Value and interest assessment grids (VAIAGs) for dissertation project evaluation

Value and interest assessment grids (VAIAGs) for dissertation project evaluation

Joseph Kim-keung Ho

Independent Trainer

Hong Kong, China

Abstract: In dissertation projects, evaluating the quality of (i) the academic literature used, (ii) the dissertation proposal and, subsequently, (iii) the final full dissertation report is a vital activity. Ho (2016) suggests using four criteria in two types of quality assessment on academic works: type 1 assessment is on the academic works studied in a literature review; type 2 assessment is on the two main deliverables on a dissertation project, i.e., dissertation proposal and the full final dissertation report. Ho (2016) briefly examines type 1 assessment. This paper deals with type 2 assessment. In particular, using the four interest and value criteria, the writer proposes 2 value and interest assessment grids (VAIAGs) to assess a dissertation project proposal and final report. With this dissertation report assessment tool in the form of two assessment grids, teachers are more capable to teach the topic of dissertation report evaluation and students doing dissertation projects are in a better position to evaluate the quality of their dissertation works.

Key words: dissertation report quality, literature review, academic interest and value, practical interest and value, VAIAGs

1.     Introduction

In academic dissertation projects, frequently required to be carried out by tertiary education students, the topic of quality assessment of these project reports is a key one. Due to the writer’s teaching and research activities in various social sciences subjects, notably on business management, he is interested in exploring four dissertation project assessment criteria, namely, academic interest, academic value, practical interest and, finally, practical value. They are highly relevant assessment criteria. For example, the objectives of a dissertation project need to be justification in terms of their academic and practical interests as well as expected academic and practical values. Possession of higher interests and expected values implies stronger justification on a dissertation project’s objectives. Ho (2016)’s work suggests using these four criteria in two types of quality assessment on academic works: type 1 assessment is on the academic works studied in a literature review; type 2 assessment is on the two deliverables on a dissertation project, i.e., dissertation proposal and the full final dissertation report. Ho (2016) briefly examines type 1 assessment. This paper deals with type 2 assessment. In particular, using the four interest and value criteria, the writer proposes 2 value and interest assessment grids (VAIAGs) to assess a dissertation project proposal and final report.

The ideas elaborated on by Ho (2016) can be further refined to make up an assessment tool to evaluate two main deliverables of a dissertation project, namely, the dissertation proposal and the final full dissertation report (type 2 assessment). The next section explains how this conceptual refinement can be done.

2.     The value and interest assessment grids (VAIAGs) for type 2 assessment

Making use of the four criteria of Ho (2016) with some conceptual refinement, the writer constructs the following 2 tables to facilitate a VAIA in dissertation project. Table 1 (VAIAG I) covers the design quality aspect of a dissertation project while table 2 (VAIAG 2) deals with the conformance quality aspect of a dissertation project. The four criteria are defined as follows:

Academic interest: This refers to the extent that the academic community perceives the dissertation proposal/ dissertation report design, covering research objectives, intended literature review strategy, and intended research design, to be interesting and important from their community’s standpoint.

Academic value: This refers to the implementation quality of the full final dissertation report, in terms of the quality of its: (i) actual academic  writing style, (ii) literature review, (iii) research methods employed and (iv) line of reasoning throughout the report, from the academic community’s standpoint. When this criterion of academic value is utilized to evaluate a dissertation proposal, it is the expected academic value that is considered in the proposal evaluation exercise. This is so because the final full dissertation report has yet to be produced. In this dissertation proposal stage, the actual implementation quality of the full final report does not exist yet.

Practical interest: This refers to the extent the practitioner community perceives the dissertation topics and the expected outputs of the dissertation projects (e.g. expected pragmatic recommendations to be made), to be interesting and important from their community’s standpoint.

Practical value: This refers to the implementation quality of the full final dissertation report, in terms of the quality of its: (i) content comprehensibility, and (ii) actionable value of its findings and recommendations, from the practitioner community’s standpoint. When this criterion is considered at a dissertation project proposal stage, it takes the form of expected practical value based on the dissertation proposal content.

