dissertation proposal (co
uption
in Msia)
y Li Tan
Submission date: 07-Jan XXXXXXXXXX:41PM (UTC+0000)
Submission ID: XXXXXXXXXX
File name: 119816_Li_Tan_dissertation_proposal__co
uption_in_Msia__1193354_ XXXXXXXXXXdocx
Word count: 4033
Character count: 26384
Reference needed
1
Reference needed
2
3
Reference
needed
4
Not well expressed
Sp.
Not well expressed
5
6
8
9
10
11
13
Reference
needed
14
15
16
17
Not clea
Sp.
18
19
20
FINAL GRADE
55/100
dissertation proposal (co
uption in Msia)
GRADEMARK REPORT
GENERAL COMMENTS
Instructo
1. Content and Analysis
This is a comprehensive proposal f ocusing on
co
uption in Malaysia. The content of the proposal,
however, should have been improved. It has
esearch question, which is doable and important.
However, the question should have been articulated
in a direct manner.
The proposal, also, remains thin in terms of
conceptual f ramework and literature review. It would
have been usef ul to review the theories on
co
uption (such as actor-specif ic; institutional;
cultural explanations) and, then, link your main
puzzle within the relevant strand of literature. The
aim is to review the literature more crit ically. What do
these authors miss and how will you remedy it?
2. Range & deployment of sources
The sources are generally good but they should
have been backed with a wider set of readings on
the relationship between economic development,
institutional structures and co
uption. There is a
huge literature on the subject matter and you should
have engaged at least some of the major ones of
this literature.
3. Structure and Organisation
QM
The proposal
oadly f ollows the prescribed
structure – thought, there are redundant and
epetit ive sections. Please see in- text comments f o
details.
4. Style and Language
There are a f ew number of typo mistakes. Some
sentences are also a bit vague and dif f icult to
understand. Going f orward, a meticulous gramma
check would be usef ul. Please see in- text comments
f or details.
5. Overall
This is a good proposal as a f irst step. In the
expanded version, you need to review the literature
caref ully; sketch out a more coherent conceptual
f ramework and justif y your case selection strategy.
Well done!
PAGE 1
PAGE 2
PAGE 3
PAGE 4
Reference needed
Comment 1
That's f ine. But, what exactly is your research question.
PAGE 5
QM
QM
QM
QM
QM
Reference needed
Comment 2
Do you suggest that co
uption in Malaysia never studied bef ore? Seems like a too strong
statement.
PAGE 6
Comment 3
Such as, any examples?
Reference needed
Additional Comment
Ref erence and data required here.
PAGE 7
Comment 4
Research question should have been articulated in a clear and concise manner.
Not well expressed
Sp.
Spelling e
o
Not well expressed
PAGE 8
Comment 5
What about previous years?
PAGE 9
Comment 6
analyse
PAGE 10
QM
Strikethrough.
PAGE 11
PAGE 12
PAGE 13
PAGE 14
Comment 8
If you do not want to design a comparative research, what is the point of comparing Malaysia
with other countries?
PAGE 15
Comment 9
This section should have been expanded.
Comment 10
Not sure how exactly game theory explains the sources of co
uption. You should have of f ered
a more concise and to-the-point review of the theory here.
PAGE 16
Comment 11
What about the previous tit le. They seem quite similar?
Strikethrough.
Comment 13
:
PAGE 17
PAGE 18
Reference needed
PAGE 19
Comment 14
QM
QM
More specif ically?
PAGE 20
PAGE 21
Comment 15
You should have interpreted this graph in this section.
Comment 16
Not sure how to interpret this. Does this graph suggest that f actors leading to co
uption in
Malaysia also inf orm theories related to co
uption.
It would have been very usef ul to interpret this graph in this section.
Comment 17
Not sure about the dif f erence between these two?
PAGE 22
PAGE 23
Not clea
Not clear what you mean here - perhaps, you sould have considered rewrit ing the sentence.
PAGE 24
PAGE 25
Sp.
Spelling e
o
PAGE 26
PAGE 27
PAGE 28
PAGE 29
PAGE 30
PAGE 31
PAGE 32
PAGE 33
Comment 18
Why in capital letters?
PAGE 34
Comment 19
Why in capital letters?
PAGE 35
PAGE 36
Comment 20
Good stuf f - it seems like a doable project.
PAGE 37
RUBRIC: DEPT. INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
ARGUMENT
EXCELLENT
GOOD
SATISFACTORY
POOR
VERY POOR
THEORIES
EXCELLENT
GOOD
SATISFACTORY
POOR
VERY POOR
CONTENT
EXCELLENT
GOOD
SATISFACTORY
POOR
VERY POOR
Consistantly clear, coherent and logical argument.
Generally clear, coherent and logical argument.
Argument is at t imes clear, coherent and logical, but it also loses direction or is
illogical at t imes.
Argument is of ten weak or lacks direction or logic
Weak Argument, which lacks direction and logic.
AND CONCEPTS
Consistantly well understood and explained theories and concepts.
Generally well understood and explained theories and concepts.
Some theories and concepts understood and expained, but some superf icially and
e
ors in exposition.
