support@assignmentexperts.co.uk + 44 7340 9595 39
(2) Notifications
Flat 50% OFF on Every Order
Promo Code: FLAT50Chat GPT & Paraphrasing Tool
My Account

Custom-Written, AI & Plagiarism-Free with Passing "Guaranteed"

UK Based Company
Company Registration# 11483120
Address: International House, 12 Constance Street, London, United Kingdom, E16 2DQ.

Collect, critically analyse and synthesise data and ideas.

 

Business School 

BUSINESS MASTERS

DISSERTATION GUIDELINES

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.. 2

Aim of the dissertation. 3

Learning Outcomes. 3

Guidelines. 4

The Dissertation Calendar. 4

Please see OnlineCampus syllabus for the up to date deadlines. 4

The Dissertation Process. 5

Timings and Deadlines. 5

Dissertation Proposal Form.. 5

Proposed Topic. 5

Submitting Your Dissertation Proposal 5

Supervision. 6

Dissertation Tutor 6

Initial Contact with Supervisor 6

Continuing Contact with Supervisor 6

Supervision Time Available to Students. 6

The Nature of Supervision. 6

Problems with Supervision. 7

Selection of Topic. 7

Changes in Topic. 7

Originality. 7

Dissertation Structure. 8

Length. 8

Structure. 8

Preliminaries. 8

Body of Work. 9

End Material 9

Presentation. 10

Legibility. 10

Page Layout 10

Tables, charts, diagrams, photographs etc. 10

Footnotes, Endnotes, Headers and Footers. 10

Writing Style. 11

Submitting Your Work. 11

Confidentiality. 11

Academic Misconduct - Protecting Yourself 11

Plagiarism.. 12

Referencing. 12

Other Academic Misconduct 13

Retention of Working Papers. 13

Assessment 13

Assessment Criteria. 14

Disclosure of Marks. 14

Failed Dissertations. 14

INTRODUCTION

These guidelines are your handbook for the module and should provide you with much of the information you need to produce your dissertation. Anything you are uncertain about, or any points of interpretation that may arise should be initially discussed with your dissertation supervisor.

Business Masters Dissertation, 60 Level 7 Credit Points

The dissertation module is the single most important module you will take for your Masters degree. Not only is it worth 60 credits, but also, as you are required to work on a topic of your choice with minimum supervision, performance in and experience gained during its completion can often prove invaluable when applying for jobs. It is therefore vital that:

  • You follow these guidelines, and obtain guidance from your supervisor on any points about which you are not sure.
  • You allocate sufficient time to complete the dissertation thoroughly - it is worth a third of your marks - you should aim to spend about 600 hours working on it.

Aim of the dissertation

This module provides an opportunity for students to use and extend the knowledge and skills that they have acquired during their programme of study. Using appropriate research methodologies and data collection methods, students will critically synthesise a body of knowledge relevant to the taught programme (Extract from Module Descriptor)

Learning Outcomes

At the end of this module, the student will be able to:

  1. Collect, critically analyse and synthesise data and ideas.
  2. Present findings and recommendations in writing that confirm their understanding of the subject under investigation.
  3. Address and satisfy their specific research aims and objectives.
  4. Engage in critical reflection on the research process and the issue(s) under investigation.
  5. Identify both personal and professional learning and development outcomes emanating from the research process and written dissertation.

You should also be able to demonstrate

  • A systematic understanding of relevant knowledge about organisations, their external context and how they are managed
  • Application of relevant knowledge to a range of complex situations taking account of its relationship and interaction with other areas of the business or organisation
  • A critical awareness of current issues in business and management which is informed by leading edge research and practice in the field
  • An understanding of appropriate techniques sufficient to allow detailed investigation into relevant business and management issues
  • Creativity in the application of knowledge, together with a practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to develop and interpret knowledge in business and management
  • Ability to acquire and analyses data and information, to evaluate their relevance and validity, and to synthesise a range of information in the context of new situations

In your dissertation you should

  • Evaluate the rigour and validity of published research and assess its relevance to new situations
  • Extrapolate from existing research and scholarship to identify new or revised approaches to practice
  • Conduct research into business and management issues that requires familiarity with a range of business data, research sources and appropriate methodologies, and for such to inform the overall learning process
  • Communicate effectively both orally and in writing, using a range of media

Guidelines

The dissertation is an individual piece of work, and there is no intention to unduly restrict students in their approach. In addition disciplines, even within the broad fields of Business and Management differ in their traditions.

These dissertation guidelines are therefore designed to:

  • Inform students, staff and external examiners.
  • Provide a common standard across School of Business and Enterprise Masters dissertations.
  • Provide appropriate flexibility between topics, approaches and disciplines

Failure to comply with these guidelines (e.g. completion of calendar tasks by the appropriate deadline) may cause the final mark to be reduced or may invalidate, delay or prevent the award of a dissertation mark.

It is the YOUR responsibility to comply with the instructions laid out in these guidelines. Any variation from these guidelines will only be valid and binding if they are committed to writing and signed by you and your Dissertation Supervisor before submission of the final work. Such amendments may also require the agreement of the Dissertations Co-ordinator, Programme Leader and/or External Examiners.

The Dissertation Calendar

*****************************

The Dissertation Process

Timings and Deadlines

With the exception of the hand-in deadline which except in the case of previously agreed, documented Personal Extenuating Circumstances cannot be changed or re-negotiated, the other timings suggested in the calendar are for your guidance.

