purpose of phd thesis

/images/cornell/logo35pt_cornell_white.svg" alt="purpose of phd thesis"> Cornell University --> Graduate School

Guide to writing your thesis/dissertation, definition of dissertation and thesis.

The dissertation or thesis is a scholarly treatise that substantiates a specific point of view as a result of original research that is conducted by students during their graduate study. At Cornell, the thesis is a requirement for the receipt of the M.A. and M.S. degrees and some professional master’s degrees. The dissertation is a requirement of the Ph.D. degree.

Formatting Requirement and Standards

The Graduate School sets the minimum format for your thesis or dissertation, while you, your special committee, and your advisor/chair decide upon the content and length. Grammar, punctuation, spelling, and other mechanical issues are your sole responsibility. Generally, the thesis and dissertation should conform to the standards of leading academic journals in your field. The Graduate School does not monitor the thesis or dissertation for mechanics, content, or style.

“Papers Option” Dissertation or Thesis

A “papers option” is available only to students in certain fields, which are listed on the Fields Permitting the Use of Papers Option page , or by approved petition. If you choose the papers option, your dissertation or thesis is organized as a series of relatively independent chapters or papers that you have submitted or will be submitting to journals in the field. You must be the only author or the first author of the papers to be used in the dissertation. The papers-option dissertation or thesis must meet all format and submission requirements, and a singular referencing convention must be used throughout.

ProQuest Electronic Submissions

The dissertation and thesis become permanent records of your original research, and in the case of doctoral research, the Graduate School requires publication of the dissertation and abstract in its original form. All Cornell master’s theses and doctoral dissertations require an electronic submission through ProQuest, which fills orders for paper or digital copies of the thesis and dissertation and makes a digital version available online via their subscription database, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses . For master’s theses, only the abstract is available. ProQuest provides worldwide distribution of your work from the master copy. You retain control over your dissertation and are free to grant publishing rights as you see fit. The formatting requirements contained in this guide meet all ProQuest specifications.

Copies of Dissertation and Thesis

Copies of Ph.D. dissertations and master’s theses are also uploaded in PDF format to the Cornell Library Repository, eCommons . A print copy of each master’s thesis and doctoral dissertation is submitted to Cornell University Library by ProQuest.

While Sandel argues that pursuing perfection through genetic engineering would decrease our sense of humility, he claims that the sense of solidarity we would lose is also important.

This thesis summarizes several points in Sandel’s argument, but it does not make a claim about how we should understand his argument. A reader who read Sandel’s argument would not also need to read an essay based on this descriptive thesis.  

Broad thesis (arguable, but difficult to support with evidence) 

Michael Sandel’s arguments about genetic engineering do not take into consideration all the relevant issues.

This is an arguable claim because it would be possible to argue against it by saying that Michael Sandel’s arguments do take all of the relevant issues into consideration. But the claim is too broad. Because the thesis does not specify which “issues” it is focused on—or why it matters if they are considered—readers won’t know what the rest of the essay will argue, and the writer won’t know what to focus on. If there is a particular issue that Sandel does not address, then a more specific version of the thesis would include that issue—hand an explanation of why it is important.  

Arguable thesis with analytical claim 

While Sandel argues persuasively that our instinct to “remake” (54) ourselves into something ever more perfect is a problem, his belief that we can always draw a line between what is medically necessary and what makes us simply “better than well” (51) is less convincing.

This is an arguable analytical claim. To argue for this claim, the essay writer will need to show how evidence from the article itself points to this interpretation. It’s also a reasonable scope for a thesis because it can be supported with evidence available in the text and is neither too broad nor too narrow.  

Arguable thesis with normative claim 

Given Sandel’s argument against genetic enhancement, we should not allow parents to decide on using Human Growth Hormone for their children.

This thesis tells us what we should do about a particular issue discussed in Sandel’s article, but it does not tell us how we should understand Sandel’s argument.  

Questions to ask about your thesis 

• Is the thesis truly arguable? Does it speak to a genuine dilemma in the source, or would most readers automatically agree with it?  
• Is the thesis too obvious? Again, would most or all readers agree with it without needing to see your argument?  
• Is the thesis complex enough to require a whole essay's worth of argument?  
• Is the thesis supportable with evidence from the text rather than with generalizations or outside research?  
• Would anyone want to read a paper in which this thesis was developed? That is, can you explain what this paper is adding to our understanding of a problem, question, or topic?
• picture_as_pdf Thesis

PhD Thesis Guide

This phd thesis guide will guide you step-by-step through the thesis process, from your initial letter of intent to submission of the final document..

All associated forms are conveniently consolidated in the section at the end.

Deadlines & Requirements

Students should register for HST.ThG during any term in which they are conducting research towards their thesis. Regardless of year in program students registered for HST.ThG in a regular term (fall or spring) must meet with their research advisor and complete the  Semi-Annual PhD Student Progress Review Form to receive credit.

