Philosophical Faculty: Master’s Thesis

General Information
To complete a higher university degree, the student must write a Master’s thesis as part of the advanced studies in their major subject.

As a rule, the Master’s thesis is written in the degree programme’s language of instruction or
in the language specified in the curriculum. The right to use another language in the thesis is granted by the director responsible for education at the department or school. (Education Regulations, Section 26.)

The title page of the thesis must include the author’s name, the title of the thesis, the place and date of publication, and the type of thesis. Abstracts are attached immediately after the title page. For theses written in Finnish, the abstract must be provided both in Finnish and in English. More detailed information on the language of the thesis, abstract, and maturity test is provided in the accordion section Language of the Maturity Test in the Philosophical Faculty in this guide. The recommended length of the abstract in Finnish is 300 words.

In general, the same guidelines apply to theses written in a minor subject as to Master’s theses.

Examination and Assessment of the Master’s Thesis
The examination and assessment of theses are governed by the Education Regulations, particularly Sections 35 and 37, and the rectification process is described in Section 44.

According to Section 35 of the Education Regulations, the format of the advanced studies thesis is determined by the main supervisor within the limits set by the curriculum. The thesis must be completed independently. It may be completed as a joint project or as part of a larger research project if permitted by the curriculum. In joint projects involving two or more students, each student’s individual contribution must be identifiable and assessable. In the Philosophical Faculty, collaboration between students may also be demonstrated during the supervision process. In the Philosophical Faculty, a student’s advanced studies thesis cannot be accepted as a thesis for two different major subjects (i.e. a double thesis).

Learning Outcomes of the Master’s Thesis
After completing the Master’s thesis, the student:
• is familiar with the academic discourse and literature related to the research topic
• demonstrates the ability for independent, critical and creative scientific thinking
• masters the scientific research method(s) and is able to apply them appropriately in their own research
• is able to present research findings in a structured manner and justify the research decisions made, thereby demonstrating the ability to participate in academic discourse in their field
• is able to critically evaluate their research results and relate them to the previous research
• adheres to good scientific practice and research ethics
• acquires readiness for further academic studies

The assessment criteria are presented in a table in the accordion section Assessment Matrix for Master’s Theses in the Philosophical Faculty in this guide.

Research Topic and Purpose of Study

Assessment area	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5
Justification of topic selection and relevance	The topic selection and its relevance are justified inadequately.	The topic selection and its relevance are justified satisfactorily.	The topic selection and its relevance are justified clearly.	The topic selection and its relevance are justified successfully.	The topic selection and its relevance are justified comprehensively from societal, scientific, and/or practical perspectives.
Delimitation of the topic; setting of objectives	There are significant shortcomings in delimiting the research topic and setting objectives.	The delimitation of the research topic is unclear, and the objectives remain general.	The delimitation of the research topic is appropriate, and the objectives are clear.	The delimitation of the research topic is successful. The objectives are set carefully and comprehensively in relation to the topic.	The delimitation of the research topic and the setting of objectives demonstrate a critical research approach. The objectives aim for clear novelty value.
Justification of the research task and research problem/question	The justification of the research task is weak.	The justification of the research task is vague.	The research task is appropriately justified and linked to the theoretical framework and previous research.	The research task is successfully justified and competently linked to the theoretical framework and previous research.	The justification of the research task demonstrates in-depth mastery of the theoretical framework and previous research.

Theoretical Familiarity and Research Literature

Assessment area	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5
Familiarity with research and literature related to the topic; definition of concepts	The selected concepts and theoretical approach correspond poorly to the research task. The description of concepts is inadequate.	The selected concepts and theoretical approach are loosely related to the research task. The description of concepts is partly superficial.	The selected concepts and theoretical approach are appropriate in relation to the research task. The concepts are described properly, reflecting sufficient familiarity with the literature.	The selected concepts and theoretical approach are successful. The concepts are described comprehensively and used competently.	The selected concepts and theoretical approach form a commendable and coherent whole. The concepts are mastered flawlessly and used creatively and analytically.
Critical evaluation of research literature and its application to the research task	The number of sources is limited and their use is uncritical. Secondary sources are overly emphasized.	The number of sources is reasonable, but their use is mostly descriptive.	The number of sources is sufficient and they are well-suited to the chosen topic. The use of sources is appropriate.	The selection of sources demonstrates broad familiarity with the subject. Sources are used skillfully and evaluated critically.	The selection of sources reflects deep understanding of the research topic. The use of sources is insightful and the critical evaluation is well-informed.

