reference practice in master’s theses across five

University of Southern Denmark

Reference practice in master’s theses across five different disciplines

Jacobsen, Katrine; Drongstrup, Dorte; Holck, Jakob Povl; Jensen, Mogens Kragsig; Husen,Kamilla Jensen

Publication date:2021

Document version:Accepted manuscript

Citation for pulished version (APA):Jacobsen, K., Drongstrup, D., Holck, J. P., Jensen, M. K., & Husen, K. J. (2021). Reference practice in master’stheses across five different disciplines. Paper presented at QQML 2021, Athen, Greece.

Go to publication entry in University of Southern Denmark's Research Portal

Terms of useThis work is brought to you by the University of Southern Denmark.Unless otherwise specified it has been shared according to the terms for self-archiving.If no other license is stated, these terms apply:

• You may download this work for personal use only. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying this open access versionIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details and we will investigate your claim.Please direct all enquiries to [email protected]

Download date: 03. Dec. 2021

https://portal.findresearcher.sdu.dk/en/publications/e038ba22-3594-4f64-88bb-657357403d99


1

Reference practice in master’s theses across five

different disciplines

Katrine Astrup Jacobsen1, Dorte Drongstrup1, Jakob Povl Holck1,

Mogens Kragsig Jensen1, Kamilla Jensen Husen1,2 1University Library of Southern Denmark 2Deparment for the Study of Culture, University of Southern Denmark

Abstract: In the fall of 2018, a group of research librarians at the University Library of

Southern Denmark (SDUB) started a project examining the reference practice of master’s

students in five different disciplines across the university. The project was inspired by our

experiences helping and teaching students in finding literature and a similar project at the

Copenhagen University Library (Fajkovic, M. & Stensager, A. O. (2018)) and was

upscaled to five disciplines (Economics, History, Biology, Molecular Biology and

Software Engineering) with a sample of twenty theses from 2000 and twenty from 2013

in each discipline, in total 200 theses. Data were processed and coded to identify various

parameters such as type of publication and year of publication. Publication language was

added to each entry in the lists.

This paper will present the overall findings of the project and discuss some of the more

interesting results, such as the difference in the number of publications, and the use of

non-English-language publications. Another interesting parameter is the age of the

publications, which vary widely among the different disciplines. We have also noticed a

difference in the combinations of e.g. type and language from discipline to

discipline: History has a higher usage rate of different types of scholarly publications in

Danish and other non-English languages than for instance Molecular Biology, where the

references are almost exclusively scholarly journal articles in English. Another interesting

observation was the diversity in the students’ way of referencing – some excelled and

others did not. This finding points to the students’ general academic skills – some of which

are of interest for the libraries in developing new services and expanding the core services.

Now being able to prove that there is room for improvement, we plan to interact with the

teachers and supervisors on developing the students' skills in information retrieval and

referencing.

We will discuss our findings and reflect upon what the library can gain from studies like

this.

…………………………………………………………………………………

Keywords: reference practice, master’s students, master’s thesis, information literacy


2

1. Introduction When master students are creating reference lists for their theses, they are

influenced by the norms and values connected to their scientific disciplines (e.g.

Nguyen and Buckingham 2019): One discipline may prefer peer-reviewed

journal articles, another may favour monographs and anthologies. At one faculty,

10-year-old publications may be considered out of date, at another faculty there

is no limit concerning the age of the referenced works (e.g. Hunsucker 2011).

English may be the dominant language in one discipline’s references – in other

disciplines, the national language is more common.

At one subject area, there is a tradition for relatively lengthy publication lists, at

another subject area, references are almost non-existing. Of course, the

individual referential output in a master’s thesis (cf. Xie, Li et al. 2020) will

depend on multiple factors, e.g. the individual student’s understanding of, and

practical flair for, academic writing in general (e.g. Geng and Wharton 2019);

the research topic; and the university teachers’ and supervisors’ emphasis on a

specific reference standard or modus operandi, if any (e.g. Zheng, Yu et al. 2020;

Medaille, Beisler et al. 2021). In addition, one must consider the general, speedy

development in materials and resources available at the academic libraries (and

elsewhere) – with a growing number of online solutions (e.g. MacDonald 2016)

to find their way into the references. All of this contributes to a dynamic and

seemingly very complex process (cf. Badenhorst 2018b).

