Thesis tips

When you hit the send button, you were delighted with the draft research questions you forwarded to your academic mentor. You then receive their feedback. You read their email with surprise and disappointment. ‘A useful start, but your questions are too abstract, philosophical and loosely defined. They are too challenging to answer, there are a variety of ways respondents can interpret the questions, and a multitude of possible replies that can be given.’ You read and re-read the email, but still have no idea what the comments mean.

There are five tests to apply that help you produce concrete, tight and realistic research questions.

A useful first test of any research question is whether it is clear and understandable. Not just to you, but to others. Show your questions to someone you trust within the academic community and ask them if they make ‘sense’. Your questions make sense, if, for example, they are capable of being converted into a series of specific research objectives. Or if they lend themselves to an effective research design. That is, a study where you can easily identify what data might be collected to address your questions, and how that data could be collected.

A second test is to check if the questions are definite. A definite question is one where you can visualise what the answer may be. You could, for example, have a question that generates a simple yes/no reply, or a restricted response. Such as, ‘what proportion of graduates obtain work within six months of getting their final-year results’? At first glance, this seems to have a straightforward answer and appears clear-cut. It requires, however, further consideration to define and describe what a graduate is. For instance, is it when they get their results, or when they collect their parchment at the awards ceremony? So, only pose questions for which you know what answer, or type of answer, would be expected.

The third test is to determine if the questions have intellectual provenance. In other words, derived from reputable and recognised academic sources. Effective research questions should be grounded in the existing body of knowledge for your topic. In most cases, there will be an established literature base from which you draw on to advise how your questions should be approached. You should only integrate relevant concepts, theories, frameworks, models, techniques and tools into your questions that have already been rigorously developed and robustly investigated by others.

A fourth test is to identify if the purpose of each of your questions is significant. All academic research should have the potential to contribute to scholarship. By linking your questions to the extant literature for your topic, you can provide additional insights into existing knowledge and understanding. This is achieved by immersing yourself in the literature and perusing the sections in journal articles that offer avenues for further research. For example, lookout for statements like ‘this paper builds on the work of X and Y … but advances their theory by carrying out an empirical study on …’. Additionally, when formulating your questions, it may be useful to include the recommendations that these scholars have suggested to overcome the limitations they identified in their research.

The final, and fifth test, is to ascertain if you can obtain the answers to your questions within the timeframe of the study. Typically, when doing your thesis or dissertation, time is measured in weeks and months, rather than years. Be realistic when considering the time available to complete your research, from proposal to submission. For example, with a six-month project, it may be challenging to gain permission and access to your research site, acquire ethical approval from both your own institution and the research site, and collect your data in a timely manner. Missed timelines may have implications for the allocation of your resources. For example, funding could cease, or be capped, access to facilities and equipment may be restricted, and the availability of respondents for surveys, or participants for interviews, may be curtailed. Such constraints may require you to redefine, or tighten, your original research questions.

In summary, it is important to be realistic, but not over-ambitious, with your research questions. An appropriate question is not too broad in scope (so that you would need considerable resources to investigate it). Neither is it too narrow (so that you unable to make a significant contribution to your topical domain).

You may find Thesis Upgrade’s Developing Your Research Proposal Toolbook helpful. This informative digital resource contains useful activities and practical checklists that help build your skills to develop a realistic, and feasible, research proposal. Buy now for immediate use.

A hallmark of excellent academic work is that any research you do must link to, and build on, the work of others. One way to ensure this, is to show you have critiqued other academic’s ideas for your literature review. This allows you to confidently argue you have fully investigated your topic and have gained an understanding of the current studies and viewpoints in your area.

Some researchers compare starting a critique to joining a conversation that is already taking place. It is like joining in a chat at a party. Those who arrived at the party earlier than you may have already begun to discuss the topic, putting forward their knowledge and perspective based on what they know, so far. There is a lot of going back and forth, as each person proposes their ideas, assess work already done by others, and add the findings from their own research. Before joining this conversation, you should skirt around the edge, ‘listen’ to what is being said, and notice on the ‘vibe’, before gently joining in.

