phd thesis contributions

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

Table of Contents

Research Contribution

Definition:

Research contribution refers to a novel and significant addition to a particular field of study that advances the existing knowledge, theories, or practices. It could involve new discoveries, original ideas, innovative methods, or insightful interpretations that contribute to the understanding, development, or improvement of a specific research area.

Research Contribution in Thesis

In a thesis , the research contribution is the original and novel aspect of the research that adds new knowledge to the field. It can be a new theory , a new methodology , a new empirical finding, or a new application of existing knowledge.

To identify the research contribution of your thesis, you need to consider the following:

• What problem are you addressing in your research? What is the research gap that you are filling?
• What is your research question or hypothesis, and how does it relate to the problem you are addressing?
• What methodology have you used to investigate your research question or hypothesis, and why is it appropriate?
• What are the main findings of your research, and how do they contribute to the field?
• What are the implications of your research findings for theory, practice, or policy?

Once you have identified your research contribution, you should clearly articulate it in your thesis abstract, introduction, and conclusion. You should also explain how your research contribution relates to the existing literature and how it advances the field. Finally, you should discuss the limitations of your research and suggest future directions for research that build on your contribution.

How to Write Research Contribution

Here are some steps you can follow to write a strong research contribution:

• Define the research problem and research question : Clearly state the problem or gap in the literature that your research aims to address. Formulate a research question that your study will answer.
• Conduct a thorough literature review: Review the existing literature related to your research question. Identify the gaps in knowledge that your research fills.
• Describe the research design and methodology : Explain the research design, methods, and procedures you used to collect and analyze data. This includes any statistical analysis or data visualization techniques.
• Present the findings: Clearly present your findings, including any statistical analyses or data visualizations that support your conclusions. This should be done in a clear and concise manner, and the conclusions should be based on the evidence you’ve presented.
• Discuss the implications of the findings: Describe the significance of your findings and the implications they have for the field of study. This may include recommendations for future research or practical applications of your findings.
• Conclusion : Summarize the main points of your research contribution and restate its significance.

When to Write Research Contribution in Thesis

A research contribution should be included in the thesis when the research work adds a novel and significant value to the existing body of knowledge. The research contribution section of a thesis is the opportunity for the researcher to articulate the unique contributions their work has made to the field.

Typically, the research contribution section appears towards the end of the thesis, after the literature review, methodology, results, and analysis sections. In this section, the researcher should summarize the key findings and their implications for the field, highlighting the novel aspects of the work.

Example of Research Contribution in Thesis

An example of a research contribution in a thesis can be:

“The study found that there was a significant relationship between social media usage and academic performance among college students. The findings also revealed that students who spent more time on social media had lower GPAs than those who spent less time on social media. These findings are original and contribute to the literature on the impact of social media on academic performance, providing insights that can inform policies and practices for improving students’ academic success.”

Another example of a research contribution in a thesis:

“The research identified a novel method for improving the efficiency of solar panels by incorporating nanostructured materials. The results showed that the use of these materials increased the conversion efficiency of solar panels by up to 30%, which is a significant improvement over traditional methods. This contribution advances the field of renewable energy by providing a new approach to enhancing the performance of solar panels, with potential applications in both residential and commercial settings.”

Purpose of Research Contribution

Purpose of Research Contribution are as follows:

Here are some examples of research contributions that can be included in a thesis:

• Development of a new theoretical framework or model
• Creation of a novel methodology or research approach
• Discovery of new empirical evidence or data
• Application of existing theories or methods in a new context
• Identification of gaps in the existing literature and proposing solutions
• Providing a comprehensive review and analysis of existing literature in a particular field
• Critically evaluating existing theories or models and proposing improvements or alternatives
• Making a significant contribution to policy or practice in a particular field.

Advantages of Research Contribution

Including research contributions in your thesis can offer several advantages, including:

• Establishing originality: Research contributions help demonstrate that your work is original and unique, and not simply a rehashing of existing research. It shows that you have made a new and valuable contribution to the field.
• Adding value to the field : By highlighting your research contributions, you are demonstrating the value that your work adds to the field. This can help other researchers build on your work and advance the field further.
• Differentiating yourself: In academic and professional contexts, it’s important to differentiate yourself from others. Including research contributions in your thesis can help you stand out from other researchers in your field, potentially leading to opportunities for collaboration, networking, or future job prospects.
• Providing clarity : By articulating your research contributions, you are providing clarity to your readers about what you have achieved. This can help ensure that your work is properly understood and appreciated by others.
• Enhancing credibility : Including research contributions in your thesis can enhance your credibility as a researcher, demonstrating that you have the skills and knowledge necessary to make valuable contributions to your field. This can help you build a strong reputation in the academic community.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

How to make an original contribution to knowledge

“The thesis can address small gaps within saturated research areas.”

When PhD candidates embark on their thesis journey, the first thing they will likely learn is that their research must be a “significant original contribution to knowledge.” On the face of it, the idea seems simple enough: create something new, establish a niche for oneself, further science and add some important piece to the sum of human understanding. And yet, there is little to no consensus as to what exactly this phrase means. This lack of consensus is particularly challenging for students, as it opens them up to risk in matters of external review and their graduate school progression.

Aside from the risk it poses to student’s success (for example, attrition), an ill-defined standard for the contribution to knowledge creates risks for the student during the external examination of the thesis. This can happen in two ways.

First, an external examiner may have biases towards pet theories or concepts and may dismiss the work if he or she does not agree with the opinions presented. Arguably more disastrous, supervisors themselves may recommend that a thesis be put forward for defence which the external examiner feels is not significant. This misplaced confidence can result in the entire work being disregarded, or the shattering award of a conciliatory master of philosophy.

Fortunately, there are ways to both clarify the concept of a significant original contribution to knowledge and to prepare to defend it.  After all, “to escape with a PhD, you must meaningfully extend the boundary of human knowledge. More exactly, you must convince a panel of experts guarding the boundary that you have done so,” says Matt Might, an assistant professor at the University of Utah and author of The Illustrated Guide to a Ph.D .

The first step for PhD students is to recognize that a thesis will be built on other people’s work in a rigorous, precise way and is not expected to lead to an immediate and fundamental paradigm shift in the field. On this point, the best PhD theses investigate a circumscribed area, rather than overselling the originality or expertise. The significant original contribution emerges from small gaps within saturated research areas as novel interpretations or applications of old ideas. The researcher can accomplish this in many ways, for example, by creating a synthesis, by providing a single original technique, or by testing existing knowledge in an original manner. Although the thesis has to be innovative, this doesn’t necessarily mean revolutionizing the existing discourse; there is also value in adding new perspectives.

Similarly, and partly because of the time required to complete a doctoral degree, students must resist becoming wrapped up in what they’re looking at in the moment and thus forgetting the big picture. This is especially true for people writing manuscript-style theses in the natural sciences, which represent many small parts of an overarching idea and contribution.

To mitigate this tendency to digress, and to supress any panic around a “crisis of meaning,” doctoral students should at all times be able to summarize their significant original contribution in two sentences. From an examiner’s perspective, it is critical to include this in the dissertation itself – nailing it in the second sentence of the abstract allows the examiner to focus on the justification and verification of this statement. Having a well-bounded and clear idea of one’s contribution contextualizes the work and can protect the student from undue criticism.

Ultimately, it is up to the individual candidates to justify their significant original contribution. Being aware of the indistinctness of these criteria, they must make a concentrated effort to keep track of this contribution, be able to defend it and keep it at the forefront of their minds when their confidence begins to flag. This is always an iterative process, starting with a literature review and later comparing results against the significance of other works.

To protect themselves against overconfidence and insularity, students must look beyond their supervisor and department throughout their PhD program by trying to publish, presenting papers at conferences and discussing the work in as many spheres as possible to get feedback. These activities will not only serve to bolster the inward and outward argument for the research but will also help manage the risk of receiving a nasty surprise when it comes time to defend.

Making a small, significant contribution to knowledge remains the standard against which a PhD dissertation is measured; for their own sake and the sake of their research, students must learn to embrace it.

Heather Cray is a doctoral student in the department of environment and resource studies at the University of Waterloo.

Other stories that might be of interest:

• The PhD is in need of revision
• Margin Notes | PhD completion rates and times to completion in Canada

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Thanks for this issue raised here. it has been a problem eating me up. I am just finalising a doctoral in Mathematics, but the contribution to knowledge is not too clear to me. reading through this piece however kindled something in me. How I wish some specific s were given in the sciences, it could help further. thanks anyway.

Hi, thank you for this great article. I have read it a couple times and have saved it for future reference to help other colleagues.

Could you please clarify one thing? Thank you.

Are you saying that filling a gap is what will become the contribution to knowledge. I.e let’s say I notice that there is a limited exploration of x so the purpose of this study is to a b c. Is ABC my contribution to knowledge? Thank you in advance.

Very interesting article! At what point and to what extent would the “contribution to knowledge” be simply that? While I appreciate the relevance of your article, I agree with the above comment about vagueness. How DOES one relay the “knowledge” to research and make it applicable?

Oh, great! Thank you for this concise discourse. It demystifies the misunderstanding around Contribution to Knowledge. Very helpful.

I am a student in a professional doctorate program in the UK. I am having a great difficulty with my advisor on exactly this issue. What is the original contribution to knowledge of my project. I chose a Health Policy research project that will showcase the state of a certain health system with regards to oncology care and it will evaluate the quality of clinical care based on the current standard of care. This a study that hasn’t been done before and I feel that this is my original contribution to knowledge. My advisor insists that this is a needs assessment and that there is no original contribution to knowledge. This issue has been bringing me down for about 2 years now. I don’t know what to do. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Original contribution doesn’t have to be about inventing the wheel. It boils down to you looking at the gap in literature, theory and praxis which your work is filling. Look at what you have brought newly which previous studies have not considered. You perspective to the issue is the original knowledge you are bringing to the table.

• Manuscript Preparation

Know How to Structure Your PhD Thesis

• 4 minute read
• 32.8K views

Table of Contents

In your academic career, few projects are more important than your PhD thesis. Unfortunately, many university professors and advisors assume that their students know how to structure a PhD. Books have literally been written on the subject, but there’s no need to read a book in order to know about PhD thesis paper format and structure. With that said, however, it’s important to understand that your PhD thesis format requirement may not be the same as another student’s. The bottom line is that how to structure a PhD thesis often depends on your university and department guidelines.

But, let’s take a look at a general PhD thesis format. We’ll look at the main sections, and how to connect them to each other. We’ll also examine different hints and tips for each of the sections. As you read through this toolkit, compare it to published PhD theses in your area of study to see how a real-life example looks.

Main Sections of a PhD Thesis

In almost every PhD thesis or dissertation, there are standard sections. Of course, some of these may differ, depending on your university or department requirements, as well as your topic of study, but this will give you a good idea of the basic components of a PhD thesis format.

• Abstract : The abstract is a brief summary that quickly outlines your research, touches on each of the main sections of your thesis, and clearly outlines your contribution to the field by way of your PhD thesis. Even though the abstract is very short, similar to what you’ve seen in published research articles, its impact shouldn’t be underestimated. The abstract is there to answer the most important question to the reviewer. “Why is this important?”
• Introduction : In this section, you help the reviewer understand your entire dissertation, including what your paper is about, why it’s important to the field, a brief description of your methodology, and how your research and the thesis are laid out. Think of your introduction as an expansion of your abstract.
• Literature Review : Within the literature review, you are making a case for your new research by telling the story of the work that’s already been done. You’ll cover a bit about the history of the topic at hand, and how your study fits into the present and future.
• Theory Framework : Here, you explain assumptions related to your study. Here you’re explaining to the review what theoretical concepts you might have used in your research, how it relates to existing knowledge and ideas.
• Methods : This section of a PhD thesis is typically the most detailed and descriptive, depending of course on your research design. Here you’ll discuss the specific techniques you used to get the information you were looking for, in addition to how those methods are relevant and appropriate, as well as how you specifically used each method described.
• Results : Here you present your empirical findings. This section is sometimes also called the “empiracles” chapter. This section is usually pretty straightforward and technical, and full of details. Don’t shortcut this chapter.
• Discussion : This can be a tricky chapter, because it’s where you want to show the reviewer that you know what you’re talking about. You need to speak as a PhD versus a student. The discussion chapter is similar to the empirical/results chapter, but you’re building on those results to push the new information that you learned, prior to making your conclusion.
• Conclusion : Here, you take a step back and reflect on what your original goals and intentions for the research were. You’ll outline them in context of your new findings and expertise.

Tips for your PhD Thesis Format

As you put together your PhD thesis, it’s easy to get a little overwhelmed. Here are some tips that might keep you on track.

• Don’t try to write your PhD as a first-draft. Every great masterwork has typically been edited, and edited, and…edited.
• Work with your thesis supervisor to plan the structure and format of your PhD thesis. Be prepared to rewrite each section, as you work out rough drafts. Don’t get discouraged by this process. It’s typical.
• Make your writing interesting. Academic writing has a reputation of being very dry.
• You don’t have to necessarily work on the chapters and sections outlined above in chronological order. Work on each section as things come up, and while your work on that section is relevant to what you’re doing.
• Don’t rush things. Write a first draft, and leave it for a few days, so you can come back to it with a more critical take. Look at it objectively and carefully grammatical errors, clarity, logic and flow.
• Know what style your references need to be in, and utilize tools out there to organize them in the required format.
• It’s easier to accidentally plagiarize than you think. Make sure you’re referencing appropriately, and check your document for inadvertent plagiarism throughout your writing process.

PhD Thesis Editing Plus

Want some support during your PhD writing process? Our PhD Thesis Editing Plus service includes extensive and detailed editing of your thesis to improve the flow and quality of your writing. Unlimited editing support for guaranteed results. Learn more here , and get started today!

• Publication Process

Journal Acceptance Rates: Everything You Need to Know

• Publication Recognition

How to Make a PowerPoint Presentation of Your Research Paper

You may also like.

Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider

The Clear Path to An Impactful Paper: ②

The Essentials of Writing to Communicate Research in Medicine

Changing Lines: Sentence Patterns in Academic Writing

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Tips for writing a PhD dissertation: FAQs answered

From how to choose a topic to writing the abstract and managing work-life balance through the years it takes to complete a doctorate, here we collect expert advice to get you through the PhD writing process

Campus team

Additional links.

• More on this topic

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} Emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn?

A diy guide to starting your own journal, universities, ai and the common good, artificial intelligence and academic integrity: striking a balance, create an onboarding programme for neurodivergent students.

Embarking on a PhD is “probably the most challenging task that a young scholar attempts to do”, write Mark Stephan Felix and Ian Smith in their practical guide to dissertation and thesis writing. After years of reading and research to answer a specific question or proposition, the candidate will submit about 80,000 words that explain their methods and results and demonstrate their unique contribution to knowledge. Here are the answers to frequently asked questions about writing a doctoral thesis or dissertation.

What’s the difference between a dissertation and a thesis?

