, and business research.

A case study research design usually involves qualitative methods , but quantitative methods are sometimes also used. Case studies are good for describing , comparing, evaluating, and understanding different aspects of a research problem .

Table of contents

When to do a case study, step 1: select a case, step 2: build a theoretical framework, step 3: collect your data, step 4: describe and analyse the case.

A case study is an appropriate research design when you want to gain concrete, contextual, in-depth knowledge about a specific real-world subject. It allows you to explore the key characteristics, meanings, and implications of the case.

Case studies are often a good choice in a thesis or dissertation . They keep your project focused and manageable when you don’t have the time or resources to do large-scale research.

You might use just one complex case study where you explore a single subject in depth, or conduct multiple case studies to compare and illuminate different aspects of your research problem.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Once you have developed your problem statement and research questions , you should be ready to choose the specific case that you want to focus on. A good case study should have the potential to:

• Provide new or unexpected insights into the subject
• Challenge or complicate existing assumptions and theories
• Propose practical courses of action to resolve a problem
• Open up new directions for future research

Unlike quantitative or experimental research, a strong case study does not require a random or representative sample. In fact, case studies often deliberately focus on unusual, neglected, or outlying cases which may shed new light on the research problem.

If you find yourself aiming to simultaneously investigate and solve an issue, consider conducting action research . As its name suggests, action research conducts research and takes action at the same time, and is highly iterative and flexible. 

However, you can also choose a more common or representative case to exemplify a particular category, experience, or phenomenon.

While case studies focus more on concrete details than general theories, they should usually have some connection with theory in the field. This way the case study is not just an isolated description, but is integrated into existing knowledge about the topic. It might aim to:

• Exemplify a theory by showing how it explains the case under investigation
• Expand on a theory by uncovering new concepts and ideas that need to be incorporated
• Challenge a theory by exploring an outlier case that doesn’t fit with established assumptions

To ensure that your analysis of the case has a solid academic grounding, you should conduct a literature review of sources related to the topic and develop a theoretical framework . This means identifying key concepts and theories to guide your analysis and interpretation.

There are many different research methods you can use to collect data on your subject. Case studies tend to focus on qualitative data using methods such as interviews, observations, and analysis of primary and secondary sources (e.g., newspaper articles, photographs, official records). Sometimes a case study will also collect quantitative data .

The aim is to gain as thorough an understanding as possible of the case and its context.

In writing up the case study, you need to bring together all the relevant aspects to give as complete a picture as possible of the subject.

How you report your findings depends on the type of research you are doing. Some case studies are structured like a standard scientific paper or thesis, with separate sections or chapters for the methods , results , and discussion .

Others are written in a more narrative style, aiming to explore the case from various angles and analyse its meanings and implications (for example, by using textual analysis or discourse analysis ).

In all cases, though, make sure to give contextual details about the case, connect it back to the literature and theory, and discuss how it fits into wider patterns or debates.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, January 30). Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved 14 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/case-studies/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, correlational research | guide, design & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, descriptive research design | definition, methods & examples.

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write a Case Study | Examples & Methods

What is a case study?

A case study is a research approach that provides an in-depth examination of a particular phenomenon, event, organization, or individual. It involves analyzing and interpreting data to provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject under investigation. 

Case studies can be used in various disciplines, including business, social sciences, medicine ( clinical case report ), engineering, and education. The aim of a case study is to provide an in-depth exploration of a specific subject, often with the goal of generating new insights into the phenomena being studied.

When to write a case study

Case studies are often written to present the findings of an empirical investigation or to illustrate a particular point or theory. They are useful when researchers want to gain an in-depth understanding of a specific phenomenon or when they are interested in exploring new areas of inquiry. 

Case studies are also useful when the subject of the research is rare or when the research question is complex and requires an in-depth examination. A case study can be a good fit for a thesis or dissertation as well.

Case study examples

Below are some examples of case studies with their research questions:

These examples demonstrate the diversity of research questions and case studies that can be explored. From studying small businesses in Ghana to the ethical issues in supply chains, case studies can be used to explore a wide range of phenomena.

Outlying cases vs. representative cases

An outlying case stud y refers to a case that is unusual or deviates significantly from the norm. An example of an outlying case study could be a small, family-run bed and breakfast that was able to survive and even thrive during the COVID-19 pandemic, while other larger hotels struggled to stay afloat.

On the other hand, a representative case study refers to a case that is typical of the phenomenon being studied. An example of a representative case study could be a hotel chain that operates in multiple locations that faced significant challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as reduced demand for hotel rooms, increased safety and health protocols, and supply chain disruptions. The hotel chain case could be representative of the broader hospitality industry during the pandemic, and thus provides an insight into the typical challenges that businesses in the industry faced.

Steps for Writing a Case Study

As with any academic paper, writing a case study requires careful preparation and research before a single word of the document is ever written. Follow these basic steps to ensure that you don’t miss any crucial details when composing your case study.

Step 1: Select a case to analyze

After you have developed your statement of the problem and research question , the first step in writing a case study is to select a case that is representative of the phenomenon being investigated or that provides an outlier. For example, if a researcher wants to explore the impact of COVID-19 on the hospitality industry, they could select a representative case, such as a hotel chain that operates in multiple locations, or an outlying case, such as a small bed and breakfast that was able to pivot their business model to survive during the pandemic. Selecting the appropriate case is critical in ensuring the research question is adequately explored.

Step 2: Create a theoretical framework

Theoretical frameworks are used to guide the analysis and interpretation of data in a case study. The framework should provide a clear explanation of the key concepts, variables, and relationships that are relevant to the research question. The theoretical framework can be drawn from existing literature, or the researcher can develop their own framework based on the data collected. The theoretical framework should be developed early in the research process to guide the data collection and analysis.

To give your case analysis a strong theoretical grounding, be sure to include a literature review of references and sources relating to your topic and develop a clear theoretical framework. Your case study does not simply stand on its own but interacts with other studies related to your topic. Your case study can do one of the following: 

• Demonstrate a theory by showing how it explains the case being investigated
• Broaden a theory by identifying additional concepts and ideas that can be incorporated to strengthen it
• Confront a theory via an outlier case that does not conform to established conclusions or assumptions

Step 3: Collect data for your case study

Data collection can involve a variety of research methods , including interviews, surveys, observations, and document analyses, and it can include both primary and secondary sources . It is essential to ensure that the data collected is relevant to the research question and that it is collected in a systematic and ethical manner. Data collection methods should be chosen based on the research question and the availability of data. It is essential to plan data collection carefully to ensure that the data collected is of high quality

Step 4: Describe the case and analyze the details

The final step is to describe the case in detail and analyze the data collected. This involves identifying patterns and themes that emerge from the data and drawing conclusions that are relevant to the research question. It is essential to ensure that the analysis is supported by the data and that any limitations or alternative explanations are acknowledged.

The manner in which you report your findings depends on the type of research you are doing. Some case studies are structured like a standard academic paper, with separate sections or chapters for the methods section , results section , and discussion section , while others are structured more like a standalone literature review.

Regardless of the topic you choose to pursue, writing a case study requires a systematic and rigorous approach to data collection and analysis. By following the steps outlined above and using examples from existing literature, researchers can create a comprehensive and insightful case study that contributes to the understanding of a particular phenomenon.

Preparing Your Case Study for Publication

After completing the draft of your case study, be sure to revise and edit your work for any mistakes, including grammatical errors , punctuation errors , spelling mistakes, and awkward sentence structure . Ensure that your case study is well-structured and that your arguments are well-supported with language that follows the conventions of academic writing .  To ensure your work is polished for style and free of errors, get English editing services from Wordvice, including our paper editing services and manuscript editing services . Let our academic subject experts enhance the style and flow of your academic work so you can submit your case study with confidence.

Think of yourself as a member of a jury, listening to a lawyer who is presenting an opening argument. You'll want to know very soon whether the lawyer believes the accused to be guilty or not guilty, and how the lawyer plans to convince you. Readers of academic essays are like jury members: before they have read too far, they want to know what the essay argues as well as how the writer plans to make the argument. After reading your thesis statement, the reader should think, "This essay is going to try to convince me of something. I'm not convinced yet, but I'm interested to see how I might be."

An effective thesis cannot be answered with a simple "yes" or "no." A thesis is not a topic; nor is it a fact; nor is it an opinion. "Reasons for the fall of communism" is a topic. "Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe" is a fact known by educated people. "The fall of communism is the best thing that ever happened in Europe" is an opinion. (Superlatives like "the best" almost always lead to trouble. It's impossible to weigh every "thing" that ever happened in Europe. And what about the fall of Hitler? Couldn't that be "the best thing"?)

A good thesis has two parts. It should tell what you plan to argue, and it should "telegraph" how you plan to argue—that is, what particular support for your claim is going where in your essay.

Steps in Constructing a Thesis

First, analyze your primary sources.  Look for tension, interest, ambiguity, controversy, and/or complication. Does the author contradict himself or herself? Is a point made and later reversed? What are the deeper implications of the author's argument? Figuring out the why to one or more of these questions, or to related questions, will put you on the path to developing a working thesis. (Without the why, you probably have only come up with an observation—that there are, for instance, many different metaphors in such-and-such a poem—which is not a thesis.)

Once you have a working thesis, write it down.  There is nothing as frustrating as hitting on a great idea for a thesis, then forgetting it when you lose concentration. And by writing down your thesis you will be forced to think of it clearly, logically, and concisely. You probably will not be able to write out a final-draft version of your thesis the first time you try, but you'll get yourself on the right track by writing down what you have.

Keep your thesis prominent in your introduction.  A good, standard place for your thesis statement is at the end of an introductory paragraph, especially in shorter (5-15 page) essays. Readers are used to finding theses there, so they automatically pay more attention when they read the last sentence of your introduction. Although this is not required in all academic essays, it is a good rule of thumb.

Anticipate the counterarguments.  Once you have a working thesis, you should think about what might be said against it. This will help you to refine your thesis, and it will also make you think of the arguments that you'll need to refute later on in your essay. (Every argument has a counterargument. If yours doesn't, then it's not an argument—it may be a fact, or an opinion, but it is not an argument.)

This statement is on its way to being a thesis. However, it is too easy to imagine possible counterarguments. For example, a political observer might believe that Dukakis lost because he suffered from a "soft-on-crime" image. If you complicate your thesis by anticipating the counterargument, you'll strengthen your argument, as shown in the sentence below.

Some Caveats and Some Examples

A thesis is never a question.  Readers of academic essays expect to have questions discussed, explored, or even answered. A question ("Why did communism collapse in Eastern Europe?") is not an argument, and without an argument, a thesis is dead in the water.