Years 1 - 2

• Students participating in lab rotations during year 1, may use the optional MEMP Rotation Registration Form , to formalize the arrangement and can earn academic credit by enrolling in HST.599. 
• A first letter of intent ( LOI-1 ) proposing a general area of thesis research and research advisor is required by April 30th of the second year of registration.
• A second letter of intent ( LOI-2 ) proposing a thesis committee membership and providing a more detailed description of the thesis research is required by April 30th of the third year of registration for approval by the HST-IMES Committee on Academic Programs (HICAP).

Year 4 

• Beginning in year 4, (or after the LOI-2 is approved) the student must meet with their thesis committee at least once per semester.
• Students must formally defend their proposal before the approved thesis committee, and submit their committee approved proposal to HICAP  by April 30 of the forth year of registration.
• Meetings with the thesis committee must be held at least once per semester. 

HST has developed these policies to help keep students on track as they progress through their PhD program. Experience shows that students make more rapid progress towards graduation when they interact regularly with a faculty committee and complete their thesis proposal by the deadline.

Getting Started

Check out these resources  for finding a research lab.

The Thesis Committee: Roles and Responsibilities

Students perform doctoral thesis work under the guidance of a thesis committee consisting of at least three faculty members from Harvard and MIT (including a chair and a research advisor) who will help guide the research. Students are encouraged to form their thesis committee early in the course of the research and in any case by the end of the third year of registration. The HST IMES Committee on Academic Programs (HICAP) approves the composition of the thesis committee via the letter of intent and the thesis proposal (described below). 

Research Advisor

The research advisor is responsible for overseeing the student's thesis project. The research advisor is expected to:

• oversee the research and mentor the student;
• provide a supportive research environment, facilities, and financial support;
• discuss expectations, progress, and milestones with the student and complete the  Semi-Annual PhD Student Progress Review Form each semester;
• assist the student to prepare for the oral qualifying exam;
• guide the student in selecting the other members of the thesis committee;
• help the student prepare for, and attend, meetings of the full thesis committee, to be held at least once per semester;
• help the student prepare for, and attend, the thesis defense;
• evaluate the final thesis document.

The research advisor is chosen by the student and must be a faculty member of MIT* or Harvard University and needs no further approval.  HICAP may approve other individuals as research advisor on a student-by-student basis. Students are advised to request approval of non-faculty research advisors as soon as possible.  In order to avoid conflicts of interest, the research advisor may not also be the student's academic advisor. In the event that an academic advisor becomes the research advisor, a new academic advisor will be assigned.

The student and their research advisor must complete the Semi-Annual PhD Student Progress Review during each regular term in order to receive academic credit for research.  Download Semi Annual Review Form

*MIT Senior Research Staff are considered equivalent to faculty members for the purposes of research advising. No additional approval is required.

Thesis Committee Chair

Each HST PhD thesis committee is headed administratively by a chair, chosen by the student in consultation with the research advisor. The thesis committee chair is expected to:

• provide advice and guidance concerning the thesis research; 
• oversee meetings of the full thesis committee, to be held at least once per semester;
• preside at the thesis defense; 
• review and evaluate the final thesis document.

The thesis committee chair must be well acquainted with the academic policies and procedures of the institution granting the student's degree and be familiar with the student's area of research. The research advisor may not simultaneously serve as thesis committee chair.

For HST PhD students earning degrees through MIT, the thesis committee chair must be an MIT faculty member. A select group of HST program faculty without primary appointments at MIT have been pre-approved by HICAP to chair PhD theses awarded by HST at MIT in cases where the MIT research advisor is an MIT faculty member.**

HST PhD students earning their degree through Harvard follow thesis committee requirements set by the unit granting their degree - either the Biophysics Program or the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS).

** List of non-MIT HST faculty approved to chair MIT thesis proposals when the research advisor is an MIT faculty member.

In addition to the research advisor and the thesis committee chair, the thesis committee must include one or more readers. Readers are expected to:

• attend meetings of the full thesis committee, to be held at least once per semester;
• attend the thesis defense; 

Faculty members with relevant expertise from outside of Harvard/MIT may serve as readers, but they may only be counted toward the required three if approved by HICAP.

The members of the thesis committee should have complementary expertise that collectively covers the areas needed to advise a student's thesis research. The committee should also be diverse, so that members are able to offer different perspectives on the student's research. When forming a thesis committee, it is helpful to consider the following questions: 

• Do the individuals on the committee collectively have the appropriate expertise for the project?
• Does the committee include at least one individual who can offer different perspectives on the student's research?  The committee should include at least one person who is not closely affiliated with the student's primary lab. Frequent collaborators are acceptable in this capacity if their work exhibits intellectual independence from the research advisor.
• If the research has a near-term clinical application, does the committee include someone who can add a translational or clinical perspective?  
• Does the committee conform to HST policies in terms of number, academic appointments, and affiliations of the committee members, research advisor, and thesis committee chair as described elsewhere on this page?

[Friendly advice: Although there is no maximum committee size, three or four is considered optimal. Committees of five members are possible, but more than five is unwieldy.]

Thesis Committee Meetings

Students must meet with their thesis committee at least once each semester beginning in the fourth year of registration. It is the student's responsibility to schedule these meetings; students who encounter difficulties in arranging regular committee meetings can contact Julie Greenberg at jgreenbe [at] mit.edu (jgreenbe[at]mit[dot]edu) .