Whatever the genre of the doctorate, a PhD must offer an original contribution to knowledge. The terms “dissertation” and “thesis” both refer to the long-form piece of work produced at the end of a research project and are often used interchangeably. Which one is used might depend on the country, discipline or university. In the UK, “thesis” is generally used for the work done for a PhD, while a “dissertation” is written for a master’s degree. The US did the same until the 1960s, says Oxbridge Essays, when the convention switched, and references appeared to a “master’s thesis” and “doctoral dissertation”. To complicate matters further, undergraduate long essays are also sometimes referred to as a thesis or dissertation.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “thesis” as “a dissertation, especially by a candidate for a degree” and “dissertation” as “a detailed discourse on a subject, especially one submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of a degree or diploma”.

• Ten platinum rules for PhD supervisors
• Fostering freedom in PhD students: how supervisors can shape accessible paths for doctoral research
• Lessons from students on effective research supervision

The title “doctor of philosophy”, incidentally, comes from the degree’s origins, write Dr Felix, an associate professor at Mahidol University in Thailand, and Dr Smith, retired associate professor of education at the University of Sydney , whose co-authored guide focuses on the social sciences. The PhD was first awarded in the 19th century by the philosophy departments of German universities, which at that time taught science, social science and liberal arts.

How long should a PhD thesis be?

A PhD thesis (or dissertation) is typically 60,000 to 120,000 words ( 100 to 300 pages in length ) organised into chapters, divisions and subdivisions (with roughly 10,000 words per chapter) – from introduction (with clear aims and objectives) to conclusion.

The structure of a dissertation will vary depending on discipline (humanities, social sciences and STEM all have their own conventions), location and institution. Examples and guides to structure proliferate online. The University of Salford , for example, lists: title page, declaration, acknowledgements, abstract, table of contents, lists of figures, tables and abbreviations (where needed), chapters, appendices and references.

A scientific-style thesis will likely need: introduction, literature review, materials and methods, results, discussion, bibliography and references.

As well as checking the overall criteria and expectations of your institution for your research, consult your school handbook for the required length and format (font, layout conventions and so on) for your dissertation.

A PhD takes three to four years to complete; this might extend to six to eight years for a part-time doctorate.

What are the steps for completing a PhD?

Before you get started in earnest , you’ll likely have found a potential supervisor, who will guide your PhD journey, and done a research proposal (which outlines what you plan to research and how) as part of your application, as well as a literature review of existing scholarship in the field, which may form part of your final submission.

In the UK, PhD candidates undertake original research and write the results in a thesis or dissertation, says author and vlogger Simon Clark , who posted videos to YouTube throughout his own PhD journey . Then they submit the thesis in hard copy and attend the viva voce (which is Latin for “living voice” and is also called an oral defence or doctoral defence) to convince the examiners that their work is original, understood and all their own. Afterwards, if necessary, they make changes and resubmit. If the changes are approved, the degree is awarded.

The steps are similar in Australia , although candidates are mostly assessed on their thesis only; some universities may include taught courses, and some use a viva voce. A PhD in Australia usually takes three years full time.

In the US, the PhD process begins with taught classes (similar to a taught master’s) and a comprehensive exam (called a “field exam” or “dissertation qualifying exam”) before the candidate embarks on their original research. The whole journey takes four to six years.

A PhD candidate will need three skills and attitudes to get through their doctoral studies, says Tara Brabazon , professor of cultural studies at Flinders University in Australia who has written extensively about the PhD journey :

• master the academic foundational skills (research, writing, ability to navigate different modalities)
• time-management skills and the ability to focus on reading and writing
• determined motivation to do a PhD.

How do I choose the topic for my PhD dissertation or thesis?

It’s important to find a topic that will sustain your interest for the years it will take to complete a PhD. “Finding a sustainable topic is the most important thing you [as a PhD student] would do,” says Dr Brabazon in a video for Times Higher Education . “Write down on a big piece of paper all the topics, all the ideas, all the questions that really interest you, and start to cross out all the ones that might just be a passing interest.” Also, she says, impose the “Who cares? Who gives a damn?” question to decide if the topic will be useful in a future academic career.

The availability of funding and scholarships is also often an important factor in this decision, says veteran PhD supervisor Richard Godwin, from Harper Adams University .

Define a gap in knowledge – and one that can be questioned, explored, researched and written about in the time available to you, says Gina Wisker, head of the Centre for Learning and Teaching at the University of Brighton. “Set some boundaries,” she advises. “Don’t try to ask everything related to your topic in every way.”

James Hartley, research professor in psychology at Keele University, says it can also be useful to think about topics that spark general interest. If you do pick something that taps into the zeitgeist, your findings are more likely to be noticed.

You also need to find someone else who is interested in it, too. For STEM candidates , this will probably be a case of joining a team of people working in a similar area where, ideally, scholarship funding is available. A centre for doctoral training (CDT) or doctoral training partnership (DTP) will advertise research projects. For those in the liberal arts and social sciences, it will be a matter of identifying a suitable supervisor .

Avoid topics that are too broad (hunger across a whole country, for example) or too narrow (hunger in a single street) to yield useful solutions of academic significance, write Mark Stephan Felix and Ian Smith. And ensure that you’re not repeating previous research or trying to solve a problem that has already been answered. A PhD thesis must be original.

What is a thesis proposal?

After you have read widely to refine your topic and ensure that it and your research methods are original, and discussed your project with a (potential) supervisor, you’re ready to write a thesis proposal , a document of 1,500 to 3,000 words that sets out the proposed direction of your research. In the UK, a research proposal is usually part of the application process for admission to a research degree. As with the final dissertation itself, format varies among disciplines, institutions and countries but will usually contain title page, aims, literature review, methodology, timetable and bibliography. Examples of research proposals are available online.

How to write an abstract for a dissertation or thesis

The abstract presents your thesis to the wider world – and as such may be its most important element , says the NUI Galway writing guide. It outlines the why, how, what and so what of the thesis . Unlike the introduction, which provides background but not research findings, the abstract summarises all sections of the dissertation in a concise, thorough, focused way and demonstrates how well the writer understands their material. Check word-length limits with your university – and stick to them. About 300 to 500 words is a rough guide ­– but it can be up to 1,000 words.

The abstract is also important for selection and indexing of your thesis, according to the University of Melbourne guide , so be sure to include searchable keywords.

It is the first thing to be read but the last element you should write. However, Pat Thomson , professor of education at the University of Nottingham , advises that it is not something to be tackled at the last minute.

How to write a stellar conclusion

As well as chapter conclusions, a thesis often has an overall conclusion to draw together the key points covered and to reflect on the unique contribution to knowledge. It can comment on future implications of the research and open up new ideas emanating from the work. It is shorter and more general than the discussion chapter , says online editing site Scribbr, and reiterates how the work answers the main question posed at the beginning of the thesis. The conclusion chapter also often discusses the limitations of the research (time, scope, word limit, access) in a constructive manner.

It can be useful to keep a collection of ideas as you go – in the online forum DoctoralWriting SIG , academic developer Claire Aitchison, of the University of South Australia , suggests using a “conclusions bank” for themes and inspirations, and using free-writing to keep this final section fresh. (Just when you feel you’ve run out of steam.) Avoid aggrandising or exaggerating the impact of your work. It should remind the reader what has been done, and why it matters.

How to format a bibliography (or where to find a reliable model)

Most universities use a preferred style of references , writes THE associate editor Ingrid Curl. Make sure you know what this is and follow it. “One of the most common errors in academic writing is to cite papers in the text that do not then appear in the bibliography. All references in your thesis need to be cross-checked with the bibliography before submission. Using a database during your research can save a great deal of time in the writing-up process.”

A bibliography contains not only works cited explicitly but also those that have informed or contributed to the research – and as such illustrates its scope; works are not limited to written publications but include sources such as film or visual art.

Examiners can start marking from the back of the script, writes Dr Brabazon. “Just as cooks are judged by their ingredients and implements, we judge doctoral students by the calibre of their sources,” she advises. She also says that candidates should be prepared to speak in an oral examination of the PhD about any texts included in their bibliography, especially if there is a disconnect between the thesis and the texts listed.

Can I use informal language in my PhD?

Don’t write like a stereotypical academic , say Kevin Haggerty, professor of sociology at the University of Alberta , and Aaron Doyle, associate professor in sociology at Carleton University , in their tongue-in-cheek guide to the PhD journey. “If you cannot write clearly and persuasively, everything about PhD study becomes harder.” Avoid jargon, exotic words, passive voice and long, convoluted sentences – and work on it consistently. “Writing is like playing guitar; it can improve only through consistent, concerted effort.”

Be deliberate and take care with your writing . “Write your first draft, leave it and then come back to it with a critical eye. Look objectively at the writing and read it closely for style and sense,” advises THE ’s Ms Curl. “Look out for common errors such as dangling modifiers, subject-verb disagreement and inconsistency. If you are too involved with the text to be able to take a step back and do this, then ask a friend or colleague to read it with a critical eye. Remember Hemingway’s advice: ‘Prose is architecture, not interior decoration.’ Clarity is key.”

How often should a PhD candidate meet with their supervisor?

Since the PhD supervisor provides a range of support and advice – including on research techniques, planning and submission – regular formal supervisions are essential, as is establishing a line of contact such as email if the candidate needs help or advice outside arranged times. The frequency varies according to university, discipline and individual scholars.

Once a week is ideal, says Dr Brabazon. She also advocates a two-hour initial meeting to establish the foundations of the candidate-supervisor relationship .

The University of Edinburgh guide to writing a thesis suggests that creating a timetable of supervisor meetings right at the beginning of the research process will allow candidates to ensure that their work stays on track throughout. The meetings are also the place to get regular feedback on draft chapters.

“A clear structure and a solid framework are vital for research,” writes Dr Godwin on THE Campus . Use your supervisor to establish this and provide a realistic view of what can be achieved. “It is vital to help students identify the true scientific merit, the practical significance of their work and its value to society.”

How to proofread your dissertation (what to look for)

Proofreading is the final step before printing and submission. Give yourself time to ensure that your work is the best it can be . Don’t leave proofreading to the last minute; ideally, break it up into a few close-reading sessions. Find a quiet place without distractions. A checklist can help ensure that all aspects are covered.

Proofing is often helped by a change of format – so it can be easier to read a printout rather than working off the screen – or by reading sections out of order. Fresh eyes are better at spotting typographical errors and inconsistencies, so leave time between writing and proofreading. Check with your university’s policies before asking another person to proofread your thesis for you.

As well as close details such as spelling and grammar, check that all sections are complete, all required elements are included , and nothing is repeated or redundant. Don’t forget to check headings and subheadings. Does the text flow from one section to another? Is the structure clear? Is the work a coherent whole with a clear line throughout?

Ensure consistency in, for example, UK v US spellings, capitalisation, format, numbers (digits or words, commas, units of measurement), contractions, italics and hyphenation. Spellchecks and online plagiarism checkers are also your friend.

How do you manage your time to complete a PhD dissertation?

Treat your PhD like a full-time job, that is, with an eight-hour working day. Within that, you’ll need to plan your time in a way that gives a sense of progress . Setbacks and periods where it feels as if you are treading water are all but inevitable, so keeping track of small wins is important, writes A Happy PhD blogger Luis P. Prieto.

Be specific with your goals – use the SMART acronym (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and timely).

And it’s never too soon to start writing – even if early drafts are overwritten and discarded.

“ Write little and write often . Many of us make the mistake of taking to writing as one would take to a sprint, in other words, with relatively short bursts of intense activity. Whilst this can prove productive, generally speaking it is not sustainable…In addition to sustaining your activity, writing little bits on a frequent basis ensures that you progress with your thinking. The comfort of remaining in abstract thought is common; writing forces us to concretise our thinking,” says Christian Gilliam, AHSS researcher developer at the University of Cambridge ’s Centre for Teaching and Learning.

Make time to write. “If you are more alert early in the day, find times that suit you in the morning; if you are a ‘night person’, block out some writing sessions in the evenings,” advises NUI Galway’s Dermot Burns, a lecturer in English and creative arts. Set targets, keep daily notes of experiment details that you will need in your thesis, don’t confuse writing with editing or revising – and always back up your work.

What work-life balance tips should I follow to complete my dissertation?

During your PhD programme, you may have opportunities to take part in professional development activities, such as teaching, attending academic conferences and publishing your work. Your research may include residencies, field trips or archive visits. This will require time-management skills as well as prioritising where you devote your energy and factoring in rest and relaxation. Organise your routine to suit your needs , and plan for steady and regular progress.

How to deal with setbacks while writing a thesis or dissertation

Have a contingency plan for delays or roadblocks such as unexpected results.

Accept that writing is messy, first drafts are imperfect, and writer’s block is inevitable, says Dr Burns. His tips for breaking it include relaxation to free your mind from clutter, writing a plan and drawing a mind map of key points for clarity. He also advises feedback, reflection and revision: “Progressing from a rough version of your thoughts to a superior and workable text takes time, effort, different perspectives and some expertise.”

“Academia can be a relentlessly brutal merry-go-round of rejection, rebuttal and failure,” writes Lorraine Hope , professor of applied cognitive psychology at the University of Portsmouth, on THE Campus. Resilience is important. Ensure that you and your supervisor have a relationship that supports open, frank, judgement-free communication.

If you found this interesting and want advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the THE Campus newsletter .

Authoring a PhD Thesis: How to Plan, Draft, Write and Finish a Doctoral Dissertation (2003), by Patrick Dunleavy

Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day: A Guide to Starting, Revising, and Finishing Your Doctoral Thesis (1998), by Joan Balker

Challenges in Writing Your Dissertation: Coping with the Emotional, Interpersonal, and Spiritual Struggles (2015), by Noelle Sterne

Emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn?

Global perspectives: navigating challenges in higher education across borders, how to help young women see themselves as coders, contextual learning: linking learning to the real world, authentic assessment in higher education and the role of digital creative technologies, how hard can it be testing ai detection tools.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

• What Is a PhD Thesis?
• Doing a PhD

This page will explain what a PhD thesis is and offer advice on how to write a good thesis, from outlining the typical structure to guiding you through the referencing. A summary of this page is as follows:

• A PhD thesis is a concentrated piece of original research which must be carried out by all PhD students in order to successfully earn their doctoral degree.
• The fundamental purpose of a thesis is to explain the conclusion that has been reached as a result of undertaking the research project.
• The typical PhD thesis structure will contain four chapters of original work sandwiched between a literature review chapter and a concluding chapter.
• There is no universal rule for the length of a thesis, but general guidelines set the word count between 70,000 to 100,000 words .

What Is a Thesis?

A thesis is the main output of a PhD as it explains your workflow in reaching the conclusions you have come to in undertaking the research project. As a result, much of the content of your thesis will be based around your chapters of original work.

For your thesis to be successful, it needs to adequately defend your argument and provide a unique or increased insight into your field that was not previously available. As such, you can’t rely on other ideas or results to produce your thesis; it needs to be an original piece of text that belongs to you and you alone.

What Should a Thesis Include?

Although each thesis will be unique, they will all follow the same general format. To demonstrate this, we’ve put together an example structure of a PhD thesis and explained what you should include in each section below.

Acknowledgements

This is a personal section which you may or may not choose to include. The vast majority of students include it, giving both gratitude and recognition to their supervisor, university, sponsor/funder and anyone else who has supported them along the way.

1. Introduction

Provide a brief overview of your reason for carrying out your research project and what you hope to achieve by undertaking it. Following this, explain the structure of your thesis to give the reader context for what he or she is about to read.