A thesis is never a list.  "For political, economic, social and cultural reasons, communism collapsed in Eastern Europe" does a good job of "telegraphing" the reader what to expect in the essay—a section about political reasons, a section about economic reasons, a section about social reasons, and a section about cultural reasons. However, political, economic, social and cultural reasons are pretty much the only possible reasons why communism could collapse. This sentence lacks tension and doesn't advance an argument. Everyone knows that politics, economics, and culture are important.

A thesis should never be vague, combative or confrontational.  An ineffective thesis would be, "Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe because communism is evil." This is hard to argue (evil from whose perspective? what does evil mean?) and it is likely to mark you as moralistic and judgmental rather than rational and thorough. It also may spark a defensive reaction from readers sympathetic to communism. If readers strongly disagree with you right off the bat, they may stop reading.

An effective thesis has a definable, arguable claim.  "While cultural forces contributed to the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the disintegration of economies played the key role in driving its decline" is an effective thesis sentence that "telegraphs," so that the reader expects the essay to have a section about cultural forces and another about the disintegration of economies. This thesis makes a definite, arguable claim: that the disintegration of economies played a more important role than cultural forces in defeating communism in Eastern Europe. The reader would react to this statement by thinking, "Perhaps what the author says is true, but I am not convinced. I want to read further to see how the author argues this claim."

A thesis should be as clear and specific as possible.  Avoid overused, general terms and abstractions. For example, "Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe because of the ruling elite's inability to address the economic concerns of the people" is more powerful than "Communism collapsed due to societal discontent."

Copyright 1999, Maxine Rodburg and The Tutors of the Writing Center at Harvard University

Ensuring bachelor’s thesis assessment quality: a case study at one Dutch research university

Higher Education Evaluation and Development

ISSN : 2514-5789

Article publication date: 30 May 2023

In the Netherlands, thesis assessment quality is a growing concern for the national accreditation organization due to increasing student numbers and supervisor workload. However, the accreditation framework lacks guidance on how to meet quality standards. This study aims to address these issues by sharing our experience, identifying problems and proposing guidelines for quality assurance for a thesis assessment system.

Design/methodology/approach

This study has two parts. The first part is a narrative literature review conducted to derive guidelines for thesis assessment based on observations made at four Dutch universities. The second part is a case study conducted in one bachelor’s psychology-related program, where the assessment practitioners and the vice program director analyzed the assessment documents based on the guidelines developed from the literature review.

The findings of this study include a list of guidelines based on the four standards. The case study results showed that the program meets most of the guidelines, as it has a comprehensive set of thesis learning outcomes, peer coaching for novice supervisors, clear and complete assessment information and procedures for both examiners and students, and a concise assessment form.

Originality/value

This study is original in that it demonstrates how to holistically ensure the quality of thesis assessments by considering the context of the program and paying more attention to validity (e.g. program curriculum and assessment design), transparency (e.g. integrating assessment into the supervision process) and the assessment expertise of teaching staff.

• Quality assurance
• Accreditation
• Thesis assessment

Hsiao, Y.-P.(A). , van de Watering, G. , Heitbrink, M. , Vlas, H. and Chiu, M.-S. (2023), "Ensuring bachelor’s thesis assessment quality: a case study at one Dutch research university", Higher Education Evaluation and Development , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-08-2022-0033

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Ya-Ping (Amy) Hsiao, Gerard van de Watering, Marthe Heitbrink, Helma Vlas and Mei-Shiu Chiu

Published in Higher Education Evaluation and Development . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http:// creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

According to data from the universities of the Netherlands, the number of bachelor’s students at Dutch research universities has been steadily increasing from 2015 to 2021 [1] , leading to increased workload for teaching staff due to the need for greater supervision of students [2] . This increased supervision is particularly evident in the supervision of students’ final projects. In the Netherlands, students can begin working on their final projects in the final year of their program’s curriculum once they pass the first-year diploma (the so-called Propaedeutic phase based on a positive binding study advice, BSA), earn a required number of European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) credits and meet other requirements. A bachelor’s degree is awarded when a student has “demonstrated by the results of tests, the final projects, and the performance of graduates in actual practice or in postgraduate programmes” (The Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders [Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie], hereinafter abbreviated as the NVAO, 2018 , p. 34).

The Bachelor’s thesis is the culmination of the Bachelor’s programme. A Bachelor’s thesis is carried out in the form of a research project within a department. It is an opportunity to put the knowledge learned during the programme into practice. The Bachelor’s thesis is used to assess the student’s initiative and their ability to plan, report and present a project. The difficulty level of the thesis is described by the attainment targets of the programme and the modules followed up until that moment. Students work independently on a Bachelor’s thesis or Individual Assignment (IOO) under the guidance of a supervisor.

This definition highlights the pedagogical value of the thesis (i.e. the opportunity to carry out an independent project) and the purpose of thesis assessment (i.e. to determine the extent to which the intended learning outcomes have been achieved). While this definition acknowledges the importance of a bachelor’s thesis, relatively little research has been done on examining the quality of undergraduate thesis assessment ( Hand and Clewes, 2000 ; Shay, 2005 ; Webster et al ., 2000 ; Todd et al ., 2004 ), let alone in the Dutch context where thesis supervisors and examiners of bachelor’s students are experiencing an increasing workload.

In recent years, the Dutch government has placed increasing emphasis on assessment quality in higher education ( Inspectorate of Education [Inspectie van het Onderwijs], 2016 ). The NVAO has established the Assessment Framework for the Higher Education Accreditation System of the Netherlands (hereinafter abbreviated as the Framework, NVAO, 2018 ). The standards for the accreditation of initial and existing study programs emphasize whether a program has established an adequate student assessment system that appropriately assesses the intended learning outcomes ( NVAO, 2018 ). According to the quality standards of the Framework, thesis assessment should be valid, reliable, transparent and independent. Assessment literature in the higher education context has defined these criteria as follows (e.g. Biggs and Tang, 2007 ; Bloxham and Boyd, 2007 ). Validity refers to the extent to which an assessment accurately measures what it is intended to measure. Reliability refers to the consistency of the assessment results, or how well they accurately reflect a student’s actual achievement level. Transparency is the clarity and specificity with which assessment information is communicated to both students and examiners. Independency is a necessary condition for ensuring the validity and reliability of an assessment, as it requires that examiners remain objective in the assessment process.

Despite the inclusion of these standards in the Framework ( NVAO, 2008 ), official guidance on establishing a quality system of assessing graduation projects that test achievement of the exit level of a study program at Dutch research universities is limited. As assessment practitioners (the first four authors of this article), we have found that it is often unclear for a program’s curriculum and/or management team to establish appropriate thesis assessment procedures at the undergraduate level that meet the NVAO’s quality standards. We hope that our experience can provide valuable insights and guidance for programs seeking to ensure quality assurance for thesis assessment.

Aims and research questions

The purpose of this study is to share our experience and the challenges we faced during internal and external quality assurance processes of thesis assessment. Based on these challenges, we conducted a narrative literature review to develop a set of guidelines for ensuring thesis assessment quality that aligns with the four standards outlined in the Framework ( NVAO, 2018 ): (1) intended learning outcomes, (2) teaching and learning environment, (3) assessment and (4) achieved learning outcomes. To illustrate the application of these guidelines, we present a case study of bachelor’s thesis assessment practices at one Dutch research university.

What are the guidelines for ensuring the quality of thesis assessment procedures that meet the standards specified in the Framework?

How can these guidelines be applied to evaluate the quality of thesis assessment in a study program?

It is important to note that this study is limited to the context of four Dutch research universities, where we encountered common issues during internal quality assurance processes of thesis assessment. Our goal is to share our experience and offer insights that could be useful to other institutions seeking to ensure the quality of thesis assessment. We do not intend to assume that these problems are present at all Dutch research universities.

Problems and guidelines in meeting the four standards

According to the didactic principle of constructive alignment ( Biggs and Tang, 2007 ), which is commonly used in Dutch higher education, the three education processes, teaching, learning and assessment, should be aligned with the intended learning outcomes. We begin with Standards 1 and 2, which set out the conditions under which thesis assessment takes place, and then we place more emphasis on Standards 3 and 4, which focus on the quality criteria for thesis assessment.

Standard 1: intended learning outcomes

To ensure that a study program meets Standard 1 of the Dutch Qualification Framework ( NLQF, 2008 ), the intended learning outcomes for graduates in specific subject areas and qualifications are typically developed using the Dublin Descriptors ( Bologna Working Group, 2005 ), which provide generic statements of competencies and attributes. However, it is often assumed that a thesis should assess all of these program learning outcomes (PLOs) since it is intended to evaluate the achieved learning outcomes at the exit level. Unfortunately, these PLOs can be global and unclear, which can confuse and hinder students from trying to understand the expectations for thesis assessment. Our observation is that programs often utilize PLOs as thesis learning outcomes (TLOs), although a thesis is not equivalent to the entire program curriculum.

According to Biggs and Tang (2007) , it is important for teachers to first clearly define the learning outcomes before designing instructional activities to guide students toward achieving them. In addition, the outcomes at the program and course levels (i.e. a thesis is also a course) should also be constructively aligned, and the course-level outcomes should be specific to the context of the course. Therefore, to design effective thesis activities (such as supervision) and develop assessment criteria, it would be more pedagogically valuable to formulate thesis-specific learning outcomes and explain how they contribute to the PLOs and Dublin Descriptors, rather than directly using the PLOs for thesis assessment.

In addition, a thesis course often involves most of the teaching staff in the program. Therefore, it is important to establish clear and specific expectations for what students should achieve at the end of a bachelor’s thesis course ( Willison and O'Regan, 2006 ; Todd et al ., 2004 ), such as the scope and type of research (e.g. scaffolded or self-initiated), integrating disciplinary knowledge and research skills from earlier program curriculum, demonstrating critical thinking through well-supported arguments and developing independent learning skills for future work ( Willison and O'Regan, 2006 ).

Standard 2: teaching-learning environment

According to Standard 2 of the Dutch Qualification Framework ( NLQF, 2008 ), the quality of the teaching and learning environment should be designed to help students achieve the intended learning outcomes of the program curriculum. However, our experience has revealed problems in this area. In informal discussions with thesis supervisors, we have found that students often report a lack of preparedness for a bachelor’s thesis, as they have not been adequately taught or practiced certain academic and research skills such as communication, information seeking and methodologies. Conversely, many teachers in the program believe they have covered these skills in their courses. Furthermore, during thesis calibration sessions, we have observed that novice examiners lack expertise due to insufficient experience in research education, a lack of training as thesis examiners, and unclear instructions on thesis assessment procedures.