However if you fail to hand in a proposal form on time the allocation of a supervisor may be delayed, similarly, if you fail to meet with your supervisor before the specified date, your schedule will be put back. Missing the other suggested deadlines are clearly likely to have similarly negative consequences for the quality of your final submission. Given the importance of the dissertation module you are strongly advised to meet all of these deadlines.

Dissertation Proposal Form  

The Dissertation Proposal form has three main purposes:

  • To provide the Dissertation Co-ordinator with information about proposed projects so that appropriate dissertation tutors may be appointed.
  • To help students formulate ideas about their dissertations and get them off to a quick start
  • To help dissertation supervisors advise on the practicality and suitability of your ideas. In this respect the dissertation proposal is a form of ‘formative’ assessment, which if advice is heeded, can improve your final product.

Proposed Topic

On the Dissertation Proposal Form we are looking for a brief summary of your topic.

The topic must lie within the field of Business and/or Management and:

  • Be sufficiently focussed to be achievable with the time and resources available.
  • Be linked to the availability of information. If such information is not available then that topic is not feasible. Make sure that information which is required is likely to be available. This will involve some time in the library and for checking that outside information sources are available. We suggest that you do this very early on in the process

Submitting Your Dissertation Proposal

Your Dissertation proposal must be submitted via the OnlineCampus platform.

Important:

  • Students who submit their proposals late will find in consequence that the allocation of their supervisor will be delayed - and that the supervisor is less likely to be the person suggested/requested.
  • Where proposals are submitted incomplete they will be returned. Again, this will necessarily delay the appointment of a supervisor.

The University can accept NO RESPONSIBILITY for the consequences of late or inadequately completed proposals.

Supervision

Dissertation Tutor

Dissertation tutors are appointed to supervise the process of a dissertation as much as the subject matter. Tutors cannot necessarily have specialist knowledge in all aspects of all topics, although we try to match supervisor with topic area as closely as possible and where there are a number of projects on a similar theme or area, group tutorials/supervisions may be arranged by an appropriate specialist in addition to your learning set arrangements.

Initial Contact with Supervisor

It is YOUR responsibility to make and maintain contact with your supervisor.

First contact should be made within 14 days of the allocation of a supervisor. If you have difficulty in making contact with your supervisor please email studentcare@college.ch

It is not acceptable to telephone and, upon finding the supervisor unavailable at that instant, to leave a phone number for the supervisor to make the first contact. If difficulty persists the student should speak immediately with StudentCare via LiveSupport (available via the OnlineCampus) or by email to studentcare@college.ch

Continuing Contact with Supervisor

If you are prudent, always ensure that at the conclusion of one tutorial, arrangements are made for the next contact.

Supervision Time Available to Students

You can expect 5 hours of your supervisor’s time, spread appropriately over the time available – but be aware that they will not be able to make all of that time available in the final weeks before submission. And don’t forget that your supervisor is entitled to annual leave: make arrangements accordingly. To get most benefit from supervision you should ensure that you keep in contact regularly with your tutor. The time available is limited, and you are strongly advised to prepare thoroughly for tutorials to avoid unnecessary waste of contact time.

The Nature of Supervision

This is your dissertation, not your supervisors. Your supervisor is there to give you advice and guidance, not to tell you what to do or to write your dissertation for you. Most supervisors will look at sections of your dissertation to advise whether style and content are appropriate but you must not expects supervisors to read and comment on something as substantial as a final draft not least because the final submission would then no longer be your own work.

Problems with Supervision

Problems should be reported to the StudentCare services (by either student or tutor). Difficulties can usually be resolved informally, but in some cases a new supervisor may be allocated.

Selection of Topic

Responsibility for selection of a suitable dissertation topic rests with you.

Ideas for topics may come from many sources, but your proposal for research

  • Must be related to subject matter relevant to business and management.
  • Must be achievable as a Masters dissertation within the time-frame and resources available
  • May be sourced from within your own work practice
  • Is likely to evolve as the project progresses - talk with your supervisor, but don’t worry that your original submission topic will be “set in stone”.

Changes in Topic

Although forward planning is essential, many good topics evolve as the project progresses. This is normal, and even to be expected. Don’t worry if you feel your work is moving away from the topic you originally submitted. However the final title and topic should not be changed without the consent of your supervisor and any major change of topic (for example, to another subject area) must be made only after detailed discussions with your supervisor, and depending on the degree of deviation from the original, may require a resubmission of a proposal form.

Originality

It is the student’s responsibility to verify that the approach to the dissertation topic is original and unique. It is the student’s responsibility to verify that the title and the approach of the dissertation are original.

‘Original’, in the context of a Masters dissertation, means that it is the work of the student (e.g. it is not a collaborative project with another student or the supervisor), and that where content originates elsewhere such sources are identified and properly referenced.

‘Originality’ in the context of Masters level work might include

  • Testing an existing theory/idea in a new/different context/location
  • Generating data to compare/contrast with existing work
  • Extending an existing study or applying several related existing ideas/theories to a problem.

The emphasis for a Masters level student must be in demonstrating “mastery” of existing knowledge bases. The formulation of substantially novel ideas is the basis of a PhD, not a Masters dissertation.

Just how much ‘originality’ is sufficient for the dissertation must be negotiated between the supervisor and student in each case, but it is wise to check that your project, or something similar, has not been previously submitted - lists are available via the library.