2. Literature Review

Set the context of your research by explaining the foundation of what is currently known within your field of research, what recent developments have occurred, and where the gaps in knowledge are. You should conclude the literature review by outlining the overarching aims and objectives of the research project.

3. Main Body

This section focuses on explaining all aspects of your original research and so will form the bulk of your thesis. Typically, this section will contain four chapters covering the below:

• your research/data collection methodologies,
• your results,
• a comprehensive analysis of your results,
• a detailed discussion of your findings.

Depending on your project, each of your chapters may independently contain the structure listed above or in some projects, each chapter could be focussed entirely on one aspect (e.g. a standalone results chapter). Ideally, each of these chapters should be formatted such that they could be translated into papers for submission to peer-reviewed journals. Therefore, following your PhD, you should be able to submit papers for peer-review by reusing content you have already produced.

4. Conclusion

The conclusion will be a summary of your key findings with emphasis placed on the new contributions you have made to your field.

When producing your conclusion, it’s imperative that you relate it back to your original research aims, objectives and hypotheses. Make sure you have answered your original question.

Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.

How Many Words Is a PhD Thesis?

A common question we receive from students is – “how long should my thesis be?“.

Every university has different guidelines on this matter, therefore, consult with your university to get an understanding of their full requirements. Generally speaking, most supervisors will suggest somewhere between 70,000 and 100,000 words . This usually corresponds to somewhere between 250 – 350 pages .

We must stress that this is flexible, and it is important not to focus solely on the length of your thesis, but rather the quality.

How Do I Format My Thesis?

Although the exact formatting requirements will vary depending on the university, the typical formatting policies adopted by most universities are:

What Happens When I Finish My Thesis?

After you have submitted your thesis, you will attend a viva . A viva is an interview-style examination during which you are required to defend your thesis and answer questions on it. The aim of the viva is to convince your examiners that your work is of the level required for a doctoral degree. It is one of the last steps in the PhD process and arguably one of the most daunting!

For more information on the viva process and for tips on how to confidently pass it, please refer to our in-depth PhD Viva Guide .

How Do I Publish My Thesis?

Unfortunately, you can’t publish your thesis in its entirety in a journal. However, universities can make it available for others to read through their library system.

If you want to submit your work in a journal, you will need to develop it into one or more peer-reviewed papers. This will largely involve reformatting, condensing and tailoring it to meet the standards of the journal you are targeting.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

Developing the PhD thesis project in relation to individual contexts: a multiple case study of five doctoral researchers

• Open access
• Published: 17 June 2022
• Volume 85 , pages 1143–1160, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Kelsey Inouye   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3961-3811 1  

5324 Accesses

2 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The early phase of doctoral education is a critical yet under-researched period in PhD programs, when doctoral researchers must solidify their thesis projects prior to embarking on data collection. What makes this time particularly challenging is that new doctoral researchers synthesize their research thinking while they are still learning the expectations and nature of PhD research. This study draws on Emirbayer and Mische’s ( 1998 ) chordal triad of agency to explore how PhD researchers’ goals and experiences (individual contexts) influence how they approach doctoral research and develop their thesis projects during the first year of the PhD. The results of this small-scale longitudinal multiple case study of five first-year UK PhD social science researchers suggest that there are at least three approaches PhD researchers may adopt in developing their research projects, influenced by personal histories and post-PhD goals—pragmatic/strategic, idealistic, and realistic. In turn, these approaches may change over time as PhD researchers acquire experience and encounter critical events. Implications include the need for attention to a diversity of PhD researchers’ needs and goals, which may necessitate additional support or training in tailored areas, and a call for questioning the capacity of PhD researchers to contribute to/stretch the structures surrounding thesis writing.

Similar content being viewed by others

A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis

David Byrne

Mixed methods research: what it is and what it could be

Rob Timans, Paul Wouters & Johan Heilbron

What is Qualitative in Research

Patrik Aspers & Ugo Corte

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

This study focuses on the individual experiences of five first-year social science PhD researchers at a UK university. In the UK as elsewhere, doctoral education has been recognized as central to the growing knowledge economy (Department for Education, 2017 ). The structure of UK doctoral programs has moved on from the apprenticeship model predominant in the 1980s to address concerns about attrition and career preparedness. It now includes integrated research training courses, graduate schools, research training courses, graduate schools, doctoral colleges, and doctoral training centers or partnerships (UK Council for Graduate Education, 2015 ). Alongside changes in training, the doctoral degree has diversified to include professional doctorates and thesis formats other than the traditional monograph—for instance, thesis by publication or integration. Current UK policy outlined in the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) Characteristics Statement declares that “All UK doctorates, regardless of their form, continue to require the main focus of the candidate's work to demonstrate an original contribution to knowledge” (QAA, 2020 , p. 3) and that doctoral graduates should be able to “think critically about problems to produce innovative solutions” as well as synthesize large bodies of information and communicate with diverse audiences (QAA, 2020 , p. 3). This policy statement sets the backdrop against which all UK doctorates should be assessed.

Transitioning into a doctoral program can be challenging, as PhD researchers must make the shift from consuming and analyzing knowledge to producing it (Lovitts, 2005 ; McPherson, et al., 2018 ). For those in the humanities and social sciences, engaging in a substantial piece of research also means a level of self-direction and isolation for which many PhD researchers do not feel prepared (Gardner, 2008 ). As such, doctoral education is often described as a transition from dependence to independence, associated with developing and taking on a new identity as a researcher (e.g., Green, 2005 ) and becoming part of the academic and disciplinary discourse community.

Existing research on the early stages of doctoral programs, meaning the phases prior to thesis data collection and writing, suggest that challenges of transitioning into the PhD include establishing a sense of belonging, learning the expectations of the disciplinary field, developing research and writing skills, gaining ownership over the work, and understanding the nature of the doctorate (Chatterjee-Padmanabhan & Nielson, 2018 ; Creely & Laletas, 2019 ; Fisher et al., 2020 ). At the same time, PhD researchers do not have identical experiences; variations in PhD researcher transitions can be attributed to diversity in prior educational and cultural experiences and ways of thinking (see analytical vs. practical intelligence, Lovitts, 2008 ), highlighting the importance of individual/personal factors in understanding how new doctoral researchers adapt to the PhD.

Given the often challenging and individual nature of PhD researcher transitions, this study aimed to explore how personal contexts and goals influence the experiences of five first-year PhD researchers in the UK, as they designed their social science thesis projects over the course of 1 year. At the institution in which this study took place, plans for the PhD research project are synthesized in a document (hereafter “Upgrade document”) that is submitted alongside institutional documents (e.g., ethics forms) and orally examined by two internal assessors in a process referred to as Upgrade, which typically takes place at the end of the first year. The content of the Upgrade document varies slightly by department but generally includes the questions, theoretical framework, literature, and methods guiding the thesis research.

It is important to note that in the UK, doctoral programs vary in structure across institutions and departments. The goal of this study is therefore to provide insight into the individual experiences of the participants at a single university and disciplinary cluster as they conceived of and composed their Upgrade documents in the first year of the doctorate. The research question guiding this study was:

How do first-year PhD researchers in the social sciences (at a single UK institution) shape and negotiate their Upgrade documents over time and in relation to their prior experiences and goals?

Doctoral writing and supervisor feedback

Research suggests that writing is a challenge for many doctoral researchers (Aitchison & Lee, 2007 ; Cameron, et al., 2009 ; Cotterall, 2011 ; Lee & Aitchison, 2009 ), particularly in the early stages of the PhD (Caffarella & Barnett, 2000 ). What makes PhD writing difficult is that it not only requires an understanding of the expectations and nuances of the thesis and other academic genres, but also necessitates the synthesis of disciplinary and methodological knowledge; writing is both an expression of and tool for thinking (Bazerman & Prior, 2004 ; Klein, 1999 ; Yore, et al., 2004 , 2006 ).

Although variation in writing practices and writing structures exist across disciplines (Carter, 2007 ), in general, research writing requires the writer to draw from and analyze multiple sources and concepts to create new knowledge in a process of meaning-making (Ivanic, 1998 ) that extends from the literature review through the writing up of results (Kamler & Thomson, 2014 ). In many ways, the writing process and the research process are intimately related, suggesting that researchers use writing to construct and present knowledge, vacillating between data collection, writing, analysis, and inquiry (Yore, et al., 2006 , p. 116). At the same time, many doctoral writers struggle to articulate—or legitimize—their personal voices within the web of academic writing structures (Naomi, 2021 ).

Supervisors support the doctoral researcher’s thesis research and writing, ideally guiding them towards becoming independent researchers and experts in their relevant fields (Pearson & Brew, 2002 ). Although PhD researcher experience is influenced by a network of personal and professional relationships (Hopwood, 2010 ), the supervisory relationship is perhaps the most critical in the PhD context, often influencing the overall experience of the program (Cotterall, 2015 ; Pyhalto et al., 2015 ).

The primary pedagogical approach utilized in supervision is that of feedback, a dialogic process providing information about disciplinary and institutional expectations and facilitating critical discussion (Anderson, et al., 2008 ; McAlpine & McKinnon, 2012 ). Argument, logic, language, and genre are common foci of supervisor comments (Basturkmen, et al., 2014 ; Can & Walker, 2014 ; Xu, 2017 ). Several studies focused primarily on international graduate students have examined how doctoral students interpret and respond to supervisor feedback (e.g., Wang & Li, 2011 ; Xu, 2017 ; Xu & Hu, 2020 ), finding that PhD researchers’ prior experience is linked to supervision needs and feedback responses. For instance, PhD researchers in the early stages of their research tend to require more support, preferring “directive, specific and consistent feedback” and are more likely to respond negatively to criticism (Wang & Li, 2011 ). In contrast, PhD researchers with greater confidence and stronger ownership of their work exhibit more positive attitudes towards challenging or critical feedback (Wang & Li, 2011 ). Graduate students may also resist feedback out of a desire to promote their “own agendas” (Vehviläinen, 2009 , p. 197) or a belief that changes are unnecessary (Xu, 2017 ), suggesting that responses to feedback may be linked to individual goals and provide evidence of agency.

PhD contexts and goals

Doctoral researchers bring their individual histories and goals for the future to their PhD study. Understanding how prior experience and goals influence perspectives of and approaches to doctoral research is important, and existing studies suggests that biographical factors may affect the extent to which PhD researchers can access disciplinary and research training cultures (Deem & Brehony, 2000 ), as well as how they cope with challenges (Hockey, 1994 ) and respond to supervisor feedback (Inouye & McAlpine, 2017 ). International PhD researchers, in particular, may have more difficulty accessing academic research cultures due to differences in language, cultural norms, higher education systems, and expectations for doctoral study (Deem & Brehony, 2000 ). For instance, case studies and self-studies on international PhD researchers suggest that doctoral researchers from non-Anglophone contexts (e.g., China/East Asia) may experience disparities between their earlier education experiences and the expectations of their PhD programs in English-speaking countries (Li, 2018 ; Soong, et al., 2015 ). Challenges may include taking ownership over the thesis and displaying typically Eurocentric “critical thinking” (Wu & Hu, 2020 ; Xu & Grant, 2017 ). Further, PhD researchers from Confucian-influenced cultures may be more reluctant to disagree with or “push” their supervisors for additional feedback due to differing expectations of supervisory relationships (Nguyen & Robertson, 2020 ). Likewise, they may focus on gaining deep understanding of expert texts rather than critiquing them (Chang & Strauss, 2010 ; Xu & Grant, 2017 ), reflecting differences in academic practices and varying forms of critical thought (see Chang & Strauss, 2010 ; Paton, 2005 ).

Motivations for undertaking PhD work and career goals may also influence how PhD researchers experience doctoral research. Interview-based research on motivations for undertaking PhD work (Brailsford, 2010 ; Gill & Hoppe, 2009 ; Guerin, et al., 2015 ; Leonard, et al., 2005 ; Skakni, 2018 ; Taylor, 2007 ) indicate that preconceived notions of the PhD and goals/motivations may fall into several categories, including career considerations, professional development, and personal and intellectual fulfillment. Evidence suggests that motivation influences the strategies used to approach the PhD as well as supervision preferences (Skakni, 2018 ; Taylor, 2007 ). For example, PhD researchers motivated by career aspirations were strategic and pragmatic about the PhD, concerned with quick progress and desiring supervisors who could guide them through the institutional requirements and facilitate work opportunities (Skakni, 2018 ).

PhD researcher agency: individual goals and contexts

This study draws on Emirbayer and Mische’s chordal triad of agency (1988) to examine how PhD researchers make decisions about how to develop their Upgrade documents in relation to the personal, institutional, and disciplinary contexts that influence their experiences of early-stage doctoral research and, more specifically, the Upgrade document. In social science, agency is typically understood as the capacity of individuals to act independently and has been theorized in different ways depending on the extent to which social structure is believed to facilitate or constrain that capacity. Aldrich ( 1999 ) succinctly described the problem of agency as “how much scope…people have for independence and creativity in the face of social structural constraints on their understanding and behavior” (p. 23). Research on PhD researchers’ agency has explored how PhD researchers exercise agency to develop their scholarly identity-trajectories (McAlpine, et al., 2014 ) and address academic and cultural hurdles through establishing and drawing on relationships (Cotterall, 2015 ; Hopwood, 2010 ), sharing their research (Nguyen & Robertson, 2020 ), and negotiating supervisory relationships and supervisor feedback (Inouye & McAlpine, 2017 ). Such studies provide a counter-narrative to traditional framings of PhD education that position doctoral researchers as undergoing a one-way socialization process into the institution and relevant discipline (see Hopwood, 2010 ).

The chordal triad of agency developed by Emirbayer and Mische ( 1998 ) builds upon the work of Mead ( 1932 ), defining agency as:

...the temporally constructed engagement by actors of different structural environments—the temporal-relational contexts of action—which, through the interplay of habit, imagination, and judgment, both reproduces and transforms those structures in interactive response to the problems posed by changing historical situations. (1998, p. 970)

Agency is thus expressed through human action in response to a given temporal-relational context. In each act of agency, three elements are at play: iteration, projectivity, and practical-evaluation. Iteration represents the past and is characterized by habitual acts in response to similar situations—schemas for action developed over time. Projectivity represents the future: the person’s plans and desires. As people encounter new situations, they adapt existing schemas in relation to their goals and imagine possible outcomes. Practical-evaluation represents the present, acknowledging the ways in which actions are embedded in the current evolving situation, representing “the capacity of actors to make practical and normative judgments among alternative possible trajectories of action” (p. 971). Most importantly, practical-evaluation provides for reflection, insight into one’s particular circumstances in relation to past and future, which may lead to changes in behavior.

Applied to PhD researchers, the chordal triad lends two key things. First, the iteration and projectivity elements draw attention to how prior experience and imagined futures/goals influence individual PhD researchers’ actions as they shape their plans for their thesis projects. Second, the practical-evaluation element allows for consideration of how PhD researchers’ temporal-relational contexts (e.g., new knowledge, additional feedback, and upcoming deadlines) change over time and influence how they evaluate and gain insight into their particular circumstances, which may potentially lead to changes in behavior: exercising agency to alter one’s contexts. In other words, as PhD researchers learn over time the expectations for the thesis project through supervisor feedback and other relevant interactions and experiences (the temporal-relational context), they adjust their actions in response to the new knowledge and in relation to prior experiences and goals.