The format of the thesis committee meeting is at the discretion of the thesis committee chair. In some cases, the following sequence may be helpful:

• The thesis committee chair, research advisor, and readers meet briefly without the student in the room;
• The thesis committee chair and readers meet briefly with the student, without the advisor in the room;
• The student presents their research progress, answers questions, and seeks guidance from the members of the thesis committee;

Please note that thesis committee meetings provide an important opportunity for students to present their research and respond to questions. Therefore, it is in the student's best interest for the research advisor to refrain from defending the research in this setting.

Letters of Intent

Students must submit two letters of intent ( LOI-1 and LOI-2 ) with applicable signatures. 

In LOI-1, students identify a research advisor and a general area of thesis research, described in 100 words or less. It should include the area of expertise of the research advisor and indicate whether IRB approval (Institutional Review Board; for research involving human subjects) and/or IACUC approval (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee; for research involving vertebrate animals) will be required and, if so, from which institutions. LOI-1 is due by April 30 of the second year of registration and and should be submitted to HICAP, c/o Traci Anderson in E25-518. 

In LOI-2, students provide a description of the thesis research, describing the Background and Significance of the research and making a preliminary statement of Specific Aims (up to 400 words total). In LOI-2, a student also proposes the membership of their thesis committee. In addition to the research advisor, the proposed thesis committee must include a chair and one or more readers, all selected to meet the specified criteria . LOI-2 is due by April 30th of the third year of registration and should be submitted to HICAP, c/o Traci Anderson in E25-518.

LOI-2 is reviewed by the HST-IMES Committee on Academic Programs (HICAP) to determine if the proposed committee meets the specified criteria and if the committee members collectively have the complementary expertise needed to advise the student in executing the proposed research. If HICAP requests any changes to the proposed committee, the student must submit a revised LOI-2 for HICAP review by September 30th of the fourth year of registration. HICAP must approve LOI-2 before the student can proceed to presenting and submitting their thesis proposal. Any changes to the thesis committee membership following HICAP approval of LOI-2 and prior to defense of the thesis proposal must be reported by submitting a revised LOI-2 form to HICAP, c/o tanderso [at] mit.edu (Traci Anderson) . After final HICAP approval of LOI-2, which confirms the thesis committee membership, the student may proceed to present their thesis proposal to the approved thesis committee, as described in the next section.

Students are strongly encouraged to identify tentative thesis committee members and begin meeting with them as early as possible to inform the direction of their research. Following submission of LOI-2, students are required to hold at least one thesis committee meeting per semester. Students must document these meetings via the Semi- Annual PhD Student Progress Review form in order to receive a grade reflecting satisfactory progress in HST.ThG.

Thesis Proposal and Proposal Presentation

For MEMP students receiving their degrees through MIT, successful completion of the Oral Qualifying Exam is a prerequisite for the thesis proposal presentation. For MEMP students receiving their degrees through Harvard, the oral qualifying exam satisfies the proposal presentation requirement.

Proposal Document

Each student must present a thesis proposal to a thesis committee that has been approved by HICAP via the LOI-2 and then submit a full proposal package to HICAP by April 30th of the fourth year of registration. The only exception is for students who substantially change their research focus after the fall term of their third year; in those cases the thesis proposal must be submitted within three semesters of joining a new lab. Students registering for thesis research (HST.THG) who have not met this deadline may be administratively assigned a grade of "U" (unsatisfactory) and receive an academic warning.

The written proposal should be no longer than 4500 words, excluding references. This is intended to help students develop their proposal-writing skills by gaining experience composing a practical proposal; the length is comparable to that required for proposals to the NIH R03 Small Research Grant Program. The proposal should clearly define the research problem, describe the proposed research plan, and defend the significance of the work. Preliminary results are not required. If the proposal consists of multiple aims, with the accomplishment of later aims based on the success of earlier ones, then the proposal should describe a contingency plan in case the early results are not as expected.

Proposal Presentation

The student must formally defend the thesis proposal before the full thesis committee that has been approved by HICAP.

Students should schedule the meeting and reserve a conference room and any audio visual equipment they may require for their presentation. To book a conference room in E25, please contact Joseph Stein ( jrstein [at] mit.edu (jrstein[at]mit[dot]edu) ).

Following the proposal presentation, students should make any requested modifications to the proposal for the committee members to review. Once the committee approves the proposal, the student should obtain the signatures of the committee members on the forms described below as part of the proposal submission package.

[Friendly advice: As a professional courtesy, be sure your committee members have a complete version of your thesis proposal at least one week in advance of the proposal presentation.]

Submission of Proposal Package

When the thesis committee has approved the proposal, the student submits the proposal package to HICAP, c/o Traci Anderson in E25-518, for final approval. HICAP may reject a thesis proposal if it has been defended before a committee that was not previously approved via the LOI-2.