Superf icial or weak understanding of theories and concepts and many inaccuracies in
exposition.
Superf icial or no understanding of theories and concepts and largely inaccurate
exposition.
AND READING
Consistantly relevent content. Evidence of wide and/or relevent reading. Accurate
ef lection of readings.
Content is generally relevent to the question. Evidence of suf f iciently wide and/o
generally relevent reading. Mostly accurate ref lection on readings.
Some content is relevent to the question, whereas some is tangential. Evidence of
some reading and/or mostly relevent reading. Some inaccuracies in the description of
eadings.
Content is only slightly relevent and largely tangential to the question. Some evidence
of reading, some readings relevent to the topic. Inaccuracies in description of
eadings.
Content is i
elevent or tangential to the question. Very litt le evidence of reading, o
eading unrelated to the topic. Poorly described.
ANALYSIS
EXCELLENT
GOOD
SATISFACTORY
POOR
VERY POOR
EVIDENCE
EXCELLENT
GOOD
SATISFACTORY
POOR
VERY POOR
REFERENCING
EXCELLENT
GOOD
SATISFACTORY
POOR
VERY POOR
EXPRESSION
EXCELLENT
GOOD
ORIGINAL THOUGHT, EVALUATION
Good evidence of original thought, analysis and evaluation.
Evidence of original thought, analysis and evaluation.
Some evidence of original thought, analysis and evaluation.
Very litt le evidence of original thought, analysis and evaluation.
Almost no evidence of original thought, analysis and evaluation.
Accurate and of ten insightf ul use of evidence.
Generally accurate and at t imes insightf ul use of evidence.
Mostly accurate, but some inconsistances in the use of supporting evidence, possibly
some instances of bias or unsupported assertations.
Litt le or weak supporting evidence, evidence of bias, makes some unsupported
assertations.
Very litt le supporting evidence, evidence of bias, makes some unsupported
assertations.
AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Excellent ref erencing throughout with appropiate bibliography.
Generally good ref erencing with appropiate bibliography. Minor e
ors.
Some accurate ref erences, but some sources not accurately acknowledged o
ibliography incomplete, some mistakes and/or slight over-use of quotations.
An attempt to ref erence, but some sources are not acknowledged and bibliography
incomplete and/or quotations over-used.
Poor ref erencing, some sources not acknowledged and/or over-use of quotation.
AND GRAMMAR, SYNTAX, SPELLING
Clear expression. Accurate grammar and/or syntax, good spelling.
Generally clear expression. Generally accurate grammar and/or syntax, good spelling.
SATISFACTORY
POOR
VERY POOR
Some lack of clarity in expression. Occasionally inaccurate grammar and/or syntax,
spelling largely co
ect but with minor e
ors.
Frequently unclear expression. Some inaccurate grammar and/or syntax, some poo
spelling.
Unclear expression. A lot of inaccurate grammar and/or syntax, poor spelling.
dissertation proposal (co
uption in Msia)
by Li Tan
dissertation proposal (co
uption in Msia)
GRADEMARK REPORT
FINAL GRADE
GENERAL COMMENTS
Instructo
RUBRIC: DEPT. INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
Feedback from order 34605 by my supervisor:
1. Content and Analysis This is a comprehensive proposal focusing on co
uption in Malaysia. The content of the proposal, however, should have been improved. It has research question, which is doable and important. However, the question should have been articulated in a direct manner. The proposal, also, remains thin in terms of conceptual framework and literature review. It would have been useful to review the theories on co
uption (such as actor-specific; institutional; cultural explanations) and, then, link your main puzzle within the relevant strand of literature. The aim is to review the literature more critically. What do these authors miss and how will you remedy it?
2. Range & deployment of sources The sources are generally good but they should have been backed with a wider set of readings on the relationship between economic development, institutional structures and co
uption. There is a huge literature on the subject matter and you should have engaged at least some of the major ones of this literature.
3. Structure and Organisation The proposal
oadly follows the prescribed structure – thought, there are redundant and repetitive sections. Please see in-text comments for details.
4. Style and Language There are a few number of typo mistakes. Some sentences are also a bit vague and difficult to understand. Going forward, a meticulous grammar check would be useful. Please see in-text comments for details.
5. Overall This is a good proposal as a first step. In the expanded version, you need to review the literature carefully; sketch out a more coherent conceptual framework and justify your case selection strategy.
Here are the questions I have asked my tutor and this is his reply:
1. does this mean that I have to change the topic or I should have elaborated more on the question? No, for sure, you do not need to change the topic. You should, however, frame the question in a precise manner (in one sentence, question format). This would enable you to specify the focus of your research and help shaping the rest of the dissertation.
2. does this mean that I can put in my own views & thoughts regarding the statements stated by the author which I may think otherwise? maybe if its possible, can you provide a guide for me to do this?? hope it is not too much to ask for. In the literature review part, you are expected to review the literature about the causes of co
uption. Based on the review of the literature, you can select the conceptual framework that, according to which, you would frame your answer. Here, you can state your perspective as to why you think that alternative explanations do not work and why the explanation you rely on is better than others.