This paper draws from a longitudinal (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010 ) multiple-case study in which each participant constituted a case. The study involved five participants from three social science departments at a large research-intensive university in the UK. At this institution, social science departments require first-year PhD researchers to submit a written document (“Upgrade document”) for oral assessment by two examiners, usually from the same department. Successful completion of this milestone—hereafter referred to as “Upgrade”—marks the PhD researcher’s transition into the data collection phase of research and confers full doctoral status. Although all academic departments require an Upgrade examination, the specific timings and requirements vary across disciplinary areas—for instance, the Upgrade document in natural science departments tends to be much shorter. In the three social science departments in which this study took place—Education, Geography, and Sociology—Upgrade typically occurs between 8 and 12 months after commencement of the PhD program. The submitted Upgrade document is a lengthy document of roughly 10,000 words, containing a literature review, conceptual framework, research questions, and methodology/research design. Upgrade can result in three possible outcomes, pass, minor corrections, and resubmit, and a PhD researcher has two opportunities to successfully complete Upgrade.

Data collection took place from October 2018 through December 2019. The participants were first-year PhD researchers. Four participants were recruited through email solicitation and one via snowball sampling. This study received ethical approval from the institution. Demographic characteristics of the participants are displayed in Table 1 .

Data included (1) a five-item demographic questionnaire, (2) semi-structured interviews, (3) drafts of the Upgrade document and other related writings, (4) written feedback from supervisors and, if relevant, peers, and (5) recordings of supervision meetings. However, for the purpose of this paper, the results will focus primarily on findings from the participant interviews.

Three types of interviews were conducted: (1) background interviews, (2) Upgrade document process interviews, and (3) concluding interviews. Background interviews, which took place shortly after each participant joined the study, focused on the participant’s prior experiences with writing, feedback, and social science research, as well as their reasons for doing a PhD, perceived challenges, and post-PhD career goals. The purpose of these interviews was to establish each participant’s individual historical context.

Upgrade document process interviews comprised most interview data in this study. These interviews were scheduled every 2 months at a mutually convenient time and place and focused on the participant’s ongoing work in relation to the Upgrade document, using written drafts of the Upgrade document and if relevant, other notes and documents, to provide examples of specific feedback and revisions. Finally, concluding interviews took place following each participant’s successful completion of the Upgrade examination. These interviews focused on the participants’ experience of Upgrade and reflections on the first year of the PhD.

Drafts and supervision recordings

In addition to the interviews, I collected drafts of the participants’ Upgrade documents and recorded supervision meetings with supervisor consent. Each participant was given the option to self-record their supervisions or to have me attend and record the supervisions. All interviews and supervision recordings were manually transcribed. Using MaxQDA 12 software, I created five separate folders, one for each participant. Each folder served to store the collected data, which were chronologically organized. The data were analyzed via a combination of a priori and emergent coding, situated within an overall narrative analysis. Data were analyzed first within-cases to capture variation in individual experience and then across cases to detect emerging patterns.

A priori coding

A priori codes (Saldana, 2013 ) were based on relevant department guidelines for a successful Upgrade and Emirbayer and Mische’s ( 1998 ) chordal triad conceptualization of agency: iteration, projectivity, and practical-evaluation to identify evidence of past, future, and present factors in participants’ decision-making. These codes were applied throughout the dataset for each individual participant.

Emergent coding

Following a priori coding, I analyzed the interview and supervision transcripts via emergent (open) coding. Using the “spiral” approach (Creswell, 2013 ), I began by reading through the entire dataset for each participant, taking notes. I wrote case summaries for each participant 3, 5, and 8 months into the data collection process. To develop codes, I reviewed case summaries and notes to identify possible codes and analyzed the dataset of the individual participant using initial codes and definitions. These codes were refined over several iterations. I repeated this process for each participant, resulting in five sets of emergent codes, one for each participant. Example codes included explanation/justification (for responses to feedback), supervisor feedback (with subcodes including direction, confirmation, suggestion/guidance), and strategies (feedback-seeking, questioning, networking), and Upgrade experience. Throughout the analysis process, the definitions of each code and examples were discussed and verified with colleagues familiar with both qualitative analysis and the topics of writing and doctoral education.

Narrative analysis

The patterns that emerged through coding alongside relevant excerpts from the documents were situated within a narrative analysis that allowed each case to be presented as a linear whole, rich with “thick description” (Riessman, 2008 ). The narrative was supported by the results of the coding and specific examples from the transcripts and documents. Because this study is concerned with what participants say rather than how they say it, in constructing the narratives, I formatted participant quotes by excluding stutters and pauses for clarity.

Cross-case analysis

Having completed within-cases analyses of each participant’s experience, I conducted a cross-case analysis to identify any patterns. I began by re-reading my notes and all five case summaries, taking note of similarities and differences (Eisenhardt, 2002 ). From this process, I identified three key themes: approach to the PhD, compliance with and resistance to supervisor feedback, and the Upgrade exam as significant event. These themes reflected larger patterns in agency characterized by the individual’s considerations of past, present, and future action in relation to their changing contexts.

Participant feedback

Participant feedback, also known as member checking, was used to provide participants with an opportunity to express concerns about anonymity (see Thomas, 2017 ) and identify factual errors. Following their participation in this study, each participant was sent a copy of their draft case summary for feedback on (1) factual accuracy, (2) concerns about identifiability, and (3) opinions on how their experiences were interpreted. Participants were also the given the option of changing their assigned pseudonyms.

The analysis gave rise to two key findings. First, the participants adopted three approaches to navigating the construction of the Upgrade document—pragmatic/strategic, idealistic, and realistic/compromising, each reflecting agentive decision-making influenced by prior educational experiences and perceptions of doctoral education, as well as post-PhD career goals. These approaches were primarily conveyed in how the participants drew upon feedback to create research proposals for Upgrade. Second, the oral Upgrade exam was a critical structuring event that led participants to reassess their practices and, in some cases, alter their approaches to their thesis research. This section begins with brief descriptions of the participants’ relevant individual contexts followed by a discussion of the approaches adopted by each, ending with an exploration of whose approaches shifted over time.

Ben was a first-year doctoral researcher in Education. Prior to the PhD, he completed a Master’s in the USA and worked at a think tank. Although English was his second language—he was born in a non-Anglophone European country—Ben was comfortable writing in English given his experience studying in the USA. In his previous work at the think tank, Ben developed the practice of reaching out to his colleagues for substantive feedback, though he always critically assessed received comments, based in part on the expertise of the person providing the feedback. Following the PhD, Ben planned to pursue a career in policy at an international organization. Ben had three supervisors.

Charlie was a first-year doctoral researcher in Sociology. Prior to the PhD, he did a Master’s in the UK. Charlie was originally from China but had been in the UK since high school and thus felt comfortable writing in English, though he sometimes struggled with reading complex texts. Charlie viewed feedback as generally helpful but viewed “abstract” comments such as “the research question is too broad” as less helpful when not accompanied by details on how to improve. He did not have concrete career plans when he began the PhD but hoped the degree would broaden his employment opportunities and allow him to explore academia. Charlie had two supervisors.

Natalie was a first-year doctoral researcher in Geography from the UK. Prior to the PhD, Natalie completed Master’s degrees in related fields and had worked in several sectors. One of her careers involved writing, and thus Natalie had experience in certain genres of writing but viewed herself as a novice in academic writing. She valued feedback, including criticism, from a range of sources and was concerned that her work involved public outreach. Following the PhD, Natalie hoped to teach at a university and write a book based on her doctoral research. Natalie had one supervisor (an anomaly, as most social science PhD researchers at the institution had two or more supervisors).

Shankar was a first-year doctoral researcher in Education from India. The PhD was Shankar’s first educational experience outside of India, having completed his undergraduate study and a Master’s there. He also spent several years teaching in rural areas of India prior to the doctorate. Shankar considered English his first language as his parents spoke it at home. He had little experience receiving feedback on his work, because his previous Master’s research was largely independent. Following the PhD, Shankar planned to return to India and teach at a university. Shankar had two supervisors.

Ethan was a first-year doctoral researcher in Education from the UK. Prior to the PhD, Ethan taught in primary schools and completed a Master’s degree. He enjoyed writing and viewed himself as a “perfectionist” when he wrote. Ethan embraced critical feedback so long as it was constructive and believed that his positive response to criticism was related to the nature of his supervisory relationships. For instance, he had a good relationship with his Master’s supervisor who “valued the good bits” but would also “happily tear a piece of work to shreds” (November 2018, Interview). Following the PhD, Ethan hoped to work in academia or at a think tank. Ethan had two supervisors.

Pragmatic/strategic

The pragmatic/strategic approach to the PhD, adopted by Ben and Charlie, was characterized by an orientation towards the feasibility or practicality of the research in terms of time to completion, financial constraints, or whatever would most facilitate quick and effective success: the PhD as a means to an end. Both Ben and Charlie expressed their pragmatic/strategic approach through (1) pursuing learning opportunities during the PhD in relation to career objectives and (2) and their assessment and use of feedback.

Ben and Charlie pursued PhDs to further career goals. Ben, who had a clear objective—work at an international organization—believed that doctorate would assist him in developing research skills that would increase his employability. Ben thus framed the PhD as a vehicle for advancing his career. While he wanted to produce a quality thesis, he was not emotionally attached to the work and noted, unlike some of his op-eds and reports, the thesis would not be read by a wide audience. As such, Ben made sure to attend conferences, find research assistant work, and expand his networks: “I think I need to be part of a broader policy debate because that's my aim overall…so I need to go [to conferences]. Everything is part of [an] overall design of me getting better [as a researcher]” (February 2019, Interview). Further, because he was only partially funded, Ben was determined to finish within 3 years and designed his research timeline accordingly.

Like Ben, Charlie viewed the PhD as improving his career opportunities. However, Charlie was uncertain about his future and hoped the PhD would allow him to explore possibilities. Charlie was also self-funding and therefore applied for various scholarships and internships alongside his PhD work. New to sociology, Charlie spent the first few months of the PhD program gathering information towards the goal of understanding what was expected of him:

[W]hen I [am] doing my PhD how do I structure my research, how do I progress...how do I develop my ideas? And...in general, how [do] we develop theory, [and] use the theory to explain things in data?...I try to find out the answer by auditing lectures…[and reading] books. (December 2018, Interview)

Charlie thus focused on understanding his discipline and the nature of PhD research while figuring out what “can be asked and answered in a PhD thesis” (October 2018, Email to supervisor). At the same time, he consulted peers for emotional support and enrolled in additional research training courses to further his learning and improve his employment prospects.

Ben and Charlie also expressed their pragmatic/strategic approach to the PhD in how they assessed and used feedback on their Upgrade documents. Ben, who had a clear vision for his project and prior knowledge of the topic, maintained the critical stance towards feedback developed before the PhD:

You need to be really convincing for me to change what I’ve written because in the end it’s going to be my name. But I will say that I’m quite open to accept feedback from people who know [more] than me about a topic. (November 2018, Interview)

Because Ben viewed his supervisors as knowledgeable in their fields but lacking expertise in his specific topic, he relied on them for literature recommendations and to discuss his overall research design and the Upgrade process, using only suggestions that he believed furthered his goal of successful Upgrade and timely thesis completion. However, for substantive feedback on his methods and subject matter, he approached others, including post-docs in relevant departments, and often went long stretches without seeing his supervisors, preferring to work on his own and receive feedback on complete drafts of his work.

In contrast, because of his lack of experience in sociology, Charlie positioned his supervisors as experts who were best placed to guide him through the thesis and, specifically, the Upgrade phase of the PhD. Charlie thus tended to adopt all feedback his supervisors offered. Upon reflection, Charlie noted that he always agreed with his supervisors’ suggestions (“we think similarly”—July 2019, Interview), explaining the intent behind his choices to implement feedback; he believed adopting feedback benefitted the project or Upgrade document. Thus, both Ben and Charlie assessed and used feedback in ways they believed furthered their Upgrade documents—and ultimately their PhDs—in most efficient ways.

This approach was characterized by a romanticized, optimistic framing of the research process, including a preoccupation with “big” ideas and the desire to create a deeply impactful or meaningful project, closely tied to personal passions or philosophies. Shankar and Natalie, who adopted an idealistic approach, expressed this orientation through (1) their perceptions of research/the PhD and (2) tendencies to resist traditional genre conventions of the Upgrade document.

Both Shankar’s and Natalie’s research projects grew from personal experience, and it was apparent in supervisions and interviews that they were passionate and intellectually engaged with their topics to the extent that narrowing the scope of their interests to a feasible doctorate was a significant challenge—both participants had a tendency to think and talk about their projects in broad ways, exploring avenues of inquiry that connected elements of history, philosophy, language, and politics. Natalie also insisted that her project take an ethnographic approach in which research questions emerge from the fieldwork and thus was hesitant to narrow her topic too early—a desire supported by her supervisor (but cautioned against by her course instructors). As a compromise, Natalie constructed three broad research questions that indicated her areas of interest. For example, “Are cities the agrarian worlds of the future?” (Upgrade document draft).

Shankar and Natalie were creative in how they structured their Upgrade documents; Natalie’s Upgrade document was organized by themes rather than discrete sections for literature review, method, etc., and Shankar used “metaphorical signposting,” adding subtitles to each of his sections that corresponded to parts of a tree—for instance, the literature review was called “the seeds” (Upgrade document draft). Although he appreciated critical comments, Shankar struggled to implement supervisor feedback on defining terms in relation to existing literature and following citation practices. He tried to negotiate comments on his Upgrade document and incorporate aspects of feedback towards the goal of finding his own writing style. Shankar acknowledged that his writing was a “little bit of this, little bit of that,” an “amalgam of the kind of quality of writing which would be appreciated in India” that included anecdotal evidence (April 2019, Interview). These writing and research choices stretched the boundaries of the expected Upgrade document genre and reflected Natalie and Shankar’s personal preferences for writing and self-expression, indicative of an idealistic view of doctoral writing. However, both needed to re-evaluate their practices when they were asked to resubmit their Upgrade document after the initial Upgrade exam. This is elaborated upon later.

Realistic/compromising

The realistic approach lay between the pragmatic/strategic and idealistic approaches, characterized by compromise and accommodation: passion for the topic and desire for it to be impactful on a larger scale, while also being cognizant of institutional expectations and willing to shape the project accordingly. Ethan adopted the realistic approach, which was evident in his assessment and use of feedback.

Ethan worked to strike a balance between creating a project he was passionate about and crafting a document that satisfied his supervisors:

There’s been varying points this year where I thought, am I doing the right thing? Would I be better off doing other research?...I think it’s the first time where, I’m very cognizant of this is all mine [so] that’s been quite a big defining feature of it. The independence. (November 2019, Interview)

Ethan’s understanding of the need to manage his goals with supervisor approval may be linked to his previous Master’s experience, specifically his familiarity with the research process and supervisor feedback. Indeed, though Shankar and Natalie had completed Master’s in their fields, both described the experience as involving little supervisory contact.

