dissertation meaning sentence

How To Write A Dissertation Or Thesis

8 straightforward steps to craft an a-grade dissertation.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) Expert Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2020

Writing a dissertation or thesis is not a simple task. It takes time, energy and a lot of will power to get you across the finish line. It’s not easy – but it doesn’t necessarily need to be a painful process. If you understand the big-picture process of how to write a dissertation or thesis, your research journey will be a lot smoother.  

In this post, I’m going to outline the big-picture process of how to write a high-quality dissertation or thesis, without losing your mind along the way. If you’re just starting your research, this post is perfect for you. Alternatively, if you’ve already submitted your proposal, this article which covers how to structure a dissertation might be more helpful.

How To Write A Dissertation: 8 Steps

• Clearly understand what a dissertation (or thesis) is
• Find a unique and valuable research topic
• Craft a convincing research proposal
• Write up a strong introduction chapter
• Review the existing literature and compile a literature review
• Design a rigorous research strategy and undertake your own research
• Present the findings of your research
• Draw a conclusion and discuss the implications

Step 1: Understand exactly what a dissertation is

This probably sounds like a no-brainer, but all too often, students come to us for help with their research and the underlying issue is that they don’t fully understand what a dissertation (or thesis) actually is.

So, what is a dissertation?

At its simplest, a dissertation or thesis is a formal piece of research , reflecting the standard research process . But what is the standard research process, you ask? The research process involves 4 key steps:

• Ask a very specific, well-articulated question (s) (your research topic)
• See what other researchers have said about it (if they’ve already answered it)
• If they haven’t answered it adequately, undertake your own data collection and analysis in a scientifically rigorous fashion
• Answer your original question(s), based on your analysis findings

In short, the research process is simply about asking and answering questions in a systematic fashion . This probably sounds pretty obvious, but people often think they’ve done “research”, when in fact what they have done is:

• Started with a vague, poorly articulated question
• Not taken the time to see what research has already been done regarding the question
• Collected data and opinions that support their gut and undertaken a flimsy analysis
• Drawn a shaky conclusion, based on that analysis

If you want to see the perfect example of this in action, look out for the next Facebook post where someone claims they’ve done “research”… All too often, people consider reading a few blog posts to constitute research. Its no surprise then that what they end up with is an opinion piece, not research. Okay, okay – I’ll climb off my soapbox now.

The key takeaway here is that a dissertation (or thesis) is a formal piece of research, reflecting the research process. It’s not an opinion piece , nor a place to push your agenda or try to convince someone of your position. Writing a good dissertation involves asking a question and taking a systematic, rigorous approach to answering it.

If you understand this and are comfortable leaving your opinions or preconceived ideas at the door, you’re already off to a good start!

Step 2: Find a unique, valuable research topic

As we saw, the first step of the research process is to ask a specific, well-articulated question. In other words, you need to find a research topic that asks a specific question or set of questions (these are called research questions ). Sounds easy enough, right? All you’ve got to do is identify a question or two and you’ve got a winning research topic. Well, not quite…

A good dissertation or thesis topic has a few important attributes. Specifically, a solid research topic should be:

Let’s take a closer look at these:

Attribute #1: Clear

Your research topic needs to be crystal clear about what you’re planning to research, what you want to know, and within what context. There shouldn’t be any ambiguity or vagueness about what you’ll research.

Here’s an example of a clearly articulated research topic:

An analysis of consumer-based factors influencing organisational trust in British low-cost online equity brokerage firms.

As you can see in the example, its crystal clear what will be analysed (factors impacting organisational trust), amongst who (consumers) and in what context (British low-cost equity brokerage firms, based online).

Need a helping hand?

Attribute #2:   Unique

Your research should be asking a question(s) that hasn’t been asked before, or that hasn’t been asked in a specific context (for example, in a specific country or industry).

For example, sticking organisational trust topic above, it’s quite likely that organisational trust factors in the UK have been investigated before, but the context (online low-cost equity brokerages) could make this research unique. Therefore, the context makes this research original.

One caveat when using context as the basis for originality – you need to have a good reason to suspect that your findings in this context might be different from the existing research – otherwise, there’s no reason to warrant researching it.

Attribute #3: Important

Simply asking a unique or original question is not enough – the question needs to create value. In other words, successfully answering your research questions should provide some value to the field of research or the industry. You can’t research something just to satisfy your curiosity. It needs to make some form of contribution either to research or industry.

For example, researching the factors influencing consumer trust would create value by enabling businesses to tailor their operations and marketing to leverage factors that promote trust. In other words, it would have a clear benefit to industry.

So, how do you go about finding a unique and valuable research topic? We explain that in detail in this video post – How To Find A Research Topic . Yeah, we’ve got you covered 😊

Step 3: Write a convincing research proposal

Once you’ve pinned down a high-quality research topic, the next step is to convince your university to let you research it. No matter how awesome you think your topic is, it still needs to get the rubber stamp before you can move forward with your research. The research proposal is the tool you’ll use for this job.

So, what’s in a research proposal?

The main “job” of a research proposal is to convince your university, advisor or committee that your research topic is worthy of approval. But convince them of what? Well, this varies from university to university, but generally, they want to see that:

• You have a clearly articulated, unique and important topic (this might sound familiar…)
• You’ve done some initial reading of the existing literature relevant to your topic (i.e. a literature review)
• You have a provisional plan in terms of how you will collect data and analyse it (i.e. a methodology)

At the proposal stage, it’s (generally) not expected that you’ve extensively reviewed the existing literature , but you will need to show that you’ve done enough reading to identify a clear gap for original (unique) research. Similarly, they generally don’t expect that you have a rock-solid research methodology mapped out, but you should have an idea of whether you’ll be undertaking qualitative or quantitative analysis , and how you’ll collect your data (we’ll discuss this in more detail later).

Long story short – don’t stress about having every detail of your research meticulously thought out at the proposal stage – this will develop as you progress through your research. However, you do need to show that you’ve “done your homework” and that your research is worthy of approval .

So, how do you go about crafting a high-quality, convincing proposal? We cover that in detail in this video post – How To Write A Top-Class Research Proposal . We’ve also got a video walkthrough of two proposal examples here .

Step 4: Craft a strong introduction chapter

Once your proposal’s been approved, its time to get writing your actual dissertation or thesis! The good news is that if you put the time into crafting a high-quality proposal, you’ve already got a head start on your first three chapters – introduction, literature review and methodology – as you can use your proposal as the basis for these.

Handy sidenote – our free dissertation & thesis template is a great way to speed up your dissertation writing journey.

What’s the introduction chapter all about?

The purpose of the introduction chapter is to set the scene for your research (dare I say, to introduce it…) so that the reader understands what you’ll be researching and why it’s important. In other words, it covers the same ground as the research proposal in that it justifies your research topic.

What goes into the introduction chapter?

This can vary slightly between universities and degrees, but generally, the introduction chapter will include the following:

• A brief background to the study, explaining the overall area of research
• A problem statement , explaining what the problem is with the current state of research (in other words, where the knowledge gap exists)
• Your research questions – in other words, the specific questions your study will seek to answer (based on the knowledge gap)
• The significance of your study – in other words, why it’s important and how its findings will be useful in the world

As you can see, this all about explaining the “what” and the “why” of your research (as opposed to the “how”). So, your introduction chapter is basically the salesman of your study, “selling” your research to the first-time reader and (hopefully) getting them interested to read more.

How do I write the introduction chapter, you ask? We cover that in detail in this post .

Step 5: Undertake an in-depth literature review

As I mentioned earlier, you’ll need to do some initial review of the literature in Steps 2 and 3 to find your research gap and craft a convincing research proposal – but that’s just scratching the surface. Once you reach the literature review stage of your dissertation or thesis, you need to dig a lot deeper into the existing research and write up a comprehensive literature review chapter.

What’s the literature review all about?