To meet Standard 2, we recommend the following two guidelines. First, as suggested by research on curriculum alignment ( Wijngaards-de Meij and Merx, 2018 ) and research skills development ( Willison, 2012 ; Reguant et al ., 2018 ), the program-level curriculum design should arrange domain-specific subjects in a logical order and gradually develop students’ research, communication and independent learning skills so that they are well prepared to work on the thesis. At the same time, universities should focus on converting teaching staff’s research experience into research education expertise ( Maxwell and Smyth, 2011 ) for the long term.

Second, the program should ensure the quality of the teaching staff because examiners’ practices are crucial for the quality of thesis assessment ( Golding et al ., 2014 ; Kiley and Mullins, 2004 ; Mullins and Kiley, 2002 ). According to the literature, thesis examiners should receive sufficient instructions and training on how to grade a thesis ( Hand and Clewes, 2000 ; Kiley and Mullins, 2004 ). In addition, the university should provide teaching staff with written instructions to regulate and communicate thesis assessment procedures for supervisors, examiners and students, as well as assessment training on using the assessment forms and holding calibration sessions to achieve consistency in interpreting criteria and grade points. The literature on how supporting teaching staff in assessment practices contributes to consistency is discussed further in the section on Reliability.

Standards 3 and 4: student assessment and achieved learning outcomes

Ensuring validity starts with clearly defining what the assessment is intended to measure. According to the definition of validity and principle of constructive alignment ( Biggs and Tang, 2007 ), thesis assessment should be aligned with learning outcomes.

We have identified two problems in this regard. The first problem is the use of a generic assessment form with a set of uniform criteria across different programs within the same department or school. We believe this practice does not follow the principle of constructive alignment ( Biggs and Tang, 2007 ). In particular, the same assessment form cannot be used directly for different degrees (i.e. Bachelor, Master and PhD) based on the Dublin Descriptors. It would be difficult for a generic assessment form to assess the different levels of cognitive demand and skills required at each degree level. For example, the concept of “originality” is defined very differently at each degree level and this should be reflected in the assessment criteria.

The second problem is the quality of the assessment form itself. We have observed the following issues: (1) some criteria are not always directly relevant to the TLOs, (2) the assessment form only lists the names of criteria without defining them or providing specific indicators for each criterion, (3) it is unclear whether different criteria are given equal weight and (4) it is unclear how the final grade is determined (e.g. whether each criterion must be “sufficient” or “passing”).

To address these problems, we recommend the following guidelines. The assessment criteria listed in the form should align with the TLOs and should describe the characteristics of student work that provide relevant, representative and important evidence of their attainment of the learning outcomes ( Brookhart, 2013 , 2018 ; Walvoord and Anderson, 2011 ). In addition to aligning the criteria with the outcomes, the quality of the criteria also affects what is actually being assessed. The criteria should avoid vagueness that leads to multiple interpretations of quality indicators ( Biggs and Tang, 2007 ; Bloxham et al ., 2011 ; Hand and Clewes, 2000 ; Webster et al ., 2000 ). To ensure that the assessment measures what it is intended to measure, the criteria should meet the following five criteria ( Brookhart, 2013 , 2018 ; Walvoord and Anderson, 2011 ): they should be definable, observable, distinct from one another, complete and able to support descriptions along a continuum of quality.

Another important aspect of validity is the weighting of multiple assessment criteria. The weighting should reflect the relative importance of the criteria based on the disciplinary focus of the study program. For example, the criterion of “method and data analysis” might carry more weight in psychology than it would in philosophy.

Reliability and independency

Reliability is a necessary condition for validity and refers to the consistency of assessment results. Reliability is important because it allows us to confidently interpret and determine students’ true performance on a thesis.

Independency between examiners is necessary to ensure the reliability (or objectivity) of the assessment process, as it helps prevent influence on each other’s judgment. Independent grading is often specified in the Education and Examination Regulations of an institution.

Intra-rater reliability refers to the consistency of a single examiner’s grading process over time. Inconsistencies may occur due to internal influences rather than true differences in student performance. We have observed inconsistencies in completed assessment forms, including discrepancies between comments and scores given by the same examiner across different student theses.

Analytical: Examiners assign a rating to each criterion and then determine a thesis grade based on the grading guidelines.

Analytical and then holistic: Examiners assign a rating to each criterion and then determine a thesis grade based on the grading guidelines. If the thesis grade does not match the holistic judgment, examiners adjust the ratings of the criteria.

Holistic and then analytical: Examiners hold an initial grade (in their mind) based on holistic judgment. Next, examiners assign a rating to each criterion and determine a thesis grade based on the grading guidelines. If the thesis grade is different from the initial grade, examiners adjust the ratings of the criteria to make sure that these two grades are the same.

To ensure intra-rater reliability, it is essential to clearly define each criterion to prevent multiple interpretations by examiners. Additionally, examiners should be provided with bias-reduction training ( Wylie and Szpara, 2004 ) to make them aware of potential biases, such as supervisor bias ( Bettany-Saltikov et al ., 2009 ; McQuade et al ., 2020 ; Nyamapfene, 2012 ), and to take actions to prevent them. During the grading process, examiners should also consistently revisit the established criteria and level descriptors to maintain consistency.

To improve inter-rater reliability, the literature suggests establishing standard assessment procedures and improving examiners’ assessment practices ( Hand and Clewes, 2000 ; Kiley and Mullins, 2004 ; Pathirage et al ., 2007 ). Standard assessment procedures should clearly outline the process for considering the relative importance of multiple criteria and the relative importance of various indicators within a criterion ( Hand and Clewes, 2000 ; Bloxham et al ., 2016a ; Pathirage et al ., 2007 ; Webster et al ., 2000 ). To improve examiners’ assessment practices, common approaches include providing examiners with the following three processes ( Sadler, 2013 ):

Prior to grading, to ensure consistent grading, examiners should have a shared understanding of the expectations for each criterion and score level. This can be achieved through the use of anchor or exemplar theses, which are previously graded theses that illustrate the characteristics of each score level ( Osborn Popp et al ., 2009 ). Examiners can refer to these anchor theses as they grade to ensure that they are accurately distinguishing between the different score levels. It should also be clear to examiners how to complete the grading form and whether they are allowed to discuss with other examiners during the grading process ( Pathirage et al ., 2007 ; Dierick et al ., 2002 ).

During the grading process, moderation refers to the process of two examiners arriving at a collective thesis grade ( Bloxham et al ., 2016b ). It is important to have clear instructions on how to control evaluative judgments and stay within reasonable limits during the moderation process. Examiners should also be informed of score resolution methods in case of large discrepancies between their scores, as averaging the scores may not be sufficient in such cases ( Johnson et al ., 2005 ; Sadler, 2013 ). If a third examiner is involved in the moderation process, it should be clear who is qualified for this task and how their results are used to determine the final thesis grade ( Johnson et al ., 2005 ).

As a “post-judgment” process, calibration is the act of ensuring that examiners grade student work against the agreed quality criteria and “how a particular level of quality should be represented” ( Sadler, 2013 , p. 6). It can be helpful to think of calibration as similar to checking the accuracy of a weighing scale by comparing it to a standard and making adjustments to bring it into alignment. In a similar vein, the thesis assessment form (including criteria and score-level descriptors) and examiners’ assessment practices should be calibrated, particularly when there are significant changes in thesis assessment procedures. As noted by Sadler (2013) , high-quality evaluative judgments also require the development of “calibrated” academics who serve not only as custodians of quality criteria and level standards but also as consultants for novice and short-term examiners. Calibration can be implemented alongside the normal grading period as part of an internal quality assurance system ( Andriessen and Manders, 2013 ; Bergwerff and Klaren, 2016 ).

Transparency

Transparency in assessment has received increasing attention in higher education in recent years ( Bamber, 2015 ; Bell et al ., 2013 ; O'Donovan et al ., 2004 ; Price, 2005 ). It refers to making the perceptions and expectations of assessors, including requirements, standards and assessment criteria, known and understood by all participants, particularly students ( O'Donovan et al ., 2004 ).

To ensure transparency in thesis assessment, it’s not enough to only provide students with assessment forms and instructions on assessment procedures. Our observations indicate that without discussing the deeper meaning of criteria and standards, there is a risk of different interpretations by examiners and students.

To address this issue, it is important to foster shared understanding and promote assessment for learning and feedback on progress. This can be achieved by helping students develop their understanding of the quality criteria and standards through observation, discussion and imitation of good-quality theses ( Malcolm, 2020 ). Using anchor theses ( Orsmond et al ., 2002 ; Sadler, 1987 ) and involving students in peer review and grading of each other’s theses using the criteria ( O'Donovan et al ., 2004 ; Rust et al ., 2003 ) can be effective ways to do this.

To ensure transparency, supervisors should use the assessment form not only for thesis examination but also during supervising activities, and should clearly explain the criteria and score levels to their students using anchor theses for illustration ( O'Donovan et al ., 2004 ; Rust et al ., 2003 ).

Overview of guidelines

Formulate program-specific TLOs.

Thesis assessment should be appropriate for the program curriculum and assessment plan.

The program should ensure examiners’ assessment expertise by providing training or instructions.

Standards 3 and 4 – student assessment and achieved learning outcomes

TLOs, thesis supervision and thesis assessment should be constructively aligned.

The assessment criteria should be clearly defined and meet quality requirements. The weighting of multiple criteria should reflect the relative importance of TLOs.

Intra-rater reliability: Examiners should revisit the established criteria to ensure consistency and strive to prevent any possible assessor bias.

○ The program should make assessment procedures consistent across examiners.

○ The program should improve examiners’ assessment practices through the use of anchor or exemplary theses, moderation prior to and during assessment practices, and calibration after thesis assessment.

The program should inform students of what is expected of them and how their thesis will be assessed.

The program should instruct supervisors to explicitly use the criteria during supervising activities.

To illustrate the application of these guidelines, we present a case study of a psychology-related bachelor’s program at a Dutch research university. We chose to focus on this program because all of the authors have experience in quality assurance at various psychology programs. The documents for this case study were provided by one of the co-authors, who played a significant role in the quality assurance of assessment at the program. These documents include the program’s learning outcomes, a thesis handbook, a thesis assessment form, grading instructions for examiners and a self-assessment report (which includes reflections on the four standards of the Framework and is required to be submitted to the NVAO before a site visit).

Four of the authors and the vice program director (as a self-reflection exercise) examined these documents and answered open-ended questions derived from the guidelines in Box 1 . The findings were then structured based on the guidelines in Box 1 .

Motivation for participating in this study

Improving the quality of the assessment criteria to prevent multiple interpretations by examiners.

Clearly defining the roles, tasks and responsibilities of supervisors (as the first examiner) and the second examiner.