Carlos Rote, a BSc in Data Systems student says “I learned I needed to get the ‘big picture’ first. That meant identifying the key authors who wrote the original articles in my topic area and writing-up a summary of each article. This helped me to structure my initial reflections on the ideas and concepts from the key articles I read.”

According to Ella Peterhouse, who was critiquing material for her MBA thesis on business models. “Thesis Upgrade advised me to look at literature review sections in other theses to help me increase my list of sources. I developed a deeper understanding of seminal theories and concepts as a result. When I read a useful textbook or article, I checked the authors’ list of references to identify other sources that could have been useful for me to read next.”

Once you become practiced at critiquing, you will be able to generate your own knowledge base of the extant literature. This is achieved by creating a spreadsheet that captures the principal points from each article you have read. With this knowledge base, you can edge your way into the scholarly conversation, and make a meaningful contribution to the academic discussion, relating to your thesis topic.

Like Carlos and Ella, and countless other students, you may find Thesis Upgrade’s Critiquing Your Sourced Literature useful. Buy now for immediate use.

Having successfully side-stepped the three main pitfalls when starting your research and dodged the four principal hazards while doing your thesis, you now find yourself finalising your work. This blog explores the triad of risks to avoid when nearing the end of a research journey.

Here are some risks to watch out for in the final stages of the thesis or dissertation process. For many students, this can be a time when they can ‘see land’ but are not sure how to reach it. We offer practical tips to help you navigate the choppy waters of the research process and ‘reach dry land safely’.

The first risk is that you do not draw clear conclusions and recommendations and link them back to a clear introduction. It seems to surprise students that the order in which you read a thesis is different to the order in which you write it! When you have discussed and presented your data analysis and findings the logical next stage is to write your conclusions and recommendations, but you must do this at the same time you write your introduction. Both are equally important, and both provide the threads with which you stitch together the entire thesis document. There are numerous things that can trip you up when writing these chapters/sections. For example, given that you are now an expert on your thesis you may not present your research problem, questions or hypotheses in a way that the reader easily understands; you may write about the context and theory in a way that is incomprehensible to your examiners; you may fail to link the purpose of your research sufficiently to your conclusion, summary and recommendations. You may forget to establish your contribution to knowledge or discuss the implications of your contribution. You could possibly forget to describe the limitations and scope for further research, or you may not write up these important sections in an academic style. Topping and tailing your thesis with an excellent introductory section that links fully to your conclusions and recommendations is a key stage in finalising your document.

The second risk arises if you do not leave enough time to finalise your overall thesis. A thesis is a complex tapestry comprised of disparate, yet interrelated, strands that are woven together and held in place by a ‘golden thread’ of substantiated arguments. When finalising your thesis document, you should follow a structured pattern to highlight and stitch these strands into a logical order that creates a coherent whole. This means you need to typically allow a week to verify that all the chapters or sections are linked to each other and tell the same story, review the overall academic integrity of your research (for example, validity and reliability). It is also useful to ensure that your citing and referencing is 100% accurate and there are no duplications. Additionally, check the structure (that is, ensure internal chapter/section integrity and integration between chapters/sections), write an abstracted summary and do final spell- and sense-checks.

The third, and final risk, to avoid is not preparing for your viva. Many institutions expect their students to submit a written document and do a viva voce. This is an oral examination of your extensive piece of independent, academic work. A viva comprises a spoken defence of your research, and thus acts as a verbal counterpart to your written thesis. Achieving a positive outcome to your viva requires you to spend time planning, preparing and practicing, just when you thought you had your research completed!

There are several risks that can trip up and trap the unwary student-researcher on their research journey. This blog has highlighted the more common ones we have encountered over the past decade when supervising and examining thousands of theses.

Try our Finalising Your Overall Thesis for more useful tips on how to successfully complete your research journey. Buy now for immediate use.

