Writing a CIPD dissertation or research project is not just about putting together a large number of pages and adding references. You need to show that you understand a real people-practice issue, can find reliable evidence, and can use that evidence to reach sensible conclusions.

This is where many students struggle.

You might have a good topic and plenty of research, but the final project can still feel weak if the research question is unclear, the literature review becomes a collection of summaries, or the recommendations don't actually come from your findings.

I've broken down the most common problems below, along with practical ways to avoid them.

A quick note: CIPD assessment requirements can vary between qualifications and learning providers. Always check your own assessment brief and centre guidance before following a particular structure.

1. Choosing a topic that is too broad

One of the first mistakes is choosing a subject that sounds interesting but is far too large to investigate properly.

Take topics such as employee engagement, leadership, hybrid working or employee wellbeing. Each one could support an entire research programme. Trying to cover everything in one dissertation usually results in a shallow discussion.

For example, instead of researching:

“The impact of hybrid working on employee performance”

you could narrow it down to:

“How do hybrid working arrangements influence employee engagement among HR professionals working in UK-based SMEs?”

The second question gives you clearer boundaries. You know who you are interested in, what issue you are examining and the context in which you're examining it.

How to avoid this mistake

Before committing to your topic, write down:

• Who you want to study
• The specific HR or people issue
• The organisation, industry or geographical context
• What you want to understand or measure
• What access you realistically have to participants and data

If you can't explain your proposed research clearly in a couple of sentences, the topic probably needs narrowing.

2. Starting with a weak research question

A dissertation can become difficult very quickly when the research question isn't specific enough.

Questions such as “Why is employee engagement important?” are usually too broad. They invite a general discussion rather than focused research.

Your research question should guide the rest of the project. It should influence what literature you read, what data you collect and how you analyse your findings.

A useful question might look like:

“How do line managers perceive the effectiveness of flexible working practices in supporting employee retention within UK professional-services organisations?”

You can then create research objectives that break this question into manageable pieces.

A simple test I use is:

Can I connect every major section of my dissertation back to my research question?

If you can't, there's a good chance the project is starting to wander.

3. Turning the literature review into a list of summaries

This is one of the most common problems in HR research projects.

A weak literature review might read like this:

Smith (2022) found that employee engagement is important. Jones (2023) argued that leadership influences engagement. Brown (2024) found that communication can improve engagement.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with those statements, but putting them one after another doesn't demonstrate much critical thinking.

The reader needs to understand how the studies relate to each other.

For example, you might find that several studies link supportive leadership with employee engagement, while other research suggests that organisational culture, workload or job autonomy may also influence the relationship.

That gives you something to discuss.

Instead of organising the review entirely around individual authors, organise it around themes such as:

• Definitions and theories
• Main factors influencing the issue
• Organisational outcomes
• Areas where researchers disagree
• Gaps in existing research
• Implications for HR practice

Then ask yourself what each important source actually contributes.

Is the study recent? Was the sample relevant? Was the research method appropriate? Does another study reach a different conclusion?

Those questions help turn a literature review into an analysis rather than a collection of summaries.

4. Using too many general websites

Searching online is obviously useful when you're starting your research, but not everything you find on Google is suitable as academic evidence.

A blog post, commercial website or general HR article may explain an idea clearly, but that doesn't automatically make it a strong source for a dissertation.

Try to build your evidence around a mixture of:

• Peer-reviewed academic research
• CIPD publications
• Government sources
• Professional and regulatory bodies
• Reputable organisational reports
• Relevant industry research

CIPD's guidance on evidence-based practice stresses the importance of using appropriate evidence and critically considering its reliability and relevance.

The key question isn't simply, “Can I find a source that says this?”

It is:

“Is this a source I can reasonably rely on to support this particular claim?”

5. Describing instead of analysing

Another issue that often appears in dissertations is confusing description with analysis.

For example:

“The organisation introduced flexible working in 2024.”

That's a fact.

Analysis starts when you examine what that fact means and connect it to your evidence.

You might discuss whether employees experienced the change differently, whether managers implemented the policy consistently, or whether the available research supports the organisation's approach.

