Assessment of Master’s thesis – Opponent
Study programme:International Economic Relations Field of study:International and Diplomatic Studies Academic year:2021/2022
Master’s thesis Topic:The EU’s Fight against Human Trafficking Author’s name:Martina Macháčková
Ac. Consultant’s Name:Ing. Mgr. Markéta Votoupalová, Ph.D.
Opponent:doc. Jeremy Alan Garlick, M.A., Ph.D.
Criterion Mark
(1–4)
1. Overall objective achievement 3
2. Logical structure 3
3. Using of literature, citations 3
4. Adequacy of methods used 3
5. Depth of analysis 3
6. Self-reliance of author 2
7. Formal requirements: text, graphs, tables 2
8. Language and stylistics 1
Comments and Questions:
The thesis is well written, but is weak in several key areas. Most importantly, it lacks a literature review. It also lacks a satisfactory explanation of the methodology. The introduction is brief and unsatisfactory in that it does not include the aforementioned literature review and does not outline any theoretical framework beyond the unlabelled table/figure presented on page 11. Despite the author’s claim that this table
constitutes a theoretical framework, it does not. The author does not appear to understand what theory is, because in my view there is no theoretical framework in this thesis. The table is reintroduced on page 83, where it becomes clear that it is an analytical tool akin to a SWOT analysis. This problem undermines the structure of the thesis, because there is no explanation of the items included in this table and no
explanation in the introduction of how the table is to be used. Since the contents of the table seem to constitute the main analytical (not theoretical) framework for the research, the lack of explanation for the criteria and how they are to be evaluated is a major omission.
The main research question – ”Are the EU policies on trafficking in humans consistent with the theoretical framework?” – is odd and misleading. Since no theoretical framework is outlined, the question is actually meaningless and confusing. The real research question of this thesis is something like ”What is the EU’s policy on human trafficking and is it successfully applied?” Another area which is not strong is in the use of literature. There are some references to scholarly literature, but the majority of sources are EU documents and databases. It is therefore not clear how the thesis contributes to any existing literature, since no body of literature is identified due to there being no literature review.
It is a pity that the thesis has these analytical, methodological and theoretical shortcomings, because as an outline of EU policy on human trafficking it is quite solid. The style, language and fulfilment of formal requirements are very good. However, as a piece of research it does not leave the reader with the sense that the EU’s approach to human trafficking has been systematically evaluated, since there is no
justification presented for the percentages presented in the table on page 83 or the strangely
quantitative-seeming conclusion that the EU’s legal and policy framework is ”81% effective”. This seems to be a conclusion based on the purely subjective opinion of the author; but since the author does not explain what methodology she used to arrive at the figure it is left to the reader to guess how the figure was reached.
Based on the solid empirical analysis in chapters 2 and 3, the effect of which is reduced by the overall theoretical, methodological, and analytical shortcomings, I would recommend a grade of ’3’.
Questions for defence: (1) Can you outline in detail the method you used to evaluate the EU’s legal and policy approach to human trafficking? (2) Can you explain exactly how the policy documents published by the EU (which are fine on paper) are translated from policy statements into real action against human trafficking?
Conclusion: The Master’s thesis is recommended for the defence.
Suggested Grade: 3
Date: 03/01/2022 doc. Jeremy Alan Garlick, M.A., Ph.D.
Opponent