In this paper, we examine tendencies for the reference practice of five different

disciplines at the University of Southern Denmark (SDU) (Economics, History,

Biology, Molecular Biology and Software Engineering). The dataset is based on

twenty SDU theses from 2000 and an additional twenty from 2013, sampled from each discipline from which the bibliographic information, e.g. the type of

publication, the year of publication, and the publication language were analyzed

for the references. The number of references per thesis has also been studied.

Our project is inspired by the paper “What a difference 15 years can make!” by

information specialists Anders Otte Stensager and Muhamed Fajković,

published in the journal of the Danish Research Library Organization, Revy

01/18. Stensager and Fajković based their paper on their own bibliometric

analysis report at Det Kgl. Bibliotek. which is, however, limited to selected

disciplines within the field of Humanities. With our selection of disciplines at

SDU, we hope to add numbers and observations to common conceptions on

faculty differences and characteristics beyond the Humanities – with the master

students’ reference practice as an indicator.

In the following, we present a selection of discipline-specific reference

characteristics, as found in our dataset, and discuss their implications and future

perspectives, not just for the academic disciplines in question but also for the

university library’s services. Is there something that we – as librarians – ought


3

to do differently? It is our day-to-day ambition to contribute to a sensible and

adequate information-seeking behaviour among the students, as early as

possible. Individual guidance is combined with courses for classes in an ongoing

dialogue with the faculty staff.

Concerning this endeavour, the overall experience is that “one size doesn’t fit

all”. By this, we mean that different disciplines demand a differentiated service

approach at the university library, whether we are talking about the library’s

accession of materials for professors and students – or the above-mentioned

tutorials and courses in advanced information searches, customized for the

university’s faculties.

Even though the library offers guided tours and courses for every new generation

of academics in spe, we find that master students, at an individual level, display

great differences concerning their academic writing skills and their proficiency

when it comes to the use of the library’s resources.

The diachronic element of our analysis is intended to shed some light on faculty-

specific changes in the reference patterns between the years 2000 and 2013. Our

sample size is relatively comparable with the sample sizes of similar analyses,

and it should provide clues as to the reference practice tendencies. With this case,

the dataset alone presents the foundation for our conclusions. A future follow-up

could include a survey among SDU faculty staff members and their master

students concerning the reference practice culture observed and promoted here.

2. Review of existing research – a selection International examples of discipline-specific analyses of master students’

reference and citation practice display a variety of differences when it comes to the investigators’ choice of faculty/faculties, the students’ country of origin, the

sample size (number of theses), the elements of bibliographic information

investigated, and the window of analysis or timespan of interest (Fuchs,

Thomsen et al. 2006, Feyereisen and Spoiden 2009, Sherriff 2010, Smyth 2011,

Bierman 2012, Becker and Chiware 2015, Condic 2015, Ahmadieh, Nalbandian

et al. 2016, Barnett-Ellis and Tang 2016).

Within the last three years, the peer-reviewed studies on master students’

reference practice, citations and general information-seeking behaviour etc. have

mainly been published in international journals on higher education (e.g.

Badenhorst 2018, Badenhorst 2019) and academic librarianship/information

science (e.g. Chiware and Becker 2018, Corrall and Jolly 2019), but also in

international journals on linguistics (e.g. Leijten, Van Waes et al. 2019, Liu and

Deng 2019), journals on collection management (e.g. Porter 2021) and journals

on scientometrics (e.g. Xie, Li et al. 2020) etc. The great variety of scholarly

journals interested in this field of study illustrates how reference list analyses are

deemed valuable in many types of research and may be turned into beneficial


4

feedback for the scientific disciplines, their institutions, and libraries (cf. Corrall

and Jolly 2019).

We argue that the key elements in, and prime advantages to our study, are: the

representation of five disciplines, which may enable the deduction of discipline-

specific patterns; the library-university-familiarity, which enables a feedback-

loop and ensures institutional development; quantitative and qualitative analysis

as a continuous means of enhancing library core services. A key element is also

the diachronic dimension of the study, enabling comparison between years.

At the University of Southern Denmark (SDU), no similar analysis in scale and

scope has been conducted before. We believe that our data collection and

subsequent analysis has demonstrated the necessity of this type of work and that

we may further explore the dataset.