The difference is subtle, but important.

Description tells the reader what happened.

Analysis explores why it matters.

When reviewing your own work, look for paragraphs that simply report information. Ask yourself whether you've explained the significance of that information or connected it to your research question.

6. Choosing a research method simply because it is convenient

It's tempting to choose a questionnaire because it's easy to send out.

But convenience shouldn't be the main reason for selecting a methodology.

Your method needs to match what you're actually trying to find out.

If you're interested in measuring patterns across a group of people, quantitative research may be appropriate. If you're trying to understand people's experiences, opinions or perceptions in greater depth, interviews or another qualitative approach may be more suitable.

Sometimes a combination of approaches makes sense.

Before deciding, ask yourself:

1. What am I actually trying to find out?
2. What type of evidence would answer that question?
3. Who can provide that evidence?
4. How will I reach those people?
5. What limitations will my chosen method create?
6. Can I realistically complete the research within my available time?

A complicated methodology isn't automatically a better methodology. A straightforward method that properly answers the research question can be much more effective.

7. Using participants who don't match your research question

Getting a large number of responses isn't enough.

Imagine your research question is about the experiences of HR managers, but most of your respondents are junior employees. You may have plenty of data, but it doesn't really answer the question you set out to investigate.

Your methodology should explain:

• Who your target population was
• How participants were selected
• Why that sampling method was chosen
• How many people participated
• Relevant characteristics of the sample
• What limitations the sample creates

Be careful with generalisations, too.

If you collect responses from employees in one organisation, don't automatically present those results as representative of the entire UK workforce.

8. Leaving research ethics until the last minute

Ethics shouldn't be something you think about after you've already designed your questionnaire.

If you're asking employees or managers to participate in research, you need to consider issues such as informed participation, confidentiality, anonymity, data storage and the possibility of harm.

UKRI's research ethics guidance highlights principles including respect for participants, informed participation, minimising harm and maintaining research integrity.

Data protection is another consideration. Consent to participate in research and the lawful basis for processing personal data are not necessarily the same thing under UK GDPR.

Before collecting data, check your institution's requirements for:

• Ethical approval
• Participant information
• Consent
• Confidentiality
• Data storage
• Anonymisation
• Withdrawal
• Sensitive information
• Permission from an organisation or employer

Only collect information you genuinely need.

9. Asking leading survey questions

Even when the overall methodology is appropriate, badly worded questions can affect the quality of your data.

For example:

“How beneficial do you think our excellent hybrid-working policy is?”

The wording already suggests that the policy is excellent.

A more neutral question would be:

“How would you describe the effect of hybrid working on your work experience?”

You should also avoid questions that combine two different issues.

For example:

“How satisfied are you with communication and management support?”

Someone might be happy with communication but unhappy with management support. Combining both makes the answer difficult to interpret.

Keep questions simple, neutral and focused on one issue at a time.

10. Collecting data before deciding how you'll analyse it

Another common mistake is collecting lots of information and only afterwards thinking about what to do with it.

You don't need to know every detail of your analysis before starting, but you should have a clear plan.

For quantitative research, you might use descriptive statistics or compare responses between relevant groups.

For qualitative research, you might code interview responses and identify recurring themes.

Whatever approach you use, the analysis needs to answer your research question.

Don't add charts simply because your survey software produced them.

For every table, graph or theme, ask:

What does this tell me, and why does it matter to my research question?

If you can't answer that, the information may not need to appear in the main analysis.

11. Treating your findings as universal facts

Your research findings need to stay within the boundaries of your evidence.

Suppose 35 employees from one organisation say that flexible working has improved their work experience.

You can reasonably report that:

“Participants in the study generally reported positive experiences of flexible working.”

But it would be much harder to justify:

“Flexible working improves employee performance across UK organisations.”

That's a much bigger claim than the research supports.

This is where being honest about the scope of your research matters.

A small sample can still produce useful findings. You simply need to be clear about what those findings do—and don't—tell us.

12. Hiding the limitations of your research

Some students worry that discussing limitations will make their dissertation look weak.

It doesn't.

