Euroculture Thesis Assessment Grid 

Name of Student: Diana Franco 

Thesis Title: Selective Migration: An Analysis of the Impact of the ‘Blue Card’  (Inside and Outside the EU)

Home University: Palacký University, Olomouc

Host University: Jagiellonian University, Kraków

Name of Supervisor: Dr. Pavel Ptáček

In this report, please consider the following:

1) Problem statement, method and theory:
	a) The aims and objectives of the thesis – are these clearly identified and explained? Is there a well formulated problem statement?

Ms Franco in the first part did not clearly identified research questions, as well as she did not put the problematic into the broader theoretical framework. Critical assessing of the methodology and accessible materials in the introductory part is not very precise. 

	b) Has a suitable methodology and theoretical frame been taken to solve the stated problems?

The methodology and theoretical frame only partly solves the stated problem (which was actually not very clearly defined) and this has a strong influence on whole the thesis.

	c) Does the conclusion provide convincing answers/proof to the initial questions/hypothesis?

As there was not very clear definition of the problem, also conclusion cannot provide convincing answers/proof to the initial questions/hypothesis and the  “the full circle” has not been closed: research questions, hypothesis, analysis, some kind of synthesis and at the conclusion reflexion of working questions and hypothesis, including recommendations. Any case study or more concrete introduction of the problem would substantially increase the quality of the thesis¨.

2) Structure:
	a) Is the thesis coherently structured?
The thesis is quiet coherently structured. What I do miss very much are partial chapters conclusions which would make the structure of the thesis much more clear and coherent. 

	b) Are concepts clearly introduced and explained, and critically and consistently applied?

Concepts are quiet clearly introduced and explained; even non-experts on this problematic can understand them. But unfortunately they are not critically and consistently applied. 

3) Sources (primary and secondary):
	a) Has (enough) relevant (primary and secondary) literature been adequately interpreted and integrated into the thesis?

About 35 sources has been integrated into the thesis, which is in my view not too much, rather bellow the average. 

	b) Is the bibliography/list of references complete and accurate?

Yes, in my view this is ok.

4) Stylistics:
	a) Is the use of language (English) acceptable and of the required standard (i.e. no spelling mistakes and typos, range of vocabulary, grammar)?

Ms Franco is sometimes has a problem with using of capital letters but otherwise the use of the language is acceptable. 

	b) Are references in the text given in a coherent and consistent manner (either in-text or as footnotes)?

Yes, all references are in a coherent and consistent manner. 

5) Format:
	a) How is the thesis presented? (i.e. consistency in lay-out, choice of fonts, headings, tables and graphs)

General lay-out of the thesis is not very good and but in my opinion is still meeting all required criteria. It is visible that the thesis was written in a hurry so there are some mistakes in the lay-out which could be avoided by more careful reading. I would definitely change the title of the chapter 2 (making it more precise); lay-out of table 1.2 is not appropriate (table over 3 pages!), format of margins on page 32, on p. 39 is not the title of fig. 1.3 and the quality of it is very low (you cannot read the values on y axis etc.), there are missing table 1.1 and map 1 in annex, but they are links to them on p. 18 resp. p. 34. 

6) General:
	a) Have recommended revisions been executed to a satisfying degree?

Ms Franco was contacting me as a supervisor only at the last moment and so I did not have time to send her recommendations for the revision.  

	b) To what degree has the student been able to work independently?

An independent work of Ms Franco is one of the main features of his thesis writing. 

	c) Any other relevant comments.

Grade: very good 

Date: May 15^th  2010 

Signature: Pavel Ptáček, supervisor