Dissertation Structure

The format below is that which is considered ‘conventional’ for most dissertations. Substantial deviations from this format must, if they are to be valid and binding, be committed to writing and agreed by both student and supervisor before submission of the final work. Collect, critically analyse and synthesise data and ideas.. Such amendments may require the agreement of the Dissertations Co-ordinator and/or external examiners.

Length

The expected length of the full dissertation is 15,000 words of what is called body-text, meaning the text of the dissertation not counting the abstract, list of references and/or bibliography (there is actually a technical difference between these two things noted below). The body-text does not include the abstract, bibliographic entries, figure captions, tables, lists of abbreviations, appendices or any declarations or acknowledgements. The figure of 15,000 is approximate, and students need not make exceptional accommodations to fit the dissertation precisely into 15,000 words. The guidelines state that a 10% leeway from the suggested figure will be acceptable. The University Guidelines state, “The word limit is designed to protect you from attempting over-ambitious projects, not to penalise initiative”, so the University denotes a fine line between prescription and recommendation. However, the Cumbria University Academic Handbook is prescriptive, as follows: where the word count exceeds 10%, the full assignment will be marked following which the appropriate penalty will be applied.

Where the word count exceeds the limit, the penalties detailed below will be applied:

0% - 10% - No penalty

Over 10% - 10 marks deducted, or pass mark awarded (whichever is the higher)

Over 30% - Mark capped at pass mark

Structure

The submitted dissertation will include 5 components:

  • Preliminaries
  • The body of work
  • The evaluation
  • End material
  • Mandatory records

Preliminaries

Title Page

See format shown (Appendix A).

The title should be succinct yet clearly specify the content of the dissertation. Twelve words is normally the maximum length. It should be agreed and finalised as part of the final draft. It may be different from the original proposed title, but this must be agreed with your supervisor.

Abstract

100 – 500 words. See format shown (Appendix B)

Acknowledgements (Optional)

The student may wish to thank those people who have been particularly helpful in the preparation of the dissertation.

Declaration of Authenticity

(See Appendix C)

Table of Contents

 

Glossary (optional)

If a dissertation contains unfamiliar abbreviations or technical terms it is helpful to include a glossary at this point.

Body of Work

Usually presented as a series of chapters

A conventional form, suitable for many dissertations might be:

  • Introduction
  • Aims and Objectives
  • Literature Review
  • Methodology
  • Results
  • Conclusions

Although all these elements must be present in every ‘body of work’ it is not essential that they are presented either under those headings or, necessarily, in that order. It will very much depend on your subject and your approach - for example, for some topics it may be more appropriate to combine literature review and results, while for dissertations investigating how a topic might be best investigated the methodology(ies) used may also be the results!

It is important to discuss your proposed structure with your supervisor, especially if you feel the ‘conventional’ approach is not appropriate.

Evaluation

You should, at some point in the work, comment on the limitations of what you have done, and, if appropriate, indicate how improvements might be achieved. This part may also include suggestions for further work, recommendations etc as appropriate to the research questions posed.

End Material

End material should include:

References: Citations of specific works referred to directly in the text. Make sure you use a conventional referencing system - Harvard or British Standard – for example, see the University Publication Getting it Right! viewable on the MD4801 BlackBoard page.

Bibliography: List of additional material consulted, but not directly cited in the text. Use Harvard system for this.

Appendices: (optional) charts, graphs, additional data, photographs, videos, maps, sample instruments etc which support the text, but are sufficiently marginal not to be included in the body of the work. Appendices are usually labelled alphabetically, although if there is little such material and it is all of a similar nature, it may all be included in one appendix.

Presentation

Legibility

The dissertation should be typed or word-processed. Spacing may either be set at double or one and a half line spacing. Spacing greater than double spacing is not acceptable. The body of the dissertation should be in a conventional Font (such as Arial, Times New Roman or Garamond, not a ‘fancy’ font) size 12 (Most of these guidelines are written in Arial Font Size 12).

Submitted copies of the dissertation must be produced in such a manner that the text is entirely legible. This means an image suitable for good reproduction from a photocopier.

Page Layout

Pages should be numbered in sequence at the bottom right hand corner, starting with and including the title page.

Margins and headings: Use substantial margin (+ 3cms). The right margin should be unjustified (left ragged), since the spacing between words used to make the right margin align often inhibits readability, while adding little aesthetically.

Tables, charts, diagrams, photographs etc

Conventionally, lists of numbers are regarded as ‘tables’, visual representations, such as charts, graphs, maps and diagrams are ‘figures’ and photographs ‘plates’. Each category should be numbered separately in sequence by chapter; e.g. Table 3.1 is the first table in Chapter 3. Each figure should be accompanied by a descriptive title, which completely explains the contents of the figure, and should have reference to them in the text.

It is not acceptable to insert photocopies of tables into the body of the dissertation. Tables should be word processed into the text. Generally this also applies to diagrams - no photocopies or scans from books. There may be occasions where photocopies are appropriate - to illustrate original historical material, or advertisements under discussion in the text, for example - but the use of these should be cleared with your supervisor.

Footnotes, Endnotes, Headers and Footers

There is no definitive ruling on the use of footnotes and endnotes. In some cases use of British Standard referencing can render footnotes unnecessary, in others the Harvard system with footnotes is more appropriate (see section below on referencing). Similarly, in some disciplines footnotes/endnotes are discouraged, while in others they can form an integral and important part of the narrative. It very much depends on your discipline, your subject matter, and the presentation of the work. If you decide that footnotes/endnotes are important for your work you should discuss with your dissertation supervisor which approach is most appropriate for your discipline and topic.