Every research project has limitations. Acknowledging them shows that you understand the boundaries of your evidence.

Possible limitations could include:

• A small sample
• Convenience sampling
• Limited access to participants
• Self-reported information
• A short research period
• Response bias
• Limited generalisability
• Researcher interpretation

Don't just write:

“The study had a small sample, which was a limitation.”

Explain why that matters.

For example, voluntary participation may mean that people with particularly strong experiences were more likely to respond. That could affect how representative the findings are.

That is much more useful to the reader.

13. Introducing new arguments in the conclusion

Your conclusion should bring your research together. It shouldn't suddenly introduce an entirely new argument.

By this stage, the reader should already know your research question, the evidence you've considered and what your findings mean.

A useful conclusion can cover:

• What you set out to investigate
• The main findings
• What those findings mean
• Important limitations
• Implications for practice
• Recommendations or areas for future research

Avoid introducing a major theory or source in the conclusion that wasn't discussed earlier.

14. Making recommendations that aren't supported by your findings

Recommendations should have a clear connection to your research.

Imagine your research finds that employees are experiencing inconsistent communication from line managers.

A recommendation to provide structured manager communication training could be directly linked to that finding.

A recommendation to completely redesign the organisation's HR strategy would require much stronger evidence.

Think of the process as:

Finding → Interpretation → Implication → Recommendation

If you can't explain how a recommendation developed from your findings, reconsider it.

Good recommendations are also realistic. Consider resources, timescales, organisational culture and who would actually be responsible for implementing them.

If you're also working on a wider CIPD assessment and need additional guidance with a 5CO02-related assignment, you can explore 5CO02 assignment Help for further support.

15. Leaving references and academic integrity until the end

Trying to sort out your references the night before submission is a recipe for unnecessary stress.

Keep a record of your sources as you work.

For each useful source, note:

• Author
• Publication date
• Title
• Journal, organisation or publisher
• DOI or URL where appropriate
• Important findings
• Relevant page numbers
• How you intend to use the source

Then check your citations against your reference list before submitting.

You should also follow your institution's rules regarding generative AI. AI tools can help with brainstorming, planning and language editing in some settings, but they shouldn't replace your own research or be treated as a source of evidence.

Always verify factual claims against the original source.

A final CIPD dissertation checklist

Before submitting your research project, take some time to check the basics.

Research question

• Is it specific enough?
• Can your chosen methodology answer it?
• Do your objectives support it?

Literature review

• Have you compared and evaluated sources?
• Are you using credible academic and professional evidence?
• Have you identified gaps or disagreements?
• Have you connected the literature to your research question?

Methodology

• Have you explained why you selected the method?
• Does your sample match the research question?
• Have you explained how participants were recruited?
• Have you discussed methodological limitations?

Ethics

• Did you obtain any required ethical approval?
• Were participants properly informed?
• Was participation voluntary?
• Have you protected confidential information?
• Have you handled personal data appropriately?

Analysis

• Does your analysis answer the research question?
• Have you separated evidence from interpretation?
• Are your conclusions supported by your data?

Recommendations

• Do they come directly from your findings?
• Are they practical?
• Have you explained why they matter?

Referencing

• Are important claims supported by evidence?
• Are your sources credible?
• Does every citation appear in the reference list?
• Is your referencing consistent with your institution's requirements?

Final thoughts

Most CIPD dissertation problems don't happen because students haven't worked hard enough.

They usually happen because the different parts of the project don't quite fit together.

A broad topic leads to a vague research question. The vague question produces an unfocused literature review. The methodology then collects data that doesn't fully answer the question. Finally, the recommendations are only loosely connected to the findings.

The good news is that you can prevent most of these problems before they become serious.

Start with a focused research problem. Turn it into a question you can realistically investigate. Build your literature review around themes rather than a string of author summaries. Choose a research method that fits the question. Think about ethics before collecting data. Analyse what your evidence actually tells you, acknowledge its limitations and make recommendations that follow logically from your findings.

Your dissertation doesn't need to sound complicated to be credible.

It needs to show a clear line of thinking from the problem you identified, to the evidence you collected, to what that evidence means for people practice.