A common issue faced by many research students when writing their proposal, or starting their thesis or dissertation, is how to define the scope of their research. If you describe your research problem clearly, you will have a distinct task to focus on. If you, however, express it poorly, you could end up with vague aims and objectives, complex research questions or ambiguous hypotheses. When you have a well-defined research problem statement, you explicitly situate your thesis within its disciplinary field; one that is delineated by clear-cut borders. So, define a boundary for your research!

To ensure your research is confined to its discrete disciplinary field is to spend some time, early on, exploring and examining where the boundary for your research should lie. This boundary marks the outline of a ‘container’. One that separates what is relevant to your research (that is, the interior of the receptacle), from what is less relevant, or irrelevant (that is, the exterior). It highlights the parts of an issue, problem or situation that are significant for the study, while simultaneously downplaying those elements that are less important, or immaterial.

We can learn about setting boundaries from the great innovative thinker, Edward de Bono. In his seminal book, Lateral Thinking, de Bono suggested five simple steps to help you to define your boundary clearly:

• Step one is to write down an initial statement of the problem, or issue, in plain English. For example, ‘In what ways might we help people to do X?’. It is recommended not to think too deeply about this, as some of the best initial statements are often the first phrases that pop into your mind.
• Step two is to underline the key words, especially the verbs and nouns, from the initial statement. For example, continuing with the previous example, the key word is ‘help’.
• Step three is to examine each key word for any potential hidden assumptions. A useful way to do this is to replace the word in the sentence with a synonym or near-synonym. For example, to substitute ‘help’ with words like assist, boost or improve. This could be done using an online tool like thesauraus.com.
• Step four is to explore the choice of words that affect the meaning of the statement. For example, consider if the word ‘encourage’ makes more sense than ‘help’.
• Step five is to redefine the statement, using these synonyms, in a more effective manner. For example, ‘How can we encourage managers to improve X?’

The two statements are similar (that is, ‘in what ways might we help people to do X’ versus ‘how can we encourage managers to improve X?’). The latter statement is more precise than the former. This has been achieved by revising the original key words in a structured and systemised way. For instance, ‘in what ways might’ has been replaced with ‘how can’; ‘help’ has been reworded to ‘encourage’; and ‘do’ to ‘improve’.

In many cases, you may be trying to make the boundary lines of your research problem even more detailed and specific. This usually involves making the sentence shorter and paraphrasing, but you can also add phrases. For instance, denoting what is signified by the word ‘X’ (such as, in A company, in the B sector, in C country, over X date to Y date).

If you feel your boundary has become too exact or tight, you may want to loosen the parameters or relax the criteria. Some useful ways to widen the scope and broaden your definition are by:

• Using brainstorming to generate lists of issues or problems that might expand the boundary. For example, ‘what are the best ways to encourage in general?’
• Not-ing, that is, converting each key word to its negative. For example, ‘how can we not encourage?’
• Employing antonyms. For example, ‘how can we discourage?’

In practice, you may need to repeat de Bono’s five steps several times before you come up with a research problem statement that you are happy with. Bear in mind, as you do so, the intention is not to simply alter the statement. It is to bend meaning, so that you understand more clearly how the wording of the problem, or issue, affects the assumed boundary.

Need assistance with defining the boundaries of your thesis or dissertation research problem? Sue and Mark, the Directors of Thesis Upgrade, can help. So, contact us now!

Most colleges require students to carry out original, primary research during their thesis or dissertation process. This means, at some stage, you will need to design a study and gather data using appropriate methodology and methods. Students often ask us which research approach should they use – deductive, inductive or mixed methods? The short answer is, whichever is right for you, or more accurately, whichever is suitable for your research problem.

A useful place to start is to decide whether to adopt a deductive or an inductive approach to your primary research.

The deductive approach involves developing (or adopting) a theory and hypothesis, and then designing a research strategy to test it. This is suitable if you are testing a theory that you, or someone else, has already developed. It is a structured approach grounded in scientific principles. Typically, you collect and collate valid and reliable data, and analyse and interpret it, in sequence, and in an organised way. You attempt to establish ‘facts’ that explain causal relationships between variables, and thus prove (or disprove) the theory.

