| Code: | MDCM2213 | Acronym: | DISS |
| Teaching Area: | Marketing |
| Acronym | Study plan | Curriculum Years | ECTS | Contact hours | Total Hours |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MDCM | Aviso nº 9882/2017 | 2º | 30 ECTS |
Teaching - Hours
|
The dissertation of a scientific nature presupposes a research work on a topic or topic in the master's area of knowledge. It must have a component of research, framing and critical discussion of relevant literature and a component of theoretical or experimental exercise, which promotes an innovative approach to the chosen topic. It should also present a conclusive summary and suggestions for future work.
A dissertation is a type of scientific work that best reflects the application of the scientific method. All work steps must be properly identified in the investigation report, namely:
a) Introduction and identification of the research problem
The problem must be clear and concise. It should briefly state the investigator's concern or doubt. It is this problem that will guide the subsequent steps in the process.
b) Literature review
The foundation of the problem, or literature review, is the stage of the process in which the researcher, researches, frames, explains and clarifies the main concepts and theoretical models that can contribute to the explanation of the phenomenon underlying the defined problem.
c) Methodology
It will be necessary to draw up a data and information collection plan that will confirm or not the veracity of the hypotheses put forward or the research objectives. Here, the definition of the approach method and data collection techniques are included, as well as the data analysis and processing plan.
d) Research questions/hypotheses and analysis model
The analysis model, essentially constituted by the hypotheses and their relation, is the stage where the probable explanations of the phenomenon under study are presented. Alternatively, a specific set of research objectives/research questions that deserve an adequate answer may be identified.
e) Analysis and discussion of results
Once the data has been collected, it is necessary to analyze them, against the background of the advanced hypotheses or research questions.
f) Conclusions
Conclusions on the explanatory or descriptive capacity of the frame of hypotheses or research questions formulated should be drawn.
g) Limitations and recommendations
Finally, the limitations of the research carried out must be presented, as well as suggestions for future lines of research to be explored.
1. The preparation of the dissertation is guided by doctors or specialists of recognized experience and professional competence, national or foreign.
2. The appointment of supervisors will be made by the Technical-Scientific Council, upon proposal of the Scientific Committee of Masters, after hearing the master's students and supervisors to be appointed.
3. The supervisors must monitor the progress of the work, periodically meeting with the respective mentees or, alternatively, ensuring the existence of any other means of communication, in order to help the student to achieve the goals they set themselves.
4. The supervisor is responsible for ensuring the adequate depth and scientific content of the work, as well as ensuring compliance with the defined presentation standards.
5. The student must deliver to the advisor a copy of the version of the work considered final up to 15 days before the deadline for the dissertation, so that the advisor can pronounce itself in time for the student to make some final corrections.
6. The final master's work is individual.
7. Students who meet the following conditions will be unable to defend the final work:
a) Flagrant and/or systematic disrespect of the rules and principles contained in the ¿Guide for the Elaboration of Final Papers for Masters¿, approved by the Technical-Scientific Council of ISAG;
b) Detection of copying, plagiarism or any other type of fraud. In this case, the student will fail the course in this academic year, and will be subject to the disciplinary procedure provided for in the ISAG Disciplinary Regulation.
8. The formalities and dates contained in the schedule of the Guide for the Preparation of Master's Final Papers must be respected.
Avaliação apenas com exame final
| Description | Type | Time (hours) | Conclusion Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attendance (estimated) | Lessons | 0 | |
| Tutorial guidance | Participação Presencial | 40 | |
| Relatório/Dissertação | 760 | ||
| Total: | 800 |
1. For the appreciation and public discussion of the master's thesis, a jury is constituted to be appointed by the Technical-Scientific Council, under proposal of the Scientific Committee of Masters.
2. The jury is composed of three members, one of whom may be the supervisor.
3. The members of the jury must be experts in the field in which the dissertation, project work or professional internship report is inserted, and are appointed from among nationals or foreigners holding a doctorate degree or specialists of recognized experience and professional competence .
4. Whenever possible, at least one of the members of the jury will belong to another higher education institution.
- Public evidence
The evaluation of the master's final work must take place in a public session, within 90 days from the date of delivery, in the following terms:
a) An initial presentation by the student, with a maximum duration of 20 minutes;
b) A discussion with the members of the jury appointed by the jury, with a maximum duration of 40 minutes divided equally between the student (up to 20 minutes) and the jury (up to 20 minutes).
- Jury deliberations
1. The deliberations of the jury are taken by a majority of its members, through a justified roll call vote, abstentions not being allowed.
2. Minutes of the jury meetings are drawn up, including the votes of each of its members and the respective reasons, which may be common to all or some members of the jury.
3. The deliberation of the jury can take one of the following forms:
the approval;
b) Disapproval.
4. In case of approval, the jury must assign a numerical classification on a scale of 10 to 20, equal to the average of the classifications proposed by each of the jury members.
There is no possibility of improving the grade