3. Methods

Based on a discussion among the group members and a desire to examine

differences between the different areas, we chose the subjects of History,

Economics, Biology, Biomedicine & Molecular Biology and Software

Engineering. The years chosen were 2000 and 2013 - the year 2013 is the most recent year to

which we had access to data. We decided on 20 theses per year (2000/2013). If

the year had too many theses, we did a randomized selection, and if there were

too little, we expanded to years before and after. Every thesis was given an ID

consisting of Subject, Year and Number (example: Hist200001). The

abbreviations are as follows: “Hist” (History), “BMB” (Biochemistry and

Molecular Biology), “Øk” (Economics (økonomi in Danish)), “Bio” (Biology) and “MMMI” (Software engineering Maersk McKinney Møller Institute).

The theses were chosen from SDU Library’s catalogue. The selection was

challenged by the lack of metadata in the catalogue, and the subjects were,

therefore, broader than we initially hoped for, as the selection had to be made

from department names instead of subjects. This was the case for Biology,

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, and Economics. BMB theses carried out

in the university hospital were not possible to locate in the repository. The theses

from History were narrowed down to the field of contemporary history (20 th

Century history). Theses from Engineering focused on the field of software

engineering (from the Maersk McKinney Møller Institute).

As the subjects differentiate in the numbers of students, we experienced a similar

diversity in the number of theses. Some subsets were supplemented from years

before and after (Economics, BMB, Biology, and MMMI) and one was not

(History). Data from the university system counted more candidates than the

number of theses we found in the library catalogue, suggesting a lack of handing

in theses to the library repository.


5

The reference lists were scanned and imported from pdf to excel format with an

OCR processing to make data readable. This way it is possible to analyse on

different levels of the dataset, both individual subjects and overall, and to

differentiate between the years. Some data were difficult to read due to the use

of e.g. Cyrillic letters in the History theses and the use of specific fonts which

were difficult for the OCR to read. We did not do a full data cleaning on the

whole dataset, only enough to be able to identify the parameters we wanted to

examine first. The parameters we chose were: numbers of references per thesis;

type of publications (book, scholarly article etc. (Table 1); language of

reference/publication (not thesis language); year of publication.

A/V Dissertation / thesis Standards

Archival material Legal Unpublished material

Article, scholarly Newspaper Web source

Article, non-scholarly Patent Working paper

Book Press releases Other material

Book chapter Reference work Unknown

Conferences Report

Dataset Software

Table 1: Type of publications

Coding of type, year, and language was done manually by different persons for

each subject area. To make sure that the coding was reliable we chose to rate 100

references from each sample by another person to check interrater agreement.

For the Biology and BMB sets the agreement between the raters was very high

(93% and 97%), while the others were significantly lower (71%, 66% and 59%), probably because of the lack of subject knowledge in the second-rater. Data analysis was conducted in Excel.

4. Results

Number of references

The number of references varies considerably within the five chosen

disciplines (Figure 1). It shows that engineering students use considerably

fewer references than all other disciplines. Especially in comparison with

natural science, where engineering is using roughly 1/3 references fewer than

students in Biology (in 2000) and Molecular Biology.


6

Figure 1. Total references per subject/year. 200 master theses. N = 15978.

Note that the latter discipline uses by far the largest number of references in

the project.

All disciplines show a decreasing number of references in the two selected

years. From a reduction from minimum 6% (Software Engineering), between

12-18% for Molecular Biology, History and Economics, to 34% for Biology,

who shows the largest reduction. Consequently, the average number of

references per thesis shows a similar trend, i.e., a decrease from 88 (2000) to

71 (2013) references per thesis.

Reference age

The mean reference age has a considerable spread across the five disciplines

(Figure 2). Maybe not that surprising, the History students use significantly

older references (26 / 33,4 years). Thereby, they differ from the other four

1248

1030

2340

1529

2687

2362

720

672

1838

1552

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

References (no)

Subje

cts

Total references per subject/year. 200 theses

History 2013 History 2000 MMMI 2013

MMMI 2000 BMB 2013 BMB 2000

Biology 2013 Biology 2000 Economics 2013

Economics 2000


7

disciplines, which all remain within a range of 5,9-12,1 years (mean: 9

years). In the remaining group, the largest span lies between the engineering

students (5,9-7 years) who use the most recent literature and the Biology

students (11,8-12,1 years) who are using the oldest literature in the four

subject groups.