The vice program director indicated that the assessment form is still in development and that it is a dynamic improvement process, based on examiners’ accumulated experience and feedback from supervisors, examiners, students and assessment specialists.

Brief course descriptions of the Bachelor’s thesis

In this thesis course, students perform a study that covers the entire empirical research cycle, from developing a specific research question to using theory to answer the question and testing the theory through data collection. They integrate knowledge from various disciplines and practice conducting research on a technology-related problem. Students may collaborate in groups for literature search or data collection, but they must formulate a specific question to be answered in their individually written bachelor’s thesis.

Standard 1 – intended learning outcomes

PLO1 – Competent in scientific disciplines

PLO2 – Competent in doing research

PLO3 – Competent in designing

PLO4 – Use of a scientific approach

PLO5 – Basic intellectual skills

PLO6 – Competent in cooperating and communicating

PLO7 – Take into account the temporal, technological and social context.

TLO1 – formulate a research question fitted to the problem and relevant scholarly literature (PLO1,2)

TLO2 – conduct a literature search (PLO1,2,3,4,6)

TLO3 – apply and modify relevant scientific theory in order to solve a technology-related problem (PLO1,2,4,5,7)

TLO4 – make an adequate research design for empirical research (PLO2,3,4)

TLO5 – apply relevant scientific methods for empirical research (PLO1,2,3,4,5)

TLO6 – relate interpretation of data to theory and to design and/or policy recommendations (PLO1,2,3,4,5,7)

TLO7 – individually write a scientific report (PLO5,6)

TLO8 – reflect and think systematically (PLO5,6,7)

We conclude that TLOs contribute to the development of all seven competences outlined in the PLOs, as well as the five components of the Dublin Descriptors.

Standard 2 – teaching-learning environment

The bachelor’s thesis builds upon the knowledge and skills developed in previous courses. According to the curriculum and program assessment plan, student skills progress from year 1 to 3 and are assessed through various types of assessment, such as presentations, reports and reflective writing. However, there is no specific learning trajectory for academic and research skills available.

To ensure student readiness for working independently on their thesis, students must have passed the propaedeutic phase and obtained a required number of ECTS upon enrolment in the bachelor’s thesis course. They must also have passed the two methods courses.

Written instructions, including a detailed explanation of assessment procedures, criteria and rubrics, are provided in a thesis handbook for supervisors, examiners and students.

The program requires novice examiners to go through an “examiner internship” with senior examiners (mentors). They are guided and monitored by their mentors when assessing graduation theses in their first year of practice. They can directly approach mentors when encountering problems during supervision and assessment.

C1 – Abstract (TLO7,8)

C2 – Introduction/Theory (TLO1,2,3,8)

C3 – Method and results (TLO2,4,5,6)

C4 – Discussion (TLO1,2,3,6,8)

C5 – Writing style (TLO7)

C6 – Process/Work attitude (TLO7,8)

Each criterion on the assessment form includes a short definition and a number of indicators, which are graded using a five-point rating scale (Poor–Insufficient–Sufficient–Good–Very good). It is required that qualitative comments be added to all of the criteria.

It is not clear how each criterion is weighted.

It is not clear how the ratings of multiple indicators and criteria are aggregated to determine the total grade.

Although a rating scale is provided, score-level descriptors are not available. It is not clear whether the indicators describe the “Very good” or “Sufficient” score level.

These issues correspond to areas that the program is currently working to improve, as mentioned at the beginning of this section.

Reliability

New examiners receive a one-day training, in which they practice assessing theses based on the rubric, and discuss their practice results with senior examiners. They also receive guidance on how to use the criteria during the supervision process.

The first and second examiners assess the thesis independently by using the same rubric and register their initial grading results separately to the administration system.

It is obligatory for both examiners to hold a moderation meeting in order to arrive at collective grading results. In this meeting, they go through each criterion and discuss the differences. Then they register the collective results in the administration system, which generates the thesis grade.

When the discrepancies between two examiners cannot be moderated during the meeting, both examiners register these in the administration system. Next, a subcommittee from the Examination Board is informed, which carries out additional grading. The members of the subcommittee are senior examiners who are often mentors assigned to the novice examiners during the examiner internship.

There are no institution-wide guidelines on the moderation and calibration process. These quality assurance processes are organized by study programs. How they are implemented depends on the available resources, assessment expertise and time per study program.

Although no calibration procedure is established, the subcommittee regularly regrades a sample of the borderline theses around the fail/pass grade, the theses with a resit, and theses for which the two examiners differ substantially in their initial grading. In addition, this subcommittee holds a regular plenary meeting to discuss their assessment practices and report their findings regularly to the Examination Board.

After the assessment, both examiners and students are asked to fill out a survey to evaluate the use of rubric and the assessment procedures. The results are used for improving the quality of rubric.

These procedures are in line with most of our guidelines. Still, we suggest that the subcommittee systematically analyses their findings of regrading practices and acts on the improvements in order to complete the quality assurance cycle. In addition, as lessons learned from one university, we highly recommend the Examination Board or the program to carry out a regular review of the completed assessment forms to detect whether there is any assessor bias in order to safeguard intra-rater reliability.

The program has established clear guidelines on how to ensure transparency. At the beginning of the final project, an information session is organized to explain the supervision and assessment procedures and rules to students. It is made clear what the role tasks and responsibilities of supervisor, examiner and student are, in what way the thesis is assessed, and what is assessed (i.e. the criteria in the rubric). The criteria and indicators per criterion are explained in detail in this information session.

The program also makes it clear that the criteria should be used from the beginning and during the supervision activities, as well as in the assessment process. Supervisors are instructed to formulate feedback based on the criteria.

To sum up, this case study shows that their thesis assessment practices apply most of the guidelines suggested in this study.

Conclusion and discussion

This study presents problems encountered from a practitioner’s perspective and derives guidelines from the literature to address these issues. These guidelines cover the entire education process, taking the context of the program into account. They not only explain how to meet the quality criteria of validity, reliability, transparency and independence but also include the conditions that increase the likelihood of meeting these criteria, such as the importance of examiners’ assessment expertise and how the institution should facilitate their development in this area. The case study demonstrates how these guidelines are applied to examine thesis assessment practices at a bachelor’s psychology-related program at a Dutch academic university.

Our experience highlights the importance of applying the didactic principle of constructive alignment at the exit level, as it is not always clear to teaching staff what this means in the context of thesis assessment (despite its widespread use at the course level for instructional design) and how it can be used to ensure the four standards of the Framework. This has led to a focus on reliability, as noted by Webster et al . (2000) , such as revising thesis assessment forms and ensuring consistency among examiners. Our study aims to draw the attention of program teams to validity by considering the program’s curriculum and assessment design and the didactic purpose of using a thesis as a graduation project.

While other studies have focused on specific thesis assessment quality criteria such as reliability (e.g. Pathirage et al ., 2007 ), transparency (e.g. Malcolm, 2020 ) and independence ( Todd et al ., 2004 ; e.g. Nyamapfene, 2012 ), our case study shows how to ensure all of these criteria and carry out a complete quality assurance process. This does not mean that a program needs to address all of them at the same time. Instead, we want to emphasize the importance of research education in a bachelor’s program and recommend that the program align its thesis assessment design with its curriculum design for research education (i.e. as a learning trajectory) and its overall assessment design. Improving thesis assessment alone is not sufficient for students to achieve the intended learning outcomes of the program.

A final, and perhaps the most important, aspect to consider is how to effectively use limited resources to improve teaching staff’s assessment expertise so that they can continuously contribute to the improvement of thesis assessment practices. The guidelines presented in this study can be further developed or adapted as training materials for teaching staff.

Limitations

We would like to acknowledge two limitations of this study. First, unlike more traditional research methods such as surveys and interviews, the problems we reported here were compiled from various sources at four Dutch research universities. Without a more rigorous synthesis of these sources, it is possible that there may be some subjectivity and selection bias present. Second, the guidelines we derived from a narrative review of these problem topics may not include all relevant references.

It is important to note that our use of only one psychology-related bachelor’s program for the case study does not allow us to generalize our findings to all bachelor’s psychology programs at other Dutch academic universities. Rather, our aim is to share our experience and research-informed guidelines, and to examine thesis assessment quality from a practitioner perspective. In line with the goals of Koris and Pello’s (2022) article, our aim is to gradually find solutions that are appropriate for our context through several subsequent iterations in the future.

https://www.universiteitenvannederland.nl/en_GB/f_c_ingeschreven_studenten.html

https://www.universiteitenvannederland.nl/en_GB/reduce-work-pressure#eerste

Andriessen , D. and Manders , P. ( 2013 ), Beoordelen Is Mensenwerk [Evaluation Is Human Work] , Vereniging Hogescholen , Den Haag .

Bamber , M. ( 2015 ), “ The impact on stakeholder confidence of increased transparency in the examination assessment process ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  40 , pp.  471 - 487 .

Bell , A. , Mladenovic , R. and Price , M. ( 2013 ), “ Students' perceptions of the usefulness of marking guides, grade descriptors and annotated exemplars ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  38 , pp.  769 - 788 .

Bergwerff , M. and Klaren , M. ( 2016 ), Kwaliteitsborging Toetsing: En Handreiking Voor Examencommissies [Quality Assurance of Assessment: A Guide for Examination Boards] , Leiden University , Leiden .

Bettany-Saltikov , J. , Kilinc , S. and Stow , K. ( 2009 ), “ Bones, boys, bombs and booze: an exploratory study of the reliability of marking dissertations across disciplines ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  34 , pp.  621 - 639 .

Biggs , J. and Tang , C. ( 2007 ), Teaching for Quality Learning at University , Open University Press , New York, NY .

Bloxham , S. and Boyd , P. ( 2007 ), Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education: A Practical Guide , McGraw-Hill Education , New York, NY .

Bloxham , S. , Boyd , P. and Orr , S. ( 2011 ), “ Mark my words: the role of assessment criteria in UK higher education grading practices ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol.  36 , pp.  655 - 670 .

Bloxham , S. , den-Outer , B. , Hudson , J. and Price , M. ( 2016a ), “ Let's stop the pretence of consistent marking: exploring the multiple limitations of assessment criteria ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  41 , pp.  466 - 481 .

Bloxham , S. , Hughes , C. and Adie , L. ( 2016b ), “ What's the point of moderation? A discussion of the purposes achieved through contemporary moderation practices ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  41 , pp.  638 - 653 .

Bologna Working Group ( 2005 ), A Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area. Bologna Working Group Report on Qualifications Frameworks , Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation , Copenhagen .

Brookhart , S.M. ( 2013 ), How to Create and Use Rubrics for Formative Assessment and Grading , Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) , Alexandria, VA .

