A few years ago, I participated in what I thought was a major medical research project only to find that it was actually a master’s dissertation.

Even so, the student, whom I shall call Ada, managed the activity very professionally. Her aim was to identify relationships between exercise and aspects of heart function among different age groups. After a detailed questionnaire and interview, I was asked to exercise while she checked my heart performance with various monitors. My heart was fine, but apparently the project was not so healthy. Ada had hoped to involve at least 50 participants but was struggling to get 20.

Did success really depend on a large volume of research? She thought so. Without sufficient data, she was convinced that she would fail.

I have supervised hundreds of master’s dissertations, albeit in different fields, and this situation aligned with my experience. We actively encourage the delusion that research results are vitally important by asking master’s students to articulate a research question in a research proposal for their research project. But do we actually let them do research?

̽����Ƶ

University project approval processes have rightly become quite stringent. Ethical concerns and health and safety issues must be considered to protect all parties involved. Many students – particularly those working in an unfamiliar culture – are often unaware of society’s expectations in this regard and need to be directed. The blacks and whites merge into grey when further restrictions are applied to mitigate perceived risks to the university’s reputation or to address factors that impact their insurance costs.

The net effect is that avenues for research are restricted. Students have to be very precise about their intentions, providing explicit detail of their methodology and target participants. This means that they need to know some answers even before they have had an opportunity to ask appropriate questions. As a result, many follow a line of least resistance, choosing methods that are a poor fit to their project’s aim and objectives. This leads to difficulties later, as in Ada’s case, when things do not work out as hoped.

̽����Ƶ

Taught master’s courses typically have a research methods module, which often runs just as the students are preparing their dissertation proposal and approval documentation. When I taught this unit, students frequently asked me how the topics should be applied to their submissions. An awareness of techniques is really important, and those going on to do in-depth research, such as a PhD, need a solid grounding. The master’s programme is the right place for it, but the juxtaposition with dissertation preparation sends out confusing signals. It was clear that there was a strong perception among my students that research was all-important. But is it? What do we actually assess?

Few, if any, dissertation assessment criteria indicate a need for extensive research. Instead, they focus on capabilities: knowledge and understanding, critical review, reasoned argument and judgement, along with a range of transferable academic and life skills. The research project is the vehicle to exercise these skills, but the actual assessment is usually only through the presentation of a significant written report in which the skills have to be demonstrated.

In my experience, many students fail to reach their potential because they concentrate on addressing actual and perceived shortcomings in their research when they should be showing a range of skills in a research context. Underperformance is not good for them, their supervisors or the university.

Consider what might happen if the focus were changed from research to an investigation using an approved method, whose effectiveness has to be critically evaluated by the student. This change might seem semantic, but it takes away the need for many aspects implied by a research project. The project does not have to be original, complete or even extensive: it just needs to be sufficient and academically robust.

̽����Ƶ

If you can effectively interview one person or gather and analyse a few questionnaires, then you could do many more, given time and resources. Limitations resulting from an approved but non-optimal method can be critically reviewed and judgements evaluated. The requisite skills can be demonstrated.

With only limited resources, Ada was unlikely to achieve her aim, but as a pilot study to investigate feasibility, she had every chance of success. She had already demonstrated a wide range of practical and academic research skills. She was starting to critically reflect on the issues and limitations of her project: that could form a significant part of her discussion. She was much closer to success than she realised. I suggested that she review the assessment criteria with her supervisor.

We should not misdirect students. All project documentation needs to explicitly indicate that the focus is not on research and results per se but rather on skills in a research context. The research methods module could support this by differentiating effective research from the demonstration of research skills. The latter is what a master’s degree ought to be all about.

Gordon Message was assistant dean for fashion marketing at AIU London and a visiting lecturer on master’s programmes at Hertfordshire Business School and Winchester School of Art and Design. Following retirement, he has continued with student mentoring and writing projects. He recently published The Dissertation Process: Planning, Implementation and Effective Write-up of Master’s Level Investigative Projects.

̽����Ƶ