Please do not include your name, file name or similar in any header or footer

Writing Style

The level of writing must be appropriate to the level of the Masters degree. Specifically, attention should be paid to correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, sentence structure and clarity of style. The acid test is that it must maintain the confidence of the reader. Sloppy presentation may well be interpreted, if only subconsciously, as indicative of sloppy research. It is your responsibility to edit the text for errors - of fact, presentation, compilation and typing. Note particularly that spellchecker programmes do not always uncover homonym usage errors, such as principal / principle, there / their, or simple typographical errors that produce valid words (eg accidentally hitting s, f, g or h instead of ‘d’ when trying to write “date”.

In general, formal academic work is written in the third person, and first- and second person references (to I, you, we and us) are avoided. However, conventions are changing, and in some areas of some disciplines the use of the first person may be more appropriate. Seek the guidance of your Supervisor if you wish to depart from the third-person convention.

Students who wish to develop their English style and grammar may wish to make use of the support available to both domestic and international students. Contact Student Services if you want to take advantage of this support.

Submitting Your Work

  • Submit the electronic copy of your dissertation via the OnlineCampus.
  • Breathe a sigh of relief!

THIS ELECTRONIC COPY WILL BE SUBMITTED TO PLAGIARISM DETECTION SOFTWARE. NON-SUBMISSION, OR SUBMISSION OF A CORRUPT OR BLANK FILE WILL BE REGARDED AS AN ATTEMPT TO AVOID ELECTRONIC SCRUTINY FOR PLAGIARISM AND TREATED AS ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT.

Confidentiality

Confidentiality of dissertations is regarded as an exceptional circumstance, which may arise for example, if a student is given access to commercially sensitive material. Normally use of such material in the final submission is discouraged, but in individual circumstances this may be agreed by the Dissertation Supervisor and declared by the student to reception on submission. In these circumstances both copies of confidential projects will be pulped after a mark is agreed.

Academic Misconduct - Protecting Yourself

Although the vast majority of dissertations are completed without incident, every year there are a small number of cases subject to enquiries under the heading of ‘Academic Misconduct’. By far the most common irregularity, often inadvertent, but nevertheless potentially damaging to your academic reputation, is Plagiarism.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the ‘unacknowledged incorporation in a student’s work of material derived from the work (published or unpublished) of another’. Examples of plagiarism include

  • The inclusion of more than a single phrase from another person’s work without the use of quotation marks and acknowledgement of the source
  • The summarising of another person’s work by simply changing a few words or altering the order of presentation without acknowledgement
  • The use of another person’s ideas without acknowledgement.
  • Copying the work of another student, with or without their knowledge or agreement.

Thus, the intellectual work of others summarised in the dissertation must be attributed to its source. It is assumed that all ideas, opinions, conclusions, specific wordings, quotations, conceptual structures and data, whether reproduced exactly or in paraphrase, which are not referenced to another source are claimed as being the work of the student. If this claim is false then an act of plagiarism has occurred which may result in disciplinary action at the course or University level. This may mean that your mark is reduced - perhaps to zero, or in severe cases you may not be allowed to graduate.

It is important that the work you submit:

  • Is original in the context of a Masters project
  • Gives proper acknowledgement to any work by others which is used in completing your project

In this context originality means that the project subject is presented in a way which differs from any other:

  • Published works
  • Study guides (including handouts from lectures etc)
  • Projects of past or present students

This does not preclude the use of the same material from wider reading (to support it with examples, or relevant opinions and ideas, or to place it within the context of existing knowledge). In fact, credit is given for this kind of material - but it does mean that the sources of this kind of material must be identified.

Referencing

The best defence against accusations of plagiarism is scrupulous, accurate and detailed referencing of all your sources. Two styles of referencing are in common use: the British Standard (Numeric) System and the Harvard System. Either is acceptable: your choice may be informed by the nature of your narrative, your personal preferences or the traditions of your discipline.

In particular, you must ensure that:

  • Words or phrases taken verbatim from published works are placed in quotation marks and the source acknowledged.
  • Quotations take the form of brief and relevant extracts, which only exceptionally exceed about 100 words
  • Where longer use of another’s work is appropriate, you summarise or paraphrase the actual words - but you must still reference the source.
  • Sources of ideas as well as actual words are acknowledged.

Other Academic Misconduct

Other, more rarely encountered, areas of academic misconduct include

  • Collusion - where a student submits, as entirely their own, work done in collaboration with another student.
  • Ghosting - where a student submits as their own work something that has been produced in whole or part by another person on their behalf.
  • Falsification - the ‘invention’ of data, information, references, or any other work claimed to have been carried out as part of the dissertation.

Retention of Working Papers

In order to protect yourself from any accusation of Academic Misconduct you should retain all working documents e.g. notes, any photocopies of articles used, drafts etc until you have been formally notified of the award of your degree.

In rare cases the sources of information in a dissertation may not be entirely clear to the Examiner (Internal or External), or the originality or authorship of the work may be in doubt. When that occurs the student is notified by letter and asked to attend the University so clarification may be obtained. It is to your advantage to be able to easily demonstrate at such an interview the source(s) of your material. Being able to produce working papers may conveniently do this. We also reserve the right, as part of our quality assurance system, to ask a stratified sample of students to submit their working papers after projects have been submitted.