There are two main stages in the literature review process:

Literature Review Step 1: Reading up

The first stage is for you to deep dive into the existing literature (journal articles, textbook chapters, industry reports, etc) to gain an in-depth understanding of the current state of research regarding your topic. While you don’t need to read every single article, you do need to ensure that you cover all literature that is related to your core research questions, and create a comprehensive catalogue of that literature , which you’ll use in the next step.

Reading and digesting all the relevant literature is a time consuming and intellectually demanding process. Many students underestimate just how much work goes into this step, so make sure that you allocate a good amount of time for this when planning out your research. Thankfully, there are ways to fast track the process – be sure to check out this article covering how to read journal articles quickly .

Literature Review Step 2: Writing up

Once you’ve worked through the literature and digested it all, you’ll need to write up your literature review chapter. Many students make the mistake of thinking that the literature review chapter is simply a summary of what other researchers have said. While this is partly true, a literature review is much more than just a summary. To pull off a good literature review chapter, you’ll need to achieve at least 3 things:

• You need to synthesise the existing research , not just summarise it. In other words, you need to show how different pieces of theory fit together, what’s agreed on by researchers, what’s not.
• You need to highlight a research gap that your research is going to fill. In other words, you’ve got to outline the problem so that your research topic can provide a solution.
• You need to use the existing research to inform your methodology and approach to your own research design. For example, you might use questions or Likert scales from previous studies in your your own survey design .

As you can see, a good literature review is more than just a summary of the published research. It’s the foundation on which your own research is built, so it deserves a lot of love and attention. Take the time to craft a comprehensive literature review with a suitable structure .

But, how do I actually write the literature review chapter, you ask? We cover that in detail in this video post .

Step 6: Carry out your own research

Once you’ve completed your literature review and have a sound understanding of the existing research, its time to develop your own research (finally!). You’ll design this research specifically so that you can find the answers to your unique research question.

There are two steps here – designing your research strategy and executing on it:

1 – Design your research strategy

The first step is to design your research strategy and craft a methodology chapter . I won’t get into the technicalities of the methodology chapter here, but in simple terms, this chapter is about explaining the “how” of your research. If you recall, the introduction and literature review chapters discussed the “what” and the “why”, so it makes sense that the next point to cover is the “how” –that’s what the methodology chapter is all about.

In this section, you’ll need to make firm decisions about your research design. This includes things like:

• Your research philosophy (e.g. positivism or interpretivism )
• Your overall methodology (e.g. qualitative , quantitative or mixed methods)
• Your data collection strategy (e.g. interviews , focus groups, surveys)
• Your data analysis strategy (e.g. content analysis , correlation analysis, regression)

If these words have got your head spinning, don’t worry! We’ll explain these in plain language in other posts. It’s not essential that you understand the intricacies of research design (yet!). The key takeaway here is that you’ll need to make decisions about how you’ll design your own research, and you’ll need to describe (and justify) your decisions in your methodology chapter.

2 – Execute: Collect and analyse your data

Once you’ve worked out your research design, you’ll put it into action and start collecting your data. This might mean undertaking interviews, hosting an online survey or any other data collection method. Data collection can take quite a bit of time (especially if you host in-person interviews), so be sure to factor sufficient time into your project plan for this. Oftentimes, things don’t go 100% to plan (for example, you don’t get as many survey responses as you hoped for), so bake a little extra time into your budget here.

Once you’ve collected your data, you’ll need to do some data preparation before you can sink your teeth into the analysis. For example:

• If you carry out interviews or focus groups, you’ll need to transcribe your audio data to text (i.e. a Word document).
• If you collect quantitative survey data, you’ll need to clean up your data and get it into the right format for whichever analysis software you use (for example, SPSS, R or STATA).

Once you’ve completed your data prep, you’ll undertake your analysis, using the techniques that you described in your methodology. Depending on what you find in your analysis, you might also do some additional forms of analysis that you hadn’t planned for. For example, you might see something in the data that raises new questions or that requires clarification with further analysis.

The type(s) of analysis that you’ll use depend entirely on the nature of your research and your research questions. For example:

• If your research if exploratory in nature, you’ll often use qualitative analysis techniques .
• If your research is confirmatory in nature, you’ll often use quantitative analysis techniques
• If your research involves a mix of both, you might use a mixed methods approach

Again, if these words have got your head spinning, don’t worry! We’ll explain these concepts and techniques in other posts. The key takeaway is simply that there’s no “one size fits all” for research design and methodology – it all depends on your topic, your research questions and your data. So, don’t be surprised if your study colleagues take a completely different approach to yours.

Step 7: Present your findings

Once you’ve completed your analysis, it’s time to present your findings (finally!). In a dissertation or thesis, you’ll typically present your findings in two chapters – the results chapter and the discussion chapter .

What’s the difference between the results chapter and the discussion chapter?

While these two chapters are similar, the results chapter generally just presents the processed data neatly and clearly without interpretation, while the discussion chapter explains the story the data are telling  – in other words, it provides your interpretation of the results.

For example, if you were researching the factors that influence consumer trust, you might have used a quantitative approach to identify the relationship between potential factors (e.g. perceived integrity and competence of the organisation) and consumer trust. In this case:

• Your results chapter would just present the results of the statistical tests. For example, correlation results or differences between groups. In other words, the processed numbers.
• Your discussion chapter would explain what the numbers mean in relation to your research question(s). For example, Factor 1 has a weak relationship with consumer trust, while Factor 2 has a strong relationship.

Depending on the university and degree, these two chapters (results and discussion) are sometimes merged into one , so be sure to check with your institution what their preference is. Regardless of the chapter structure, this section is about presenting the findings of your research in a clear, easy to understand fashion.

Importantly, your discussion here needs to link back to your research questions (which you outlined in the introduction or literature review chapter). In other words, it needs to answer the key questions you asked (or at least attempt to answer them).

For example, if we look at the sample research topic:

In this case, the discussion section would clearly outline which factors seem to have a noteworthy influence on organisational trust. By doing so, they are answering the overarching question and fulfilling the purpose of the research .

For more information about the results chapter , check out this post for qualitative studies and this post for quantitative studies .

Step 8: The Final Step Draw a conclusion and discuss the implications

Last but not least, you’ll need to wrap up your research with the conclusion chapter . In this chapter, you’ll bring your research full circle by highlighting the key findings of your study and explaining what the implications of these findings are.

What exactly are key findings? The key findings are those findings which directly relate to your original research questions and overall research objectives (which you discussed in your introduction chapter). The implications, on the other hand, explain what your findings mean for industry, or for research in your area.

Sticking with the consumer trust topic example, the conclusion might look something like this:

Key findings

This study set out to identify which factors influence consumer-based trust in British low-cost online equity brokerage firms. The results suggest that the following factors have a large impact on consumer trust:

While the following factors have a very limited impact on consumer trust:

Notably, within the 25-30 age groups, Factors E had a noticeably larger impact, which may be explained by…

Implications

The findings having noteworthy implications for British low-cost online equity brokers. Specifically:

The large impact of Factors X and Y implies that brokers need to consider….

The limited impact of Factor E implies that brokers need to…

As you can see, the conclusion chapter is basically explaining the “what” (what your study found) and the “so what?” (what the findings mean for the industry or research). This brings the study full circle and closes off the document.

Let’s recap – how to write a dissertation or thesis

You’re still with me? Impressive! I know that this post was a long one, but hopefully you’ve learnt a thing or two about how to write a dissertation or thesis, and are now better equipped to start your own research.

To recap, the 8 steps to writing a quality dissertation (or thesis) are as follows:

• Understand what a dissertation (or thesis) is – a research project that follows the research process.
• Find a unique (original) and important research topic
• Craft a convincing dissertation or thesis research proposal
• Write a clear, compelling introduction chapter
• Undertake a thorough review of the existing research and write up a literature review
• Undertake your own research
• Present and interpret your findings

Once you’ve wrapped up the core chapters, all that’s typically left is the abstract , reference list and appendices. As always, be sure to check with your university if they have any additional requirements in terms of structure or content.  