The proposal package includes the following: 

• the proposal document
• a brief description of the project background and significance that explains why the work is important;
• the specific aims of the proposal, including a contingency plan if needed; and
• an indication of the methods to be used to accomplish the specific aims.
• signed research advisor agreement form(s);
• signed chair agreement form (which confirms a successful proposal defense);
• signed reader agreement form(s).

Thesis Proposal Forms

• SAMPLE Title Page (doc)
• Research Advisor Agreement Form (pdf)
• Chair Agreement Form (pdf)
• Reader Agreement Form (pdf)

Thesis Defense and Final Thesis Document

When the thesis is substantially complete and fully acceptable to the thesis committee, a public thesis defense is scheduled for the student to present his/her work to the thesis committee and other members of the community. The thesis defense is the last formal examination required for receipt of a doctoral degree. To be considered "public", a defense must be announced to the community at least five working days in advance. At the defense, the thesis committee determines if the research presented is sufficient for granting a doctoral degree. Following a satisfactory thesis defense, the student submits the final thesis document, approved by the research advisor, to Traci Anderson via email (see instructions below).

[Friendly advice: Contact jrstein [at] mit.edu (Joseph Stein) at least two weeks before your scheduled date to arrange for advertising via email and posters. A defense can be canceled for insufficient public notice.]

Before the Thesis Defense 

Committee Approves Student to Defend: The thesis committee, working with the student and reviewing thesis drafts, concludes that the doctoral work is complete. The student should discuss the structure of the defense (general guidelines below) with the thesis committee chair and the research advisor. 

Schedule the Defense: The student schedules a defense at a time when all members of the thesis committee will be physical present. Any exceptions must be approved in advance by the IMES/HST Academic Office.

Reserve Room: It is the student's responsibility to reserve a room and any necessary equipment. Please contact imes-reservation [at] mit.edu (subject: E25%20Room%20Reservation) (IMES Reservation) to  reserve rooms E25-140, E25-141, E25-119/121, E25-521. 

Final Draft: A complete draft of the thesis document is due to the thesis committee two weeks prior to the thesis defense to allow time for review.  The thesis should be written as a single cohesive document; it may include content from published papers (see libraries website on " Use of Previously Published Material in a Thesis ") but it may not be a simple compilation of previously published materials.

Publicize the Defense:   The IMES/HST Academic Office invites the community to attend the defense via email and a notice on the HST website. This requires that the student email a thesis abstract and supplemental information to  jrstein [at] mit.edu (Joseph Stein)  two weeks prior to the thesis defense. The following information should be included: Date and time, Location, (Zoom invitation with password, if offering a hybrid option), Thesis Title, Names of committee members, with academic and professional titles and institutional affiliations. The abstract is limited to 250 words for the poster, but students may optionally submit a second, longer abstract for the email announcement.

Thesis Defense Guidelines

Public Defense: The student should prepare a presentation of 45-60 minutes in length, to be followed by a public question and answer period of 15–30 minutes at discretion of the chair.

Committee Discussion:  Immediately following the public thesis presentation, the student meets privately with the thesis committee and any other faculty members present to explore additional questions at the discretion of the faculty. Then the thesis committee meets in executive session and determines whether the thesis defense was satisfactory. The committee may suggest additions or editorial changes to the thesis document at this point.

Chair Confirms Pass: After the defense, the thesis committee chair should inform Traci Anderson of the outcome via email to tanderso [at] mit.edu (tanderso[at]mit[dot]edu) .

Submitting the Final Thesis Document

Please refer to the MIT libraries  thesis formatting guidelines .

Title page notes. Sample title page  from the MIT Libraries.

Program line : should read, "Submitted to the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology, in partial fulfillment of the the requirements for the degree of ... "

Copyright : Starting with the June 2023 degree period and as reflected in the  MIT Thesis Specifications , all students retain the copyright of their thesis.  Please review this section for how to list on your title page Signature Page: On the "signed" version, only the student and research advisor should sign. Thesis committee members are not required to sign. On the " Accepted by " line, please list: Collin M. Stultz, MD, PhD/Director, Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology/ Nina T. and Robert H. Rubin Professor in Medical Engineering and Science/Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

The Academic Office will obtain Professor Stultz's signature.

Thesis Submission Components.  As of 4/2021, the MIT libraries have changed their thesis submissions guidelines and are no longer accepting hard copy theses submissions. For most recent guidance from the libraries:  https://libguides.mit.edu/mit-thesis-faq/instructions  

Submit to the Academic Office, via email ( tanderso [at] mit.edu (tanderso[at]mit[dot]edu) )

pdf/A-1 of the final thesis should include an UNSIGNED title page

A separate file with a SIGNED title page by the student and advisor, the Academic Office will get Dr. Collin Stultz's signature.

For the MIT Library thesis processing, fill out the "Thesis Information" here:  https://thesis-submit.mit.edu/

File Naming Information:  https://libguides.mit.edu/

Survey of Earned Doctorates.  The University Provost’s Office will contact all doctoral candidates via email with instructions for completing this survey.

