Formal requirements

You can find information about the course on the course page: HGO4090 – Master's thesis 60 credits - University of Oslo (uio.no)

Examination format

Written master thesis and oral examination

Purpose

The master’s thesis is the central component of the MA programme in Human Geography. It provides students with the opportunity to carry out an independent research project, enabling in-depth engagement with an empirical, theoretical, and/or methodological problem relevant to the discipline. 

Through the thesis, students are expected to formulate a clear, researchable problem, situate their work within relevant academic literature, apply appropriate theoretical perspectives, and use suitable methods to generate and analyse data. The thesis should reflect sustained academic effort corresponding to a 60-credit workload and demonstrate increasing independence, analytical maturity, and scholarly judgment. 

The oral examination follows the assessment of the written thesis and serves as an academic conversation in which the candidate discusses the choices, arguments, and contributions of the thesis, allowing for clarification, contextualisation, and critical engagement in dialogue with the examiners.

Formal requirements

The thesis should have a minimum length of 24,000 words and a maximum length of 36,000 words, including cover page, summary, table of contents, preface, footnotes, and acronyms, but excluding references and appendices. 

When two students write together, the assignment can be up to 10 percent longer than individual assignments (max. 40,000 words). See guidelines for joint work.

A summary of 1–2 pages must follow the cover page. Following your summary, a brief AI statement should be provided, in which the specific use of AI tools is accounted for. Be clear about which tools have been used, how you have used them, and state clearly how it has helped you produce the final submission. 

Formatting should use font size 12, line spacing 1.5, and include page numbering and a table of contents. 

A complete reference list is required, using a recognized style (e.g., APA 7th edition) consistently.

A cover page is required, and must include:

• Full title of the thesis 
• Student’s name
• Semester and year of submission 
• Study program, department, faculty, university
• Total word count
• Summary in Norwegian and English

Submission guidelines

All coursework equivalent to 60 credits must be completed before submission. 

Students with projects involving personal data must submit the Sikt notification form to ensure compliance with data protection legislation.

Theses exceeding the word limit will be rejected and require resubmission. 

Theses with extensive quantitative or GIS material may be shorter than stated in the formal requirements. 

Evaluation focuses on quality rather than word count.

Evaluation criteria for written thesis

The thesis will be evaluated by an academic committee based on the following criteria:

Aims and research questions. The thesis must have a clearly formulated aim and focused research questions. It should demonstrate scientific relevance – whether theoretical, methodological, or empirical – and explain its contribution to knowledge in the field.

Theoretical framework and literature review. The thesis should place the study in its academic context through a critical review of relevant research. The thesis should also apply a coherent theoretical framework, where chosen concepts, theories and/or models of analysis are employed in ways that allow the thesis to answer the research questions.

Methods. Methods must be described, including reasons for their selection, strengths and weaknesses, and ethical considerations. The thesis should explain data collection and analysis procedures and address potential limitations.

Analysis. The analysis should be systematic, logical, and independent, and establish a clear link between research questions, theoretical framework, methods, and data. Findings must be grounded in empirical material and interpreted through the chosen theoretical framework. Arguments should be well formulated and supported.

Conclusions. Conclusions must summarise the main findings clearly, discuss their contribution to the discipline, and situate them in a broader theoretical and empirical context. Suggestions for societal implications or future research may be included but are not required.

Structure and form. The thesis should have a logical structure, consistent use of concepts, meaningful integration of empirical material, represent an independent academic contribution to which the student takes full ownership, and be compliant with academic norms for referencing and with the program's formal requirements.

You can find information about the course on the course page: HGO4080 – Master's thesis 30 credits - University of Oslo (uio.no)

Examination format

Written thesis and oral examination

Purpose 

The master’s thesis is the central component of the MA programme in Human Geography. It provides students with the opportunity to carry out an independent research project, enabling in-depth engagement with an empirical, theoretical, and/or methodological problem relevant to the discipline.

Through the thesis, students are expected to formulate a clear, researchable problem, situate their work within relevant academic literature, apply appropriate theoretical perspectives, and use suitable methods to generate and analyse data.

A master thesis of 30 credits is an option for students who wish to carry out independent academic research of a lesser scope compared to a 60 credit master’s thesis. The 30-credits master thesis reflects research carried out over a period of one semester. Students are encouraged to start planning for their thesis topic/project in advance, but are expected to engage on full-time workload (30-credits) in the fourth (final) semester of the programme. What lesser scope means will vary from project to project, but will typically involve:

• More narrowly defined research topic, and corresponding research questions;
• More focused and selective review of relevant literature and analytical framework;
• More reliance on secondary sources;
• More limited fieldwork and/or primary data collection.

All 30-credit master’s theses must combine analytical and empirical elements, with the balance between them depending on the chosen study design.