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

20 Comments

thankfull >>>this is very useful

Thank you, it was really helpful

unquestionably, this amazing simplified way of teaching. Really , I couldn’t find in the literature words that fully explicit my great thanks to you. However, I could only say thanks a-lot.

Great to hear that – thanks for the feedback. Good luck writing your dissertation/thesis.

This is the most comprehensive explanation of how to write a dissertation. Many thanks for sharing it free of charge.

Very rich presentation. Thank you

Thanks Derek Jansen|GRADCOACH, I find it very useful guide to arrange my activities and proceed to research!

Thank you so much for such a marvelous teaching .I am so convinced that am going to write a comprehensive and a distinct masters dissertation

It is an amazing comprehensive explanation

This was straightforward. Thank you!

I can say that your explanations are simple and enlightening – understanding what you have done here is easy for me. Could you write more about the different types of research methods specific to the three methodologies: quan, qual and MM. I look forward to interacting with this website more in the future.

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions 🙂

Hello, your write ups is quite educative. However, l have challenges in going about my research questions which is below; *Building the enablers of organisational growth through effective governance and purposeful leadership.*

Very educating.

Just listening to the name of the dissertation makes the student nervous. As writing a top-quality dissertation is a difficult task as it is a lengthy topic, requires a lot of research and understanding and is usually around 10,000 to 15000 words. Sometimes due to studies, unbalanced workload or lack of research and writing skill students look for dissertation submission from professional writers.

Thank you 💕😊 very much. I was confused but your comprehensive explanation has cleared my doubts of ever presenting a good thesis. Thank you.

thank you so much, that was so useful

Hi. Where is the excel spread sheet ark?

could you please help me look at your thesis paper to enable me to do the portion that has to do with the specification

my topic is “the impact of domestic revenue mobilization.

Submit a Comment 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.

• Print Friendly

• Daily Crossword
• Word Puzzle
• Word Finder
• Word of the Day
• Synonym of the Day
• Word of the Year
• Language stories
• All featured
• Gender and sexuality
• All pop culture
• Writing hub
• Grammar essentials
• Commonly confused
• All writing tips
• Pop culture
• Writing tips

Advertisement

dissertation

[ dis-er- tey -sh uh n ]

• a written essay, treatise, or thesis, especially one written by a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
• any formal discourse in speech or writing.

/ ˌdɪsəˈteɪʃən /

• a written thesis, often based on original research, usually required for a higher degree
• a formal discourse

Discover More

Derived forms.

• ˌdisserˈtational , adjective
• ˌdisserˈtationist , noun

Other Words From

• disser·tation·al adjective
• disser·tation·ist noun

Word History and Origins

Origin of dissertation 1

Example Sentences

Thirteen years ago, while working on her PHD dissertation in Madagascar’s Masoala Peninsula, Borgerson encountered a problem.

At Harvard, he received a PhD in government and wrote his dissertation under Henry Kissinger, who became a lifelong friend.

I planned to go back to physics after a couple of years and then return to wrap up my dissertation.

My buba’s lived experience helped shape me into the girl who wrote her college dissertation on the gender pay gap, arguing for equal parental leave for dads and moms, almost 20 years before any major employer implemented any such thing.

My PhD dissertation was a highly theoretical model representing computer systems that were framed as a mathematical model, and if they were interconnected in such a way that these interconnected computers would communicate like cells in the body.

A terrific cultural studies dissertation awaits on how the fortunes of the Cheneys provide a mirror on a changing America.

Today, he visits online forums and bombards them with dissertation-length comments.

In her dissertation, McFate had asked whether ‘good anthropology’ might lead to ‘better killing.’

Heritage has distanced itself from Richwine and his dissertation.

No single dissertation will alter the status quo on its own.

I've never had time to write home about it, for I felt that it required a dissertation in itself to do it justice.

Dr. Pitcairn, published at Leyden his dissertation on the circulation of the blood through the veins.

Start not, reader, I am not going to trouble you with a poetical dissertation; no, no!

Dissertation sur les Assassins, Académie des Inscriptions, tom.

This dissertation, which is illustrated by several plates, will repay for the time spent in reading it.

Related Words

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of dissertation in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

• boilerplate
• composition
• essay question
• peer review

dissertation | Intermediate English

Examples of dissertation, translations of dissertation.

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

customer support

help and advice that a company makes available to customers when they have bought something

Searching out and tracking down: talking about finding or discovering things

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• English    Noun
• Intermediate    Noun
• Translations
• All translations

To add dissertation to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add dissertation to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

• Dictionaries home
• American English
• Collocations
• German-English
• Grammar home
• Practical English Usage
• Learn & Practise Grammar (Beta)
• Word Lists home
• My Word Lists
• Recent additions
• Resources home
• Text Checker

Definition of dissertation noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

• dissertation
• He wrote his Master's dissertation on rats.
• Students can either do a dissertation or take part in a practical project.
• hall of residence
• Candidates are required to present a dissertation of between 8 000 and 12 000 words.
• She is writing her dissertation on the history of the Knights Templar.
• dissertation on

Take your English to the next level

The Oxford Learner’s Thesaurus explains the difference between groups of similar words. Try it for free as part of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary app

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

More commonly misspelled words, your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, more commonly mispronounced words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), popular in wordplay, birds say the darndest things, the words of the week - may 10, a great big list of bread words, 10 scrabble words without any vowels, 12 more bird names that sound like insults (and sometimes are), games & quizzes.

Definition of 'dissertation'

• dissertation

dissertation in British English

Dissertation in american english, examples of 'dissertation' in a sentence dissertation, cobuild collocations dissertation, trends of dissertation.

View usage for: All Years Last 10 years Last 50 years Last 100 years Last 300 years

In other languages dissertation

• American English : dissertation / dɪsərˈteɪʃən /
• Brazilian Portuguese : dissertação
• Chinese : 论文 学位
• European Spanish : tesina
• French : mémoire
• German : Dissertation
• Italian : tesi
• Japanese : 学位論文
• Korean : 논문 학위
• European Portuguese : dissertação
• Latin American Spanish : tesina

Browse alphabetically dissertation

• dissepiment
• dissertation research
• dissertative
• All ENGLISH words that begin with 'D'

Related terms of dissertation

• doctoral dissertation
• write a dissertation

Quick word challenge

Quiz Review

Score: 0 / 5

Wordle Helper

Scrabble Tools

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips

Published on 25 February 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 10 October 2022.

Your research methodology discusses and explains the data collection and analysis methods you used in your research. A key part of your thesis, dissertation, or research paper, the methodology chapter explains what you did and how you did it, allowing readers to evaluate the reliability and validity of your research.

It should include:

• The type of research you conducted
• How you collected and analysed your data
• Any tools or materials you used in the research
• Why you chose these methods
• Your methodology section should generally be written in the past tense .
• Academic style guides in your field may provide detailed guidelines on what to include for different types of studies.
• Your citation style might provide guidelines for your methodology section (e.g., an APA Style methods section ).

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

How to write a research methodology, why is a methods section important, step 1: explain your methodological approach, step 2: describe your data collection methods, step 3: describe your analysis method, step 4: evaluate and justify the methodological choices you made, tips for writing a strong methodology chapter, frequently asked questions about methodology.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

Your methods section is your opportunity to share how you conducted your research and why you chose the methods you chose. It’s also the place to show that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated .

It gives your research legitimacy and situates it within your field, and also gives your readers a place to refer to if they have any questions or critiques in other sections.

You can start by introducing your overall approach to your research. You have two options here.

Option 1: Start with your “what”

What research problem or question did you investigate?

• Aim to describe the characteristics of something?
• Explore an under-researched topic?
• Establish a causal relationship?