Links to All Forms in This Guide

• MEMP Rotation Form (optional)
• Semi-Annual Progress Review Form
• Letter of Intent One
• Letter of Intent Two

Final Thesis

• HST Sample thesis title page  (signed and unsigned)
• Sample thesis title page  (MIT Libraries)

What is the Purpose of Writing a PhD Thesis?

“A PhD or dissertation thesis is written proof showing that the student or researcher has performed their research and contributed new knowledge in the relevant field.” 

Usually, students understand the importance of their thesis at the very end, however, the purpose of writing a dissertation or PhD thesis must be known prior to initiate the PhD. 

You are specifically solving a problem during your PhD, and many questions and doubts are there in your mind. But do you know, or have you ever wondered, why you need to write a thesis? 

You never. I know. 

You perhaps have the precise answer if I ask this question to you — to show your research or it’s a part of PhD curriculum. You are right, partly. But let me tell you that your thesis is more than that; trust me, it’s a pillar of your career. 

It would shape your career. In which direction your career would go, highly depends on your thesis. So before starting everything else, you should have one thing clear in your mind, Why are you writing the dissertation thesis? What is the purpose? 

I’m not talking about your purpose of the thesis statement, I’m talking about the sole, clear and academic purpose of the thesis. When you know the importance of writing a thesis, you will re-think it and write it with motivation. 

So what is it? Let’s find out. 

Article on Thesis writing:

• How to avoid a thesis writing mess?
• Proven Checklist for thesis proofreading .
• How long should be a thesis?
• How to write a PhD thesis?

What is the Purpose of Writing a Thesis?

You would write your thesis with the best of your current knowledge but when you will show it to someone, or if someone will ask you to show it– in the future, you should never be ashamed. Hence here are some of the purposes of writing a thesis

It’s a written proof

If you have done some research and someone asks how you drew your conclusion? Imagine, without a thesis how can you show anything? Or even convince someone? So the very first purpose of writing the dissertation is to give proof.

It’s written evidence proclaiming your research, original work, findings and knowledge on a particular topic. Written, oral and logical arguments are three pieces of evidence referees need to validate your work. And writing is key evidence among all. 

How have you done the research? 

There are many types of research and many ways to approach a particular topic or research. A thesis shows how you have done your research and drew the conclusion. In a thesis, you have to show the methodology, technique, process or hypothesis you have used. 

You give all the background information of your research, every minute detail including the name of the instrument to the utilities used. This first, confirm your authenticity of work, and second and most importantly– the way you performed your research. 

It shows your proficiency and knowledge 

You are providing new insight and knowledge to the topic or perhaps, a fresh and new perspective to the existing knowledge. In the form of the introductory chapter, you express your knowledge. 

While writing an in-depth review you present your proficiency and logical angle on the existing research topic. Not only that, the reader can learn about your academic communication skills and your ability to extract and present your knowledge from your thesis. 

To solve the problem 

The utmost purpose, the most important and valuable one of writing a thesis is to solve a problem. Through the research ‘some’ problem you solve while documenting it, you show it to the world.  

A thesis should be written in such a way that even a non-topic expert can gain some cumulative idea about what the research is. 

How do you see the other research? 

A PhD thesis is not only about your own research. In fact, your findings least matter if other relevant findings are not discussed. Remember, the reader would be a subject expert or at least, any doctor of philosophy . So they would evaluate your work on the basis of how you present other research.   

In your thesis, you have to discuss findings in support and in contrast to your research. Furthermore, you have to convey why this research is so important and what are the limitations. You also have to show and convince readers why your findings and results are important, valuable and considerable. 

Henceforth, your research only gets value if you quote or use other research appropriately, giving the original researchers credit and honor to which they are entitled to. 

These are some of the purposes to write any dissertation thesis and every thesis of any stream should show all these purposes, however, let me tell you, a thesis is even more than these too. You can impress an unknown person with your thesis, and can also show your character, knowledge and strength to do research. 

The purpose of a dissertation thesis is to show

• Your academic and scientific writing skills. 
• Your sense of information retrieval. 
• Your skills to present knowledge. 
• Your skills for problem-solving, critical thinking and demonstrating new findings. 
• Your sense to address other findings. 
• Your knowledge about augmenting in a logical way.
• Your English and scientific writing knowledge.
• Your approach to any topic. 
• Your sense of responsibility. 

Wrapping up  

Your graduate or master’s thesis would only show your interest in a topic. There’s nothing more than that. But your dissertation or PhD thesis, trust me, will remain with you always. It’s like your personality and shows your character. 

It manifests who you are as a scientist and how you will see things. So it’s become critical to understand the importance of the thesis and write accordingly. However, do remember that it’s not about giving weight to the thesis in terms of the number of pages, it’s about giving weight in terms of knowledge.  

If you have just started writing your thesis, or you have completed a huge portion, don’t worry, just keep in mind that your dissertation should reveal as much information as possible about it. 

When we write for any client, we understand their perspective, knowledge, and character as a scientist, before starting writing. And when we finish, we do keep in mind that their PhD thesis should strongly portray all their traits. 

Happy PhD journey and best of luck for thesis writing. Do inquire if you have any problems regarding writing. 