You don’t need to keep every scrap of paper, but we do expect you to keep the bulk of the important working papers. For example, if you’ve conducted a survey or questionnaire the originals should be kept - along with names and addresses of any firms, institutions or individuals involved. Keep all computer-based material on several media CD-R/memory stick etc - not on a hard disk - hardware failure will not be accepted as an excuse for not being able to produce evidence.

If it is not possible to establish the sources of material in the dissertation the award of the degree will be delayed until the matter is resolved.

Assessment

Your Dissertation Supervisor and at least one other member of academic staff will mark the dissertation independently. They will then meet to agree an appropriate mark. If there should be an irreconcilable difference of opinion, adjudication of the mark will take place by another member of staff and/or one of the external examiners. In any case, a sample of dissertations representing the range of marks awarded are scrutinised by the external examiners.

Assessment Criteria

!!!! Caution !!!!

The Dissertation Assessment Criteria are included as Appendix E of these guidelines as an aid to students in the preparation of their work, and as a guide to markers. Experience shows that a minority of students misinterpret such marking schemes. They are not writing guides - the criteria can be met in a variety of ways.

It is not expected that any single piece of assessed work will necessarily fall into the same category in all of the areas identified, so the mark awarded will normally reflect an averaging process, where a poor performance in one area can be compensated by better performances in others. However, the areas are clearly not independent, and it is, for example, very unlikely that an answer, which shows poor clarity of expression, or that failed to address major aspects of the issues under consideration would be awarded a high mark.

Disclosure of Marks

Marks awarded for dissertations are not available until AFTER the relevant Progression and Awards Board has met and approved them. Furthermore, you should note that predicting a potential mark before a dissertation is formally marked is very difficult - and tutors (including dissertation supervisors) are not allowed to do so. Please don’t cause embarrassment by asking.

Every dissertation is marked twice (by the supervisor and another member of University staff). Some are marked a third (or more) time(s) either by External or Internal Examiners. The mark attached to a dissertation is a result of this complex process. It is therefore impossible, and indeed extremely foolhardy, for a supervisor to give a definitive view as to the standard a dissertation might reach. This does not, of course, preclude a supervisor giving general guidance as to the calibre of student work, but such guidance should be given and taken with due consideration to the above.

Failed Dissertations

You cannot be awarded a Masters degree if you fail the dissertation module (although, depending on your performance in other modules you may still be awarded a Post Graduate Diploma or Certificate). Unless Academic Misconduct has been demonstrated you will normally be given ONE further opportunity to re-submit a failed dissertation. The College may charge a fee for the repeat supervision being provided for the resubmission.

If this situation should arise students will be advised about their options after the Progression and Awards Board has considered the case.

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written,
tailored to your instructions

paypal checkout

The services provided by Assignment Experts UK are 100% original and custom written. We never use any paraphrasing tool, any software to generate content for e.g. Chat GPT and all other content writing tools. We ensure that the work produced by our writers is self-written and 100% plagiarism-free.

Discover more


International House, 12 Constance Street, London, United Kingdom,
E16 2DQ

UK Registered Company # 11483120


100% Pass Guaranteed

STILL NOT CONVINCED?

We've produced some samples of what you can expect from our Academic Writing Service - these are created by our writers to show you the kind of high-quality work you'll receive. Take a look for yourself!

View Our Samples

Recent Papers

Title Page (model

Hybrid Working and Employee Engagement in UK SMEs: A Mixed-Methods Study of Knowledge Workers

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Master of Business Administration (MBA)

School of Business and Enterprise

[University Name]

[Your Name]
[Student ID]
[Month, Year]

Abstract (approx. 250 words)

The rapid normalisation of hybrid working in the United Kingdom has changed how small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) manage people and performance. Recent research suggests that hybrid work can enhance flexibility and productivity, but may also generate challenges around communication, cohesion and employee wellbeing, particularly in smaller firms with limited resources. This dissertation investigates how hybrid working influences employee engagement in UK SMEs employing knowledge workers, and identifies managerial practices that support high engagement under hybrid arrangements.

A mixed-methods design was adopted. Quantitative data were collected through an online survey of 120 hybrid-working employees across four UK-based SMEs in the professional services and technology sectors (pseudonyms: Alpha Consulting, BrightTech Solutions, Insight Analytics and Northbridge Finance). Employee engagement was measured using the short Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9), alongside scales for job autonomy, communication quality, work–life balance and perceived organisational support. Qualitative insights were then generated through semi-structured interviews with 12 employees and 4 line managers.

Survey findings indicate moderate to high overall engagement, with mean UWES scores above established benchmarks. Hybrid working was positively associated with perceived autonomy and work–life balance, but negatively associated with feelings of social connection, especially among newer employees. Regression analysis suggests that line-manager communication quality and perceived organisational support are stronger predictors of engagement than the number of office or home days per week. Interview data reinforce this, highlighting the role of clear expectations, inclusive meeting practices and intentional team-building in sustaining engagement.

The dissertation concludes that hybrid working is not inherently good or bad for engagement in SMEs; rather, outcomes depend on how the model is designed and led. Practical recommendations are offered for SME leaders, alongside reflections on limitations and directions for further research.

(Note: all organisations and data in this sample are illustrative and fictional.)

Acknowledgements (optional, short model)

I would like to thank my supervisor, [Supervisor Name], for their guidance throughout this project. I am also grateful to the managers and employees at Alpha Consulting, BrightTech Solutions, Insight Analytics and Northbridge Finance who generously gave their time to complete surveys and interviews. Finally, I wish to thank my family and friends for their encouragement and practical support during the dissertation process.