And what type of data did you need to achieve this aim?

• Quantitative data , qualitative data , or a mix of both?
• Primary data collected yourself, or secondary data collected by someone else?
• Experimental data gathered by controlling and manipulating variables, or descriptive data gathered via observations?

Option 2: Start with your “why”

Depending on your discipline, you can also start with a discussion of the rationale and assumptions underpinning your methodology. In other words, why did you choose these methods for your study?

• Why is this the best way to answer your research question?
• Is this a standard methodology in your field, or does it require justification?
• Were there any ethical considerations involved in your choices?
• What are the criteria for validity and reliability in this type of research ?

Once you have introduced your reader to your methodological approach, you should share full details about your data collection methods .

Quantitative methods

In order to be considered generalisable, you should describe quantitative research methods in enough detail for another researcher to replicate your study.

Here, explain how you operationalised your concepts and measured your variables. Discuss your sampling method or inclusion/exclusion criteria, as well as any tools, procedures, and materials you used to gather your data.

Surveys Describe where, when, and how the survey was conducted.

• How did you design the questionnaire?
• What form did your questions take (e.g., multiple choice, Likert scale )?
• Were your surveys conducted in-person or virtually?
• What sampling method did you use to select participants?
• What was your sample size and response rate?

Experiments Share full details of the tools, techniques, and procedures you used to conduct your experiment.

• How did you design the experiment ?
• How did you recruit participants?
• How did you manipulate and measure the variables ?
• What tools did you use?

Existing data Explain how you gathered and selected the material (such as datasets or archival data) that you used in your analysis.

• Where did you source the material?
• How was the data originally produced?
• What criteria did you use to select material (e.g., date range)?

The survey consisted of 5 multiple-choice questions and 10 questions measured on a 7-point Likert scale.

The goal was to collect survey responses from 350 customers visiting the fitness apparel company’s brick-and-mortar location in Boston on 4–8 July 2022, between 11:00 and 15:00.

Here, a customer was defined as a person who had purchased a product from the company on the day they took the survey. Participants were given 5 minutes to fill in the survey anonymously. In total, 408 customers responded, but not all surveys were fully completed. Due to this, 371 survey results were included in the analysis.

Qualitative methods

In qualitative research , methods are often more flexible and subjective. For this reason, it’s crucial to robustly explain the methodology choices you made.

Be sure to discuss the criteria you used to select your data, the context in which your research was conducted, and the role you played in collecting your data (e.g., were you an active participant, or a passive observer?)

Interviews or focus groups Describe where, when, and how the interviews were conducted.

• How did you find and select participants?
• How many participants took part?
• What form did the interviews take ( structured , semi-structured , or unstructured )?
• How long were the interviews?
• How were they recorded?

Participant observation Describe where, when, and how you conducted the observation or ethnography .

• What group or community did you observe? How long did you spend there?
• How did you gain access to this group? What role did you play in the community?
• How long did you spend conducting the research? Where was it located?
• How did you record your data (e.g., audiovisual recordings, note-taking)?

Existing data Explain how you selected case study materials for your analysis.

• What type of materials did you analyse?
• How did you select them?

In order to gain better insight into possibilities for future improvement of the fitness shop’s product range, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 8 returning customers.

Here, a returning customer was defined as someone who usually bought products at least twice a week from the store.

Surveys were used to select participants. Interviews were conducted in a small office next to the cash register and lasted approximately 20 minutes each. Answers were recorded by note-taking, and seven interviews were also filmed with consent. One interviewee preferred not to be filmed.

Mixed methods

Mixed methods research combines quantitative and qualitative approaches. If a standalone quantitative or qualitative study is insufficient to answer your research question, mixed methods may be a good fit for you.

Mixed methods are less common than standalone analyses, largely because they require a great deal of effort to pull off successfully. If you choose to pursue mixed methods, it’s especially important to robustly justify your methods here.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Next, you should indicate how you processed and analysed your data. Avoid going into too much detail: you should not start introducing or discussing any of your results at this stage.

In quantitative research , your analysis will be based on numbers. In your methods section, you can include:

• How you prepared the data before analysing it (e.g., checking for missing data , removing outliers , transforming variables)
• Which software you used (e.g., SPSS, Stata or R)
• Which statistical tests you used (e.g., two-tailed t test , simple linear regression )

In qualitative research, your analysis will be based on language, images, and observations (often involving some form of textual analysis ).

Specific methods might include:

• Content analysis : Categorising and discussing the meaning of words, phrases and sentences
• Thematic analysis : Coding and closely examining the data to identify broad themes and patterns
• Discourse analysis : Studying communication and meaning in relation to their social context

Mixed methods combine the above two research methods, integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches into one coherent analytical process.

Above all, your methodology section should clearly make the case for why you chose the methods you did. This is especially true if you did not take the most standard approach to your topic. In this case, discuss why other methods were not suitable for your objectives, and show how this approach contributes new knowledge or understanding.

In any case, it should be overwhelmingly clear to your reader that you set yourself up for success in terms of your methodology’s design. Show how your methods should lead to results that are valid and reliable, while leaving the analysis of the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results for your discussion section .

• Quantitative: Lab-based experiments cannot always accurately simulate real-life situations and behaviours, but they are effective for testing causal relationships between variables .
• Qualitative: Unstructured interviews usually produce results that cannot be generalised beyond the sample group , but they provide a more in-depth understanding of participants’ perceptions, motivations, and emotions.
• Mixed methods: Despite issues systematically comparing differing types of data, a solely quantitative study would not sufficiently incorporate the lived experience of each participant, while a solely qualitative study would be insufficiently generalisable.

Remember that your aim is not just to describe your methods, but to show how and why you applied them. Again, it’s critical to demonstrate that your research was rigorously conducted and can be replicated.

1. Focus on your objectives and research questions

The methodology section should clearly show why your methods suit your objectives  and convince the reader that you chose the best possible approach to answering your problem statement and research questions .

2. Cite relevant sources

Your methodology can be strengthened by referencing existing research in your field. This can help you to:

• Show that you followed established practice for your type of research
• Discuss how you decided on your approach by evaluating existing research
• Present a novel methodological approach to address a gap in the literature

3. Write for your audience

Consider how much information you need to give, and avoid getting too lengthy. If you are using methods that are standard for your discipline, you probably don’t need to give a lot of background or justification.

Regardless, your methodology should be a clear, well-structured text that makes an argument for your approach, not just a list of technical details and procedures.

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research. Developing your methodology involves studying the research methods used in your field and the theories or principles that underpin them, in order to choose the approach that best matches your objectives.

Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyse data (e.g. interviews, experiments , surveys , statistical tests ).

In a dissertation or scientific paper, the methodology chapter or methods section comes after the introduction and before the results , discussion and conclusion .

Depending on the length and type of document, you might also include a literature review or theoretical framework before the methodology.

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to test a hypothesis by systematically collecting and analysing data, while qualitative methods allow you to explore ideas and experiences in depth.

A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population. Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research.

For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.

Statistical sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population. There are various sampling methods you can use to ensure that your sample is representative of the population as a whole.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, October 10). What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved 14 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/methodology/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a dissertation proposal | a step-by-step guide, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, what is a theoretical framework | a step-by-step guide.

Thesis Statements

What this handout is about.

This handout describes what a thesis statement is, how thesis statements work in your writing, and how you can craft or refine one for your draft.

Introduction

Writing in college often takes the form of persuasion—convincing others that you have an interesting, logical point of view on the subject you are studying. Persuasion is a skill you practice regularly in your daily life. You persuade your roommate to clean up, your parents to let you borrow the car, your friend to vote for your favorite candidate or policy. In college, course assignments often ask you to make a persuasive case in writing. You are asked to convince your reader of your point of view. This form of persuasion, often called academic argument, follows a predictable pattern in writing. After a brief introduction of your topic, you state your point of view on the topic directly and often in one sentence. This sentence is the thesis statement, and it serves as a summary of the argument you’ll make in the rest of your paper.

