Talk:Plagiarism/@comment-193.227.171.154-20110222181336/@comment-94.194.141.93-20110226040914

The way this thesis was possibly co-authored:

a) Very heavy on the theory Stating lots of things we already know, with an avoidance of introducing anything of conceptual novelty. The conclusion is to end with the concepts put forward by the supervisor with lack of critical appraisal and deeper problematisation.

b) Very thin on methodology The author states to be 'particularly grateful for the time given by the respondents in what was a lengthy survey and interview process.' There is, however, no detailed outline of HOW the data was actually created and why, no sample of the questionnaire provided, no sample of any interview transcript, no topic quide, no rational in relation to the methodolody chosen, no mentioning whether the telephone interviews where recorded and transcribed verbatim or not, indeed no clear analysis procedure is described, i.e. what was done with the data to integrate it´s findings and why. 40 names of interviewees are being listed, as well as certain sample criteria, but not how the participants were actually recruited, what may have been difficulties impacting sample quality etc. Data and results are simply appear and there is no 'plot' in relation to how the data was created, as well as and the role of the researcher in this process. In fact, the acknowledgment section of the thesis states that author collaborated with: 'a number of individuals at Monitor Group with whom I worked to design and conduct the NGO Survey which provides empirical data for this thesis', i.e. the author did not generate the data himself and used a third party to achieve this task. This puts the emphasis on integration of data, analysis and interpretation, but again no detailed outline or rational is provided that would help to replicate this study.

c) Style of writing: argumentation style appears to be different in certain sections, i.e. the theory chapters are probably written by a group of different authors with occasional argumentation thrown in by the lead author. Certain facts and the interpretative argument that follows do not seem to stack up or be derived from critical reflection and logical conclusion. There is no personal learning journey visible in how the author has developed his conceptual arguments. They are opinion, underpinned with certain evidence from the literature. The results chapter is more creative in writing style, most likely written by a female author, with the diagrams and tables provided by two different individuals. The integration of findings and overall polishing as done by fifth person in close collaboration with one of the first authors.