Brookhart , S.M. ( 2018 ), “ Appropriate criteria: key to effective rubrics ”, Frontiers in Education , [Online] , Vol.  3 , available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/feduc.2018.00022 ( accessed 10 April 2018 ).

Dierick , S. , van de Watering , G.A. and Muijtjens , A. ( 2002 ), “ De actuele kwaliteit van assessment: ontwikkelingen in de edumetrie ”, in Dochy , F. , Heylen , L. and van de Mosselaer , H. (Eds), Assessment in onderwijs: Nieuwe toetsvormen en examinering in studentgericht onderwijs en competentiegericht onderwijs , Boom Lemma Uitgevers , Amsterdam .

Golding , C. , Sharmini , S. and Lazarovitch , A. ( 2014 ), “ What examiners do: what thesis students should know ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  39 , pp.  563 - 576 .

Hand , L. and Clewes , D. ( 2000 ), “ Marking the difference: an investigation of the criteria used for assessing undergraduate dissertations in a business school ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  25 , pp.  5 - 21 .

Hsiao , Y.P. and Verhagen , M. ( 2018 ), “ Examining the quality and use of the grading form to assess undergraduate theses ”, 9th Biennial Conference of EARLI SIG 1: Assessment and Evaluation , Helsinki, Finland .

Inspectorate of Education [Inspectie van het Onderwijs] ( 2016 ), De kwaliteit van de toetsing in het hoger onderwijs [The assessment quality in higher education] , Ministry of Education, Culture and Science [Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap] , Utrecht .

Johnson , R.L. , Penny , J. , Gordon , B. , Shumate , S.R. and Fisher , S.P. ( 2005 ), “ Resolving score differences in the rating of writing samples: does discussion improve the accuracy of scores? ”, Language Assessment Quarterly , Vol.  2 , pp.  117 - 146 .

Kiley , M. and Mullins , G. ( 2004 ), “ Examining the examiners: how inexperienced examiners approach the assessment of research theses ”, International Journal of Educational Research , Vol.  41 , pp.  121 - 135 .

Koris , R. and Pello , R. ( 2022 ), “ We cannot agree to disagree: ensuring consistency, transparency and fairness across bachelor thesis writing, supervision and evaluation ”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , pp.  1 - 12 .

Malcolm , M. ( 2020 ), “ The challenge of achieving transparency in undergraduate honours-level dissertation supervision ”, Teaching in Higher Education , Vol.  28 No.  1 , pp. 1 - 17 .

Maxwell , T.W. and Smyth , R. ( 2011 ), “ Higher degree research supervision: from practice toward theory ”, Higher Education Research and Development , Vol.  30 , pp.  219 - 231 .

McQuade , R. , Kometa , S. , Brown , J. , Bevitt , D. and Hall , J. ( 2020 ), “ Research project assessments and supervisor marking: maintaining academic rigour through robust reconciliation processes ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  45 , pp.  1181 - 1191 .

Mullins , G. and Kiley , M. ( 2002 ), “ 'It's a PhD, not a Nobel Prize': how experienced examiners assess research theses ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol.  27 , pp.  369 - 386 .

NLQF ( 2008 ), The Higher Education Qualifications Framework in the Netherlands, a Presentation for Compatibility with the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area , Dutch Qualifications Framework (NLQF) , ’s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands .

NVAO ( 2008 ), The Higher Education Qualifications Framework in the Netherlands: A Presentation for Compatibility with the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area , Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO) , Den Haag .

NVAO ( 2018 ), Assessment Framework for the Higher Education Accreditation System of the Netherlands , Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO) , Den Haag .

Nyamapfene , A. ( 2012 ), “ Involving supervisors in assessing undergraduate student projects: is double marking robust? ”, Engineering Education , Vol.  7 , pp.  40 - 47 .

O'Donovan , B. , Price , M. and Rust , C. ( 2004 ), “ Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria ”, Teaching in Higher Education , Vol.  9 , pp.  325 - 335 .

Orsmond , P. , Merry , S. and Reiling , K. ( 2002 ), “ The use of exemplars and formative feedback when using student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  27 , pp.  309 - 323 .

Osborn Popp , S.E. , Ryan , J.M. and Thompson , M.S. ( 2009 ), “ The critical role of anchor paper selection in writing assessment ”, Applied Measurement in Education , Vol.  22 , pp.  255 - 271 .

Pathirage , C. , Haigh , R. , Amaratunga , D. and Baldry , D. ( 2007 ), “ Enhancing the quality and consistency of undergraduate dissertation assessment: a case study ”, Quality Assurance in Education , Vol.  15 , pp.  271 - 286 .

Price , M. ( 2005 ), “ Assessment standards: the role of communities of practice and the scholarship of assessment ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  30 , pp.  215 - 230 .

Reguant , M. , Martínez-Olmo , F. and Contreras-Higuera , W. ( 2018 ), “ Supervisors' perceptions of research competencies in the final-year project ”, Educational Research , Vol.  60 , pp.  113 - 129 .

Rust , C. , Price , M. and O'Donovan , B. ( 2003 ), “ Improving students' learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  28 , pp.  147 - 164 .

Sadler , D.R. ( 1987 ), “ Specifying and promulgating achievement standards ”, Oxford Review of Education , Vol.  13 , pp.  191 - 209 .

Sadler , D.R. ( 2013 ), “ Assuring academic achievement standards: from moderation to calibration ”, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice , Vol.  20 , pp.  5 - 19 .

Shay , S. ( 2005 ), “ The assessment of complex tasks: a double reading ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol.  30 , pp.  663 - 679 .

Todd , M. , Bannister , P. and Clegg , S. ( 2004 ), “ Independent inquiry and the undergraduate dissertation: perceptions and experiences of final-year social science students ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  29 , pp.  335 - 355 .

University of Twente ( 2019 ), The Bachelor's Thesis [Online] . University of Twente , Enschede, The Netherlands , available at: https://www.utwente.nl/en/bee/programme/thesis/ (accessed 8 September 2019) .

Walvoord , B.E. and Anderson , V.J. ( 2011 ), Effective Grading: A Tool for Learning and Assessment in College , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Webster , F. , Pepper , D. and Jenkins , A. ( 2000 ), “ Assessing the undergraduate dissertation ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  25 , pp.  71 - 80 .

Wijngaards-de Meij , L. and Merx , S. ( 2018 ), “ Improving curriculum alignment and achieving learning goals by making the curriculum visible ”, International Journal for Academic Development , Vol.  23 , pp.  219 - 231 .

Willison , J.W. ( 2012 ), “ When academics integrate research skill development in the curriculum ”, Higher Education Research and Development , Vol.  31 , pp.  905 - 919 .

Willison , J.W. and O'Regan , K. ( 2006 ), Research Skill Development Framework [Online] , The University of Adelaide , Adelaide , available at: https://www.adelaide.edu.au/rsd/ ( accessed 19th November 2019 ).

Wylie , E.C. and Szpara , M.Y. ( 2004 ), National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Bias-Reduction Training: Impact on Assessors’ Awareness , ETS Research Report Series , Princeton, NJ , Vol.  2004 , p. i - 55 .

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their thorough review and valuable feedback, which allowed the authors to improve the quality of the manuscript. The authors appreciate the time and effort they put into the review process.

Funding: This work was supported by National Chengchi University (DZ15-B4). The funder only provides financial support and does not substantially influence the entire research process, from study design to submission. The authors are fully responsible for the content of the paper.

Corresponding author

About the authors.

Ya-Ping (Amy) Hsiao is an assessment specialist and teacher trainer at Tilburg University. Her current research focuses on the reflection, portfolio and performance assessment of the graduation projects.

Gerard van de Watering is a policy advisor at Eindhoven University of Technology. His research and development interest focus on assessment and evaluation, student-centered learning environments, independent learning and study skills. He is also the founder of a network of assessment specialists in academic higher education in the Netherlands.

Marthe Heitbrink is a testing and assessment coordinator at the Psychology department of the University of Amsterdam.

Helma Vlas is an educational consultant, teacher trainer/assessor and assessment specialist at the University of Twente. She is stationed at the Centre of Expertise in Learning and Teaching. She is coordinator of the Senior Examination Qualification trajectory at the University of Twente.

Mei-Shiu Chiu is a full professor of Education at National Chengchi University in Taiwan. Her research interests focus on interactions between emotion/affect, cognition and culture for diverse knowledge domains (e.g. mathematics, science and energy) in relation to teaching, assessment and large-scale databases.

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

How To Write The Methodology Chapter

The what, why & how explained simply (with examples).

By: Jenna Crossley (PhD) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | September 2021 (Updated April 2023)

So, you’ve pinned down your research topic and undertaken a review of the literature – now it’s time to write up the methodology section of your dissertation, thesis or research paper . But what exactly is the methodology chapter all about – and how do you go about writing one? In this post, we’ll unpack the topic, step by step .

Overview: The Methodology Chapter

• The purpose  of the methodology chapter
• Why you need to craft this chapter (really) well
• How to write and structure the chapter
• Methodology chapter example
• Essential takeaways

What (exactly) is the methodology chapter?

The methodology chapter is where you outline the philosophical underpinnings of your research and outline the specific methodological choices you’ve made. The point of the methodology chapter is to tell the reader exactly how you designed your study and, just as importantly, why you did it this way.

Importantly, this chapter should comprehensively describe and justify all the methodological choices you made in your study. For example, the approach you took to your research (i.e., qualitative, quantitative or mixed), who  you collected data from (i.e., your sampling strategy), how you collected your data and, of course, how you analysed it. If that sounds a little intimidating, don’t worry – we’ll explain all these methodological choices in this post .

Why is the methodology chapter important?

The methodology chapter plays two important roles in your dissertation or thesis:

Firstly, it demonstrates your understanding of research theory, which is what earns you marks. A flawed research design or methodology would mean flawed results. So, this chapter is vital as it allows you to show the marker that you know what you’re doing and that your results are credible .

Secondly, the methodology chapter is what helps to make your study replicable. In other words, it allows other researchers to undertake your study using the same methodological approach, and compare their findings to yours. This is very important within academic research, as each study builds on previous studies.

The methodology chapter is also important in that it allows you to identify and discuss any methodological issues or problems you encountered (i.e., research limitations ), and to explain how you mitigated the impacts of these. Every research project has its limitations , so it’s important to acknowledge these openly and highlight your study’s value despite its limitations . Doing so demonstrates your understanding of research design, which will earn you marks. We’ll discuss limitations in a bit more detail later in this post, so stay tuned!

Need a helping hand?

How to write up the methodology chapter

First off, it’s worth noting that the exact structure and contents of the methodology chapter will vary depending on the field of research (e.g., humanities, chemistry or engineering) as well as the university . So, be sure to always check the guidelines provided by your institution for clarity and, if possible, review past dissertations from your university. Here we’re going to discuss a generic structure for a methodology chapter typically found in the sciences.