Dr. Tushar Chauhan is a Scientist, Blogger and Scientific-writer. He has completed PhD in Genetics. Dr. Chauhan is a PhD coach and tutor.

Share this:

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Pinterest
• Share on Linkedin
• Share via Email

About The Author

Dr Tushar Chauhan

Related posts.

Grammarly: Your PhD writing assistant

How to Avoid Plagiarism in Your PhD Thesis?

Leave 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.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• News Feature
• Published: 06 July 2016

What’s the point of the PhD thesis?

• Julie Gould 1  

Nature volume  535 ,  pages 26–28 ( 2016 ) Cite this article

5430 Accesses

16 Citations

593 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Communication

Doctoral courses are slowly being modernized. Now the thesis and viva need to catch up.

On the morning of Tom Marshall's PhD defence, he put on the suit he had bought for the occasion and climbed onto the stage in front of a 50-strong audience, including his parents and 6 examiners. He gave a 15-minute-long presentation, then faced an hour of cross-examination about his past 5 years of neuroscience research at the Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. A lot was at stake: this oral examination would determine whether he passed or failed. “At the one-hour mark someone came in, banged a stick on the floor and said ' hora est ',” says Marshall — the ceremonial call that his time was up. “But I couldn't. I had enjoyed the whole experience far too much, and ended up talking for a few extra minutes.”

Marshall's elaborate, public PhD assessment is very different from that faced by Kelsie Long, an Earth-sciences PhD candidate at the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra. Her PhD will be assessed solely on her written thesis, which will be mailed off to examiners and returned with comments. She will do a public presentation of her work later this year, but it won't affect her final result. “It almost feels like a rite of passage,” she says.

PhDs are assessed in very different ways around the world. Almost all involve a written thesis, but those come in many forms. In the United Kingdom, they are usually monographs, long explanations of a student's work; in Scandinavia, science students typically top-and-tail a series of their publications. The accompanying oral examination — also called a viva voce or defence — can be a public lecture, a private discussion or not happen at all. There is wide variation across disciplines and from one institution to the next. “It is a complicated world in doctoral education. One format does not fit all,” says Maresi Nerad, founding director of the Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education at the University of Washington in Seattle.

This isn't necessarily a problem in itself, but some researchers worry that the decades-old doctoral assessment system is showing strain. Time-pressured examiners sometimes lack training and preparation for PhD assessments, which can lead to lack of rigour. “Two or three examiners come together to go through the thesis in a perfunctory way. They tick the boxes, everyone is happy, and then a PhD walks away,” says Jeremy Farrar, director of the biomedical research charity the Wellcome Trust in London.

Farrar, like other scientists, suspects that the PhD assessment is not keeping up with the times . Single-author tomes seem outdated when much of research has become a multidisciplinary, team endeavour. Research is becoming more open, but PhD assessments can lack transparency: vivas are sometimes held behind closed doors. Some PhD theses languish, little-used, on office shelves or in archives. “We're seeing some students who are still submitting paper theses to us — they don't have electronic theses yet,” says Austin McLean, director of scholarly communication and dissertation publishing at ProQuest in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which has the largest database of PhD theses in the world. What's more, little attention is given in the PhD assessment to soft skills such as management, entrepreneurship and teamwork, even though these are an essential part of life beyond the PhD, and students are increasingly leading that life outside academia . “The assessment of the PhD hasn't been updated to fit the modern definition of a PhD,” Farrar says.

“There are a lot of pressures to make changes to the thesis,” says Suzanne Ortega, president of the Council of Graduate Schools in Washington DC, one of a number of groups discussing the issue. The council organized a workshop in January this year called Future of the PhD Dissertation, and in March, the Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA) in Melbourne examined changes to the thesis as part of a review on researcher training. Some scientists and education experts welcome the attention. “I don't think the current model for thesis examination is ideal, but there are positive movements towards changing it,” says Inger Mewburn, director of research training at ANU and editor of the blog The Thesis Whisperer, which is dedicated to those completing a thesis.

Passing the test

Academics agree about one thing regarding the PhD assessment — its aim. The traditional goal is to demonstrate the candidate's ability to conduct independent research on a novel concept and to communicate the results in an accessible way. Where the academics differ is on how best to achieve that goal.

Shirley Tilghman, a molecular biologist and former president of Princeton University in New Jersey, sees merit in the monograph form of the thesis. It demonstrates scholarly ability by requiring students to “frame the historical context of a problem, describe in detail the purpose and execution and then come to a credible conclusion”, she says.

But should the thesis include academic publications, too? That's the norm at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, where most theses are a compilation of the student's original papers, along with a relatively short discussion, perhaps 50 pages long. The rationale is that publishing should be part of training because it better equips students for academic life and securing jobs.

Some students who complete a monograph end up wishing that they had spent more time on writing papers. James Lewis successfully defended his physics PhD at Imperial College London in October 2015, but he thinks that his one published paper landed him his postdoc at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “The job market for postdoc positions is very competitive,” he says, “so if you can get a paper published during your PhD then you're helping yourself.” While he waits to start, Lewis is spending his days writing papers based on his research . “I'm wondering: would it not have been better to write these instead of the thesis, which took me five months to write?”

