Assessment of Master’s thesis – Opponent
Study programme:Applied Informatics
Field of study:Information Systems Management Academic year:2021/2022
Master’s thesis Topic:Social networks and their impact on online retail and consumers behaviour Author’s name:Kateryna Karielina
Ac. Consultant’s Name:Ing. PhDr. Antonín Pavlíček, Ph.D.
Opponent:doc. Ing. Jan Zouhar, Ph.D.
Criterion Mark
(1–4)
1. Clarity and comprehensibility of the thesis topic and aims 3
2. The extent and relevance of the description of the current state of knowledge 1
3. The complexity of the thesis topic 2
4. Method adequeteness for solving the given issue, correctness of the choice and use 2
5. The extent, quality and precision of the result description 1
6. Relevance and correctness of the result discussion 1
7. Factual contribution of the thesis result 1
8. Information source relevance and citation correctness 1
9. Logical structure and cohesion among individual parts 2
10. Grammar, linguistic style, terminology and overall arrangement 1
Comments and Questions:
I am happy to say I read the thesis entitled “Social networks and their impact on online retail and consumer behaviour” with great interest. The author has compiled an extensive volume of literature to show how different generations of customers respond to the onset of social networks. These differences have been around for more than a decade but took an interesting twist with the coronavirus pandemic. I appreciate that the author focused on these recent developments in the practical part of the thesis, making it a very topical read.
The thesis is carefully written, contains few typos and reads nicely most of the time. (Actually, there is a typo in the name of the thesis on the title page, which is I take as evidence that Murphy’s laws have survived the pandemic so far.) The length of the text is more than sufficient for a master’s thesis, formatting is consistent throughout the text; in brief, the thesis makes a very good impression right out of the box.
Overall, I only have one major complaint. Neither the Abstract, nor the Introduction provide a clear
description of (i) the research questions and hypotheses (or, broadly speaking, goals of the thesis), and (ii) the author’s main results and contribution. This leaves the reader guessing where exactly the author is heading. At times, I felt overwhelmed with the flow of facts pouring at me from every page, without a sense of direction. Strangely, in Chapter 2 (Methodology), thirty-odd pages into the text already, the author summarizes the structure of the thesis and explains the purpose of individual chapters; this explanation came far too late.
What follows below is an unordered list of minor issues:
• Chapter 3 contains the author’s analyses of data from recent surveys, including a survey the author conducted herself. I think the author missed an opportunity of obtaining interesting results by relying on the simplest aggregative procedures (mostly bar charts that break down the answers of a single item by respondent cohorts). As a statistician, I can imagine that many interesting findings could be obtained if advanced tools were employed.
• A brief look at the Contents reveals the uneven structure of the thesis: some chapters are divided into both sections and subsections (i.e., three sectioning levels), others contain no sections at all.
• The format of in-text citations is inconsistent. In some cases, studies are not referenced explicitly, only author names are given; also, the authors’ first names are often reported, in contrast with the usual practice.
• Speaking of consistency, the author uses both COVID-19 and Covid-19.
• In Fig. 1, I assume that all figures have been rounded to whole numbers, so it makes little sense to report two decimal places (as in 38.00% or 41.00%). Personally, I find figures with two vertical axes (such as Fig. 7) confusing, but that is probably just a matter of personal taste.
I would like to stress that despite the issues outlined above, the thesis makes a very good impression. The amount of effort the author put in must have been enormous, and the sheer volume of empirical evidence described in the text is overwhelming. I have no doubt that the thesis deserves a successful defence.
Conclusion: The Master’s thesis is recommended for the defence.
Suggested Grade: 1
Date: 26/01/2022 doc. Ing. Jan Zouhar, Ph.D.
Opponent