The oral examination follows the assessment of the written thesis and serves as an academic conversation in which the candidate discusses the choices, arguments, and contributions of the thesis, allowing for clarification, contextualisation, and critical engagement in dialogue with the examiners.

 Formal requirements

The thesis should have a minimum length of 18,000 words and a maximum length of 24,000 words, including cover page, summary, table of contents, preface, footnotes, and acronyms, but excluding references and appendices.

A summary of 1–2 pages must follow the cover page. Following your summary, a brief AI statement should be provided, in which the specific use of AI tools is accounted for. Be clear about which tools have been used, how you have used them, and state clearly how it has helped you produce the final submission.

Formatting should use font size 12, line spacing 1.5, and include page numbering and a table of contents. 

A complete reference list is required, using a recognized style (e.g., APA 7th edition) consistently.

A cover page is required, and must include: 

• Full title of the thesis
• Student’s name
• Semester and year of submission
• Study program, department, faculty, university
• Total word count
• Summary in Norwegian and English

Submission guidelines

All coursework equivalent to 90 credits must be completed before submission.

Projects involving personal data must be registered at Sikt. 

Theses exceeding the word limit will be rejected and require resubmission.

Theses with extensive quantitative or GIS material may be shorter than stated in the formal requirements.

Evaluation focuses on quality rather than word count.

Evaluation criteria for written thesis

The thesis will be evaluated by an academic committee based on the following criteria:

Aims and research questions. The thesis must have a clearly formulated aim and focused research questions. It should demonstrate scientific relevance – whether theoretical, methodological, or empirical – and explain its contribution to knowledge in the field.

Theoretical framework and literature review. The thesis should place the study in its academic context through a critical review of relevant research. The thesis should also apply a coherent theoretical framework, where chosen concepts, theories and/or models of analysis are employed in ways that allow the thesis to answer the research questions.

Methods. Methods must be described, including reasons for their selection, strengths and weaknesses, and ethical considerations. The thesis should explain data collection and analysis procedures and address potential limitations.

Analysis. The analysis should be systematic, logical, and independent, and establish a clear link between research questions, theoretical framework, methods, and data. Findings must be grounded in empirical material and interpreted through the chosen theoretical framework. Arguments should be well formulated and supported.

Conclusions. Conclusions must summarise the main findings clearly, discuss their contribution to the discipline, and situate them in a broader theoretical and empirical context. Suggestions for societal implications or future research may be included but are not required.

Structure and form. The thesis should have a logical structure, consistent use of concepts, meaningful integration of empirical material, and compliance with academic norms for referencing and the program's formal requirements.

Evaluation criteria for the oral examination

The oral exam is an academic conversation between the candidate and the examiners, and may be conducted on campus, in hybrid form, or digitally, depending on examiner availability.

During the exam, the examiners will provide a brief overall assessment of the thesis, highlighting points for discussion. The academic conversation will then be based on questions from examiners that invite reflections from the candidate on the research design, theoretical and methodological choices, analytical arguments, and broader academic context of the work. The final grade may be adjusted based on performance in the oral exam.

The performance will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

Reflection and justification. The candidate must defend decisions made during the research process, including problem formulation, methodological choices, and theoretical perspectives. Strengths, weaknesses, and ethical considerations should be addressed.

Critical engagement. The candidate should reflect on the thesis’ contributions and limitations, situate it within the broader academic context, and respond thoughtfully to questions. This includes discussing alternative interpretations and possible improvements.

Academic dialogue and communication. The candidate should respond professionally, using precise, well-reasoned arguments grounded in the thesis and relevant literature. Answers must demonstrate constructive engagement with examiners’ questions and maintain clarity and academic tone throughout.

Examiners will explain (1) the written thesis grade and (2) the final grade after the oral exam, in accordance with UiO regulations. The candidate may request to know the written thesis grade at the start of the examination. Otherwise, the final grade (combined written thesis and oral exam) as well as the original thesis grade will be communicated at the end.

Factors that should be focused on during assessment

• The candidate's ability to delve deeper into a problem area and clarify issues.
• The candidate's ability to obtain an overview of and understand theoretical and empirical research in the problem area.
• The candidate's ability to independently process subject matter included in thesis work.
• The candidate's originality regarding contributions to new issues and outcomes.
• The candidate's use of method.
• The candidate's ability to convey and present their work, as well as adhering to the composition norms of scientific publications. For example, referencing techniques.

II. Grading scales

A: A particularly good and well-written task that is well-structured, has a very clearly defined problem for discussion, advanced and adequate theory and method management, a particularly well-conducted analysis and very well-formulated conclusions or recommendations. The candidate shows exceptionally good reflective and analytical ability and an unusually large degree of academic maturity and independence.