Research Method and Data

Assessment area	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5
Methodological appropriateness	The methodology is disconnected from the research task. The presentation of the methodology is modest.	The methodology is rather unstructured in relation to the research task. Its justification is thin.	The methodology is appropriate for the research task. It is justified appropriately.	The methodological choices are consistently valid. The methodology is justified skillfully.	The research is constructed in a particularly commendable methodological manner. The methodology is justified in depth.
Data collection, sufficiency and relevance	There are serious shortcomings in the sufficiency or relevance of the data collected by the student.	There are shortcomings in the sufficiency or relevance of the data collected by the student.	The data collected by the student is sufficient and well-suited to addressing the research task.	The data collected by the student is of high quality and enables in-depth analysis.	The data collected by the student is of excellent quality and highly appropriate for the purpose of the study.
Mastery of data analysis methods and justification of interpretation	The data analysis is poor and the justification of interpretation is inconsistent.	The data analysis is satisfactory and the justification of interpretation is mostly consistent.	The data analysis is good and the justification of interpretation is consistent.	The data analysis and justification of interpretation are skillful and professional.	The data analysis and justification of interpretation are exceptionally skillful and offer new perspectives.

Research Results and Their Presentation

Assessment area	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5
Addressing the research task and research questions/problems	The research task and questions have been addressed inadequately.	The research task and questions have been addressed superficially.	The research task and questions have been addressed appropriately.	The research task and questions have been addressed precisely.	The research task and questions have been addressed commendably and skillfully.
Logical structure and clarity of presentation of results	Logical structure and clarity of presentation of results	The results are presented mostly logically and without errors, although the connection to the theoretical framework is weak.	The results are presented logically and are linked to the theoretical framework.	The results are presented clearly and systematically in relation to the research questions, data, and theoretical framework.	The results are presented excellently and insightfully in relation to the research questions, data, and theoretical framework.
Illustration of results	The results are illustrated partly inadequately or incorrectly.	The results are illustrated in a formulaic manner.	The results are illustrated appropriately.	The results are illustrated skillfully.	The results are illustrated insightfully.
Reliability of results	The evaluation of the reliability of the research results is inadequate.	The evaluation of the reliability of the research results is superficial.	The evaluation of the reliability of the research results is appropriate.	The evaluation of the reliability of the research results is inadequate.	The evaluation of the reliability of the research results is methodologically comprehensive and commendable.

Discussion and Conclusions

Assessment area	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5
Evaluation of key findings and their relation to previous research and theory	The research findings are discussed and related to previous research and the theoretical framework sparsely and unclearly.	The research findings are discussed and related to previous research and the theoretical framework in a fragmented manner.	The research findings are discussed and related to previous research and the theoretical framework well.	The research findings are discussed professionally and clearly linked to previous research and the theoretical framework.	The research findings are discussed very professionally and insightfully. The discussion is logically and analytically connected to previous research and the theoretical framework.
Argumentation	The argumentation is fumbling and the conclusions are unsubstantiated.	The argumentation is partly appropriate, but some conclusions are weakly justified.	The argumentation is clear. The conclusions are based on the research findings and are well justified.	The argumentation and justification of conclusions are commendable.	The argumentation is systematic and convincing. The conclusions are excellently justified.
Critical reflection; consideration of the significance and applicability of the results	The reflection on the study and the evaluation of its applicability are minimal.	The study is reflected upon and its applicability is evaluated to some extent.	The study is critically reflected upon and its applicability is evaluated appropriately.	The study is critically and successfully reflected upon, and its applicability is evaluated professionally.	The study is critically and deeply reflected upon, and its applicability is evaluated with high expertise.

Structure and Presentation

Assessment area	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5
Scientific and discipline-specific referencing practices and bibliography	There are clear shortcomings and inconsistencies in referencing practices and the bibliography.	There are minor shortcomings and inconsistencies in referencing practices and the bibliography.	Referencing practices and the bibliography are consistent and nearly error-free.	Referencing practices and the bibliography are consistent and flawless.	Referencing practices and the bibliography are consistent and flawless, excellently adhering to discipline-specific standards.
Coherence and consistency of structure	The structure is incoherent.	The structure is fairly consistent.	The structure is consistent and forms a unified whole.	The structure is consistent and cohesive.	The structure is logical and insightful.
Scientific style, language and linguistic fluency	The thesis contains numerous linguistic and terminological issues that hinder comprehension.	The thesis contains linguistic and terminological issues that reduce readability.	The thesis is linguistically and terminologically fluent.	The language and use of terminology in the thesis are flawless.	The presentation style and terminology in the thesis are confident, consistent, and in line with disciplinary conventions.
Layout	The layout is careless and includes solutions that are atypical for academic reporting in the field.	The layout generally follows academic reporting conventions in the field, but is somewhat unfinished.	The layout follows academic reporting conventions in the field and is polished.	The layout follows academic reporting conventions in the field and is polished. The visual presentation supports clarity and readability.	The thesis consistently follows academic reporting conventions in the field, is illustrated innovatively and skillfully, and is carefully polished.

Ethical Principles

Assessment area	Grade 1	Grade 2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Grade 5
Ethical sustainability of the research, and evaluation of research ethics	The research is ethically sustainable, but the evaluation of research ethics is inadequate.	The research is ethically sustainable, but the evaluation of research ethics is superficial.	The research is ethically sustainable and the evaluation of research ethics is appropriate.	The research is ethically sustainable and the evaluation of research ethics is diverse.	The research is ethically sustainable and the evaluation of research ethics is thorough.

Refine your search