Declaration of Authenticity (model text)

I declare that this dissertation is my own work. Where I have drawn on the work of others, this is clearly indicated and referenced. This dissertation has not been submitted, in whole or in part, for any other degree or qualification at this or any other institution.

Signed: ____________________
Name: [Your Name]
Date: [Date]

Table of Contents (main items only for this sample)

  1. Introduction

  2. Literature Review

  3. Methodology

  4. Findings

  5. Discussion

  6. Conclusions, Recommendations and Reflections
    References
    Appendices

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Background

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, hybrid working – where employees split their time between home and office – has become a lasting feature of work in many advanced economies, including the UK. Recent data suggest that UK employees now work remotely more days per week than the global average, and many expect some form of hybrid arrangement as a normal employment condition. The Guardian For small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), hybrid work offers potential benefits such as access to wider talent pools, reduced premises costs and improved work–life balance for staff. At the same time, SMEs often lack the formal HR infrastructure, digital tools and managerial slack that larger organisations can deploy to manage these changes. SpringerLink

Against this backdrop, employee engagement has become a key concern. Engagement – typically defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterised by vigour, dedication and absorption – is associated with higher performance, lower turnover and better wellbeing. Taylor & Francis Online Existing research suggests that remote and hybrid work can both enhance and undermine engagement: flexibility and autonomy may boost motivation, but isolation, blurred boundaries and communication challenges can damage it if not managed carefully. Bulletin of Business and Economics

However, much of the emerging literature focuses on large organisations or public-sector employers. Less is known about how UK SMEs are experiencing hybrid work and what it means for their ability to keep employees energised, involved and committed.

1.2 Research problem

For SMEs, disengaged employees can quickly translate into lost clients, operational errors and damaged reputation. Yet many SMEs introduced hybrid working reactively during the pandemic and have since adjusted policies in an ad-hoc way. Few have systematically examined how their hybrid arrangements are affecting engagement, or which specific practices are helping or harming.

This dissertation addresses the following problem:

How does hybrid working influence employee engagement in UK SMEs employing knowledge workers, and what can SME leaders do to sustain high engagement under hybrid arrangements?

1.3 Aim and objectives

Aim

To examine the impact of hybrid working on employee engagement in UK SMEs and identify managerial practices that support high engagement among hybrid-working knowledge workers.

Objectives

  1. To review existing literature on employee engagement, hybrid working and the SME context.

  2. To measure engagement levels among hybrid-working employees in selected UK SMEs and explore relationships with key job and organisational factors.

  3. To understand employees’ and managers’ perceptions of how hybrid working helps or hinders engagement.

  4. To develop evidence-based recommendations for SME leaders seeking to design and manage hybrid work in ways that support engagement.

  5. To reflect critically on the research process and identify personal and professional learning outcomes.

1.4 Research questions

  1. How do employees in UK SMEs experience hybrid working in relation to their engagement?

  2. Which job and organisational factors are most strongly associated with engagement under hybrid arrangements?

  3. What practices do employees and managers perceive as effective in sustaining engagement in a hybrid context?

  4. What practical implications arise for SME leaders and HR practitioners?

1.5 Structure of the dissertation

Chapter 2 reviews relevant literature on employee engagement, hybrid working and SMEs. Chapter 3 sets out the methodology, including research design, sampling, data collection and analysis. Chapter 4 presents the main findings from the survey and interviews. Chapter 5 discusses these findings in relation to the literature. Chapter 6 offers conclusions, practical recommendations, reflections on limitations and suggestions for future research, as well as a brief personal learning reflection.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

(condensed sample – you would expand this considerably)

2.1 Conceptualising employee engagement

Employee engagement has been conceptualised in various ways, but a widely used definition is the work engagement approach of Schaufeli et al., which focuses on vigour, dedication and absorption. Engagement is seen as distinct from, but related to, job satisfaction and organisational commitment. Recent reviews highlight that engaged employees typically show higher performance, better customer service and reduced turnover intentions. Taylor & Francis Online

Engagement is often explained using job demands–resources (JD-R) theory, which proposes that job resources (e.g. autonomy, feedback, social support) foster engagement, particularly when job demands are high, while excessive demands can lead to strain and burnout. Hybrid working changes both demands and resources, making this framework useful for understanding its effects.

2.2 Hybrid working and engagement

Remote and hybrid work are now the subject of growing academic and practitioner interest. Systematic reviews suggest that remote working can increase autonomy and flexibility, but may also increase isolation and blur boundaries between work and home. Engagement outcomes appear to depend on how remote work is designed and supported, rather than the location itself.

Recent empirical studies indicate that hybrid work, where employees alternate between home and office, may offer a “best of both worlds” scenario if organisations invest in digital infrastructure, communication and inclusive practices. Goodwood Publishing For example, Siddika (2025) finds that hybrid working can enhance vigour and dedication when employees perceive high trust and clear expectations, but engagement is undermined when expectations are ambiguous or hybrid days are associated with exclusion from informal networks.

2.3 The SME context

SMEs differ from larger organisations in structure, resources and culture. They often feature closer owner-manager control, informal HR practices and limited capacity for large HR projects. University of Lancashire While this can enable agility and personalised support, it may also mean that hybrid working policies are less formalised and more dependent on individual managers.

Research on hybrid work in SMEs remains limited, but early evidence suggests that SMEs face particular challenges around digital infrastructure, coordinating small teams and maintaining informal learning in hybrid settings. This creates a clear gap for studies focusing specifically on employee engagement in hybrid-working SMEs, which this dissertation seeks to address.

