Professional feedback on your thesis – from people, not AI

The research question on p. 8 currently covers several dimensions: employee motivation, job satisfaction, productivity, and team culture. While these aspects are relevant in principle, combining them results in a relatively broad scope of investigation.

Recommendation: Consider which dimensions are actually central to your research. If team culture remains part of the research question, it should be explicitly addressed both in the analysis and in the conclusion. Alternatively, the research question could be narrowed down further, for example: “How does remote work affect employee motivation in SMEs in Zurich?”

The thesis generally has a clear and comprehensible structure. However, Chapter 3, “History of Digitalisation in Switzerland” (pp. 24–37), partly reads like a separate digression. While the background information it contains is relevant to the topic, its specific contribution to answering the research question and to the subsequent analysis remains unclear in some places.

Recommendation: Consider shortening the historical overview and retaining only the material that directly supports your research question and subsequent analysis. Alternatively, you could clarify the purpose of the chapter at the outset and explicitly link its key findings to Chapter 4.

The central line of argument — “remote work → autonomy → motivation” — is generally easy to follow. However, some conclusions are stated more strongly than the empirical evidence allows. For example, on p. 58, the thesis states: “The results clearly show that autonomy increases motivation.” In a qualitative study based on 12 interviews, such a statement should be phrased more cautiously.

Recommendation: Where appropriate, use more cautious academic formulations such as “suggest,” “indicate,” or “the findings point towards,” and briefly address the participants’ differing responses.

The literature base provides a solid foundation, but there is room for improvement in certain areas. For example, the statement on p. 15, “Studies consistently show that remote employees are more productive,” is currently not supported by a citation. Furthermore, Chapter 2 shows a strong reliance on Müller (2019), which is cited a total of eight times.

Recommendation: Review key factual and empirical claims to ensure that they are adequately supported by sources. Also pay attention to the currency, academic quality, and diversity of the literature. Finally, check the consistency between in-text citations or footnotes and the reference list.

Overall, the thesis is clearly structured and largely consistent in its formatting. Headings, body text, tables, and figures generally follow a logical structure and support readability. There are, however, a few minor formal inconsistencies. For example, the font type and/or font size on pp. 22 and 31 differs slightly from the rest of the body text.

Recommendation: Conduct a final formatting check before submission and correct minor inconsistencies in font type and size, spacing, and table and figure captions. In particular, check that your university’s formal requirements are followed consistently throughout the thesis.