What is a thesis statement?

A thesis statement:

• tells the reader how you will interpret the significance of the subject matter under discussion.
• is a road map for the paper; in other words, it tells the reader what to expect from the rest of the paper.
• directly answers the question asked of you. A thesis is an interpretation of a question or subject, not the subject itself. The subject, or topic, of an essay might be World War II or Moby Dick; a thesis must then offer a way to understand the war or the novel.
• makes a claim that others might dispute.
• is usually a single sentence near the beginning of your paper (most often, at the end of the first paragraph) that presents your argument to the reader. The rest of the paper, the body of the essay, gathers and organizes evidence that will persuade the reader of the logic of your interpretation.

If your assignment asks you to take a position or develop a claim about a subject, you may need to convey that position or claim in a thesis statement near the beginning of your draft. The assignment may not explicitly state that you need a thesis statement because your instructor may assume you will include one. When in doubt, ask your instructor if the assignment requires a thesis statement. When an assignment asks you to analyze, to interpret, to compare and contrast, to demonstrate cause and effect, or to take a stand on an issue, it is likely that you are being asked to develop a thesis and to support it persuasively. (Check out our handout on understanding assignments for more information.)

How do I create a thesis?

A thesis is the result of a lengthy thinking process. Formulating a thesis is not the first thing you do after reading an essay assignment. Before you develop an argument on any topic, you have to collect and organize evidence, look for possible relationships between known facts (such as surprising contrasts or similarities), and think about the significance of these relationships. Once you do this thinking, you will probably have a “working thesis” that presents a basic or main idea and an argument that you think you can support with evidence. Both the argument and your thesis are likely to need adjustment along the way.

Writers use all kinds of techniques to stimulate their thinking and to help them clarify relationships or comprehend the broader significance of a topic and arrive at a thesis statement. For more ideas on how to get started, see our handout on brainstorming .

How do I know if my thesis is strong?

If there’s time, run it by your instructor or make an appointment at the Writing Center to get some feedback. Even if you do not have time to get advice elsewhere, you can do some thesis evaluation of your own. When reviewing your first draft and its working thesis, ask yourself the following :

• Do I answer the question? Re-reading the question prompt after constructing a working thesis can help you fix an argument that misses the focus of the question. If the prompt isn’t phrased as a question, try to rephrase it. For example, “Discuss the effect of X on Y” can be rephrased as “What is the effect of X on Y?”
• Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose? If your thesis simply states facts that no one would, or even could, disagree with, it’s possible that you are simply providing a summary, rather than making an argument.
• Is my thesis statement specific enough? Thesis statements that are too vague often do not have a strong argument. If your thesis contains words like “good” or “successful,” see if you could be more specific: why is something “good”; what specifically makes something “successful”?
• Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test? If a reader’s first response is likely to  be “So what?” then you need to clarify, to forge a relationship, or to connect to a larger issue.
• Does my essay support my thesis specifically and without wandering? If your thesis and the body of your essay do not seem to go together, one of them has to change. It’s okay to change your working thesis to reflect things you have figured out in the course of writing your paper. Remember, always reassess and revise your writing as necessary.
• Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test? If a reader’s first response is “how?” or “why?” your thesis may be too open-ended and lack guidance for the reader. See what you can add to give the reader a better take on your position right from the beginning.

Suppose you are taking a course on contemporary communication, and the instructor hands out the following essay assignment: “Discuss the impact of social media on public awareness.” Looking back at your notes, you might start with this working thesis:

Social media impacts public awareness in both positive and negative ways.

You can use the questions above to help you revise this general statement into a stronger thesis.

• Do I answer the question? You can analyze this if you rephrase “discuss the impact” as “what is the impact?” This way, you can see that you’ve answered the question only very generally with the vague “positive and negative ways.”
• Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose? Not likely. Only people who maintain that social media has a solely positive or solely negative impact could disagree.
• Is my thesis statement specific enough? No. What are the positive effects? What are the negative effects?
• Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test? No. Why are they positive? How are they positive? What are their causes? Why are they negative? How are they negative? What are their causes?
• Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test? No. Why should anyone care about the positive and/or negative impact of social media?

After thinking about your answers to these questions, you decide to focus on the one impact you feel strongly about and have strong evidence for:

Because not every voice on social media is reliable, people have become much more critical consumers of information, and thus, more informed voters.

This version is a much stronger thesis! It answers the question, takes a specific position that others can challenge, and it gives a sense of why it matters.

Let’s try another. Suppose your literature professor hands out the following assignment in a class on the American novel: Write an analysis of some aspect of Mark Twain’s novel Huckleberry Finn. “This will be easy,” you think. “I loved Huckleberry Finn!” You grab a pad of paper and write:

Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn is a great American novel.

You begin to analyze your thesis:

• Do I answer the question? No. The prompt asks you to analyze some aspect of the novel. Your working thesis is a statement of general appreciation for the entire novel.

Think about aspects of the novel that are important to its structure or meaning—for example, the role of storytelling, the contrasting scenes between the shore and the river, or the relationships between adults and children. Now you write:

In Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain develops a contrast between life on the river and life on the shore.

• Do I answer the question? Yes!
• Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose? Not really. This contrast is well-known and accepted.
• Is my thesis statement specific enough? It’s getting there–you have highlighted an important aspect of the novel for investigation. However, it’s still not clear what your analysis will reveal.
• Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test? Not yet. Compare scenes from the book and see what you discover. Free write, make lists, jot down Huck’s actions and reactions and anything else that seems interesting.
• Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test? What’s the point of this contrast? What does it signify?”

After examining the evidence and considering your own insights, you write:

Through its contrasting river and shore scenes, Twain’s Huckleberry Finn suggests that to find the true expression of American democratic ideals, one must leave “civilized” society and go back to nature.

This final thesis statement presents an interpretation of a literary work based on an analysis of its content. Of course, for the essay itself to be successful, you must now present evidence from the novel that will convince the reader of your interpretation.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Lunsford, Andrea A. 2015. The St. Martin’s Handbook , 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.

Ramage, John D., John C. Bean, and June Johnson. 2018. The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing , 8th ed. New York: Pearson.

Ruszkiewicz, John J., Christy Friend, Daniel Seward, and Maxine Hairston. 2010. The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers , 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Dissociating the pre-activation of word meaning and form during sentence comprehension: Evidence from EEG representational similarity analysis

• Brief Report
• Published: 02 October 2023
• Volume 31 , pages 862–873, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Lin Wang 1 , 2 ,
• Trevor Brothers 1 , 2 ,
• Ole Jensen 3 &
• Gina R. Kuperberg 1 , 2  

783 Accesses

10 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

During language comprehension, the processing of each incoming word is facilitated in proportion to its predictability. Here, we asked whether anticipated upcoming linguistic information is actually pre-activated before new bottom-up input becomes available, and if so, whether this pre-activation is limited to the level of semantic features, or whether extends to representations of individual word-forms (orthography/phonology). We carried out Representational Similarity Analysis on EEG data while participants read highly constraining sentences. Prior to the onset of the expected target words, sentence pairs predicting semantically related words ( financial “bank” – “loan”) and form-related words ( financial “bank” – river “bank”) produced more similar neural patterns than pairs predicting unrelated words (“bank” – “lesson”). This provides direct neural evidence for item-specific semantic and form predictive pre-activation. Moreover, the semantic pre-activation effect preceded the form pre-activation effect, suggesting that top-down pre-activation is propagated from higher to lower levels of the linguistic hierarchy over time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

New neighbours make bad fences: Form-based semantic shifts in word learning

The dynamic influence of emotional words on sentence comprehension: an erp study.