With these four criteria defined, the writer now presents the two value and interest grids as follows:

Table 1: VAIA grid I (VAIAG I): on academic and practical interests

	Low academic interest	High academic interest
Low practical interest	Type 1 project: Both the academic and practitioner communities have very low interest in the dissertation topics and (intended) content coverage: “a project topic that nobody cares about”.	Type 3 project: The dissertation topic and (intended) content coverage are of interest to the academic community; however, the practitioner community is not interested in this project proposal: “an ivory tower dissertation project topic”.
High practical interest	Type 2 project: The dissertation topics and (intended) content coverage is of interest to the practitioner community, but not to the academic community: “an interesting consulting project topic”.	Type 4 project: “Both the academic and practitioner communities have high interest in the dissertation topics and (intended) content coverage: “a brilliant dissertation project topic”.

Table 2: VAIA grid II (VAIAG II): on academic and practical values

	Low academic value	High academic value
Low practical value	Type 1 project: Almost all chapters of the dissertation report have quality problems. As such, both the academic and practitioner communities perceive the dissertation report to be of low value: “A dissertation report highly defective in most content”.	Type 3 project: “A report that is well written in academic style; is well informed by a comprehensive literature review; the research methods employed are clearly explained and justification. Nevertheless, recommendations made are vague and show low actionable value to practitioners: “A dissertation report mainly useful for teaching research methods principles and dissertation writing”.
High practical value	Type 2 project: “Report content is not expressed in proper academic writing style; shows poor literature review quality; and does not sufficiently explain nor justify research methods design used. Nevertheless, the report is able to offer clear, comprehensible and pragmatic recommendations that practitioners can understand and value: “An informative consulting project report”.	Type 4 project: Literature review quality is good; research methods employed are well explained and justified; at the same time, concrete and clearly explained recommendations are provided that show high actionable value to practitioners: “a dissertation project report with all chapters well written”.

Readers could now make use of the two grids to evaluate the quality of a dissertation proposal or a full dissertation report by making an attempt to locate a dissertation proposal or report in specific cells in the two grids. Ultimately, such an evaluation exercise would inform a dissertation project writer to refine his/her report to increase its value and interest, both the academic and practical ones. As the writer’s research and teaching experience is on social sciences, especially on business management, the discussion on the two VAIAGs (re: tables 1 and 2) is mainly associated with the field of social sciences, notably on business management.

3.     Concluding remarks

The topic of value and interest assessment (VAIA) has always come up in the writer’s workshops on research methods for his undergraduate and postgraduate business management students. Ho (2016) was an initial attempt to organize and explain these ideas. This article further elaborates and refines the VAIA topic, resulting in the formulation of the VAIAGs. Together, the two grids constitute a holistic quality assessment tool on the main deliverables of a dissertation project. One can compare this assessment tool with the quality assessment criteria provided by dissertation project handbooks from different universities to judge whether the VAIAGs are more comprehensive and conceptually clearer. In addition, with this article, the writer is able to offer a proper reading on VAIA. This article should both facilitate teachers delivering research methods workshop as well as inform students doing final year dissertation projects.

To be able to produce a dissertation project report with high interest and value, both the academic and practical ones, the dissertation project researcher (e.g., students doing dissertation projects) needs more than an assessment tool such as the VAIAGs. More fundamentally, he/she needs to build up intellectual learning capability. In this regard, the writer’s work on managerial intellectual learning (MIL) is a relevant subject to study, see the managerial intellectual learning Facebook page for further information on MIL.

Bibliography

Ho, J.K.K. 2016. “A mind mapping-based literature review (MMBLR) on e-procurement with exploration on the academic interest and value involved” Joseph KK Ho e-resource blog August 28 (url address: http://josephho33.blogspot.hk/2016/08/a-mind-mapping-basedliterature-review.html).

Managerial intellectual learning Facebook page, maintained by Joseph, K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/managerial.intellectual.learning/).