By contrast, the inductive approach involves collecting data and developing a theory from them as you ‘make sense’ of your data. This is suitable if, rather than testing a specific theory, you aim to build a new theory based on the data you have collected. Typically, when adopting an inductive approach, data collection and collation, and analysis and interpretation overlap and are carried out in a more flexible way. You use the data to provide insights into meanings people attach to events and experiences to create a theory that explains them.

Georgina Vernon, an MSc in Tourism and Hospitality Management student, says “It is best to locate your research in one of the two principal approaches – deductive or inductive. Precisely which you choose is influenced by your overall research problem. It is ultimately dependent on the type and amount of data you need to collect to reach your aims”.

Not all research falls neatly into either the deductive or inductive approach. If one approach is not sufficient on its own to capture the full details of a situation, deduction (theory testing) and induction (theory building), are combined within the same study. In such cases, a mixed methods approach, abduction (uncovering and relying on the most fitting explanations for understanding the results), is adopted. Including abduction ensures the research questions are fully answered, or the hypothesis supported.

“Combining the two methods, and adding abductive thinking, made my study much more challenging”, cautions Fiona Furness, a BSc in Data Science student. “When I designed my study, collected and collated my data, and carried out my analysis and interpretation, each step became multi-faceted and multi-layered. There was a significant risk that my research design would end up being complicated and complex, with the data too difficult to gather. With the help of Thesis Upgrade’s excellent book, Collecting Your Data, everything worked out perfectly!”

We surveyed 60 postgraduate students in the early stages of their thesis journeys. The three most frequent areas of concern identified by these novice researchers were:

• What is my research area?
• Have I chosen a realistic topic to study?
• How do I write my research aims and objectives?

Anyone who has ever started (and finished!) a thesis, or dissertation, feels a range of potentially conflicting emotions. Eager, but with a sense of trepidation. Enthusiastic, while also uneasy. Excited, yet somewhat anxious. Such sentiments are a normal part of the human condition. We fear the unknown. We are wary of walking on new ground where we have not trodden before. This is why educational institutions recommend you start your research journey with a map. In other words, a research proposal that sketches out the route.

A research proposal is a written document, separate to your thesis. In your proposal, you pose a question and set out how you plan to answer it in a structured way. To ensure your proposal is credible, you need to ascertain what you want to do, say why you want to do it and explain how you plan to do it. All within the time available.

Recently we at Thesis Upgrade worked with a student, Alex Scofield, who was preparing to write a dissertation for his MSc in Human Resource Management. “I spent hours drinking coffee, trying to work out how to start. I was overthinking the purpose of my research. Agonising about my topic. Chopping and changing my research questions”, he said. A friend advised Alex to use Thesis Upgrade’s publication, Developing Your Research Proposal, as his roadmap.

The book describes the information and tools you need to successfully write a coherent proposal. Whether it is choosing a topic, identifying a problem to research, defining your research statement, or formulating questions and hypotheses, this guide can help. It also assists you with planning your approach, designing a project plan and bringing your ideas together into a robust proposal document.

“Initially, I was not able to decide on a topic to study, or to set clear aims and objectives. My problem was not knowing how to turn my research idea into a proposal with clear objectives and rigorous hypotheses,” said Alex. “I bought the book online for less than the price of a cup of coffee. It was only €1.99! It helped me get organised, scope my project, generate key ideas and structure the main content in my proposal”, he continued. As a result, Alex wrote a great research proposal. “I was really stuck at the start”, he confided, “but Thesis Upgrade’s book helped me draft a realistic project plan and develop a great research proposal. Even my supervisor said I wrote an excellent proposal!”

Like Alex, make your supervisor proud! Download our digital resources to help you develop a robust, and feasible, research proposal. Buy now for immediate use.