The contribution of semantics to the sentence superiority effect

In line with all accounts of predictive language comprehension, and all theories of post-onset homograph processing, we assume that in highly constraining contexts, the appropriate meaning of the homograph is pre-activated. For example, the dominant financial-related meaning of the word “bank” should be pre-activated following a dominant-constraining context, while the subordinate river-related meaning of the word “bank” should be pre-activated following the subordinate-constraining context. In the psycholinguistic literature, there has been some debate about whether, after a homograph is encountered from bottom-up input, we additionally access its contextually-inappropriate meaning. Addressing this question is outside the scope of the present study.

Previous studies have shown that GPT-derived probability values correlate with human-based cloze estimates (e.g. Szewczyk & Federmeier, 2022 ). Indeed, in the present study, GPT-derived estimates of the lexical probabilities of the predicted target words correlated strongly with the cloze estimates of lexical probability that we had obtained from human participants ( r = 0.92, p < 0.001).

We chose to exclude rather than interpolate bad channels to avoid any potential distortion of spatiotemporal patterns over the entire set of channels, which would occur if the true electrical activity at a bad channel was not highly correlated with activity at its neighboring channels.

High-pass filters can sometimes produce spurious multivariate effects (van Driel et al., 2021 ) and/or distort the timing of such effects (Acunzo et al., 2012 ). However, when we carried out the RSA without applying any high-pass filter, we found qualitatively similar effects.

Following a reviewer’s suggestion, we repeated the RSA using different sampling interval sizes (i.e., 0 ms, 20 ms, and 40 ms). We found qualitatively similar effects for all interval sizes.

Following a reviewer’s request, we carried out two additional post hoc tests. First, we statistically compared the peak latency difference between the semantic and form similarity effects using a Jackknife resampling approach. This also showed a significant effect. Second, we directly compared the neural similarity values produced by the semantically related and form-related pairs within the two time windows that revealed significant differences in the analysis above, i.e., in comparison with the unrelated control condition. Between -391 and -309 ms, the semantically related pairs produced greater neural similarity values than the form-related pairs although this effect was marginal (t (32) = 1.99, p = 0.055). Between -53 and -8 ms, the form-related pairs produced significantly greater neural similarity values than the semantically related pairs (t (32) = 2.53, p = 0.017).

A reviewer raised the possibility that the form pre-activation effect actually reflected an indirect semantic pre-activation effect. On this account, the pre-activation of a homograph’s contextually appropriate meaning (e.g., <financial-bank>) indirectly led to the additional pre-activation of its contextually inappropriate meaning (e.g., <river-bank>), and so the form pre-activation effect that we detected actually reflected overlap of these indirectly pre-activated semantic features. Note that this account would still be consistent with the claim that comprehenders pre-activate upcoming word-form forms. This is because the only way that the alternative meaning of the homograph could have been pre-activated is if its form was also pre-activated. Nonetheless, we explored this possibility by carrying out a post hoc analysis that contrasted the neural similarity values produced by indirectly related pairs (e.g., river “bank” – “loan”) with those produced by the unrelated pairs, each averaged across the -53 to -8 ms time window time window where we detected the form pre-activation effect. This analysis did not reveal a significant effect. Of course, this does not exclude the possibility that the alternative meaning of the predicted homographs was pre-activated in another time window. However, a comprehensive investigation of how different meanings associated with homographs are pre-activated goes beyond the scope of the present study. To investigate this, one would need to construct an additional set of highly constraining sentence contexts that predict words that are semantically related to the subordinate meanings of the predicted homographs.

Acunzo, D. J., Mackenzie, G., & van Rossum, M. C. (2012). Systematic biases in early ERP and ERF components as a result of high-pass filtering. J Neurosci Methods, 209 (1), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2012.06.011

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., ..., Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods , 39 (3), 445-459.

Bell, A. J., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1997). The “independent components” of natural scenes are edge filters. Vision Research, 37 (23), 3327–3338. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0042-6989(97)00121-1

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Brothers, T., Swaab, T. Y., & Traxler, M. J. (2015). Effects of prediction and contextual support on lexical processing: prediction takes precedence. Cognition, 136 , 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.017

Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., ..., Amodei, D. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 1877-1901. https://doi.org/10.5555/3495724.3495883

Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41 , 977–990.

Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known english word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46 (3), 904–911. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5

Choi, H. S., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Lyu, B., Randall, B., & Tyler, L. K. (2021). Decoding the real-time neurobiological properties of incremental semantic interpretation. Cereb Cortex, 31 (1), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhaa222

Cichy, R. M., Pantazis, D., & Oliva, A. (2014). Resolving human object recognition in space and time. Nature Neuroscience, 17 (3), 455–462.

Connolly, J. F., & Phillips, N. A. (1994). Event-related potential components reflect phonological and semantic processing of the terminal word of spoken sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6 (3), 256–266. https://doi.org/10.1162/Jocn.1994.6.3.256

Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., Sigman, M., & Vinckier, F. (2005). The neural code for written words: A proposal. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9 (7), 335–341.

DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.]. Nature Neuroscience, 8 (8), 1117–1121. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1504

DeLong, K. A., Chan, W. H., & Kutas, M. (2019). Similar time courses for word form and meaning preactivation during sentence comprehension. Psychophysiology, 56 (4), e13312. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13312

DeLong, K. A., Chan, W. H., & Kutas, M. (2021). Testing limits: ERP evidence for word form preactivation during speeded sentence reading. Psychophysiology, 58 (2), e13720. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13720

Dikker, S., & Pylkkänen, L. (2013). Predicting language: MEG evidence for lexical preactivation [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.]. Brain and Language, 127 (1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.08.004

Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: the role and roots of prediction in language comprehension [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Review]. Psychophysiology, 44 (4), 491–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00531.x

Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41 (4), 469–495. https://doi.org/10.1006/Jmla.1999.2660

Article   Google Scholar  

Federmeier, K. D., Mai, H., & Kutas, M. (2005). Both sides get the point: hemispheric sensitivities to sentential constraint. Memory and Cognition, 33 (5), 871–886. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193082

Gerrig, R. J., & McKoon, G. (1998). The readiness is all: The functionality of memory-based text processing. Discourse Processes, 26 (2–3), 67–86.

Groppe, D. M., Choi, M., Huang, T., Schilz, J., Topkins, B., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2010). The phonemic restoration effect reveals pre-N400 effect of supportive sentence context in speech perception. Brain Research, 1361 , 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Brainres.2010.09.003

He, T., Boudewyn, M. A., Kiat, J. E., Sagae, K., Luck, S. J. (2021). Neural correlates of word representation vectors in natural language processing models: Evidence from representational similarity analysis of event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology , e13976. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13976

Hubbard, R. J., & Federmeier, K. D. (2021). Representational pattern similarity of electrical brain activity reveals rapid and specific prediction during language comprehension. Cereb Cortex, 31 (9), 4300–4313. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhab087

Huth, A. G., de Heer, W. A., Griffiths, T. L., Theunissen, F. E., & Gallant, J. L. (2016). Natural speech reveals the semantic maps that tile human cerebral cortex. Nature, 532 (7600), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17637

Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. J. (2004). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition, 92 (1–2), 101–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2002.06.001

Ito, A., Corley, M., Pickering, M., Martin, A. E., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2016). Predicting form and meaning: Evidence from brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 86 , 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.10.007

Kiebel, S. J., Daunizeau, J., & Friston, K. J. (2008). A Hierarchy of Time-Scales and the Brain. PLoS Computational Biology, 4 (11), e1000209. https://doi.org/10.1371/Journal.Pcbi.1000209 . Artn E1000209.

