OVERVIEW OF THE THESIS: SOME POINTERS
A good thesis is like a journey of discovery: think Odyssey, Lancelot, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. You’ve set out to find an answer to a question (or some answers to some questions), and each section of your thesis is a stage on that journey:
Introduction: why this question is of value
Literature Review: how other people have answered it
Method: how you will try and answer it
Results: what you have found out
Discussion: what your findings mean (particularly in relation to previous findings).
To that you can add:
Title: Concise statement of your research question/enquiry
Abstract: Summary of all the sections in your thesis
Conclusion (after Discussion): A summary of what you have found and any outstanding issues.
Each of these sections should be logically linked, so that, if all is as it should be, you should be able to reduce your dissertation down to a single, coherent narrative of not more than a paragraph or so (your abstract, effectively). Below is an example:
The Benefits and Limitations of Using the Two-Chair Technique in Person-Centred Therapy: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
Understanding the benefits and limitations of the two-chair technique in person-centred therapy is important because a number of person-centred approaches, such as person-centred experiential therapy for depression, are moving towards their use [Introduction]. Greenberg has shown that clients can experience the two-chair technique as beneficial, but these findings are primarily quantitative and there is little data on why clients might experience this technique as helpful—or unhelpful—per se [Literature Review]. For this reason, I carried out a series of semi-structured interviews with ten clients in person-centred therapy who engaged with the two-chair technique to find out their views on it. I recruited these clients through social media. Their interview data was analysed through interpretative phenomenological analysis [Method]. In terms of benefits, clients said that the two-chair technique had helped them express feelings that they found difficult to express otherwise. It also helped them identify different aspects of themselves, and helped them feel closer to their therapist. On the other hand, for some clients the two-chair technique had interfered with the therapeutic alliance. The main reason for this was that it made them feel embarrassed, and in one case the client actually left counselling as a result [Results]. It would seem, then, that Greenberg and others are right that the two-chair technique can be very useful as an adjunct to person-centred therapy, however there may be some contraindications of this technique [Discussion].
Have a go at summarising your research in this way, whatever stage you are up to in your write-up (even if you haven’t started). And if you don’t have results yet, have a go at just imagining what results to your question might be: this isn’t about prefiguring your Results, but about getting some sense of what might be meaningful answers to your questions.
A key issue to focus on here is whether all the different sections of your thesis are aligned. That is, are they all oriented around the same question(s) or, rather, are they actually asking and answering different questions? You may find, for instance, that the Literature Review you’re planning doesn’t really answer the questions you’re posing in your title; or that your Results are answering a different set of questions to the ones you reviewed the literature on. These differences may be subtle (for instance, your Literature Review might focus on what clients find helpful in therapy whereas your Results reveal what they experience in therapy), but any minor differences can become magnified as your research and write-up progresses. And such differences can really ‘do your head in’, because you can then get into a terrible muddle about what it is you are asking and answering. So make sure you have a set of really clearly defined questions (see blog here), and then ensure all the sections of your thesis revolve around that.
One way of developing that alignment is by taking your Title or Literature Review and asking yourself, ‘What might be meaningful answers to the questions that I am posing and addressing here?’ Then you can look at your Results and see if they do, indeed, match the questions being asked. Or you can do the same process backwards: Take your Results and ask yourself, ‘What kind of questions are these answering?’ If your Results are providing answers to questions that, in fact, you never asked in the first place, you know you need to do some work on re-aligning your thesis.
The ‘Cafe Test’
Here’s another way of checking the coherence of your research study. Imagine that you are sitting in a cafe chatting to a friend. They are really interested in your work, and they ask you what you have discovered in relation to your research question. What would you say to them? How would you answer that question in a simple, non-jargon way—that gave them a genuine, meaningful, interesting answers to their question. You might want to actually try that with a friend and record your answer – because often that is the most succinct summary of your research and your findings that you’ll give. And if you don’t have results yet, again, try it anyway, and just imagine what kind of results you might have. Note if you are finding it difficult to respond; and also note if the response you are giving in the Café Test is very different from what you have written—or are planning to write—in your thesis itself. Is it, for instance, that you have written a lot in your thesis that isn’t actually that related to your research question? Or perhaps emphasised answers that, in more everyday conversation, aren’t actually that interesting. Try, wherever possible, to align your Results and Discussions to what you would, genuinely, describe as meaningful in an everyday conversation—although, of course, the language and structure needs to be more formal in your write-up. That’s the most exciting bit of what you’ve found, so ‘big it up’: make sure it’s at the heart of what you are communicating to your academic audience.
Acknowledgements
Photo by Handy Wicaksono on Unsplash
Disclaimer
The information, materials, opinions or other content (collectively Content) contained in this blog have been prepared for general information purposes. Whilst I’ve endeavoured to ensure the Content is current and accurate, the Content in this blog is not intended to constitute professional advice and should not be relied on or treated as a substitute for specific advice relevant to particular circumstances. That means that I am not responsible for, nor will be liable for any losses incurred as a result of anyone relying on the Content contained in this blog, on this website, or any external internet sites referenced in or linked in this blog.