What Ethan most appreciated about his supervisors was their shared interest in school policy and their shared experiences as teachers, which allowed him to speak openly about his concerns about education and engage in critical discussion. In such supervisory discussions—and in early drafts of his Upgrade document—Ethan expressed political views that were tied to his teaching experience and the inception of his thesis, revealing Ethan’s desire for impact and change. At the same time, he acknowledged the “authority” of his supervisors and gladly incorporated their feedback, which helped him to define a feasible research topic and demonstrated an understanding of the PhD as requiring negotiation between the desire to shape a large and important study and the need to meet institutional standards. Further, both of Ethan’s supervisors were careful to explain the reasoning behind their feedback while also being explicit about examiner expectations, which may have contributed to his willingness to compromise.

Ethan’s greatest struggle was his self-described “flowery” writing style. His supervisors referred to his writing as “journalistic” and “rhetorically beautiful” but not appropriate for the Upgrade document genre. Beautiful writing was of personal value to Ethan, and he initially hoped to reach a compromise and find “the line” defining the extent to which he could write descriptively—though, he acknowledged, “[my supervisors and I] may or may not agree where that line is” (June 2019, Interview). For Ethan, writing became a matter of “trial and error” (June 2019, Interview) in which he continually refined his style over several drafts, a process facilitated by the pruning down of his document prior to Upgrade. Later, Ethan noted that the improvement in his writing was the most concrete change from the first year of his PhD. The realistic/compromising approach therefore reflects an understanding of genre, disciplinary, and institutional requirements and the need to negotiate and adapt for the purposes of the Upgrade document.

Changes in approach over time

The approaches discussed above were not clear-cut categories; rather, each given approach reflected the general overarching way in which the participants structured their actions and communicated their thinking about their research, writing, and the PhD. These approaches were driven primarily by the iterative element of agency—patterns of behavior acquired over time from prior education and work experience, particularly in regard to responses to feedback. At the same time, participant approaches were not static; success or lack thereof at the Upgrade milestone either reinforced successful participants’ approaches or significantly changed the approaches of those who were unsuccessful.

For Natalie and Shankar, who were asked to revise and resubmit their Upgrade documents, Upgrade prompted reflection on PhD expectations and the research process, which led them to move from an idealistic to a pragmatic/strategic approach. Natalie, for instance, remarked that she had been “naïve” about doctoral work and following the Upgrade exam began to view the PhD as a “box-ticking exercise” she needed to work through in order to pass (pragmatic approach). Similarly, Shankar noted that the Upgrade exam highlighted gaps between his former schooling and the expectations of his PhD university, leading him to alter his Upgrade document in accordance with examiner feedback and conform to institutional expectations, which he described as putting on “clothes in a wardrobe”:

...it seems to me that the, what this whole program is about, or at least my experience of it [is] a particular way of...relating to knowledge. It’s a particular way of...looking at it and interpreting it and presenting it. (June 2019, Interview)

For Shankar, the way the examiners expected his literature review to be presented and the depth of detail required in the methods section conflicted with his prior experiences of writing and structuring arguments. Despite prior conversations with his supervisors about the purpose of the Upgrade document, the high-stakes nature of the Upgrade exam was a significant experience that catalyzed a shift in his approach to the Upgrade document—and his thesis research generally.

In contrast, for Charlie and Ethan, passing the Upgrade exam reinforced their preexisting pragmatic/strategic and realistic approaches, as success indicated that their previous strategies were effective. Ben, the outlier, did not alter his view of the PhD or approach to research and writing despite a revise and resubmit result; rather, he attributed this outcome to ineffective or late supervisor feedback, consistent with his belief that his supervisors were not experts in his particular field and methodology. Further, Ben was not emotionally affected by the result, viewing it as an inconvenience and choosing to comply with examiner feedback and resubmit quickly; he did not want to alter his timeline for data collection, in keeping with his pragmatic outlook.

Thus, the Upgrade exam was a critical structuring event capable of transforming or reinforcing how the participants understood PhD research and writing expectations, demonstrating how evolving temporal-relational contexts (Upgrade results) may affect agentive decision-making. Importantly, successful Upgrade required participants to negotiate their prior expectations and experiences and future goals with institutional and disciplinary conventions, showing the need for clarity around genre-based expectations for doctoral education and the extent to which PhD researchers can work within those boundaries.

This longitudinal multiple case study employed Emirbayer and Mische’s ( 1998 ) chordal triad of agency to examine how five first-year social science PhD researchers created their Upgrade documents towards the goal of successful Upgrade. According to the chordal triad, the individual, as agent, (re)acts in a temporal-relational context, with three elements at play: the past (acting in response to similar situations developed over time), the future (adapting existing schemas in relation to goals and imagined outcomes), and the present (making judgments among alternative possible actions in light of the current evolving situation). The approaches the participants used to create their Upgrade documents—pragmatic/strategic, idealistic, and realistic—represent three possible ways in which PhD researchers may navigate the doctoral thesis in relation to individual contexts. What this research contributes is (1) new insight into the role of agency in PhD researchers’ behaviors, (2) the importance of significant milestones (like Upgrade) in influencing/altering thinking and behaviors, and (3) the value of a longitudinal perspective in examining PhD researcher development.

Results suggest that a projective (future) orientation motivated participants to think about larger PhD and post-PhD goals, contributing to how they initially conceptualized the PhD and approached their research (and Upgrade documents), consistent with prior interview-based studies (Brailsford, 2010 ; Gill & Hoppe, 2009 ; Guerin et al., 2015 ; Leonard, et al., 2005 ; Skakni, 2018 ). What this study adds is an empirical account of how both goals (projectivity), prior contexts and experience (iteration), and the present situation (practical-evaluation) influence how doctoral researchers view the PhD and subsequently tackle the Upgrade documents, respond to feedback, and employ strategies in relation to their overarching purposes and perceptions of the doctorate.

Concurrently, the iterative (past) element provided the underlying writing, feedback, and disciplinary knowledge drawn upon to do the work. For instance, Shankar’s educational history influenced his writing choices, echoing studies finding disparities between international PhD researchers’ prior educational contexts and PhD expectations (Li, 2018 ; Soong, et al., 2015 ; Wu & Hu, 2020 ; Xu & Grant, 2017 ). Further, in preparing their Upgrade documents, all five participants used previously developed strategies to respond to feedback. Ben, for example, continued to seek feedback from a range of sources and critically assessed the usefulness of comments, while Charlie and Natalie accepted all supervisor feedback in line with their self-positioning as novices in the field and previous practices.

As in other work on supervision and supervisor feedback, the results suggested that PhD researchers with greater ownership over their work (e.g., Ben) were more likely to resist critical comments that conflicted with their goals (see Vehviläinen, 2009 ). Yet, the participants did not express negative emotional reactions to criticism—they accepted, evaluated, and at times rejected suggestions (see Wang & Li, 2011 ). Where the results diverge from Wang and Li ( 2011 ) is that the participants in this study were in the earliest stages of the PhD, conflicting with Wang and Li’s suggestion that new, less experienced PhD researchers are more likely to respond negatively to critical feedback. This discrepancy reinforces the finding that responses to feedback and ownership over the thesis may be linked not only to research and writing experience, but perhaps more powerfully to individual contexts/goals (see also Inouye & McAlpine, 2017 ).

Practical-evaluation, the element of agency representing the present, was perhaps the most complex but important aspect of agency captured in the participants’ decision-making. Given the nature of the PhD as an ongoing process fraught with information, particularly during the first year, participants were continually assessing their research goals and practices in relation to the new knowledge and feedback they received from texts, instructors, and supervisors—“the demands and contingencies of the present” (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998 , p. 994). For example, assessment of supervisor and other feedback often invoked a combination of practical-evaluation and projectivity as students evaluated comments within the evolving supervisory relationship and stage of their Upgrade documents, choosing to accept or reject changes in relation to what they believed would lead to the best outcome. At the same time, practical-evaluation and iteration co-occurred as students assessed feedback and their own writing and chose to continue accepting supervisor comments or write in a certain way. Importantly, the Upgrade exam, a new context, was the only event that led to substantial changes in the participants’ actions and approaches. These results suggest that experience contributes to a pattern of action that is less likely to change significantly unless the actor encounters a critical incident.

Finally, to revisit Emirbayer and Mische’s definition of agency, agency “both reproduces and transforms those structures in interactive response to the problems posed by changing historical situations” (1998, p. 970). As reflected in the results, Natalie’s and Shankar’s desire to create Upgrade documents that did not strictly conform to typical conventions was unsuccessful in transforming the structure of Upgrade; the examiners failed to recognize their initial documents as fulfilling Upgrade requirements (cf., Naomi, 2021 ). Thus, while the participants developed their Upgrade documents in creative ways, ultimately, the documents they produced—the documents that were eventually approved—reproduced the existing Upgrade document genre. Their experiences raise questions about the extent to which PhD researchers are able to bring creative approaches to their research and research writing and what counts as acceptable doctoral writing.

Limitations

First, this was a small-scale study of five first-year doctoral researchers at one UK university. Therefore, the results are specific to the particular institutional and disciplinary circumstances surrounding their experiences. Given the variation in milestone procedures and expectations across departments and institutions, the findings cannot be generalized to the wider UK PhD population, nor to the social sciences as a whole, or even to the population of PhD researchers within the participants’ specific departments. Rather, the study provides detailed insight into the individual experiences of the participants, providing examples of how agency may manifest in relation to personal contexts. Second, I was unable to capture the full range of data involved in the participants’ creation of the Upgrade document and focused primarily on supervisor feedback, meaning that additional sources of influence—e.g., readings, peer feedback, blogs, and social media—were not explored. Finally, the choice of the chordal triad of agency, while useful in exploring temporal changes in behavior, offered a limited discussion of how agency is developed within one’s larger personal trajectories, which may preclude exploration of how approaches to the doctoral Upgrade document are situated within the participants’ broader lives.

Implications

This study has shown the value of micro-level longitudinal research that encourages us to think biographically through time in relation to the individual’s specific context. Future longitudinal studies on doctoral writing and education, perhaps across disciplines, may be useful in enhancing our knowledge of the relationships between personal factors, disciplinary cultures, supervision, and examination processes and expectations. Studies covering the entire doctoral program would also be helpful in better understanding how PhD researchers’ conceptions of the doctoral research and writing change over time.

Further, academic research cultures are not accessed equally by all doctoral students (Deem & Brehony, 2000 ), and doctoral training does not always address research culture as an additional challenge for PhD researchers entering programs from different contexts. More studies on international and intercultural PhD education are required to better understand the needs and contributions of PhD researchers with diverse experiences.

Doctoral experience varies across individuals. Recognizing the role of personal contexts and goals in shaping doctoral researchers’ perspectives and practices is important, particularly during the early stages of the PhD when they are still developing their understanding of the PhD and their capacity for agency in shaping the research.

References  

Aitchison, C., & Lee, A. (2007). Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11 (3), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680574

Article   Google Scholar  

Aldrich, H.E. (1999). Organizations evolving . SAGE.

Anderson, C., Day, K., & McLaughlin, P. (2008). Student perspectives on the dissertation process in a Masters degree concerned with professional practice. Studies in Continuing Education, 30 (1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370701841531

Basturkmen, H., East, M., & Bitchener, J. (2014). Supervisors’ on-script feedback comments on drafts of dissertations: Socialising students into the academic discourse community. Teaching in Higher Education, 19 (4), 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.752728

Bazerman, C. & Prior, P. (2004). What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual Practices. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Brailsford, I. (2010). Motives and aspirations for doctoral study: Career, personal, and inter- personal factors in the decision to embark on a history PhD . International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 5 , 015–027. https://doi.org/10.28945/710

Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25 (1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/030750700116000

Cameron, J., Naim, K., & Higgins, J. (2009). Demystifying academic writing: Reflections on emotions, know-how and academic identity. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33 (2), 269–284.

Can, G., & Walker, A. (2014). Social science doctoral students’ needs and preferences for written feedback. Higher Education, 68 , 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9713-5

Carter, M. (2007). Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the disciplines. College Composition and Communication, 58 (3), 385–418. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20456952

Chang, C. E., & Strauss, P. (2010). ‘Active agents of change?’ Mandarin-speaking students in New Zealand and the thesis writing process. Language and Education, 24 (5), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500781003789873

Chatterjee-Padmanabhan, M., & Nielsen, W. (2018). Preparing to cross the research proposal threshold: A case study of two international doctoral students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55 (4), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1251331

Cotterall, S. (2011). Doctoral students writing: Where’s the pedagogy? Teaching in Higher Education, 16 (4), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.560381

Cotterall, S. (2015). The rich get richer: International doctoral candidates and scholarly identity. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52 (4), 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.839124

Creely, E. & Laletas, S. (2019). Transitions, transformations and finding success. A phenomenological analysis of the experiences of a doctoral student in early candidature. Higher Education Research & Development, 39 (3), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1680957

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Deem, R., & Brehony, K. (2000). Doctoral students’ access to research cultures-are some more unequal than others? Studies in Higher Education, 25 (2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696138

Department for Education. (2017). Postgraduate doctoral loans: Government consultation response. Retrieved 1 May 2020. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/597333/Doctoral_response_to_consultation.pdf

Eisenhardt, K. (2002). Building theories from case study research. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher's companion (pp. 4–35). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986274

Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103 (4), 962–1023.

Fisher, R., Brock, C. H., Frahm, T., Van Wig, A., & Gillis, V. R. (2020). Reflections on writing and identity: Exploring the role of qualifying exams in the sociocultural development of doctoral students. Studies in Continuing Education, 42 (3), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2019.1661237

Gardner, S. K. (2008). “What’s too much and what’s too little?”: The process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79 (3), 326–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772101

Gill, T. G., & Hoppe, U. (2009). The business professional doctorate as an informing channel: A survey and analysis. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 4, 27–57. http://www.ijds.org/Volume4/IJDSv4p027-057Gill267.pdf

Green, B. (2005). Unfinished business: Subjectivity and supervision. Higher Education Research and Development, 24 , 151–163.

Guerin, C., Jayatilaka, A., & Ranasinghe, D. (2015). Why start a higher degree by research? An exploratory factor analysis of motivations to undertake doctoral studies. Higher Education Research & Development, 34 (1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934663

Hockey, J. (1994). Establishing boundaries: Problems and solutions in managing the PhD supervisor’s role. Cambridge Journal of Education, 24 , 293–313.

Hopwood, N. (2010). A sociocultural view of doctoral students’ relationships and agency. Studies in Continuing Education, 32 (2), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2010.487482

Inouye, K. S., & McAlpine, L. (2017). Developing scholarly identity: Variation in agentive responses to supervisor feedback. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 14 , 1–31.

Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Benjamins.

Kamler, B. & Thomson, P. (2014). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision (2nd ed). Taylor and Francis.

Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11 (3), 203–270.

Lee, A., & Aitchison, C. (2009). Writing for the doctorate and beyond. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.), Changing practices of doctoral education (pp. 87–99). Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Leonard, D., Becker, R., & Coate, D. (2005). To prove myself at the highest level: The benefits of doctoral study. Higher Education Research & Development, 24 (2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360500062904

Li, Y. (2018). Rethinking education through self-study: An international doctoral student’s narrative. Reflective Practice, 19 (4), 530–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2018.1538946

Lovitts, B. E. (2005). Being a good course-taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30 (2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500043093

Lovitts, B. E. (2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t, and why. The Journal of Higher Education, 79 (3), 296–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772100

McAlpine, L., & McKinnon, M. (2012). Supervision - the most variable of variables: Student perspectives. Studies in Continuing Education, 35 (3), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2012.746227

McAlpine, A., Amundsen, C., & Turner, G. (2014). Identity-trajectory: Reframing early career academic experience. British Educational Research Journal, 40 (6), 952–969. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3123

McPherson, C., Punch, S., & Graham, S. (2018). Postgraduate transitions from Masters to doctoral study: Managing independence, emotion and support. Stirling International Journal of Postgraduate Research, 4 , 1–24.