A reference list serves two main purposes. First, to provide more detailed information on in-text citations. Second, to enable readers to track down your source material. Students often ask us, at Thesis Upgrade, to advise on the key elements they should include in their reference lists.

When writing up your list of references, the first step is to understand the system you are using. Most institutions draw on one of the principal referencing systems, such as Oxford, Harvard, MLA, American Sociological Association (ASA) and American Psychological Association (APA). Their conventions are widely known, widely disseminated and widely applied, and, thus, easily interpreted by users. Each of these systems has its advantages and disadvantages, which is why a particular institution may select one over another. In addition, institutions can adapt, change or add to their chosen system. It is, therefore, not unusual to find that you have to adhere to the ‘X’ University Harvard Referencing System. Furthermore, some professions, such as law, prefer to rely on systems that suit the types of documents they tend to utilise.

Referencing systems typically contain the same fundamental elements. We will examine the elements normally included when using the Harvard system, as it is the most widespread classification used in Business and Humanities.

What are the fundamental elements of the Harvard system?

The fundamental elements are the key pieces of information that help readers track down a source you have mentioned in your thesis or dissertation. They usually consist of the author/editor, year of publication, title, publication place and publisher. For web-based sources, additional information is required, such as, URLs, access/download dates and digital object identifiers.

The most valuable piece of information to have, whether you walk into a physical library or bookstore, or go online to search, is the author’s family name, followed by their initials or first names. Knowing when the item was ‘published’ (made public) is the next most important. There is no point in looking at the contemporary issues of journals in the library, if the item being sought was published in 1953! The title is next in line of importance, followed by the place of publication and the name of the publisher. Equipped with this limited amount of information, it is usually quite easy to track down a cited source.

Where do I find the fundamental elements of the Harvard system?

The elements for inclusion for any source tend to be found in the source item itself. For example, when Harvard referencing books (printed and online), refer to the front cover or title page to see what information is listed there. For printed journal articles, the title is included in both the table of contents for the issue and at the beginning of the article itself. With online journals, the information is usually given at the top of the first page of the article (which can be before or after the title).

For other digital material, such as a company website, the key elements are not always obvious. Check out the top and bottom of the home page (also called landing page). You should also look out for legal information (often at the bottom of a page) or logos (often at the top of a page) that contain the name of the author/publisher and consult the web address in the address bar. Alternatively, while on the home page, right-click on the mouse and select ‘properties’. This will often display the date the page was last updated or modified.

What is the most crucial element to include in a reference?

In all cases, the most important element to mention is the name of the author(s) or editor(s). If these names are numerous (four or more authors/editors), you can reference the first family name followed by et al. (meaning ‘and others’). Alternatively, if your institution requires referencing of all named authors, list all the authors. For example, Adams, A.B., Harris, G., Miller, F., Banker, P.B., and Gordon, M.L. (2023). Regardless of which format you are required to comply with, always put the family name first, followed by the initial(s) of given/first names.

Some publications are produced by companies or organisations, so if you unable to locate an author’s name, you can refer to the corporate body as the author (for example, National Referencing Board). If the publication is written by one, or more, editors, signify this by using the short form of (ed.) or (eds) after their name or names. For instance, Smith, G. and Jones, A. (eds).

It is poor academic practice to employ the word ‘anonymous’ or the abbreviation ‘anon.’ If the author/editor is unspecified, or no author/editor can be identified, the protocol is to lead with the title of the work.

What other key elements should be included?

The second most important element is the year/date of publication. This is usually given between round brackets after the name of the author/editor. For example, Smith, G. and Jones, A. (2023). Only if no date of publication can be established, can you use the phrase ‘no date’. For instance, Smith, G. and Jones, A. (no date). Please do not be tempted to rely on ‘no date’ if you are simply too lazy to find out! Most readers of a thesis or dissertation are subject matter experts, so will know the seminal material for the topic. In other words, they will know if you are bluffing!

After the author(s), and the year/date, the next key element of referencing is the title. It is important to provide the whole title as given, together with any subtitle. For example, Studying and working in psychology: A student and practitioner guide.