Kriegeskorte, N., Mur, M., & Bandettini, P. (2008). Representational similarity analysis – connecting the branches of systems neuroscience. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 2 , 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.06.004.2008

Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31 (1), 32–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299

Kuperberg, G. R., Paczynski, M., & Ditman, T. (2011). Establishing causal coherence across sentences: an ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23 (5), 1230–1246. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21452

Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP) [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Review]. Annual Review of Psychology, 62 , 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123

Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2009). A beautiful day in the neighborhood: An event-related potential study of lexical relationships and prediction in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 61 (3), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.06.004

Lau, E. F., Holcomb, P. J., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2013). Dissociating N400 effects of prediction from association in single-word contexts [Comparative study randomized controlled trial research support, N.I.H., Extramural]. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25 (3), 484–502. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00328

Loper, E., & Bird, S. (2002). Nltk: The natural language toolkit. arXiv preprint cs/0205028. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cs/0205028

Luck, S. J. (2014). Chapter 7: basics of fourier analysis and filtering. In An introduction to the event-related potential technique (pp. 219–248). MIT Press

Lyu, B., Choi, H. S., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Clarke, A., Randall, B., & Tyler, L. K. (2019). Neural dynamics of semantic composition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116 (42), 21318–21327. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903402116

Manly, B. F. J. (1997). Randomization, bootstrap, and Monte Carlo methods in biology (2nd ed.). Chapman & Hall.

Google Scholar  

Maris, E., & Oostenveld, R. (2007). Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 164 (1), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024

Martin, C. D., Branzi, F. M., & Bar, M. (2018). Prediction is production: the missing link between language production and comprehension. Scientific Reports, 8 (1), 1079. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19499-4

Michelmann, S., Bowman, H., & Hanslmayr, S. (2016). The temporal signature of memories: Identification of a general mechanism for dynamic memory replay in humans. PLoS Biol, 14 (8), e1002528. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002528

Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G. S., & Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. 1st International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Workshop Track Proceedings.

Mumford, D. (1992). On the computational architecture of the neocortex. II. The role of cortico-cortical loops [Comparative Study]. Biological Cybernetics, 66 (3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00198477

Myers, J. L., & O'Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26 (2&3), 131–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545042

Nieuwland, M. S. (2019). Do “early” brain responses reveal word form prediction during language comprehension? A critical review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 96 , 367–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.11.019

Nieuwland, M. S., Politzer-Ahles, S., Heyselaar, E., Segaert, K., Darley, E., Kazanina, N., ..., Huettig, F. (2018). Large-scale replication study reveals a limit on probabilistic prediction in language comprehension. Elife , 7 , e33468. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.33468

Oostenveld, R., Fries, P., Maris, E., & Schoffelen, J.-M. (2011). FieldTrip: open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2011 , 1. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/156869

Paczynski, M., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2012). Multiple influences of semantic memory on sentence processing: Distinct effects of semantic relatedness on violations of real-world event/state knowledge and animacy selection restrictions. Journal of Memory and Language, 67 (4), 426–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.003

Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36 (04), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001495

Rao, R. P. N., & Ballard, D. H. (1999). Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. Nature Neuroscience, 2 (1), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/4580

Sanford, A. J., Leuthold, H., Bohan, J., & Sanford, A. J. S. (2011). Anomalies at the borderline of awareness: an ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23 , 514–523.

Sprague, T. C., Ester, E. F., & Serences, J. T. (2016). Restoring latent visual working memory representations in human cortex. Neuron, 91 (3), 694–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.07.006

Stokes, M. G. (2015). ‘Activity-silent’ working memory in prefrontal cortex: a dynamic coding framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19 (7), 394–405.

Szewczyk, J. M., Federmeier, K. D. (2022). Context-based facilitation of semantic access follows both logarithmic and linear functions of stimulus probability. Journal of Memory and Language , 123 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2021.104311

Taylor, W. (1953). “Cloze” procedure: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30 , 415–433.

Terporten, R., Schoffelen, J. M., Dai, B., Hagoort, P., & Kosem, A. (2019). The relation between alpha/beta oscillations and the encoding of sentence induced contextual information. Scientific Reports, 9 (1), 20255. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56600-x

Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2009). The neuropragmatics of “simple” utterance comprehension: An ERP review. In U. Sauerland & K. Yatsushiro (Eds.), Semantics and Pragmatics: From Experiment to Theory (pp. 276–316). Palgrave Macmillan.

van Driel, J., Olivers, C. N. L., & Fahrenfort, J. J. (2021). High-pass filtering artifacts in multivariate classification of neural time series data. J Neurosci Methods, 352 , 109080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2021.109080

Vuong, L. C., & Martin, R. C. (2013). Domain-specific executive control and the revision of misinterpretations in sentence comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29 (3), 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.836231

Wang, L., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2023). Better together: integrating multivariate with univariate methods, and MEG with EEG to study language comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2023.2223783

Wang, L., Hagoort, P., & Jensen, O. (2018a). Language prediction is reflected by coupling between frontal gamma and posterior alpha oscillations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30 (3), 432–447. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01190

Wang, L., Kuperberg, G., & Jensen, O. (2018b). Specific lexico-semantic predictions are associated with unique spatial and temporal patterns of neural activity. Elife, 7 , e39061. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.39061

Wang, L., Wlotko, E., Alexander, E. J., Schoot, L., Kim, M., Warnke, L., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2020). Neural evidence for the prediction of animacy features during language comprehension: Evidence from MEG and EEG representational similarity analysis. Journal of Neuroscience, 40 (16), 3278–3291. https://doi.org/10.1101/709394

Wu, Z., Palmer, M. (1994). Verb semantics and lexical selection. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics . arXiv preprint cmp-lg/9406033. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cmplg/9406033

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01HD082527. We thank Sophie Greene, Feng Cheng, and Edward Alexander for their assistance with stimuli preparation and data collection.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychiatry and the Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, MA, 02129, USA

Lin Wang, Trevor Brothers & Gina R. Kuperberg

Department of Psychology, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA

Centre for Human Brain Health, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lin Wang .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Open Practices Statement

The data and materials for the experiment are available at  https://osf.io/u6tpx/ . The experiment was not preregistered.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 92 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wang, L., Brothers, T., Jensen, O. et al. Dissociating the pre-activation of word meaning and form during sentence comprehension: Evidence from EEG representational similarity analysis. Psychon Bull Rev 31 , 862–873 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02385-0

Download citation

Accepted : 10 September 2023

Published : 02 October 2023

Issue Date : April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02385-0

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

• Pre-activation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Did Miss USA Noelia Voigt's resignation statement contain a hidden message?

Noelia V oigt 's decision to relinquish her Miss USA crown has sparked a flurry of online speculation after fans noticed a strange detail about her statement.

Voigt, who was awarded Miss USA in September 2023, announced in a statement Monday on Instagram that she has decided to resign from the title, writing, "In life, I strongly value the importance of making decisions that feel best for you and your mental health."

But in the comments of her post and elsewhere on social media, users noticed that taking the first letter in each sentence of her statement reveals the phrase "I AM SILENCED" — though this discounts the last three sentences, the first letters of which spell "HIP." It was not immediately clear whether the message was intentional.

"First letter of each sentence. 'I AM SILENCED' we hear you Noelia!" read one comment on Instagram.

In a viral TikTok , user AnnaNoel suggested Voigt was "trying to tell us something important" with the "secret code," speculating, "(I) absolutely do not think this is a coincidence. ... Her putting this in there was so someone would find out and someone would be able to listen closely."

Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle.

USA TODAY has reached out to Voigt and the Miss USA Organization for comment.

Miss USA Noelia Voigt makes 'tough decision' to step down. Read her full statement.

The organization previously said in a statement to USA TODAY, "We respect and support former Miss USA Noelia Voigt’s decision to step down from her duties. The well-being of our titleholders is a top priority, and we understand her need to prioritize herself at this time."

The statement added, "The organization is currently reviewing plans for the transition of responsibilities to a successor and an announcement regarding the crowning of the new Miss USA will be coming soon."

Miss Teen USA resigns days after Miss USA Noelia Voigt steps down

Prior to Voigt's announcement, Miss USA social media director Claudia Michelle shared on Instagram Friday that she has resigned from her role. In a statement posted to social media, she wrote, "I have had the privilege of getting to work with Noelia closely and have unfortunately seen a decline in her mental health since we (first) met. I feel like her ability to share her story and her platform have been diminished."

