This learning unit is not open to incoming exchange students!
Language
French
Content
This first part of the thesis is the result of meetings with the thesis advisor (starting with Q2).
Evaluation methods
Each student will be evaluated by their advisor, who will primarily consider the progress made on the project since the final workshop assignment and the submission of the thesis proposal. It is therefore essential that the project has progressed substantially since January. This is the primary criterion for evaluating the project.
This progress must be presented in a way that addresses the following points:
The presentation and rigorous justification of a specific research question (in this regard, since the final seminar assignment and the submission of the thesis proposal, the student must ensure that they have reviewed, clarified, and/or refined their research question in accordance with the supervisor’s recommendations)
A substantial review of the current state of the art in the form of a first draft chapter that can be incorporated into the thesis (in other words, the review must have evolved further since the final seminar paper, with elements added and clarified, ensuring a dialogue among the authors and concepts cited)
A presentation of the methodological framework, which will have been refined and tested: in other words, initial exploratory data will have been collected and analyzed, which will then be presented in the document and will allow for the refinement of the methodological framework and, if necessary, its reorientation. If exploratory data could not be collected for specific reasons (such as a research field study that depends on a future internship), this must be explained and justified; where appropriate, alternatives may be considered (for example, conducting an exploratory interview with a professional who can shed light on the topic under study). In all cases, the methodological framework must be specified as rigorously and precisely as possible—drawing in particular on the literature regarding data collection and analysis methods in the social sciences and, more specifically, in information and communication sciences.
A substantial indicative bibliography
For guidance, the evaluation scale is, in principle, as follows:
research question: 6 points
state of the art: 5 points
methodological framework: 8 points
bibliography: 1 point
Nevertheless, the final decision rests with the advisor, who will therefore make adjustments as needed if one point is deemed a higher priority than another in your specific case. However, these guidelines help you understand that you must include points that were not covered—or were only briefly touched upon—in your end-of-seminar paper, workshops, and/or thesis proposal. You must demonstrate that your thinking has continued to evolve and deepen since the submission of your previous work.
Your advisors will clarify any specific requirements for this work with you as needed.
The document must be between 15,000 and 20,000 characters, including spaces, excluding the bibliography.
The first submission deadline is scheduled for June, and the second submission deadline is scheduled for August. The exact submission dates will be announced.
This progress must be presented in a way that addresses the following points:
The presentation and rigorous justification of a specific research question (in this regard, since the final seminar assignment and the submission of the thesis proposal, the student must ensure that they have reviewed, clarified, and/or refined their research question in accordance with the supervisor’s recommendations)
A substantial review of the current state of the art in the form of a first draft chapter that can be incorporated into the thesis (in other words, the review must have evolved further since the final seminar paper, with elements added and clarified, ensuring a dialogue among the authors and concepts cited)
A presentation of the methodological framework, which will have been refined and tested: in other words, initial exploratory data will have been collected and analyzed, which will then be presented in the document and will allow for the refinement of the methodological framework and, if necessary, its reorientation. If exploratory data could not be collected for specific reasons (such as a research field study that depends on a future internship), this must be explained and justified; where appropriate, alternatives may be considered (for example, conducting an exploratory interview with a professional who can shed light on the topic under study). In all cases, the methodological framework must be specified as rigorously and precisely as possible—drawing in particular on the literature regarding data collection and analysis methods in the social sciences and, more specifically, in information and communication sciences.
A substantial indicative bibliography
For guidance, the evaluation scale is, in principle, as follows:
research question: 6 points
state of the art: 5 points
methodological framework: 8 points
bibliography: 1 point
Nevertheless, the final decision rests with the advisor, who will therefore make adjustments as needed if one point is deemed a higher priority than another in your specific case. However, these guidelines help you understand that you must include points that were not covered—or were only briefly touched upon—in your end-of-seminar paper, workshops, and/or thesis proposal. You must demonstrate that your thinking has continued to evolve and deepen since the submission of your previous work.
Your advisors will clarify any specific requirements for this work with you as needed.
The document must be between 15,000 and 20,000 characters, including spaces, excluding the bibliography.
The first submission deadline is scheduled for June, and the second submission deadline is scheduled for August. The exact submission dates will be announced.
Faculty or entity
Programmes / formations proposant cette unité d'enseignement (UE)
Title of the programme
Sigle
Credits
Prerequisites
Learning outcomes
Master [120] in Communication
