I still remember filling in my dissertation planning form. My first idea sounded neat on paper — “diversification will improve youth opportunities.” But I quickly realised I couldn’t answer the real question behind it: which policy tools, at which implementation stage, actually shape a graduate’s first job and early career path?

My dissertation looks at Macao SAR’s diversification agenda beyond gaming, with a focus on modern financial services — a direction highlighted in recent policy planning. I ask: how do current diversification policies address the employment and career development needs of young graduates, and what implementation gaps remain? To stop the project becoming an “economic overview of Macao”, I narrow the scope early. I define young graduates as Macao SAR residents aged 20–29, with a bachelor’s degree or above, and who graduated within the last five years (roughly 2021–2026). I also keep the policy focus tight: instead of covering every sector, I stay with modern finance and the employment-related measures around it. That lets me move from broad claims to something testable — what policies promise, what gets delivered, and where gaps appear.

Method-wise, I’m taking a documents-first approach, with a small interview add-on. The backbone of my dissertation is policy and strategy documents (including the Policy Address and sector planning), government statistics, and credible external reports such as IMF assessments. These sources help me map the policy logic and the stated mechanisms. I may use reputable news only to track recent updates, but not as core evidence. Interviews are a controlled “bonus layer”, not the foundation. I plan 6–8 semi-structured interviews across two groups: (1) the implementation side (public departments, industry support bodies, youth employment or training-related units, ideally programme staff), and (2) the employer side in non-gaming sectors (HR or hiring managers). The goal is triangulation: checking whether the policy story matches what happens in practice. The two biggest risks are scope and access, and I’m treating both as design problems. On scope, I force myself to make choices early: fewer sectors, clearer definitions, and a short time window. On access, I assume interviews might be hard to secure or might produce cautious answers. So I build a fallback plan from day one: even if interviews don’t happen as planned, the dissertation still works through documents and public data.

SEED’s structure helps make the work manageable. The dissertation handbook and University submission/presentation guidance set clear expectations for format and good academic practice. The University also treats research ethics as a real part of the process — and you cannot start recruitment or data collection until you have written approval, submitted through the ethics system. On the practical side, the Library’s My Learning Essentials offers workshops and online resources on writing, referencing, and building your argument, including dissertation-focused guidance.

If I could share two tips: pick a question you can realistically answer with evidence you can access, and start writing earlier than you think. A draft that can be criticised is more useful than waiting for the perfect idea. For me, finishing the dissertation at SEED isn’t only about submitting a long document — it’s about learning how to turn a big policy issue into a focused, ethical, and workable research project.

Written by WenZhen, a current postgraduate student in SEED. 

Related