Mead, G. H. (1932). The philosophy of the present . University of Chicago Press.

Naomi, S. S. (2021). Writing a doctoral thesis in a non-western voice. In Badenhorst, C., Arnell, B., & Burford, J., (Eds.), Re-imagining Doctoral Writing (pp. 185–199). The WAC Clearinghouse and University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.37514/INT-B.2021.1343.2.09

Nguyen, M. N., & Robertson, M. J. (2020). International students enacting agency in their PhD journey. Teaching in Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1747423

Paton, M. (2005). Is critical analysis foreign to Chinese students? In E. Manalo & G. Wong-Toi (Eds.), Communication skills in university education: The international dimension (pp. 1–11). Pearson Education New Zealand.

Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2002). Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education, 27 (2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070220119986c

Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36 (1), 94–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352110

Pyhalto, K., Vekkaila, J., & Keskinen, J. (2015). Fit matters in the supervisory relationship: Doctoral students’ and supervisors’ perceptions about the supervisory activities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52 (1), 4–16.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). (2020). Characteristics statement: Doctoral degree . Retrieved 1 May 2020. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/qualitycode/supporting-resources

Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences . SAGE.

Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed). SAGE.

Skakni, I. (2018). Reasons, motives and motivations for completing a PhD: A typology of doctoral studies as a quest. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 9 (2), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-D-18-00004

Soong, H., Tran, L. Y., & Hiep, P. H. (2015). Being and becoming an intercultural doctoral student: Reflective autobiographical narratives. Reflective Practice, 16 (4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2015.1023276

Taylor, A. (2007). Learning to become researching professionals: The case of the doctorate of education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19 (2), 154–166.

Thomas, D. R. (2017). Feedback from research participants: Are member checks useful in qualitative research? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 14 (1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2016.1219435

UK Council for Graduate Education. (2015). Structural changes in doctoral education in the UK: A review of graduate schools and the development of doctoral colleges. Retrieved 1 October 2019. http://www.ukcge.ac.uk/media/download.aspx?MediaId=1436

Vehviläinen, S. (2009). Problems in the research problem: Critical feedback and resistance in academic supervision. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53 (2), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830902757592

Wang, T., & Li, L. Y. (2011). ‘Tell me what to do’ vs ‘guide me through it’: Feedback experiences of international doctoral students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12 (2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787411402438

Wu, M., & Hu, Y. (2020). Transitioning to an independent researcher: Reconciling the conceptual conflicts in cross-cultural doctoral supervision. Studies in Continuing Education, 42 (3), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2019.1615423

Xu, L. (2017). Written feedback in intercultural doctoral supervision: A case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 22 (2), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1237483

Xu, L., & Grant, B. (2017). International doctoral students’ becoming: A dialogic perspective. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54 (6), 570–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1318711

Xu, L., & Hu, J. (2020). Language feedback responses, voices and identity (re)construction: Experiences of Chinese international doctoral students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57 (6), 724–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1593214

Yore, L. D., Florence, M. K., Pearson, T. W., & Weaver, A. J. (2006). Written discourse in scientific communities: A conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (2–3), 109–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336601

Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (4), 338–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20008

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Professor Lynn McAlpine and Dr. Velda Elliott for their support and feedback.

This research was supported by a Clarendon Scholarship from the University of Oxford.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Education, University of Oxford, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford, OX2 6PY, UK

Kelsey Inouye

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelsey Inouye .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Inouye, K. Developing the PhD thesis project in relation to individual contexts: a multiple case study of five doctoral researchers. High Educ 85 , 1143–1160 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00882-0

Download citation

Accepted : 25 May 2022

Published : 17 June 2022

Issue Date : May 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00882-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Doctoral writing
• PhD education
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

PhD tool: The CQOCE diagram

By far, this is the tool (as in, “thinking tool”) which I recommend most often to PhD students. This diagram summarizes your main research questions, thesis contributions and evidence of their usefulness. While painful to make, this brutal synthesis exercise is also a powerful communication tool. In this post, I explain how it works, its origins, and how making 18+ versions of it helped me through my PhD. Copy the provided template and use it in your PhD supervision meetings or even in the PhD defense!

“It’s too hard… I’m blank”.

“I don’t really know what to put there”.

“It keeps changing all the time”.

I’ve heard almost every kind of complaint about this tool. However, I still have to find a Ph.D. student that tells me that doing it was useless. It is hard to summarize years of hard work (past and future) into a single page but, as many creative writers will tell you 1 , being able to distill the most important ideas of a 400-page book into a single page, leads to a clarity of ideas that is often lacking.

This is the first of a series of posts on “PhD tools”: structures, conceptual frameworks or actual hardware/software tools that I (and others) have found useful to advance the Ph.D. dissertation, across different fields. There is lots of general advice out there on how to do diagrams (e.g., for your literature review papers ), but not so many that are directly useful for defining the thesis itself. Of course, there are too many research fields and traditions out there, so this particular structure may not fit your particular situation. But I suggest you give it a go - you may be surprised!

I first came across this thinking tool when doing my own Ph.D. at GSIC-EMIC , a inter-disciplinary educational technologies lab at the University of Valladolid, in Spain. Back there, it was common advice to fill up one such diagram, once your thesis topic was more or less defined 2 . Spending an hour diagramming quickly made you realize that things were not as clear as you initially thought, and that your research contributions had more holes than a piece Gruyère cheese…

I originally thought that this was just a common researcher device in use everywhere, pretty much like Ellis’s problem-goal-question schema 3 – also very recommendable, by the way. However, my later travels around different labs have convinced me that this kind of exercise is not common at all (which is why I think this post can be useful). Thus, the diagram is a truly “home-brewed” thing 4 , which evolved in an iterative manner since its first (partial) appearance in Asensio-Pérez’s thesis 5 , throughout several other theses 6 , 7 , my own thesis 8 and beyond 9 . We all modified it slightly to fit our particular needs. And we all agree that it was a very useful device to define, understand and communicate our own research.

Let’s hope it helps you too.

As you can see in the thesis references above, the diagram is commonly used in the introduction section of a dissertation, and it is meant to introduce, in graphical form, some of its main elements: the research C ontext, main research Q uestion, O bjectives, C ontributions of your thesis and their E valuation. However, many of us have also used it way before starting to write the dissertation book itself, as a “guiding star” when discussing with others and planning the thesis work. Below you can see an generic example of such a diagram 10 . Let’s look at each of the elements that make it up:

A generic CQOCE diagram

• Context . As in, “research context”. This box is meant to convey where your research sits within the scientific community or communities that are close to what you do. At the beginning of your Ph.D., this box may contain just the name of 1-2 research fields, and/or very general topics within them that interest you. However, as you read more and more literature and understand your field and what is interesting for you , it can become quite specific (see the examples from my own thesis below). Generally, it is also very important to lay out here what is the main problem that you have detected in current research, the “hole” in the current state-of-the-art that your thesis intends to “plug”. This basically gives the why of your thesis: what is wrong with our current knowledge of the world, that your thesis tries to make right?
• Research Question . Probably one of the most obnoxious habits of old professors that one meets randomly during the Ph.D., is to ask: “Oh, so you are a doctoral student here… and what is your research question?”. This often leads to the student answering evasively and trying to scurry away. Aside from its obnoxiousness, this question has another interesting property: it is very good at signaling the maturity of a student. If you are able to understand that you are here to further human knowledge, you have identified clearly something that is not known, and formulated it in a single sentence that is actually a question and can be answered with data in a reasonable amount of time, you are almost 50% of the way there (yet another reason why making this diagram is useful). This main research question is probably the element of the diagram that changes most often throughout the Ph.D., normally in the direction from “very general, almost impossible to answer even with unlimited funds and manpower”, to “very specific and convoluted, but with some chance of being answered by a single person in a few years”.
• Objectives : This box tries to answer the question of how would you go about finding out the answer to your research question above. However, it is not really a plan yet: rather, it tries to “decompose” your research question into more manageable elements, either conceptually (for instance, looking independently into different concepts/keywords that appear in your main research question) or temporally (dealing with A is needed before trying to investigate B).
• Contributions : This is probably the trickiest element of the diagram to fill in, and the one which I get most questions about. I’ll probably do a separate post on the whole “What counts as a research contribution?” question, but here goes the two-sentence version: It is whatever previously unknown, reusable knowledge that you propose or produce during your research, which materializes the answer to your research question. The main problem is that what counts as valid knowledge depends a lot on your research field - which is why you need more experienced peers (like your supervisor, or reading papers from other people in your field), to guide you in defining this. For instance, in many fields (especially, applied ones), a research contribution has to be: a) novel (nobody has done the same or a very similar thing); b) feasible (it can be done practically, it is not just some futuristic fantasy); and c) useful (something that solves an important, relevant problem for some stakeholder). Another tip: very often (but not always), contributions are linked to the different objectives you laid out in the previous box (e.g., each objective is materialized in a contribution that fulfills the objective).
• Evaluation : Once you have decided what your contribution(s) is/are, you only need to prove that it works as you say it does, e.g., that it is novel, feasible and useful. In many fields, this involves gathering data of some kind from the world, using whatever means at your disposal (from huge radio-telescopes to asking a single person in an interview). This box thus tries to represent graphically how the different data gathering events that you organize, provide this proof for the value of the different contributions you define, to meet the objectives and finally answer the research question of your thesis (see the over-complex examples from my thesis in the figure below).

If all this sounds terribly abstract and vague to you, don’t worry, you are in good company (everyone thinks so at the beginning). Hopefully, an example will help bring some clarity… but then again, maybe not, if you are in a field very far away from mine. Therefore, take the example if it helps you, but do not consider it the only way of doing this!

How I used it during my Ph.D.

Going through my archives from the thesis period, I have found at least 18 different versions of this diagram (hence, not counting those I quickly drew on paper and never made it into my hard drive). Below, you can see three examples spanning the three years that my Ph.D. work lasted: a first one from about six months into the actual Ph.D. work (hand-drawn on the left, mostly in Spanish), another one from around the middle, and the final one that appeared on my dissertation (on the right).

CQOCE diagrams for my own thesis, from the beginning of my thesis work (left), mid-way through it (center) and at the defense (right)

A lot can be said about those particular diagrams (parts of them still make me cringe), but there are three take-aways I want to leave you with: a) your diagram should probably look much simpler than mine (my thesis was too complicated, for reasons I don’t need to discuss here); b) it is OK to hand-draw yours (it is often quicker, and has the same communication power); and c) as you can see in the middle one, it is OK to have incomplete or doubtful parts in it. That is the whole point of the diagram: to identify what parts we are unsure of, or have no idea how to deal with, and see how the conception of our own dissertation is changing over time.

Fast-forward six years, and I still use this kind of diagrams when starting a new research line, especially if it is a collaboration with other researchers, and I have to communicate what the main idea and elements of the research are. Which leads me to…

Why use it - and when not to

There are several reasons why you might want to give this exercise a go (or recommend it to your students, if you are an advisor):

• It is a useful reflection exercise : In the day-to-day life of a Ph.D. there are so many different tasks, reading papers, planning experiments, gathering data, doing analysis, writing your own papers… It is very easy for each of these to become a rabbit hole we pursue. Sometimes these meanderings are useful and prompt a permanent change in how you think about your thesis (they become central to it). Sometimes they are just unnecessary distractions. This exercise forces you to stop for a moment 11 , and think deeply, and make your current ideas about what you are doing (and why) visible. Even if you don’t ever show it to anybody else, knowing your direction (or even whether there are gaps in your ideas) feels tremendously empowering.
• As a reminder and prioritization tool . Once you have a version of the diagram in place (even with holes or question marks in it), you can print it and keep it somewhere visible in your office or workspace. And every time you are analyzing data, or reading an interesting paper, or writing your own, or coming up with ideas for cool experiments, you can look at it and think: does it fit or relate with my main problem? is it central or peripheral to it? does it further my contributions? And depending on what your answer is, you can give it a clear priority compared with your other tasks and ideas (or reject it completely… until you finish the Ph.D. at least). Or you can quickly draw a new box in the diagram, if you think it is really important.
• Although the two values above are very important, I think the real killer application of this diagram is as a communication tool : It summarizes, in a single page, what the most important question and ideas of your thesis are, and what you are trying to achieve. It also forces you to decide what the right keywords and terminology to use (something different scientific communities are known to be quite picky about) - and elicit problems with the words you use, once you present it to others. You can use it in your meetings with the Ph.D. advisor (to front-load your topic in your advisor’s exhausted/busy brain), in the introduction to any of your thesis reports (to get the reader to understand how this piece fits in the whole puzzle of your work), whenever you have to write for a “doctoral consortium” or other kind of short presentation about your doctoral work, … heck, you can put it even in your Ph.D. defense presentation 12 !

However, not everything about this exercise is great, and there are several circumstances where I would not necessarily recommend to use this:

• If you know for a fact that your advisor (or whatever audience you plan to use it with) dislikes diagrams. “Diagrams discourage deep thought and argumentation” - I have gotten this remark sometimes from very respected academics, and maybe they have a point. The diagram is not a substitute for a thoughtful, well-argued text (or conversation) describing where your research question comes from and what your contributions are. It is rather a complement - even if it is a very useful one!
• If you feel that making it is taking too long, or you are endlessly nitpicking about terminology, or you are putting off other important tasks in your Ph.D. to do this (i.e., the diagram has become an act of procrastination). Aside from fully focusing on it when you do it, I also recommend to “timebox” it 13 . Remember, this is a tool best used in iteration and communication: rather do a half-baked one in one hour and discuss it with somebody, than spend a whole week on it and end up unsure of whether it is the perfect version (tip: it never is).
• If you and everyone involved is crystal clear on what the topic is, or you have your topic and contributions well described somewhere else in relatively short form (e.g., in your initial Ph.D. research plan) - provided that nothing much has changed in your ideas described there.
• If you want to highlight the research methodology you use (a glaring omission in the current version of the diagram) or other kinds of temporal structure or tasks/plans in your Ph.D.. There are other representations more adequate for that kind of thing, like Gantt charts or other task-flow diagrams (I also used some of those in my thesis - maybe a topic for a future post?).
• If you’re not taking the exercise seriously or you think it is utterly useless. But this is a general rule: never do anything you think is meaningless, if you can avoid it :)

Try it out… and let me know how it goes

That’s it. I hope this small tool is useful for you in progressing towards a complete dissertation. Now, this diagram is most useful if you actually go and do it . Get off your seat, go for a walk, then sit down again for one or two hours (with your phone in flight mode). Paint it with colored pencils, hand-draw it in the back of the proverbial napkin, or make a copy of this one for use in your computer , whatever. Bonus points if you then share it with your advisor or a colleague or anyone.

Just do it – and let me know how it goes in the comments.

Update (23.06.2022): We have now added a CQOCE diagram template you can copy to our PhD Toolkit (under the “Conceptualizing your dissertation” section). Enjoy!