Figure 2. Mean vs. Median reference age/year. N = 14667.

Displaying the median versus the mean age (figure 2) shows that the mean

age (5,9-33,4 years) for all disciplines is larger than the median age (4-20

years). Because of that, a certain proportion of the used references is younger

than the mean may indicate. This is the case for all disciplines, with

engineering producing the lowest median age (4 and 4 years), and History

the highest (20 and 20 years). The difference between the mean/median age

also shows that the bulk of the references in the History theses are somewhat

younger than the mean may indicate. This is also to a smaller extent the case

for the Biology references. Both disciplines then differ from the other

subjects by operating with a significant but minor share of older references.

0 10 20 30 40

Economics 2000

Economics 2013

Biology 2000

Biology 2013

BMB 2000

BMB 2013

MMMI 2000

MMMI 2013

History 2000

History 2013

Mean vs. median age (years)

Median reference age Mean reference age


8

Language The type of language used in the references exemplifies the overwhelming

use of the English language in academia (Figure 3). This is the case in all

disciplines but one, namely History. Here, the preferred language is Danish,

which to some extent is due to the amount of special Danish topics in the

master theses.

Figure 3. Reference language. N = 15909.

Two other subjects, Economics and Biology, use the Danish language in a

minor part of their references, while Molecular Biology (BMB) uses English

in more than 90% of the references, as do Software Engineering (MMMI) in

all essentiality. Across the five disciplines, it is only History that has a

substantial multilingual approach, with references in German, Russian and

the Nordic languages as the most prominent (Figure 4). For all disciplines,

the use of ‘non-English’ languages has a distribution from the minimum of

0,5% (Molecular Biology 2000) up to 77.4% (History 2000).

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Economics 2000

Economics 2013

Biology 2000

Biology 2013

BMB 2000

BMB 2013

MMMI 2000

MMMI 2013

History 2000

History 2013

References (no)

Reference language

Unknown Other languages Spanish

Russian Nordic excl. Finnish German

French English Danish


9

Figure 4. Relative distribution of reference language (% of total). N = 15909.

Types The five disciplines have a very different usage of reference types (Figure

5). Most conspicuous across the disciplines is the sovereign use of the

scholarly article (54,9%) and the book (14,9%), followed by the book chapter

(4,4%) report (4 %) and the archival material (3,6%). These five different

types cover 81,8% of the total, with minor usage of the remaining available

in 13 specified types (mean use 1,4%).

As it clearly shows, every discipline has its favourites. Biology and

Molecular Biology have a very high use of the scholarly article and very

limited use of other types (books, book chapters), but Molecular Biology

stands out even within those two with the highest use of the scholarly article.

History clearly uses the most different types of materials. Most concise is the

use of books followed by archival material and newspapers. Economics

prefer scholarly articles, books and reports, while Software Engineering

shows some diversity in preferring web sources and conference papers,

closely followed by scholarly articles.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Economics 2000

Economics 2013

Biology 2000

Biology 2013

BMB 2000

BMB 2013

MMMI 2000

MMMI 2013

History 2000

History 2013

Relative distribution language (%)

Danish English French

German Nordic excl. Finnish Russian

Spanish Other languages Unknown


10

Figure 5. Reference type/discipline. (% of total). N = 15899.

5. Discussion

Before discussing the overall findings and the consequences of those, we would

like to add a few comments to the validity of our study. The most substantial

objection to the study could be our selection of subjects and the thesis sample

(number and year). The University of Southern Denmark has more than 70 BA

programmes and additional masters’ programmes spread out on five faculties of

Natural Science, Engineering, Humanities, Social Science and Health Science.

We wanted to look at different subjects with the expectation of noticing subject-

specific differences, but our selected subjects cannot be seen as representative

for each faculty.