"I feel the way current management speaks about their titleholders is unprofessional and inappropriate," she went on to write. "I disavow workplace toxicity and bullying of any kind."

In an Instagram story, Michelle shared Voigt's statement and highlighted the "I AM SILENCED" letters.

In response to Michelle's post, the Miss USA Organization said in a statement to USA TODAY, "We are troubled to hear the false accusations made by a former Miss USA employee. Miss USA is committed to fostering a safe, inclusive, and supportive environment, and we take these allegations seriously. Indeed, we have and will continue to prioritize the well-being of all individuals involved with Miss USA."

In the caption of her original Instagram post, Voigt acknowledged that her resignation "may come as a large shock to many," but added, "Never compromise your physical and mental well-being."

Contributing: Erin Jensen , USA TODAY

DOJ requests judge order Steve Bannon to begin prison sentence

An appeals court upheld Bannon's contempt of Congress conviction last week.

Federal prosecutors on Tuesday requested the judge overseeing ex-Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon's criminal contempt of Congress case to order that he begin his four-month prison sentence, after an appeals court last week upheld his conviction .

Prosecutors said there is no legal basis for Judge Carl Nichols to continue the stay on Bannon serving his sentence after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' conclusive ruling that rejected the basis for Bannon's appeal on all grounds.

"Consequently, there is no longer a 'substantial question of law that is likely to result in a reversal or an order for a new trial,'" prosecutors wrote in their filing Tuesday.

MORE: Steve Bannon's contempt of Congress conviction upheld by appeals court

It's not immediately clear when Nichols will rule on the request.

"I'm shocked they want to silence the voice of MAGA," Bannon told ABC News in regards to Tuesday's news.

Bannon was sentenced to four months in prison for contempt in October 2022, but Nichols agreed to postpone the jail term while Bannon appealed the decision.

Related Stories

Steve Bannon's contempt conviction upheld

• May 10, 11:34 AM

Trump Jr. visited Peter Navarro in prison: Sources

• May 13, 11:45 AM

Appeals court upholds Steve Bannon's contempt of Congress conviction

• May 10, 11:09 AM

The three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals said in its opinion Friday, "We conclude that none of the information sought in the trial subpoenas was relevant to the elements of the contempt offense, nor to any affirmative defense Bannon was entitled to present at trial."

"The judgment of conviction and sentence [is] affirmed," the judges concluded.

Key players: Who's who at Donald Trump’s hush money criminal trial

• Apr 20, 11:30 PM

Lies, loyalty and a gag order upheld: Tuesday's Trump hush money trial takeaways

• May 14, 6:27 PM

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events

site categories

Uta signs ‘young royals’ co-creator lisa ambjörn , breaking news.

Inside Trump’s Hush Money Trial With The ElectionLine Podcast; JFK, RFK Jr & The State Of Mean + Fighting Iran’s Death Sentence Against Rapper Toomaj Salehi

By Dominic Patten , Ted Johnson

Editors note:  Running until the final general election results come in, the  Deadline ElectionLine podcast  spotlights the 2024 campaign and the blurred lines between politics and entertainment in modern America. Hosted by Deadline’s political editor Ted Johnson and executive editor Dominic Patten, the podcast features commentary and interviews with top lawmakers and entertainment figures. At the same time, you can follow all the news in the Biden & Trump rematch and more on the  ElectionLine  hub on Deadline.

Related Stories

Joe Biden Challenges Donald Trump To "Make My Day" And Commit To June And September Debates; Former POTUS Says He's "Ready And Willing" -- Update

Donald Trump's Attorney Spars With Michael Cohen In Tense Cross-Examination: "You Called Me ... A Crying Little S--t"

In an America watching one historic norm after another collapse in Donald Trump ’s ongoing hush money trial, and the greater debasing of political dialogue, Welch’s blistering words are perhaps needed more than ever – as you can hear on the Deadline ElectionLine podcast above.

“It was interesting to hear Judge Merchan say to the prosecution team ‘I understand that your client is a little difficult to control,’” says Sean Piccoli of some of the fallout from Stormy Daniels ’ testimony this week at the Trump trial. “However much prep work they did up front, as you say, she’s going to play by her own rules, and her brain just seemed to be on fire when she spoke.”

With a unique perspective on one of the biggest stories around right now, Piccoli joins us on the podcast this week straight from the Manhattan criminal courts where he has been covering the former president’s trial for Deadline since its April 15 start. With not even still photographs now allowed in the court room, Piccili has an up close seat at American history in the making.

Also, Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power ‘s Nazanin Boniadi  talks to us about the global fight she and other are waging against Iran’s pledg e to execute rapper Toomaj Salehi and imprison other artists who have protested against the Islamic Republic’s regime.

Then there is Congressman Mike Collins.

Just hours after it was revealed this week that Robert Kennedy Jr. suffered over a decade ago from a parasite eating a portion of his brain, the Georgia Republican decided a good way to get some attention would be to not only mock the independent presidential candidate’s health issues, but also the public assassination of his uncle President John F. Kennedy in Dallas in 1963.

Regardless of what you may think of JFK, RFK Jr, or any member of the Kennedy family, just because Collins believes in that P.T. Barnum adage that there is “no such thing as bad publicity,” doesn’t change the fact that his remarks are vile.

You either die a Kennedy with a hole in the brain or live long enough to become a Kennedy with a hole in the brain. — Rep. Mike Collins (@RepMikeCollins) May 8, 2024

As anyone who has ever attended a performance of Hamilton can tell you, men and women in public life in America have literally and figuratively been taking potshots at each other even before the Declaration of Independence was written. That’s nothing new from 1776 up to the bitter divisions of the Civil War. But, without trying to project era egotism, it sure feels like from Trump to Majorie Taylor Greene to the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol and to Mike Collins that there is a coarsening of our culture.

Collins’ posting is a sure sign of that coarsening.

Yet, while the cruel comments spurred some outrage, by day’s end it was largely forgotten. Add to that, as we discuss on the podcast Friday, the fact that no major member of the GOP called Collins out for his rancor, and you have the sad state today of discourse in this country.

Still, with shame no longer a force in public life, Collins’ tweet is indicative of a new state of mean, where crassness is mistaken for toughness, and where any pushback is met with complaint that free speech is under attack, and the suggestion of apology is viewed as a signal of weakness. The goal is attention — the more outrage the better and no depth is too low.

Almost a generation ago, incumbent Republican senator George Allen referred to a Democratic operative in the crowd as “macaca,” a reference to his race. Allen apologized but lost his race for reelection.

Contrast that to now, such comments are all but overlooked. While not the only cause of such a debasement of the body politic, the rise of Trump has exacerbated and to a large degree, normalized the problem. For example, Trump repeatedly referred to his former transportation secretary Elaine Chow as “coco Chow.” While the comments got some pushback, it didn’t cost the once and present Republican nominee the important support of Chow’s husband, current Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell. 

Collins’ attack on the Kennedys is another indication of where discourse has gone in this country — or, as Joseph N. Welch said 70 years ago: “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

Stick with ElectionLine all the way to Election Day: Subscribe to the Deadline ElectionLine podcast on Spotify, Apple Music, iHeart, and all podcast platforms

Must Read Stories

Review, standing ovation & red carpet photos on world premiere night in cannes.

Andy Samberg & Radio Silence’s ‘The Robots Go Crazy’ Lands At Amazon MGM Studios

Hits 40m active ad users, renews ‘3 body problem’, lands next bigelow pic: upfront, ‘poker face’ star natasha lyonne joins disney-marvel pic.

Subscribe to Deadline Breaking News Alerts and keep your inbox happy.

Read More About:

Deadline is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2024 Deadline Hollywood, LLC. All Rights Reserved.