Also, do you have other diagrams or thinking tools that helped you greatly in advancing in your PhD? let me know in the comments below - I’ll be glad to share other tools like this in the future.

See, for example, this post by Jason Fried . ↩︎

Contrary to other universities/faculties, in that field and university it is common to start the Ph.D. with a vaguely-defined research topic and questions. In other places, an initial Ph.D. proposal already has to have a quite clear research question, methodology and research plan behind it (at least, on paper). The diagram could also be very useful even to develop such initial research proposal. ↩︎

Ellis, T. J., & Levy, Y. (2008). Framework of problem-based research: A guide for novice researchers on the development of a research-worthy problem. Informing Science , 11 . Retrieved from http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol11/ISJv11p017-033Ellis486.pdf ↩︎

So much so, that it does not even have an official name, as far as I know. “CQOCE” is just a name I had to invent to write this blog entry! ↩︎

Page 6 of Asensio-Pérez, J. (2000). Contribución a la especificación y gestión integrada de la calidad de servicio en aplicaciones de objetos distribuidos (PhD Thesis). University of Valladolid, Spain. ↩︎

For example, p. 6 in Hernández-Leo, D. (2007). A pattern-based design process for the creation of CSCL macro-scripts computationally represented with IMS LD (PhD Thesis). Universidad de Valladolid, Spain. ↩︎

Probably the first almost-complete version of the diagram can be found in da Silva, R. P. (2004). Contribucion al modelado de aspectos de gestion de aplicaciones distribuidas basadas en componentes en el marco de la arquitectura mda (model driven architecture) (PhD Thesis). Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. ↩︎

Page 7 of Prieto, L. P. (2012). Supporting orchestration of blended CSCL scenarios in distributed learning environments (PhD Thesis). Universidad de Valladolid, Spain. ↩︎

For example, see the variation of the diagram, adapted to design-based research methodology, in page 6 of Rodríguez-Triana, M. J. (2014). Linking scripting and monitoring support in blended CSCL scenarios (PhD Thesis). Universidad de Valladolid. ↩︎

You can also find a more colorful version of it in Google Draw format . Copy it and make your own! ↩︎

Pro tip: don’t do this exercise while watching your favorite Netflix show! This exercise is hard , and requires quite a bit of focus. You can use the Pomodoro technique to help you with that. ↩︎

Indeed, 80% of my Ph.D. defense slides basically walked the jury around the diagram, diving into some of its elements to present related literature, or details of the studies and results. Nobody complained about that use, in fact. ↩︎

Timeboxing is another common productivity technique, in which you basically set aside a limited amount of time (e.g., one or two hours) to focus on a task/problem, and stop once the alloted time ends. No matter what. This prevents the task from filling your whole day (especially if other important tasks also need to be done). ↩︎

Luis P. Prieto

Luis P. is a Ramón y Cajal research fellow at the University of Valladolid (Spain), investigating learning technologies, especially learning analytics. He is also an avid learner about doctoral education and supervision, and he's the main author at the A Happy PhD blog.

Google Scholar profile

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 23, Issue 4
• What are the foundations of a good PhD?
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9104-1999 Alison Rodriguez 1 ,
• Joanna Smith 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4308-4219 David Barrett 3
• 1 School of Health Care , University of Leeds , Leeds , UK
• 2 School of Healthcare , Lecturer in Children’s Nursing , Leeds , West Yorkshire , UK
• 3 Faculty of Health Sciences , University of Hull , Hull , UK
• Correspondence to Dr Alison Rodriguez, Health Care, University of Leeds School of Healthcare, Leeds, Leeds, UK; a.m.rodriguez{at}leeds.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2020-103353

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

• statistics & research methods

A PhD is a globally recognised postgraduate degree and typically the highest degree programme awarded by a University, with students usually required to expand the boundaries of knowledge by undertaking original research. The purpose of PhD programmes of study is to nurture, support and facilitate doctoral students to undertake independent research to expected academic and research standards, culminating in a substantial thesis and examined by viva voce. In this paper—the first of two linked Research Made Simple articles—we explore what the foundations of a high-quality PhD are, and how a Doctoral candidate can develop a study which is successful, original and impactful.

Foundations of a ‘good’ PhD study

Supervision and support.

Central to the development and completion of a good PhD is the supervisory relationship between the student and supervisor. The supervisor guides the student by directing them to resources and training to ensure continuous learning, provides opportunity to engage with experts in the field, and facilitates the development of critical thinking through questioning and providing constructive criticism. 1

An environment that promotes personal and professional development is further aided by positive peer interactions. If students feel part of a community and have contact with others also working on doctoral studies, there is the scope for peer compassion and understanding during both challenging and rewarding periods. Students who access personal and professional support and guidance through mentoring models during their studies are more likely to succeed. These models include one-to-one peer mentoring or activities for example journal discussion or methods learning groups. Often, groups of students naturally come together and give each other support and advice about research process expectations and challenges, and offer friendship, and guidance. 2 Given the usefulness of different types of mentoring models, all can create a supportive and collaborative environment within a PhD programme of study, to minimise working in isolation and enable students to achieve their greatest potential.

Characteristics of a good study: originality and theoretical underpinning

A PhD should make an original contribution to knowledge. Originality can be achieved through the study design, the nature or outcomes of the knowledge synthesis, or the implications for research and/or practice. 3 Disciplinary variation, however, influences the assessment of originality. For example, originality in science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects is often inferred if the work is published/publishable, in comparison to intellectual originality in the social sciences. 4 Although PhD originality assumes different nuances in different contexts, there is a general acceptance across disciplines that there should be evidence of the following within the thesis:

An interplay between old and new—any claims of originality are developed from existing knowledge and practices.

There are degrees of originality, relating to more than one aspect of the thesis.

Any claims for originality are accompanied by clear articulation of significance.

A good PhD should be also underpinned by theoretical and/or conceptual frameworks (that include philosophical and methodological models) that give clarity to the approach, structure and vision of the study. 5 These theoretical and conceptual frameworks can explain why the study is pertinent and how the research addresses gaps in the literature. 6 Table 1 provides a distinction of what construes theoretical and conceptual frameworks.

• View inline

Characteristics of theoretical and conceptual frameworks 7

Theoretical/conceptual frameworks must align with the research question/aims, and the student must be able to articulate how conceptual/theoretical framework were chosen. Key points for consideration include:

Are the research questions/aim and objectives well defined?

What theory/theories/concepts are being operationalised?

How are the theories/concepts related?

Are the ontological and epistemological perspectives clearly conveyed and how do they relate to theories and concepts outlined?

What are the potential benefits and limitations of the theories and concepts outlined?

Are the ways the theories/concepts are outlined and being used original?

A PhD thesis (and demonstrable in viva) must be able to offer cohesion between the choice of research methods that stems from the conceptual/theoretical framework, the related ontological and epistemological decisions, the theoretical perspective and the chosen methodology ( table 2 ). PhD students must be able to articulate the methodological decisions made and be critical of methods employed to answer their research questions.

Relationship between research paradigms, perspectives, methodologies and methods. 8 9

In summary, we offer considerations of what the foundations of a good PhD should be. We have considered some of the key ingredients of quality PhD supervision, support and research processes and explored how these will contribute to the development of a study that leads to student success and which makes a valuable contribution to the evidence base. In the next paper, we will look in more detail at the assessment of the PhD through the submission of a thesis and an oral viva.

• Dimitrova R
• Pancheri K ,
• Fowler DL ,
• Wiggs CM , et al
• Wellington J
• Osanloo A ,
• Bunniss S ,

Twitter @ARodriguez339, @josmith175, @barrett1972

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

• my research
• contributions and comments

what’s a #phd ‘contribution’?

You hear the term contribution almost as soon as you enrol in the PhD. It’s something you wrestle with as you write your research proposal – you need to convince your chosen institution that your research will make a contribution. Funders are particularly keen to hear about contribution too, is their scholarship money going to produce one, they wonder. And of course, you continue to worry about contribution. For instance, during your field work.  Contribution – do I have one here? What if I don’t? And then when you finally get to thesis writing, your supervisor tells you have to know your contribution, anticipate it in the introduction and make the big claim for it in the conclusion.

But what is ‘a contribution’?

Expressed in plain language, examiners see a contribution as something interesting, something that brings a new perspective, something that teaches them and offers them something they haven’t considered before.

About pat thomson

5 responses to what’s a #phd ‘contribution’.

Dear Pat, thanks so much for this. I read almost everything that you email out from your blog. I am writing/revising my introduction now, so this blog was helpful. I like what you said here: “you have to know your contribution, anticipate it in the introduction and make the big claim for it in the conclusion.” In your blog, you did well to highlight how to “make the big claim for it in the conclusion.” But could you elaborate (perhaps in a future post) how to **anticipate** the contribution in the Intro? I remember something you blogged a couple weeks ago about not ‘spilling the beans’, so to speak, in the Intro, lest readers have a deja vu or get bored having already known what you’re going to conclude. Thus, anticipation is key. But how would I anticipate the contribution–would I just state in the Intro what the contribution is (without articulating the actual findings)?

Like Liked by 1 person

Thank you Patter for making this so clear…and saving me from going nuts over this.

Dear Patter This is great to all readers, researchers and intending candidates for the good of every one. Thank you

Pingback: writing the thesis – work, moves and structure | patter

Pingback: leave a good last impression – the thesis conclusion | patter

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Search for:

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:

patter on facebook

Recent Posts

• research as creative practice – possibility thinking
• research as – is – creative practice
• On MAL-attribution
• a brief word on academic mobility
• Key word – claim
• key words – contribution
• research key words – significance
• a thesis is not just a display
• should you do a “side project”?
• the ABC of organising your time
• Why journal articles are rejected
• the IMRaD structure is rarely enough

SEE MY CURATED POSTS ON WAKELET

Top posts & pages.

• aims and objectives - what's the difference?
• writing a bio-note
• I can't find anything written on my topic... really?
• 20 reading journal prompts
• headings and subheadings – it helps to be specific
• research as - is - creative practice
• research as creative practice - possibility thinking
• mapping your literatures
• turning your thesis into a book
• the literature review - how old are the sources?
• Entries feed
• Comments feed
• WordPress.com

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

What is a dissertation abstract and how do I write one for my PhD?

Feb 12, 2019

There are a lot of posts that talk about how to write an abstract. Most say that you should write your abstract to impress your examiner.

We say that you need to flip things upside down: sure, your examiner will read it and want to see that you’ve written it well, but you should actually have your next boss in mind when you write it.

When you apply for your first academic job, the abstract may be the only part of your thesis that your new boss will read. They may not have the time or energy to read the whole thesis, so the abstract plays a crucial role. You should write it as if you academic career depends on it.

In this guide we talk about how to write an outstanding abstract that will (hopefully) land you a job.

If you haven’t already, make sure you download our PhD Writing Template , which you can use in conjunction with this guide to supercharge your PhD.

What is an abstract?

  This is fairly straightforward stuff, but let us be clear so we are all on the same page.

An abstract is a short summary at the beginning of the PhD that sums up the research, summarises the separate sections of the thesis and outlines the contribution.

It is typically used by those wishing to get a broad understanding of a piece of research prior to reading the entire thesis.

When you apply for your first academic job, the hiring manager will take a look through applicants’ abstracts (as well as your CV and covering letter) to create a shortlist. If you are lucky enough to do well at an interview, your potential new boss will take another look through it before deciding whether to offer you the job.

Why don’t they read the whole thing? Apart from the fact that they’re way too busy to read 200+ pages, a well written abstract actually contains all they need to know. It is a way of letting them see what your research is about, what contribution it makes, what your understanding of the field is and how or whether you will fit into the department.

So, you need to write it well.

But, don’t underestimate how hard it is to write a PhD thesis abstract. You have to condense hundred of pages and years of work into a few hundred words (exactly how many will depend on your university, so double check with them before you start writing).

How do I write a good PhD abstract?

Some blog posts use keywords to summarise the content (this one does, scroll down to see them). The abstract is similar. It’s an extended set of keywords to summarise a complex piece of research.

Above all, your PhD abstract should answer the question: ‘so what’ ? In other words, what is the contribution of your thesis to the field?

If you’ve been using our PhD writing template you’ll know that, to do this, your abstract should address six questions:

• What is the reason for writing the thesis?
• What are the current approaches and gaps in the literature?
• What are your research question(s) and aims?
• Which methodology have you used?
• What are the main findings?
• What are the main conclusions and implications?

One thing that should be obvious is that you can’t write your abstract until the study itself has been written. It’ll typically be the last thing you write (alongside the acknowledgements).

But how can I write a great one?

  The tricky thing about writing a great PhD abstract is that you haven’t got much space to answer the six questions above. There are a few things to consider though that will help to elevate your writing and make your abstract as efficient as possible:

• Give a good first impression by writing in short clear sentences
• Don’t repeat the title in the abstract
• Don’t cite references
• Use keywords from the document
• Respect the word limit
• Don’t be vague – the abstract should be a self contained summary of the research, so don’t introduce ambiguous words or complex terms
• Focus on just four or five essential points, concepts, or findings. Don’t, for example, try to explain your entire theoretical framework
• Edit it carefully. Make sure every word is relevant (you haven’t got room for wasted words) and that each sentence has maximum impact
• Avoid lengthy background information
• Don’t mention anything that isn’t discussed in the thesis
• Avoid overstatements
• Don’t spin your findings, contribution or significance to make your research sound grander or more influential that it actually is

Examples of a good and bad abstract

We can see that the bad abstract fails to answer the six questions posed above. It reads more like a PhD proposal, rather than a summary of a piece of research.

Specifically:

• It doesn’t discuss the reason why the thesis was written
• It doesn’t outline the gaps in the literature
• It doesn’t outline the research questions or aims
• It doesn’t discuss the methods
• It doesn’t discuss the findings
• It doesn’t discuss the conclusions and implications of the research.

It is also too short, lacks adequate keywords and introduces unnecessary detail. The abbreviations and references only serve to confuse the reader and the claim that the thesis will ‘develop a new theory of climate change’ is both vague and over-ambitious. The reader will see through this.

The good abstract though does a much better job at answering the six questions and summarising the research.

• The reason why the thesis was written is stated: ‘We do so to better enable policy makers and academics to understand the nuances of multi-level climate governance’ and….’it informs our theoretical understanding of climate governance by introducing a focus on local government hitherto lacking, and informs our empirical understanding of housing and recycling policy.’
• The gap is clearly defined: ‘The theory has neglected to account for the role of local governments.’
• The research question are laid out: ‘We ask to what extent and in what ways local governments in the UK’…
• The methods are hinted at: ‘Using a case study…’
• The findings are summarised: ‘We show that local governments are both implementers and interpreters of policy. We also show that they make innovative contributions to and influence the direction of national policy.’
• The conclusions and implications are clear: ‘The significance of this study is that it informs our theoretical understanding of climate governance by introducing a focus on local government hitherto lacking, and informs our empirical understanding of housing and recycling policy.’

This abstract is of a much better length, and it fully summarises what the thesis is about. We can see that if someone (i.e. your hiring manager) were to read just this abstract, they’d understand what your thesis is about and the contribution that it makes.

Your PhD thesis. All on one page. 

Use our free PhD structure template to quickly visualise every element of your thesis. 

I can’t summarise my thesis, what do I do?