You may sometimes see the edition of the source material given in a reference. In such cases, only incorporate the edition number if the item you are citing is not the first edition, or if it is a revised edition. The word edition tends to be shortened to edn. This is to avoid confusion with the abbreviation ed. or eds., which is for editor or editors. For example, 3rd edn., or Rev. edn., or 4th rev. edn. If you are referring to the first edition of a publication, there is no need to state the version, as it is assumed and understood.

The next most important elements are the place of publication and publisher, but these are only required for printed (hard copy) material. It is usual to separate the place of publication and the publisher by a colon, for example, London: Hawk Publishing. If the source is digital (soft copy), it is treated differently (see sections on URLs and DOIs).

Sometimes you may find there are international editions of a publication. If there is more than one place of publication, only mention the one most local to you. For places of publication in the United States, add the abbreviated US state name (unless otherwise obvious). For example, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. If you are referencing online sources, the ‘place’ is not always known, but other information, such as URLs or DOIs, act as the proxy for an online address.

For books, the next key element is the series/volume. Indicate a series and individual volume number, if relevant, after the publisher’s name. For example, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Global Series, 60.

For journals, the equivalent of the series/volume information is the issue. When this is known/provided, you should represent the information in the following order: volume number (issue/part number) and/or date or season. For example, 87(3); or 19 July; or summer.

Should I include page numbers?

It is easy to confuse page number requirements for in-text citations, versus the requirements for citations contained in the references list. Page numbers are used in the reference list when referring to chapters in books and serial articles (such as journals, magazines and newspapers). The abbreviation p. is utilised for a single page and pp. for more than one page. For example, London: Rich Press, pp. 92–99. Page numbers are written in full, not an abridged version, in a reference list. So, for instance, pp. 90–9 is not an acceptable abbreviation, but pp. 92-99 is.

Should I include an IBSN?

International Standard Book Numbers (ISBNs) represent unique identifiers for books. They thus help eliminate confusion about editions and reprints. ISBNs are, however, not commonly used in reference lists.

Should I include URLs?

With digital sources, such as web pages, it is usual to incorporate web addresses, also known as Uniform Resource Locators (URLs). The long version of an URL can be shortened so long as the route remains clear. You should cite the date you retrieved the item. For example, for a web page, ‘accessed: 3 April 2023’, or for a podcast, ‘downloaded: 3 2023’. If material is also available in hard copy, and you have accessed it online, you should also indicate the URL, in addition to the access/download date.

Are DOIs the same as URLs?

The simple answer is ‘no’. Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) are used to tag individual digital (online) sources, ranging from journal articles to conference papers and presentations. You, or your reader, can locate a source by entering its DOI in an internet search engine. The DOI denotes a unique number pinpointing the publisher, work and issue information. A DOI is usually situated at the bottom of a webpage. If a DOI is provided, it should replace the URL in the reference list. When referencing a DOI, cite it in lower case. For example, Horch, E.P. and Zhou, J. (2012) ‘Charge-coupled device speckle observations of binary stars’, Astronomical Journal, 136, pp. 312–322. doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/1/312. As the DOI is the permanent identifier for the source, it is not necessary to refer to an accessed date.

In conclusion, the basic information included in all in-text citations is the author’s name. Armed with this, a reader should be able to go to your reference list and find the full details of the material being cited. Apart from the most prolific writers, a name alone will tend to narrow down any search to a manageable number of items. Even if there are no other elements available, referencing the author/editor points the reader in the right direction and avoids accusations of plagiarism. The more information you can provide, the easier this task becomes. Referencing convention suggests that the year in which the item is ‘published’ follows the author’s or editor’s name, thereafter by the title, the place of publication and the publisher’s name (or equivalent). Increasingly, materials are also being made available digitally and online, so further information, such as URLs and DOIs, can help readers find the sources you have cited in your reference list.

Sue and Mark, the Directors of Thesis Upgrade, can help you decide on what information should go into the reference list for your thesis or dissertation. So, contact us now!