Before you start writing, it’s always a good idea to draw up a rough outline to guide your writing. Don’t just start writing without knowing what you’ll discuss where. If you do, you’ll likely end up with a disjointed, ill-flowing narrative . You’ll then waste a lot of time rewriting in an attempt to try to stitch all the pieces together. Do yourself a favour and start with the end in mind .

Section 1 – Introduction

As with all chapters in your dissertation or thesis, the methodology chapter should have a brief introduction. In this section, you should remind your readers what the focus of your study is, especially the research aims . As we’ve discussed many times on the blog, your methodology needs to align with your research aims, objectives and research questions. Therefore, it’s useful to frontload this component to remind the reader (and yourself!) what you’re trying to achieve.

In this section, you can also briefly mention how you’ll structure the chapter. This will help orient the reader and provide a bit of a roadmap so that they know what to expect. You don’t need a lot of detail here – just a brief outline will do.

Section 2 – The Methodology

The next section of your chapter is where you’ll present the actual methodology. In this section, you need to detail and justify the key methodological choices you’ve made in a logical, intuitive fashion. Importantly, this is the heart of your methodology chapter, so you need to get specific – don’t hold back on the details here. This is not one of those “less is more” situations.

Let’s take a look at the most common components you’ll likely need to cover. 

Methodological Choice #1 – Research Philosophy

Research philosophy refers to the underlying beliefs (i.e., the worldview) regarding how data about a phenomenon should be gathered , analysed and used . The research philosophy will serve as the core of your study and underpin all of the other research design choices, so it’s critically important that you understand which philosophy you’ll adopt and why you made that choice. If you’re not clear on this, take the time to get clarity before you make any further methodological choices.

While several research philosophies exist, two commonly adopted ones are positivism and interpretivism . These two sit roughly on opposite sides of the research philosophy spectrum.

Positivism states that the researcher can observe reality objectively and that there is only one reality, which exists independently of the observer. As a consequence, it is quite commonly the underlying research philosophy in quantitative studies and is oftentimes the assumed philosophy in the physical sciences.

Contrasted with this, interpretivism , which is often the underlying research philosophy in qualitative studies, assumes that the researcher performs a role in observing the world around them and that reality is unique to each observer . In other words, reality is observed subjectively .

These are just two philosophies (there are many more), but they demonstrate significantly different approaches to research and have a significant impact on all the methodological choices. Therefore, it’s vital that you clearly outline and justify your research philosophy at the beginning of your methodology chapter, as it sets the scene for everything that follows.

Methodological Choice #2 – Research Type

The next thing you would typically discuss in your methodology section is the research type. The starting point for this is to indicate whether the research you conducted is inductive or deductive .

Inductive research takes a bottom-up approach , where the researcher begins with specific observations or data and then draws general conclusions or theories from those observations. Therefore these studies tend to be exploratory in terms of approach.

Conversely , d eductive research takes a top-down approach , where the researcher starts with a theory or hypothesis and then tests it using specific observations or data. Therefore these studies tend to be confirmatory in approach.

Related to this, you’ll need to indicate whether your study adopts a qualitative, quantitative or mixed  approach. As we’ve mentioned, there’s a strong link between this choice and your research philosophy, so make sure that your choices are tightly aligned . When you write this section up, remember to clearly justify your choices, as they form the foundation of your study.

Methodological Choice #3 – Research Strategy

Next, you’ll need to discuss your research strategy (also referred to as a research design ). This methodological choice refers to the broader strategy in terms of how you’ll conduct your research, based on the aims of your study.

Several research strategies exist, including experimental , case studies , ethnography , grounded theory, action research , and phenomenology . Let’s take a look at two of these, experimental and ethnographic, to see how they contrast.

Experimental research makes use of the scientific method , where one group is the control group (in which no variables are manipulated ) and another is the experimental group (in which a specific variable is manipulated). This type of research is undertaken under strict conditions in a controlled, artificial environment (e.g., a laboratory). By having firm control over the environment, experimental research typically allows the researcher to establish causation between variables. Therefore, it can be a good choice if you have research aims that involve identifying causal relationships.

Ethnographic research , on the other hand, involves observing and capturing the experiences and perceptions of participants in their natural environment (for example, at home or in the office). In other words, in an uncontrolled environment.  Naturally, this means that this research strategy would be far less suitable if your research aims involve identifying causation, but it would be very valuable if you’re looking to explore and examine a group culture, for example.

As you can see, the right research strategy will depend largely on your research aims and research questions – in other words, what you’re trying to figure out. Therefore, as with every other methodological choice, it’s essential to justify why you chose the research strategy you did.

Methodological Choice #4 – Time Horizon

The next thing you’ll need to detail in your methodology chapter is the time horizon. There are two options here: cross-sectional and longitudinal . In other words, whether the data for your study were all collected at one point in time (cross-sectional) or at multiple points in time (longitudinal).

The choice you make here depends again on your research aims, objectives and research questions. If, for example, you aim to assess how a specific group of people’s perspectives regarding a topic change over time , you’d likely adopt a longitudinal time horizon.

Another important factor to consider is simply whether you have the time necessary to adopt a longitudinal approach (which could involve collecting data over multiple months or even years). Oftentimes, the time pressures of your degree program will force your hand into adopting a cross-sectional time horizon, so keep this in mind.

Methodological Choice #5 – Sampling Strategy

Next, you’ll need to discuss your sampling strategy . There are two main categories of sampling, probability and non-probability sampling.

Probability sampling involves a random (and therefore representative) selection of participants from a population, whereas non-probability sampling entails selecting participants in a non-random  (and therefore non-representative) manner. For example, selecting participants based on ease of access (this is called a convenience sample).

The right sampling approach depends largely on what you’re trying to achieve in your study. Specifically, whether you trying to develop findings that are generalisable to a population or not. Practicalities and resource constraints also play a large role here, as it can oftentimes be challenging to gain access to a truly random sample. In the video below, we explore some of the most common sampling strategies.

Methodological Choice #6 – Data Collection Method

Next up, you’ll need to explain how you’ll go about collecting the necessary data for your study. Your data collection method (or methods) will depend on the type of data that you plan to collect – in other words, qualitative or quantitative data.

Typically, quantitative research relies on surveys , data generated by lab equipment, analytics software or existing datasets. Qualitative research, on the other hand, often makes use of collection methods such as interviews , focus groups , participant observations, and ethnography.

So, as you can see, there is a tight link between this section and the design choices you outlined in earlier sections. Strong alignment between these sections, as well as your research aims and questions is therefore very important.

Methodological Choice #7 – Data Analysis Methods/Techniques

The final major methodological choice that you need to address is that of analysis techniques . In other words, how you’ll go about analysing your date once you’ve collected it. Here it’s important to be very specific about your analysis methods and/or techniques – don’t leave any room for interpretation. Also, as with all choices in this chapter, you need to justify each choice you make.

What exactly you discuss here will depend largely on the type of study you’re conducting (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods). For qualitative studies, common analysis methods include content analysis , thematic analysis and discourse analysis . In the video below, we explain each of these in plain language.

For quantitative studies, you’ll almost always make use of descriptive statistics , and in many cases, you’ll also use inferential statistical techniques (e.g., correlation and regression analysis). In the video below, we unpack some of the core concepts involved in descriptive and inferential statistics.

In this section of your methodology chapter, it’s also important to discuss how you prepared your data for analysis, and what software you used (if any). For example, quantitative data will often require some initial preparation such as removing duplicates or incomplete responses . Similarly, qualitative data will often require transcription and perhaps even translation. As always, remember to state both what you did and why you did it.

Section 3 – The Methodological Limitations

With the key methodological choices outlined and justified, the next step is to discuss the limitations of your design. No research methodology is perfect – there will always be trade-offs between the “ideal” methodology and what’s practical and viable, given your constraints. Therefore, this section of your methodology chapter is where you’ll discuss the trade-offs you had to make, and why these were justified given the context.

Methodological limitations can vary greatly from study to study, ranging from common issues such as time and budget constraints to issues of sample or selection bias . For example, you may find that you didn’t manage to draw in enough respondents to achieve the desired sample size (and therefore, statistically significant results), or your sample may be skewed heavily towards a certain demographic, thereby negatively impacting representativeness .

In this section, it’s important to be critical of the shortcomings of your study. There’s no use trying to hide them (your marker will be aware of them regardless). By being critical, you’ll demonstrate to your marker that you have a strong understanding of research theory, so don’t be shy here. At the same time, don’t beat your study to death . State the limitations, why these were justified, how you mitigated their impacts to the best degree possible, and how your study still provides value despite these limitations .

Section 4 – Concluding Summary

Finally, it’s time to wrap up the methodology chapter with a brief concluding summary. In this section, you’ll want to concisely summarise what you’ve presented in the chapter. Here, it can be a good idea to use a figure to summarise the key decisions, especially if your university recommends using a specific model (for example, Saunders’ Research Onion ).

Importantly, this section needs to be brief – a paragraph or two maximum (it’s a summary, after all). Also, make sure that when you write up your concluding summary, you include only what you’ve already discussed in your chapter; don’t add any new information.

Methodology Chapter Example

In the video below, we walk you through an example of a high-quality research methodology chapter from a dissertation. We also unpack our free methodology chapter template so that you can see how best to structure your chapter.

Wrapping Up

And there you have it – the methodology chapter in a nutshell. As we’ve mentioned, the exact contents and structure of this chapter can vary between universities , so be sure to check in with your institution before you start writing. If possible, try to find dissertations or theses from former students of your specific degree program – this will give you a strong indication of the expectations and norms when it comes to the methodology chapter (and all the other chapters!).

Also, remember the golden rule of the methodology chapter – justify every choice ! Make sure that you clearly explain the “why” for every “what”, and reference credible methodology textbooks or academic sources to back up your justifications.

If you need a helping hand with your research methodology (or any other component of your research), be sure to check out our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through every step of the research journey. Until next time, good luck!

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

51 Comments

highly appreciated.

This was very helpful!

This was helpful

Thanks ,it is a very useful idea.

Thanks ,it is very useful idea.

Thank you so much, this information is very useful.

Thank you very much. I must say the information presented was succinct, coherent and invaluable. It is well put together and easy to comprehend. I have a great guide to create the research methodology for my dissertation.

Highly clear and useful.

I understand a bit on the explanation above. I want to have some coach but I’m still student and don’t have any budget to hire one. A lot of question I want to ask.

Thank you so much. This concluded my day plan. Thank you so much.

Thanks it was helpful

Great information. It would be great though if you could show us practical examples.