B: A very good and well-written task that is well-structured, has a clearly defined problem for discussion, adequate theory and method management, a well-conducted analysis and well-formulated conclusions or recommendations. The candidate shows good reflective and analytical ability and a large degree of academic maturity and independence. Minor shortcomings may be accepted.

C: A relatively well-written task that is satisfactory in most areas: largely well-structured and defined, a reasonably adequate theory and method management, a satisfactory analysis and formulated conclusions or recommendations that are acceptable. The candidate shows a certain amount of reflective and/or analytical ability and a certain degree of academic maturity and independence. A number of shortcomings may be accepted. Alternatively, a task with a more original discussion problem and/or a higher theoretical and methodical level of ambition, but where the implementation shows weaknesses of a theoretical and/or methodical nature.

D: A task that has some academic qualities, but also has significant shortcomings or weaknesses in one or more of the following areas: outline, formulation, defining the discussion problem, theory and method management, analysis, formulation of conclusions or recommendations. The candidate shows a certain amount weakness regarding reflective and/or analytical ability and has a relatively low degree of academic maturity and independence.

E: A task that has a few academic qualities, but also has significant shortcomings or weaknesses in most of the following areas: outline, formulation, defining the discussion problem, theory and method management, analysis and/or formulation of conclusions or recommendations. The candidate shows clear weaknesses regarding reflective and/or analytical ability and has a low degree of academic maturity and independence.

F: The task is characterized by such serious flaws and shortcomings of a theoretical, methodical and presentational nature that it cannot be approved. III Plagiarism/copying Plagiarism/copying is considered cheating. In cases where this is suspected, the grade is not disclosed to the candidate and the case is processed in accordance with the advisory guidelines regarding the handling of cheating/attempted cheating at the institution concerned.

III Plagiarism/copying

Plagiarism/copying is considered cheating. In cases where this is suspected, the grade is not disclosed to the candidate and the case is processed in accordance with the advisory guidelines regarding the handling of cheating/attempted cheating at the institution concerned.

The University of Oslo (UiO) takes seriously cases of academic dishonesty. Therefore, we ask graders to be observant while grading and to make use of plagiarism reports. If you suspect a candidate of cheating you should contact the exam administrator. The administrator will pursue the case in cooperation with others in the department and the Faculty of Social Sciences. You will be asked for a written clarification as to why a case for academic dishonesty should be pursued against the candidate (usually a one-page report that specifies inadequate citations, the use of quotes without source references, etc.)

What is considered cheating?

The following are examples of cheating on unsupervised exams. The exam paper:

• has not been completed by the actual candidate
• has been completed with the help of someone else without any notification of this
• has previously been submitted as an exam paper for another course at UiO or for a course offered at another national or international educational institution.
• makes use of the work of others (for example, academic literature, articles or websites) without specifying the source
• makes use of the candidate’s own previous work without specifying it as a source
• makes use of, or partially rephrases, paragraphs or sentences from the work of others without indication of this through the use of quotation marks and proper citation
• does not contain a complete reference list that specifies all sources used. 

It is important to note that your responsibility as a grader is to raise the suspicion of cheating when appropriate, and that it is the University’s central appeals committee which adjudicates cases of suspected academic dishonesty. The penalty for cheating is the nullification of the examination and possible expulsion from the university for up to two semesters. The exam paper shall be graded as normal and the grade will remain undisclosed until the central appeals committee has reached a decision. 

What is considered academic immaturity?

An exam paper that lacks originality in relation to a specific source does not necessarily lead to a case of academic dishonesty/cheating. Candidates who demonstrate a lack of originality but are not pursued for academic dishonesty should always receive a penalty in grading or possibly a failing grade. The student’s specific situation is considered when it comes to evaluating academic immaturity. How far along the student is in their studies is, for example, of particular importance. The exam administrator can assist in such an evaluation.

A student who receives a lower grade as a result of academic immaturity should receive an explanation of the grade from the grader(s), regardless of whether or not an explanation was requested.

If you are in doubt regarding whether something should be considered cheating or academic immaturity please contact the course coordinator.

Resources:

Instruction in the use of plagiarism control in Inspera: Plagiatkontroll - For ansatte - Universitetet i Oslo (uio.no) (in Norwegian only)

Instruction in the use of Ouriginal plagiarism control: Veiledning for bruk av Ouriginal plagiatkontrollverktøy ved UiO - For ansatte - Universitetet i Oslo (in Norwegian only)

Routines for handling suspicion of cheating and attempted cheating at UiO: Routines for handling cases of cheating - University of Oslo (uio.no)

Routines for handling suspicion cheating at the Faculty of Social Sciences: Behandling av mistanke om fusk ved SV-fakultetet - For ansatte - Universitetet i Oslo (uio.no) (in Norwegian only)