But others argue that the pressure to publish could rob PhD students of valuable parts of their studies, such as the time to shape their research path and to think creatively and independently . “The PhD might become driven by papers only,” says Farrar. “Students might end up spending their time focusing only on what papers they can produce, then staple them together with a summary and they're done — adding to the sense that the whole scientific enterprise is a paper factory rather than an exploration.”

Long is working at ANU towards a thesis-by-publication: she's written and submitted one paper and has started on a second. But she's struggling. “I am finding this one much harder to write, mostly because it isn't as new or exciting as the previous one,” she says. What's more, her strategy depends on things at least partly outside her control — on her PhD generating enough complete studies for publication and on a reasonably timely peer-review process.

Completed PhD theses are typically stored in university libraries — but that doesn't mean that they are read or used. Some 60% of submissions to the ProQuest database fall under the category of science, technology or mathematics, but they are the ones that are accessed least. “We think this is because the communication is more journal-focused,” says McLean. Scientists do tend to keep a copy of their theses in their office or lab for use by students and colleagues. Neil Curson, a physicist at the London Centre for Nanotechnology, says that his PhD, written more than 20 years ago, is still consulted by his students when they come into his lab. Many theses, however, end up collecting dust.

Viva la viva

Whatever form the thesis takes, it has to be assessed — in most countries, by a panel of experts, and often involving an oral exam. But the viva “doesn't have the same level of consistency as the written form of examination”, says Allyson Holbrook, an education researcher at Australia's University of Newcastle. In Israel, the viva is optional and very few students choose to have one; in the Netherlands, it is formal and ceremonial; in the United Kingdom, it's typically a private affair with two or three examiners; and in Australia, it's hardly performed at all. “One hundred per cent of the doctoral examination is about the thesis here,” says Holbrook. That's largely because, historically, there weren't enough experts in the country to examine the work in person and it was costly to fly them in, she says.

Holbrook and her research team published a study last year that compared the assessment methods used in Australia with those in New Zealand and the United Kingdom (T. Lovat et al. Higher Ed. Rev. 47, 5–23; 2015). They concluded that doing an oral defence rarely changed the result, and that the thesis itself was the “determinative step” of passing. The review on Australian research training published in March didn't support adding a viva either, but it did recommend a move towards more continuous assessment of a student, rather than waiting until the end of the training.

Some researchers see problems with the viva. It's not uncommon for nerves to get the better of a student, and for them to freeze in front of their audience, however small it is. Examiners could worsen the situation by asking very difficult questions, says David Bogle, a chemical engineer at University College London. “There are cases where undue pressure is placed on the candidate by the examiners. This shouldn't be allowed.”

Trial by error

Most researchers don't support a global standard for the PhD assessment. A one-size-fits-all approach would be impossible to implement, they say, and the type of assessment — be it continuous appraisal, written thesis or oral exam — should depend on discipline, project, student, supervisor and institution. “If you take away the variability in assessment and form of the thesis then you lose all creativity and innovation from the PhD,” Nerad says.

But many feel that the system could be improved — by making the thesis shorter, for one. Data from ProQuest, which stores 4 million theses, show that the average length of biology, chemistry and physics PhDs soared to nearly 200 pages between 1945 and 1990. That could be because students are analysing more complex questions, performing longer literature reviews and using increasingly complicated methods that require lengthier explanations (see 'The expanding thesis'). “It's unnecessary to have such a long thesis,” says Farrar, who recently assessed one such tome. “'The thicker my PhD, the better' has become a myth in the PhD community, and is taking it down the wrong direction.”

'The thicker my PhD, the better' has become a myth in the PhD community.

Farrar says that a slimmed-down document would be more appropriate. That could follow the concise format of a research paper, and include a review of the field, then short chapters on methods, analysis and discussion. “It would be more succinct and focused. And the examiners will probably read it all.”

That isn't necessarily the case now. Examiners have to find time to review theses in between research, teaching, grant-writing and many other demands. “Something has to give, and what gives is the amount of time spent on any of those individual tasks,” says Farrar. That means an examiner might skim through years of a PhD student's work in just a couple of hours. “I think we owe it to the students to examine them properly and help prepare them for their future careers,” he says.

The modern thesis

One way to better reflect the team-based nature of science would be to write a joint thesis, an approach that has been used in arts and humanities graduate education in the past. However, this can make it difficult to assign credit. “If you have worked on a collaborative dissertation, a potential employer might struggle to see whether you really are an independent thinker or could you read a lead a research project,” says Ortega.

There is another matter to wrestle with — the fact that half of science PhD graduates in the United States are choosing careers outside of academia , according to the National Science Foundation's 2014 Survey of Earned Doctorates. “Under those conditions, the standard assessment should include the skills in what they'll need when going on to future careers,” says Michael Teitelbaum, labour economist at Harvard Law School.