Thanks so much for this information. God bless and be with you

Thank you so so much. Indeed it was helpful

This is EXCELLENT!

I was totally confused by other explanations. Thank you so much!.

justdoing my research now , thanks for the guidance.

Thank uuuu! These contents are really valued for me!

This is powerful …I really like it

Highly useful and clear, thank you so much.

Highly appreciated. Good guide

That was helpful. Thanks

This is very useful.Thank you

Very helpful information. Thank you

This is exactly what I was looking for. The explanation is so detailed and easy to comprehend. Well done and thank you.

Great job. You just summarised everything in the easiest and most comprehensible way possible. Thanks a lot.

Thank you very much for the ideas you have given this will really help me a lot. Thank you and God Bless.

Such great effort …….very grateful thank you

Please accept my sincere gratitude. I have to say that the information that was delivered was congruent, concise, and quite helpful. It is clear and straightforward, making it simple to understand. I am in possession of an excellent manual that will assist me in developing the research methods for my dissertation.

Thank you for your great explanation. It really helped me construct my methodology paper.

thank you for simplifieng the methodoly, It was realy helpful

Very helpful!

Thank you for your great explanation.

The explanation I have been looking for. So clear Thank you

Thank you very much .this was more enlightening.

helped me create the in depth and thorough methodology for my dissertation

Thank you for the great explaination.please construct one methodology for me

I appreciate you for the explanation of methodology. Please construct one methodology on the topic: The effects influencing students dropout among schools for my thesis

This helped me complete my methods section of my dissertation with ease. I have managed to write a thorough and concise methodology!

its so good in deed

wow …what an easy to follow presentation. very invaluable content shared. utmost important.

Peace be upon you, I am Dr. Ahmed Khedr, a former part-time professor at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt. I am currently teaching research methods, and I have been dealing with your esteemed site for several years, and I found that despite my long experience with research methods sites, it is one of the smoothest sites for evaluating the material for students, For this reason, I relied on it a lot in teaching and translated most of what was written into Arabic and published it on my own page on Facebook. Thank you all… Everything I posted on my page is provided with the names of the writers of Grad coach, the title of the article, and the site. My best regards.

A remarkably simple and useful guide, thank you kindly.

I real appriciate your short and remarkable chapter summary

Bravo! Very helpful guide.

Only true experts could provide such helpful, fantastic, and inspiring knowledge about Methodology. Thank you very much! God be with you and us all!

highly appreciate your effort.

This is a very well thought out post. Very informative and a great read.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR SHARING YOUR NICE IDEA

I love you Emma, you are simply amazing with clear explanations with complete information. GradCoach really helped me to do my assignment here in Auckland. Mostly, Emma make it so simple and enjoyable

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Help & FAQ

Ensuring bachelor’s thesis assessment quality: a case study at one Dutch research university

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › Scientific › peer-review

• Bachelor’s thesis
• Assessment quality
• case study research
• Dutch research university

Access to Document

• 10.1108/HEED-08-2022-0033 Licence: CC BY

Fingerprint

• bachelor Social Sciences 100%
• university Social Sciences 48%
• accreditation Social Sciences 17%
• quality standard Social Sciences 10%
• examiner Social Sciences 10%
• workload Social Sciences 9%
• coaching Social Sciences 9%
• quality assurance Social Sciences 9%

T1 - Ensuring bachelor’s thesis assessment quality

T2 - a case study at one Dutch research university

AU - Hsiao, Ya-Ping (Amy)

AU - Watering, Gerard van de

AU - Heitbrink, Mathe

AU - Vlas, Helma

AU - Chiu, Mei-Shiu

PY - 2023/5/30

Y1 - 2023/5/30

N2 - PurposeIn the Netherlands, thesis assessment quality is a growing concern for the national accreditation organization due to increasing student numbers and supervisor workload. However, the accreditation framework lacks guidance on how to meet quality standards. This study aims to address these issues by sharing our experience, identifying problems and proposing guidelines for quality assurance for a thesis assessment system.Design/methodology/approachThis study has two parts. The first part is a narrative literature review conducted to derive guidelines for thesis assessment based on observations made at four Dutch universities. The second part is a case study conducted in one bachelor’s psychology-related program, where the assessment practitioners and the vice program director analyzed the assessment documents based on the guidelines developed from the literature review.FindingsThe findings of this study include a list of guidelines based on the four standards. The case study results showed that the program meets most of the guidelines, as it has a comprehensive set of thesis learning outcomes, peer coaching for novice supervisors, clear and complete assessment information and procedures for both examiners and students, and a concise assessment form.Originality/valueThis study is original in that it demonstrates how to holistically ensure the quality of thesis assessments by considering the context of the program and paying more attention to validity (e.g. program curriculum and assessment design), transparency (e.g. integrating assessment into the supervision process) and the assessment expertise of teaching staff

AB - PurposeIn the Netherlands, thesis assessment quality is a growing concern for the national accreditation organization due to increasing student numbers and supervisor workload. However, the accreditation framework lacks guidance on how to meet quality standards. This study aims to address these issues by sharing our experience, identifying problems and proposing guidelines for quality assurance for a thesis assessment system.Design/methodology/approachThis study has two parts. The first part is a narrative literature review conducted to derive guidelines for thesis assessment based on observations made at four Dutch universities. The second part is a case study conducted in one bachelor’s psychology-related program, where the assessment practitioners and the vice program director analyzed the assessment documents based on the guidelines developed from the literature review.FindingsThe findings of this study include a list of guidelines based on the four standards. The case study results showed that the program meets most of the guidelines, as it has a comprehensive set of thesis learning outcomes, peer coaching for novice supervisors, clear and complete assessment information and procedures for both examiners and students, and a concise assessment form.Originality/valueThis study is original in that it demonstrates how to holistically ensure the quality of thesis assessments by considering the context of the program and paying more attention to validity (e.g. program curriculum and assessment design), transparency (e.g. integrating assessment into the supervision process) and the assessment expertise of teaching staff

KW - Bachelor’s thesis

KW - Assessment quality

KW - case study research

KW - Dutch research university

U2 - 10.1108/HEED-08-2022-0033

DO - 10.1108/HEED-08-2022-0033

M3 - Article

JO - Higher Education Evaluation and Development

JF - Higher Education Evaluation and Development

master your studies

Fallstudie schreiben | Case Study Research als Forschungsmethode (Aufbau, Beispiele)

Willst du eine Fallstudie schreiben, und zwar unter dem Deckmantel einer Bachelorarbeit, Masterarbeit oder eines anderen wissenschaftlichen Projektes?

Dann solltest du sofort alles stehen und liegen lassen, denn in diesem Artikel bekommst du ein super schnelles und effektives Tutorial wie du  in 6 Schritten eine Fallstudie schreiben  und damit deine wissenschaftliche Arbeit zu einem bombastischen Erfolg machen kannst.

Bevor wir in die 6 Schritte eintauchen, müssen wir ein paar wichtige Dinge klären.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

• 1 Was ist eine Fallstudie bzw. Case Study?
• 2 Für wen ist eine Fallstudie bzw. Case Study eine geeignete Methode?
• 3.1 Planung deiner Fallstudie #1
• 3.2 Design aufstellen #2
• 3.3.1 Literature Review erstellen
• 3.3.2 Datenquellen identifizieren
• 3.3.3 Datenquelle akquirieren
• 3.4 Daten und Material sammeln #4
• 3.5 Analyse #5
• 3.6 Ergebnisse aufbereiten #6

Was ist eine Fallstudie bzw. Case Study?

Eine Fallstudie oder auch Case Study ist eine Forschungsmethode der Sozialwissenschaften. Eine Fallstudie untersucht ein gegenwärtiges Phänomen , das wir in unserer Welt beobachten können (im Gegensatz zu z.B. historischen Ereignissen oder Naturgesetzen).

Dieses Phänomen ist immer in einem bestimmten Kontext verankert, welcher im gesamten Verlauf der Fallstudie berücksichtigt werden muss. Ein Möglicher Kontext kann die Organisation, die Gesellschaft oder auch ein Seniorenheim sein, in dem sich das zu untersuchende Phänomen abspielt.

Der Forschende hat bei einer Fallstudie keinen Einfluss auf das Geschehen (im Gegensatz zu z.B. einem Experiment in einem Labor). Vielmehr werden Daten erhoben, mit deren Hilfe das Phänomen analysiert wird und anschließend theoretische und/oder praktische Schlüsse daraus gezogen werden.

Bei der Datenerhebung und Analyse können sowohl qualitative Ansätze (z.B. Interviews oder Inhaltsanalysen) als auch quantitative Verfahren (z.B. Surveys, statistische Modellierung) angewendet werden. Das besondere besteht darin, dass die Forschung sich nur auf einen konkreten „Fall“ konzentriert.

Eine Sonderform stellt eine vergleichende Fallstudie (Multiple Case Study) dar, die mehrere Fälle miteinander in Beziehung setzt und kontrastiert.

Eine Fallstudie beantwortet immer eine konkrete Forschungsfrage , die am besten mit „Wie“ oder in seltenen Fällen auch mit „Warum“ beginnt.

Für wen ist eine Fallstudie bzw. Case Study eine geeignete Methode?

Wie bereits erwähnt stellt die Fallstudie eine Methode der Sozialwissenschaften dar. Zu den bekanntesten Disziplinen gehören die Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Sprachwissenschaft, Soziale Arbeit, Psychologie, Politikwissenschaft, Medien- und Kommunikationswissenschaften und noch viele weitere.

Nicht darunter fallen Natur- und Geisteswissenschaften. Da heutzutage aber fast überall interdisziplinär geforscht und gelehrt wird, ist es nicht ausgeschlossen, dass auch hier von Fallstudien Gebrauch gemacht werden kann. Fallstudien sind also eine ziemlich geläufige und divers anwendbare Forschungsmethode.

Kritiker dieser Methode behaupten, dass Fallstudien zu „soft“ seien. Das Bedeutet, dass sie aufgrund ihres deskriptiven Forschungsdesigns nur wenig Aussagekraft haben. Dem kann entgegengewirkt werden, indem einzigartige Daten erhoben und empirisch einwandfrei analysiert werden. So entsteht dann eine „härtere“ Fallstudie.

Unterschiede bestehen hier sowohl zwischen verschiedenen Disziplinen, als auch Kulturkreisen. Beispielsweise müssen in der europäischen Management-Literatur Fallstudien ziemlich  „hart“ sein. In den USA hingegen werden Fallstudien oftmals ziemlich „soft“ geschrieben und leben vom Storytelling und der interpretativen Fähigkeit der Autoren und Autorinnen.