A study like ours points in many different directions as seen in the Results

section. Many of the results are not in themselves surprising and they tend to

confirm our initial expectations, for instance, the higher use of references in

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Economics 2000

Economics 2013

Biology 2000

Biology 2013

BMB 2000

BMB 2013

MMMI 2000

MMMI 2013

History 2000

History 2013

Reference type/discipline (% of total)

Article, scholary Book Book chapter

Report Archival material Web source

Newspapers Conferences Other material

Article, non-scholary Working paper Legal

Dissertation/thesis Unpublished Dataset

Unknown Reference work Press releases


11

different languages in the History theses or the lack of other types but scholarly

articles in Molecular Biology (BMB). Nevertheless, we want to discuss some of

the significant findings in this section.

The first findings to be discussed is the number of references. There is a

considerable difference between the numbers of references in each subject with

Software Engineering (MMMI) at the bottom and Molecular Biology at the top.

One reason for this could be the Software Engineering’s origin as a technical and

more practice-oriented field emerging from the technical colleges with a less

scholarly approach to the genre of writing an (academic) assignment. The library

is also having difficulties in reaching out to the engineering students with our

courses in information literacy, as neither students nor teachers feel the need for

improving their skills. With this study, we might have a more bullet-proof

argument to make them consider our services. On the other hand, the numbers

of references in Molecular Biology are very high and it makes you wonder

whether the students actually read all the listed works. In Molecular Biology,

there are traditionally many references to facts, such as discoveries (e.g., genes

in organisms) and methods (e.g., determination of protein concentration). This

means that the references are not read from start to finish but more used as a

common basis like a reference work.

To continue with the engineering students, our data also shows a large difference

in the types of references used. It needs to be examined further, but the

engineering students tend to use less scholarly material like textbooks and

software manuals, while the students in Molecular Biology almost exclusively

use scholarly articles. Again, it points to the engineering students’ background

in a more practical field. Both Economics and Biology differentiate from the

others in the use of various materials like environmental reports, statistical

overviews, juridical sources (for both subjects) and other kinds of non-scholarly,

but still official and well-documented resources. What does it mean for the

library’s services? It means that when it comes to subjects like traditional

Biology and many of the social sciences subjects, we must be aware of the many

different sources and where to find them. You will not find an environmental

report if you only search the library’s extensive number of scholarly databases,

and likewise in the social sciences, where one might need to search different

governmental documents and reports to find the relevant resources. This points

to a need for a subject-specific insight among the library staff, indicating a

continuing need for subject specialists and not only generic library and

information-seeking skills.

The theses from History differentiate on almost every parameter: language, types

and age. This is not at all surprising, and the differences could have been even

bigger if we had not limited the sub-subject to 20th century history. The time span

is also the explanation for the diversity in language – the higher frequency of


12

Russian is due to the research at SDU in the Cold War and the Soviet Union, and

if we expanded the time span to other areas such as ancient history both age and

language would have been even more diverse. The diversity in History points to

the self-image of the subject as a classical humanities subject where students are

expected to master more languages than English and their native tongue, and to

a continental scholarly tradition derived from the Humboldtian idea of a

university, where liberal education is the core part of the individual’s education.

Thus, History seems to have less need for the library’s services as long as we can

guarantee access to the materials.

6. Concluding remarks

In conclusion, this study shows a need for the library’s services and how the

library’s supportive role is quite diverse and at different levels. The knowledge

about the information needs of the subjects goes beyond the library’s own

collection and include both public resources and grey literature such as reports

from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency and other authorities.

Many students and researchers might find information and reference skills quite

obsolete with all the possibilities for finding both information and programmes

for reference management. But we can conclude that these skills are not optimal

and support in this could ease and improve the process of the master thesis

writing, thus making our students more competent academics.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the rest of the project group at the University Library

of Southern Denmark: Anita L. Thiesen, Lone Bredahl, Lotte Thing Rasmussen, Lillian Svanekær Kudsk and Mette Bruus for their efforts in collecting and

coding the data and their overall participation in the project. We also wish to

thank Peter Jensen Husen for supporting the data analysis work.

References Ahmadieh, D., et al. (2016). "A comparative citation analysis study of master’s theses at

the American University of Beirut, Lebanon." Collection building 35(4): 103-113.

Badenhorst, C. (2018). "Citation practices of postgraduate students writing literature

reviews." London review of education 16(1): 121.

Badenhorst, C. M. (2018b). "Graduate student writing: Complexity in literature reviews."