(In your full dissertation, you would extend this chapter with more sub-sections on: definitions and measures of engagement; theories underpinning engagement; detailed evidence on remote/hybrid work; UK policy/regulatory context; and a conceptual framework.)

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 Research design

Given the exploratory nature of the research questions and the desire to understand both patterns and experiences, a mixed-methods design was adopted, using an explanatory sequential strategy:

  1. Quantitative phase: online survey of hybrid-working employees to capture engagement levels and related variables.

  2. Qualitative phase: semi-structured interviews with a subsample of employees and line managers to deepen understanding of survey patterns.

This design allows quantitative findings to be complemented and explained by richer qualitative insights, strengthening overall validity.

3.2 Research setting and sample

The research focused on four UK-based SMEs (50–249 employees) operating in professional services and technology, all of which had adopted hybrid working policies post-COVID:

  • Alpha Consulting (management consultancy)

  • BrightTech Solutions (software development)

  • Insight Analytics (data analytics services)

  • Northbridge Finance (financial advisory)

These companies were selected using purposive sampling, based on: SME status, predominantly knowledge-based roles, and the presence of formal or informal hybrid work arrangements.

For the survey, all hybrid-working employees (n ≈ 180) were invited via internal email; 120 completed the questionnaire (estimated response rate 67%). For the interviews, 12 employees and 4 line managers were selected using maximum variation sampling to include different genders, tenure levels and roles.

(In your real project, you would insert the genuine numbers and details from your access and data.)

3.3 Data collection

3.3.1 Survey

The online survey included:

  • UWES-9 work engagement scale (vigour, dedication, absorption).

  • Measures of:

    • Perceived job autonomy

    • Quality of line-manager communication

    • Work–life balance

    • Perceived organisational support

    • Number of days working from home/office per week

Items were rated on five- or seven-point Likert scales. Demographic variables (age, gender, tenure, role, organisation) were also collected.

3.3.2 Interviews

Semi-structured interviews (30–45 minutes) were conducted via video call. Topics included:

  • Experiences of hybrid working (benefits and challenges)

  • Perceived impact on energy, focus and motivation

  • Communication and relationship patterns under hybrid work

  • Perceived fairness and inclusion

  • Suggestions for improving hybrid working and engagement

Interviews were audio-recorded with consent and transcribed verbatim.

3.4 Data analysis

Quantitative data were analysed using SPSS:

  • Descriptive statistics for engagement and related variables

  • Correlations between engagement and job/organisational factors

  • Multiple regression to identify key predictors of engagement

Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis, following familiarisation, initial coding, theme development and refinement. Themes were discussed with the supervisor to enhance credibility.

3.5 Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from the university ethics committee. Participants received an information sheet and gave informed consent. Participation was voluntary, and individuals could withdraw at any time before data analysis. Data were anonymised; pseudonyms are used for organisations and participants. Interview recordings and survey data were stored securely and will be destroyed after the retention period specified by the university.

3.6 Limitations of the methodology

The study is limited by:

  • Non-probability sampling and a relatively small number of organisations, which limit generalisability.

  • Self-report measures of engagement, which may be affected by common-method bias.

  • Cross-sectional design, which restricts causal inference.

These limitations are revisited in Chapter 6.

Chapter 4: Findings

(sampled and condensed)

4.1 Survey results (illustrative)

Mean overall UWES engagement score across the sample was 4.6 (SD = 0.7) on a 1–7 scale, suggesting moderate to high engagement. Vigour scores were slightly lower than dedication and absorption, indicating that some employees felt mentally engaged but not always energised.

Correlation analysis indicated that:

  • Engagement correlated positively with line-manager communication quality (r = .54), organisational support (r = .49) and job autonomy (r = .42).

  • Engagement had a weaker, but still positive, correlation with work–life balance (r = .31).

  • The number of home days per week showed no significant direct correlation with engagement.

Multiple regression suggested that line-manager communication and organisational support were significant predictors of engagement, even when controlling for demographic variables and home/office days. Hybrid work location itself did not emerge as a significant predictor once these factors were included.

(Numbers above are illustrative; in your real dissertation you would report actual statistics and include tables.)

4.2 Interview themes

Three main themes emerged from employee interviews, and one overarching theme from manager interviews:

  1. Flexibility as a double-edged sword
    Employees valued the ability to manage personal commitments and avoid long commutes, describing hybrid work as “grown-up trust”. At the same time, several reported blurred boundaries, longer working days and difficulty “switching off”.

  2. Connection depends on intentional practices
    Hybrid work did not automatically reduce connection, but connection relied on deliberate practices such as scheduled check-ins, inclusive hybrid meetings and occasional in-person social events. Newer employees felt particularly vulnerable to feeling “on the edge of the team”.

  3. Line-manager communication as the anchor
    Employees drew a sharp distinction between “present but distant” managers and those who were proactive, responsive and clear in hybrid settings. The latter group reported higher motivation and clarity.

  4. Managerial balancing act (manager theme)
    Managers described balancing output monitoring, team cohesion and individual flexibility. Those who framed hybrid work as a shared experiment rather than a fixed policy appeared more successful in maintaining engagement.

These themes broadly support the survey findings that how hybrid work is managed matters more than how many days are spent in each location.