  We suggest you fill out our PhD Writing Template . We’ve designed it so that you can visualise your PhD on one page and easily see the main components. It’s really easy to use. It asks you a few questions related to each section of your thesis. As you answer them, you develop a synopsis. You can use that synopsis to inform your abstract. If you haven’t downloaded it, you can find it here.

  Like everything related to writing, it takes practice before you get great at writing abstracts. Follow our tips and you’ll have a head start over others.

Remember, you’re not writing your abstract for anyone other than your hiring manager. Make sure it showcases the best of your research and shows your skills as both a researcher and a writer.

If you’re struggling, send us your abstract by email and we’ll have give you free advice on how to improve it.

Hello, Doctor…

Sounds good, doesn’t it?  Be able to call yourself Doctor sooner with our five-star rated How to Write A PhD email-course. Learn everything your supervisor should have taught you about planning and completing a PhD.

Now half price. Join hundreds of other students and become a better thesis writer, or your money back. 

Share this:

Hello! I am a first year PhD student and I am interested in your Thesis writing course. However, I don’t have Paypal, thus I would like to know if there is an alternative way for you to get paid. I hope so, because I have been “following” you and I think the course can be really useful for me 🙂 Hope to hear from you soon. Best wishes, Belén Merelas

Thanks for the comment – I have sent you an email.

Hello! I am a Master’s student and I have applied for a PhD position. The professors have asked me to write a short abstract-like text, based on a brief sentence they will send me, related to the project study. How am I supposed to write a text like that when I don’t have the whole paper, the methods, results etc? Thank you in advance!

Hi Maria. I’m afraid that without knowing more about your topic or subject I am unable to give you advice on this. Sorry I can’t help in the way you may have hoped.

Thank u so much… your tips have really helped me to broaden my scope on the idea of how to write an abstract for my Ph.D. course. This is so thoughtful of you… The article is very informative and helpful…Thanks again!

I’m so pleased. Thanks for your lovely words. They’re music to my ears.

Very insightful Thanks

Glad you think so. Good luck with the writing.

Thank you so much Doc

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

Most popular articles from the phd knowlege base.

The PhD Knowledge Base Categories

• Your PhD and Covid
• Mastering your theory and literature review chapters
• How to structure and write every chapter of the PhD
• How to stay motivated and productive
• Techniques to improve your writing and fluency
• Advice on maintaining good mental health
• Resources designed for non-native English speakers
• PhD Writing Template
• Explore our back-catalogue of motivational advice

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

Know the Difference: PhD Dissertation vs. Thesis

One of the biggest turning points of any PhD student’s journey is the submission of a research writing project in the form of either a PhD thesis or a PhD dissertation. From an academic perspective, the thesis/dissertation is in many ways a major indicator of the abilities and expertise that you have gained as a doctoral candidate.

The mere task of understanding the requirements and compiling a PhD dissertation/thesis is in itself huge. However, what may be confusing to understand, especially if you are just embarking upon your doctoral journey, is the difference between thesis and dissertation.

Table of Contents

Similarities in phd dissertation vs. thesis, 1. understanding differences in the meaning of the two terms, 2. difference between thesis and dissertation based upon geographical location, 3. understanding a difference in content for a phd thesis v/s phd dissertation.

These two terms are often used interchangeably when referring to doctoral studies as there are a number of similarities between them:

• The very first commonality between thesis and dissertation is that the submission of both is considered to be an official culmination of the doctoral work of the candidate.
• Both the thesis and the dissertation demonstrate the ability of a doctoral candidate to effectively communicate their process of resolving a problem statement.
• The thesis and dissertation both test a candidate’s ability toward analytical reasoning and critical thinking , while showcasing his/her expertise in a particular subject area.
• Both the thesis and the dissertation are evaluated by an official review committee consisting of internal as well as external examiners who are experts in the specific subject area being explored in the doctoral study.
• Based upon the reviews of the committee members, both of these documents are then subject to changes and re-submission as required .
• Lastly, both a thesis and a dissertation can be treated as official publications that may be available as resources in the university library .

Owing to the above-mentioned similarities, the confusion between the correct usage of dissertation vs. thesis is quite understandable. In order to ensure the proper usage of these two terms, it’s crucial to understand the differences in a PhD thesis v/s PhD dissertation. Here are some quick pointers that may be useful.

Differences between thesis and dissertation

Since most academic institutions will continue to use these terms interchangeably, it is imperative that you confirm the intricate details regarding the expected structure of a PhD thesis/dissertation with your respective institution. However, for now, we hope that the above article helps in clarifying some of the major doubts that you may have had regarding a PhD thesis v/s dissertation.

In order to better understand the meaning of thesis vs dissertation, let us go back to the origin of the terms. The term ‘thesis’ originates from the Greek word ‘tithenai’, which means ‘to place a proposition’, while the term ‘dissertation’ has a Latin origin, which essentially means ‘disserere’/’dissertare’, i.e., ‘to (continue to) examine and discuss’. 1 To simplify further, a thesis by itself may simply represent an argument that you put forth and describe in depth, while a dissertation may represent a written summary/discussion of a particular work. 2

In countries/institutions that follow the British education system, it is common to term the final doctoral research writing project as a PhD thesis, while the countries/institutions that follow the American education system prefer to call it a PhD dissertation. In case you are unsure which education system is followed by your institution, it may be a good idea to verify this with the respective personnel, so that you can plan your doctoral journey effectively.

While the above two points may be useful to understand the differences between thesis and dissertation on a surface level, as a PhD student it is crucial for you to understand the deeper differences in the content and the type of work that goes into each of them. Let us do this by revisiting the differences in the origin of the two terms: ‘dissertare’ or to discuss (dissertation) v/s ‘to place a proposition’ (thesis). In my experience, the content of a PhD dissertation often comprises peer-reviewed publications that are published by the doctoral candidate during their doctoral work, along with supplementary chapters.

On the other hand, while compiling a PhD thesis, a doctoral candidate may need to describe the doctoral work in detail with the help of distinct chapters comprising: abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion and bibliography/references. Thus, the main difference between thesis and dissertation, lies in the way the written document is being presented although the doctoral work done by the candidate will mostly remain the same .

References:

1.         What is the Difference Between a Dissertation and a Thesis? | Postgrad.com. https://www.postgrad.com/advice/exams/dissertation-and-theses/difference-between-a-dissertation-and-a-thesis/

2.         The PhD Thesis | FindAPhD.com. www.FindAPhD.com https://www.findaphd.com/guides/phd-thesis.

The time it takes to write a PhD thesis vs. dissertation can vary depending on several factors, including the research topic, the scope of the project, the research methodology, and the specific requirements of the academic program. However, in general, a dissertation is typically longer and more comprehensive than a thesis, and therefore may take longer to complete.

A dissertation for doctoral programs is typically required after the completion of required coursework, passing comprehensive exams, and hitting any other specific milestones outlined by the program. This means PhD students usually devote years in developing their dissertation, which demonstrates your ability to conduct independent research and make original contributions to the field

A thesis statement is used in academic writing to provide a concise summary of the main argument or point being made in an essay or paper. It should be used at the introduction at the beginning of the paper to guide the reader and provide focus for the writing. A thesis statement can be used in academic essays, research papers, analytical papers and literature reviews and presents readers with a clear roadmap of the research being conducted.

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• How to Identify a Predatory Journal and Steer Clear of It
• How to Write a Research Paper Introduction (with Examples)
• Academic Writing Groups: 5 Benefits for Researchers
• What is Peer Review: Importance and Types of Peer Review

Duplicate Publications: How to Avoid Overlapping Publications in Research

Manuscript submission: get your pre-submission checks right with paperpal , you may also like, ai in education: it’s time to change the..., publish research papers: 9 steps for successful publications , self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how..., 6 tips for post-doc researchers to take their..., 8 most effective ways to increase motivation for..., how to make your thesis supervision work for..., how to write a conclusion for research papers..., ethical research practices for research with human subjects, 5 reasons for rejection after peer review, what is peer review: importance and types of....

• Find a course
• Undergraduate study
• Postgraduate study
• MPhil/PhD research
• Short courses
• Entry requirements
• Financial support
• How to apply
• Come and meet us
• Evening study explained
• International Students
• Student Services
• Business Services
• Student life at Birkbeck
• The Birkbeck Experience
• Boost your career
• About Birkbeck
• Contact Birkbeck
• Faculties and Schools

Guidance for Statement of Contribution

As stated in the College’s MPhil/PhD regulations , the thesis must consist of the candidate’s own account of his/her investigations, the greater proportion of which must have been undertaken during the period of registration under supervision for the degree. The part played by the candidate in any work done jointly with the supervisor(s) and/or fellow research workers must be clearly stated by the candidate and certified by the candidate and supervisor.

The Statement of Contribution is the mechanism by which the work done jointly with the supervisor(s) and/or fellow research workers can be articulated and certified by the candidate and supervisor.

General purpose

To outline any work done jointly to contribute to the thesis and to fairly represent the contribution from all parties. This statement therefore demonstrates the candidates understanding of the importance of research integrity and supports the examiners to determine the extent of the original contribution to knowledge from the candidate. Detailed statements of contributions should be considered for any group/joint research projects (or aspects of projects such as analysis) where candidates have worked jointly with other parties for all or some parts of the research presented in the thesis.

If the candidate is not certain if a statement of contribution is required they can seek advice from their supervisor or the Birkbeck Graduate Research School (BGRS) , and in some instances the examiners may suggest that such a statement is appropriate following the discussion in the viva or a second review of the corrected thesis.

This detailed statement of contribution is required in addition to the short formal acknowledgement which may include thanks for personal support networks, for minor contributions, e.g. where a publisher has made available a measure free of charge, and often includes a thanks to supervisors (who are expected to regularly review candidates’ work as a matter of course). It is not unusual for the people who are listed in the statement of contribution to also be included in the personal acknowledgement statement.

It is recognised that joint working is a valid part of a PhD programme and there is no inherent detriment to a PhD thesis from the inclusion of a statement of contribution. Indeed, clearly articulating the contribution of others demonstrates a good understanding of the importance of research integrity; conversely, deliberately misrepresenting the work of others constitutes research misconduct.

Guiding principles

a) Outline chapter by chapter if the chapter was the candidate’s own contribution, or, where there is joint working, clearly state the respective contribution of all parties.

b) Acknowledge any direct contributors (and the level of their contribution) clearly.

c) Give a clear explanation of the level of any contributions at all stages of the research process as necessary:

I.     Formulation of ideas/hypotheses

II.    Provision of material/stimuli

III.   Generation of data

IV.   Analysis of data

V.    Anything other aspect which merit a clear statement.

d) To state the level of contribution, clearly explain e.g. which part of any data collection or analysis was undertaken by the candidate, which part by a collaborator, which part was genuine joint working where it is impossible to separate out individual contributions. If you are not clear how to present this information your supervisor or examiner should be able to advise or suggest someone who can help.

e) It is expected that any statement of contribution is submitted to all examiners, may be questioned during any viva examination, and is published as part of the thesis.

f) A typical statement of contribution is around one page in length, but there is no space restriction and if more space is required this should be taken. The statement should be signed by both the student and the supervisor.

Version: 20 March 2018

• Computational Neuroscience
• Neurobiology
• Integrative Neuroscience
• Computational Cognitive Neuroscience
• Bachelor of Science
• Bachelor of Science with Honors
• Research Opportunities
• Course Catalog
• Meet the NSCI Team
• Faculty List
• Research Areas
• Shared Equipment
• Awarded fMRI Studies
• The Neuroscience Institute Committees
• Reserve a Conference Room
• The Grossman Center
• Center for Motor Neuron Disease
• Recorded Seminars

PhD Thesis Defense: Kailong Wen, CON

PhD Thesis Defense Monday, April 15th, 1:30 pm Kailong Wen, CON Zhuang Lab KCBD 1103

“Opposing Motor Memories in the Direct and Indirect Pathways of the Basal Ganglia”

Abstract:  Loss of dopamine neurons causes motor deterioration in Parkinson’s disease patients. We have previously reported that in addition to acute motor impairment, the impaired motor behavior is encoded into long-term memory in an experience-dependent and task-specific manner, a phenomenon we refer to as aberrant inhibitory motor learning. Although normal motor learning and aberrant inhibitory learning oppose each other and this is manifested in apparent motor performance, in the present study, we found that normal motor memory acquired prior to aberrant inhibitory learning remains preserved in the brain, suggesting the existence of independent storage. To investigate the neuronal circuits underlying these two opposing memories, we took advantage of the RNA-binding protein YTHDF1, an m6A RNA methylation reader involved in the regulation of protein synthesis and learning/memory. Conditional deletion of Ythdf1 in either D1 or D2 receptor-expressing neurons revealed that normal motor memory is stored in the D1 (direct) pathway of the basal ganglia, while inhibitory memory is stored in the D2 (indirect) pathway. Furthermore, fiber photometry recordings of GCaMP signals from striatal D1 (dSPN) and D2 (iSPN) receptor-expressing neurons support the preservation of normal memory in the direct pathway after aberrant inhibitory learning, with activities of dSPN predictive of motor performance. Finally, a computational model based on activities of motor cortical neurons, dSPN and iSPN neurons, and their interactions through the basal ganglia loops supports the above observations. These findings have important implications for novel approaches in treating Parkinson’s disease by reactivating preserved normal memory, and in treating hyperkinetic movement disorders such as chorea or tics by erasing aberrant motor memories.

© 2023 The Neuroscience Institute. All Rights Reserved. Design by EDUCO

Skip to Content

University of Colorado Denver

• Campus Directory
• Events Calendar
• Human Resources
• Student Services
• Auraria Library
• CU Denver Police
• University Policies

Schools and Colleges

• College of Architecture and Planning
• College of Arts & Media
• Business School
• School of Education & Human Development
• College of Engineering, Design and Computing
• Graduate School
• College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
• School of Public Affairs

Campus Affiliates

• CU Anschutz Medical Campus
• CU Colorado Springs

Other ways to search:

• University Directory

Michelle Deprenger-Levin Ph.D. Thesis Defense

Congratulations michelle deprenger-levin for successfully defending your ph.d. degree thesis, michelle deprenger-levin.

Ph.D. Degree Candidate CU Denver Department of Integrative Biology

When: Friday, March 15th, 2024, 12:00pm Where: Science Building, Room 2001

Using demography to inform plant conservation: an examination of uses and pitfalls of conventional population models.

Demography is used to detect and predict population trends and assess the impact of management actions. Demographic data is lacking for many rare and threatened or potentially invasive species. To assess the risk of extinction or potential of establishment for species lacking demographic data, this work sets expectations for near-term dynamics by population structure, population size, and life history. Empirical data can be tested against these expectations. However, population models often fail to predict future dynamics. One cause of error that is rarely addressed in plant populations is imperfect detection. There are extensive models to address imperfect detection for mobile organisms but little attention on which models are appropriate for plant populations. I developed a guide to apply statistical models and field methods to address plant population dynamics while accounting for imperfect detection. I then apply these models to a long-term demographic study of a perennial herb to quantify the impact of ignoring imperfect detection.

• Website Feedback
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notices
• Accreditation

© 2021  The Regents of the University of Colorado , a body corporate. All rights reserved.

Accredited by the Higher Learning Commission . All trademarks are registered property of the University. Used by permission only.