Insbesondere für Abschlussarbeiten sind Fallstudien eine super Sache. Je nach Möglichkeit der Datenerhebung und methodischen Ausbildung der Studierenden kann man sich hier frei auf dem Spektrum von soft bis hart bewegen.

Dann nimm jetzt Teil an meinem neuen online CRASH-KURS! (100% kostenlos)

(und erfahre die 8 Geheimnisse einer 1,0 Abschlussarbeit)

Fallstudie schreiben – aber wie?

Nachdem wir nun alle Hintergrundinfos beisammenhaben, kommen wir zu den 6 Schritten, nach denen du eine Fallstudie schreiben kannst. Ich berufe mich dabei vor allem auf die Arbeit von Robert K. Yin und der 2014er Version seines Buches „Case Study Research: Design and Methods“.

Das Buch findest du unter dem Video verlinkt und in jeder aufgeräumten Uni-Bib. Immer wenn du in deiner wissenschaftlichen Arbeit eine Fallstudie schreiben möchtest, solltest du dich in deinem Methoden-Kapitel auf mindestens eine Quelle beziehen, die allgemein akzeptierte Regeln für das Vorgehen aufgestellt hat. In Yin’s Buch findest du auch eine Übersicht der wichtigsten Quellen für jede einzelne Forschungsdisziplin.

Planung deiner Fallstudie #1

Zu allererst musst du selbstverständlich die Entscheidung treffen, dass du eine Fallstudie schreiben willst. Doch damit ist es nicht getan. Du solltest dir genau überlegen, warum eine Case Study anderen Methoden vorzuziehen ist.

• Warum ist die reine Literaturarbeit, ein Survey oder ein Experiment eher ungeeignet?
• Welche Vorteile hat eine Fallstudie in meiner Situation?
• Ist eine Fallstudie mit meinen Ressourcen überhaupt möglich?

Auf diese Fragen solltest du eine Antwort haben und sie mit deiner Betreuerin oder deinem Betreuer besprechen. Ebenfalls Teil der Planung ist das Aufstellen einer Forschungsfrage .

Um eine Fallstudie schreiben zu können, brauchst du eine relevante Forschungsfrage . Beginne mit dem Fragewort „Wie“ und taste dich langsam vor. Hier gibt es zwei Möglichkeiten:

• Fallspezifische Forschungsfrage (z.B. „Wie reagiert Volkswagen auf Hatespeech im Zuge des Dieselgate-Skandals auf Twitter?“)
• Generische Forschungsfrage (z.B. „Wie reagieren Großunternehmen auf Hatespeech in Sozialen Medien?“)

Beide Vorgehensweisen sind möglich und haben ihre Vor- und Nachteile. Die Forschungsfrage sollte immer mit deiner Betreuerin oder deinem Betreuer abgesprochen sein.

Design aufstellen #2

Nun geht es darum, dein Forschungsdesign aufzustellen. Die dabei alles entscheidende Frage lautet:

Mit welcher Methode lässt sich meine Forschungsfrage beantworten? 

Welche Daten benötige ich dazu? 

In meinem Beispiel könnte ich jetzt so vorgehen: Ich konstruiere meine Fallstudie rückwärts. Die Antwort auf meine Forschungsfrage könnte ich geben, indem ich verschiedene Strategien in den Twitter-Antworten des VW-Konzerns ausfindig mache.

Das könnte ich tun, indem ich einen Datensatz relevanter Tweets (z.B. mit dem Hashtag „Dieselgate“) sammele und eine qualitative Inhaltsanalyse anwende.

Kann ich die Frage auch anders beantworten?

Klar. Theoretisch könnte ich auch VW-Mitarbeiter interviewen und sie die Frage beantworten lassen.

Für welches Vorgehen du dich entscheidest, hängt auch von den Möglichkeiten ab, die du hast um an Daten zu kommen.

Datensammlung vorbereiten #3

Nun geht es um die Vorbereitung. Befolge einfach diese drei Schritte:

Literature Review erstellen

Bevor du in der Wissenschaft irgendetwas tust, musst du lesen. Führe ein gründliches Literature Review durch, welches den aktuellen Forschungsstand widerspiegelt.

(Und für Fortgeschrittene:)

Existiert eine Theorie, mit der sich deine Fallstudie erklären lässt?

Etabliere zusätzlich einen theoretischen Hintergrund . Das tust du, indem du dich auf eine Theorie fokussierst, die dir dabei hilft, das zu untersuchende Phänomen zu verstehen. Deine späteren Ergebnisse diskutierst du dann im Hinblick auf diese Theorie.

Datenquellen identifizieren

Wo bekomme ich meine Daten her?

Welche Interviewpartner brauchst du, welche Social-Media Plattformen, welche Unternehmensdaten? Welche Archiv-Berichte?

Datenquelle akquirieren

Jetzt musst du nur noch den Zugang zur Datenquelle hinbekommen. Interview-Partner anschreiben, Archiv-Besitzer anrufen, und so weiter. Mache dir zur besseren Übersicht eine Tabelle mit all deinen Datenquellen und führe Tagebuch über den Fortschritt.

Wen hast du bereits kontaktiert?

Wer hat positiv reagiert?

Gab es Absagen?

So kannst du den von dir angestrebten Zeitrahmen einhalten und dein Projektmanagement optimieren.

Daten und Material sammeln #4

Der vierte Schritt nach Yin sieht die tatsächliche Datensammlung vor. Auch hier kann das wieder völlig unterschiedlich aussehen. Falls du Interviews führst, habe ich ein ganzes Tutorial zu Experteninterviews für dich. Für alle anderen Studiendesigns beginnt jetzt die entscheidende Phase.

Zu diesem Zeitpunkt sollte die Literaturarbeit abgeschlossen sein und bereits in Textform vorliegen.

Die meiste Arbeit beim Schreiben einer Fallstudie wartet in der Analyse auf dich. Bei „harten“ Fallstudien selbstverständlich etwas mehr als bei „soften“. Halte dich bei der Analyse deiner Daten an ein paar Leitfragen.

• Wie lassen sich deine Daten beschreiben?
• Haben die Daten besondere Ausprägungen?
• Welche Muster lassen sich hier erkennen?

Sammle deine Ergebnisse digital und mache genügend Backups. Nichts ist ärgerlicher als der Verlust von tagelanger Arbeit. Verwende Software wo es geht, denn du bist nicht der oder die erste, die eine solche Analyse macht. Schlaue Software-Lösungen erleichtern so ziemlich jede Forschungsmethode die es gibt.

Ergebnisse aufbereiten #6

Zu guter Letzt filterst du die wichtigen von den unwichtigen Ergebnissen und präsentierst sie „von allgemein nach spezifisch“ im Ergebnisteil deiner wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Diese 3 Elemente sind unverzichtbar für eine herausragende Note:

• Abbildungen (z.B. Flussdiagramme, Balken-, oder Kuchendiagramme)
• Tabellen (z.B. mit absoluten oder relativen Werten deiner Analyse; Ergebnisse statistischer Berechnungen wie Häufigkeiten oder Korrelationen)
• Erklärender Text zwischen den visuellen Elementen, der dem Leser zeigt, welche der Ergebnisse besonders hervorzuheben sind

In einem weiteren Kapitel diskutierst du die Ergebnisse im Hinblick auf

• Deinen speziellen Fall
• Allgemeingültige Schlüsse oder Schlussfolgerungen hinsichtlich der Theorie

Beachte dabei, dass Ergebnisse einer Fallstudie in den meisten Fällen nicht genrealisierbar sind. Das bedeutet, dass du nicht von VW auf alle anderen Autohersteller schließen kannst. Wie du darüber hinaus eine schlagkräftige Diskussion schreibst, kannst du in meinem Tutorial zum Schreiben einer Diskussion nachlesen.

Die Ergebnisse einer Fallstudie sind jedoch immer ein weiterer Schritt in Richtung neuer Theorie, die dann auch dabei helfen kann, Phänomene in anderen Kontexten zu erklären.

Wenn du jetzt auf dem Weg zu herausragenden Noten noch ein wenig Starthilfe für deine wissenschaftliche Arbeit benötigst, dann habe noch ein PDF   für dich, das du dir gratis herunterladen kannst:

Die 30 besten Formulierungen für eine aufsehenerregende Einleitung

Ein Gedanke zu „ Fallstudie schreiben | Case Study Research als Forschungsmethode (Aufbau, Beispiele) “

• Pingback: Die Eigenleistung deiner Hausarbeit erhöhen (5 Techniken)

Schreibe einen Kommentar Antworten abbrechen

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert

Meinen Namen, meine E-Mail-Adresse und meine Website in diesem Browser für die nächste Kommentierung speichern.

Learning evidence-based practice by writing the bachelor's thesis - A prospective cohort study in undergraduate nursing education

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Postboks 8905, 7491 Trondheim, Norway. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 2 Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Postboks 8905, 7491 Trondheim, Norway. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 3 Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Postboks 8905, 7491 Trondheim, Norway. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 4 Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Postboks 8905, 7491 Trondheim, Norway; Department of Research, Nord-Trøndelag Hospital Trust, Postboks 333, 7601 Levanger, Norway. Electronic address: [email protected].
• PMID: 38749339
• DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106239

Background: Evidence-based practice has been the desirable healthcare standard for decades. To ensure evidence-based healthcare in the future, nursing education curricula must include strategies for teaching evidence-based practice to nursing students. Learning outcomes about evidence-based practice might be incorporated into courses like the bachelor's thesis.

Aim: This study investigates whether writing a bachelor's thesis influences nursing students' practice, skills, and attitudes towards evidence-based practice, and explores whether there are differences between students writing the thesis as a literature study and students conducting empirical studies.

Design: This Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study collects data on students' practice, skills, and attitudes towards evidence-based practice through the Student Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire and two questions from the Norwegian version of the Evidence-Based Practice profile questionnaire.

Participants: The sample consists of 314 nursing students writing their bachelor's thesis in the last term of their nursing education. The responding students represent all institutions of higher education in Norway.

Methods: Paired t-tests were used to examine changes in the subscales practice, retrieving/reviewing, sharing/applying, attitudes and total scale for the Student Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire from before they started to submission of the bachelor's thesis. Linear multiple regression analyses were conducted to explore differences between students writing a literature study and students conducting empirical studies.

Results: The analysis showed that the nursing students significantly increased in the three subscales practice, retrieving/reviewing, and sharing/applying, in addition to the total scale for the questionnaire, while writing the bachelor's thesis. Further, the analysis showed no difference on the scales between the groups of students writing a literature study or conducting an empirical study.

Conclusions: The results indicate that writing the bachelor's thesis leads to increased learning about evidence-based practice and does not depend on the kind of thesis the students write.

Keywords: Bachelor's thesis; Evidence-based practice; Nursing education; Nursing students.

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.