Chapter 5: Discussion

5.1 Linking findings to the literature

The findings reinforce the view from JD-R theory that job resources, particularly high-quality line-manager communication and perceived organisational support – are central to engagement, including under hybrid work arrangements. Taylor & Francis Online The absence of a strong direct relationship between number of home days and engagement aligns with studies suggesting that location alone is not determinative; what matters is the design of the broader work system, including clarity, social connection and fairness. Bulletin of Business and Economics

For SMEs, the results echo early evidence that hybrid working can be productive and engaging when underpinned by suitable digital tools and inclusive practices, but that resource constraints and informal practices can create gaps.  The strong role for line-manager communication mirrors research that positions local leaders as critical carriers of culture and engagement in smaller organisations.

5.2 Implications for theory and practice

The study suggests that engagement frameworks remain valid in hybrid SME contexts, but that traditional job resources (autonomy, feedback, support) must be re-interpreted through a hybrid lens. Flexibility without connection risks engaged individual work but fragile team-level cohesion. SMEs that succeed in hybrid engagement appear to:

  • Treat hybrid work as an ongoing design challenge rather than a one-off policy.

  • Invest in simple but reliable digital communication tools.

  • Support line managers with guidance on inclusive hybrid practices.

  • Clarify expectations about availability, responsiveness and office presence.

Chapter 6: Conclusions, Recommendations and Reflections

6.1 Key conclusions

  1. Hybrid working in UK SMEs can support moderate to high employee engagement, particularly by enhancing autonomy and work–life balance.

  2. Engagement levels are more strongly influenced by relational and organisational factors – especially line-manager communication and perceived support – than by the number of office or home days.

  3. Without deliberate practices around communication and inclusion, hybrid working can create pockets of disconnection, particularly for newer employees.

6.2 Recommendations for SME leaders

Based on the findings, SME leaders should:

  • Formalise core principles of hybrid work (e.g. minimum office days, core hours, response time expectations) while preserving flexibility for individuals.

  • Provide targeted support for line managers, including training on running inclusive hybrid meetings, setting clear priorities and conducting regular one-to-one check-ins.

  • Introduce simple mechanisms to protect work–life boundaries (e.g. discouraging after-hours emails, using status indicators sensibly).

  • Pay particular attention to onboarding and early tenure, ensuring that new hires have structured opportunities to build relationships in person and online.

  • Review hybrid arrangements regularly with staff input, treating them as a “live experiment” rather than a fixed arrangement.

6.3 Limitations

This study focused on four UK SMEs in knowledge-intensive sectors, with voluntary participation and cross-sectional data. The findings may not generalise to other sectors, countries or non-knowledge roles. Longitudinal research across a wider range of SMEs would strengthen understanding of how hybrid engagement evolves over time.

6.4 Suggestions for further research

Future studies could:

  • Compare engagement in SMEs with more versus less formalised hybrid policies.

  • Examine differences between frontline and back-office roles in hybrid SMEs.

  • Explore the long-term career and learning implications of hybrid working in small organisations.

6.5 Personal and professional reflection (short model)

Conducting this dissertation has deepened my understanding of both research and practice. Methodologically, I have learned to design and administer a survey, conduct and analyse semi-structured interviews, and integrate quantitative and qualitative findings. Professionally, I have become more aware of the subtle ways in which communication, trust and clarity shape employee experiences in hybrid contexts. If I were to repeat the project, I would seek access to a wider range of SMEs and pilot the survey more extensively to improve response rates and clarity.

References (sample in Harvard style – you would add many more)

(Note: You must build your own full reference list; these are examples based on the sources I checked.)

Fatima, H. and Javaid, M. (2024) ‘A systematic review on the impact of remote work on employee engagement’, [Journal name], [volume(issue)], pp. xx–xx.

Maity, R. and Lee, K.L. (2025) ‘The impact of remote and hybrid work models on small and medium-sized enterprises’ productivity: a systematic literature review’, SN Business & Economics, 5, Article 158.

Siddika, B.A. (2025) ‘Effect of hybrid working on employee engagement’, Annals of Human Resource Management Research, 5(2), pp. 85–97. 

Wells, J. et al. (2023) ‘A systematic review of the impact of remote working on health’, [Journal], [volume(issue)], pp. xx–xx.

Eurofound (2022) The future of telework and hybrid work. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

Aksoy, C.G. et al. (2025) ‘Global Survey of Working Arrangements: UK country report’, cited in ‘UK employees work from home more than most global peers’, The Guardian, 24 May. The Guardian

The main body of your dissertation should be around 15,000 words, with a 10% leeway. If you go more than 10% over, marks can be taken off, or your mark can be capped at the pass mark. The word count does not include the abstract, references, tables, figures or appendices, so keep an eye on your main text only.

Your supervisor is there to guide you, not to write the dissertation for you. They’ll usually give you up to about 5 hours of supervision time in total, spread across the project. They can comment on plans and sections, and tell you if you’re on the right track, but they won’t edit or read the full final draft line by line.

Yes, your topic can evolve as you go along, that’s normal. Small changes are fine as long as you discuss them with your supervisor. If you want to make a big change (for example, a totally different subject area), you must get your supervisor’s approval, and you may need to submit a new or updated proposal.

Always show clearly where ideas, quotes, data and theories came from by using proper referencing (Harvard or British Standard, as your course allows). Put direct quotes in quotation marks, keep them short, and add a full reference. Don’t copy other students’ work, don’t let anyone write it for you, and keep your notes, drafts and data as evidence that the work is your own. The university will run your dissertation through plagiarism detection software.

We're Open