Studies in graduate and postdoctoral education 9(1): 58-74.


13

Badenhorst, C. M. (2019). "Literature reviews, citations and intertextuality in graduate

student writing." Journal of further and higher education 43(2): 263-275.

Becker, D. A. and E. R. T. Chiware (2015). "Citation Analysis of Masters' Theses and

Doctoral Dissertations: Balancing Library Collections With Students' Research

Information Needs." The Journal of academic librarianship 41(5): 613-620.

Bierman, J. (2012). "A Citation Study of Engineering Masters Theses at the University of

Oklahoma: Comparing the Years 1991 and 2011." Science & technology libraries

(New York, N.Y.) 31(4): 412-425.

Chiware, E. R. T. and D. Becker (2018). "Citation Patterns of Conference Proceedings in

Master’s and Doctoral Studies: A Case Study of Information Technology and

Systems." SAGE open 8(2): 215824401877049.

Condic, K. S. (2015). "Citation Analysis of Student Dissertations and Faculty Publications

in Reading and Educational Leadership at Oakland University." The Journal of

academic librarianship 41(5): 548-557.

Corrall, S. and L. Jolly (2019). "Innovations in Learning and Teaching in Academic

Libraries: Alignment, Collaboration, and the Social Turn." The new review of

academic librarianship 25(2-4): 113-128.

Fajkovic, M., & Stensager, A. O. (2018). What a difference 15 years can make! Revy

41(1), 17-20.

Feyereisen, P. and A. Spoiden (2009). "Can Local Citation Analysis of Master's and

Doctoral Theses help Decision-Making about the Management of the Collection of

Periodicals? A Case Study in Psychology and Education Sciences." The Journal of

academic librarianship 35(6): 514-522.

Fuchs, B. E., et al. (2006). "Behavioral citation analysis : Toward collection enhancement

for users." College & research libraries 67(4): 304-324.

Geng, Y. and S. Wharton (2019). "How do thesis writers evaluate their own and others’

findings? An appraisal analysis and a pedagogical intervention." English for Specific

Purposes 56: 3-17.

Hunsucker, R. L. (2011). "Master's students in history could benefit from a greater library

sensitivity and commitment to interdisciplinarity, and from more efficient document

delivery." Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 6(3): 64-70.

Husen, K. J., et al. (2021). “LIS - referencelist in master's theses.” [Data set]. Zenodo.

http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4709394

Leijten, M., et al. (2019). "MAPPING MASTER’S STUDENTS’ USE OF EXTERNAL

SOURCES IN SOURCE-BASED WRITING IN L1 AND L2." Studies in second

language acquisition 41(3): 555-582.

Liu, Q. and L. Deng (2019). "Chinese MA Student Writers’ Identity Construction in

Citation Practices." Chinese journal of applied linguistics 42(3): 365-385.

MacDonald, H. (2016). "Citation analysis of engineering graduate student theses indicates

students are using more electronic resources." Evidence Based Library and

Information Practice 11(4): 85-87.

Medaille, A., et al. (2021). "Honors Students and Thesis Research: A Study of

Information Literacy Practices and Self-Efficacy at the End of Students'

Undergraduate Careers." College & research libraries 82(1): 92-112.


14

Nguyen, Q. and L. Buckingham (2019). "Source-use expectations in assignments: The

perceptions and practices of Vietnamese Master's students." English for Specific

Purposes 53: 90-103.

Porter, S. (2021). "A Citation Analysis of the Woodrow Wilson School Master's Students

Research Output." Collection management 46(1): 73-77.

Sherriff, G. (2010). "Information Use in History Research: A Citation Analysis of

Master's Level Theses." Portal (Baltimore, Md.) 10(2): 165-183.

Smyth, J. B. (2011). "Tracking Trends: Students’ Information Use in the Social Sciences

and Humanities, 1995–2008." Portal (Baltimore, Md.) 11(1): 551-573.

Xie, Z., et al. (2020). "Assessing and predicting the quality of research master’s theses: an

application of scientometrics." Scientometrics 124(2): 953-972.

Zheng, Y., et al. (2020). "Exploring student engagement with supervisor feedback on

master’s thesis: Insights from a case study." Innovations in Education and Teaching

International 57(2): 186-197.

reference practice in master’s theses across five

Documents