Increasingly, institutions offer courses to PhD students in skills such as teamwork, management and research ethics, but these skills aren't usually assessed formally. The viva would be one opportunity to do so, perhaps by seeing how students react to various scenarios. Alternatively, as the ACOLA review suggested, PhD candidates could accrue credits in transferable skills through professional-development activities that are recorded in a portfolio. “You can't just assume that if you throw them into an environment they will meaningfully learn from that environment,” says psychologist Michael Mumford, a director of the Center for Applied Social Research at the University of Oklahoma in Norman. “We need exams that ask students to deal with both real-world problems as well as ambiguous academic problems.”

Farrar thinks that a change in emphasis could help. Rather than thinking of the thesis and viva as an exam, it should be viewed as the culmination of a long project. “You need to look at the PhD in the context of those four years of research, not just as revision for one big test.”

Mewburn stresses that whatever form the assessment takes, it should focus more on the individual than on their work. “My preference is to assess the researcher,” she says, “but we haven't developed the tools and curriculum to do that.”

Few failures

It's difficult to find figures on how many students fail their PhD if they get to the point of submitting a thesis but, anecdotally, scientists say that few flunk it outright. More often, students are sent away with minor or major corrections that have to be completed before the PhD is awarded.

There are theories that few students fail because universities want to keep their number of graduates high for the rankings. But most researchers dispute this, and point to other reasons. One is that weak students are likely to have dropped out before they reach the final assessment. Furthermore, supervisors and the supporting institutions typically work hard — through regular reviews and assessments — to make sure that a candidate and project are of a sufficient standard before the thesis is submitted. “You haven't done your due diligence as a university if a student is getting to a stage where they are sending out theses that are going to fail,” says Simon Hay, a global-health researcher at the University of Washington.

Nerad sees no need to reform the final PhD assessment. For her, the problem lies with the variability of graduate education as a whole. “Now that research is becoming more globalized, the PhD needs to be too.” That process is under way, Nerad says: the pressures of economic globalization, international policies and national drives to house world-class universities have led to a more standardized PhD experience across the world.

During her tenure as Princeton's president, Tilghman was often asked if there was a perfect way to assess a PhD course. Not many liked her answer — that she could only really evaluate a student at the 25-year reunion. “In the end, the only way you can assess it is whether the graduates of the programme become successful scientists. If they do, you've done a good job. If they haven't, you haven't.”

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Julie Gould is an editor for Naturejobs.,

Julie Gould

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Additional information

See Editorial page 7

Tweet Facebook LinkedIn Weibo Wechat

Related links

Related links in nature research.

Back to the thesis 2016-Jul-06

The past, present and future of the PhD thesis 2016-Jul-06

The future of the postdoc 2015-Apr-07

How not to deal with the PhD glut 2014-Oct-22

Education: The PhD factory 2011-Apr-20

Seven ages of the PhD 2011-Apr-20

Nature special: Future of the PhD

Related external links

The Thesis Whisperer

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

Centre for Innovation & Research in Graduate Education

Council of Graduate Schools

Australian Council of Learned Academies: Review of Australia's Research Training System

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gould, J. What’s the point of the PhD thesis?. Nature 535 , 26–28 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/535026a

Download citation

Published : 06 July 2016

Issue Date : 07 July 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/535026a

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

This article is cited by

Research ethics in the assessment of phd theses: footprint or footnote.

• Allyson Holbrook
• Kerry Dally
• Hedy Fairbairn

Journal of Academic Ethics (2017)

Being more open about PhD papers

• Joy Burrough-Boenisch

Nature (2016)

Gap widens for honorary PhDs

• Steven Watterson

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Thesis and Purpose Statements

Use the guidelines below to learn the differences between thesis and purpose statements.

In the first stages of writing, thesis or purpose statements are usually rough or ill-formed and are useful primarily as planning tools.

A thesis statement or purpose statement will emerge as you think and write about a topic. The statement can be restricted or clarified and eventually worked into an introduction.

As you revise your paper, try to phrase your thesis or purpose statement in a precise way so that it matches the content and organization of your paper.

Thesis statements

A thesis statement is a sentence that makes an assertion about a topic and predicts how the topic will be developed. It does not simply announce a topic: it says something about the topic.

Good: X has made a significant impact on the teenage population due to its . . . Bad: In this paper, I will discuss X.

A thesis statement makes a promise to the reader about the scope, purpose, and direction of the paper. It summarizes the conclusions that the writer has reached about the topic.

A thesis statement is generally located near the end of the introduction. Sometimes in a long paper, the thesis will be expressed in several sentences or an entire paragraph.

A thesis statement is focused and specific enough to be proven within the boundaries of the paper. Key words (nouns and verbs) should be specific, accurate, and indicative of the range of research, thrust of the argument or analysis, and the organization of supporting information.

Purpose statements

A purpose statement announces the purpose, scope, and direction of the paper. It tells the reader what to expect in a paper and what the specific focus will be.

Common beginnings include:

“This paper examines . . .,” “The aim of this paper is to . . .,” and “The purpose of this essay is to . . .”

A purpose statement makes a promise to the reader about the development of the argument but does not preview the particular conclusions that the writer has drawn.

A purpose statement usually appears toward the end of the introduction. The purpose statement may be expressed in several sentences or even an entire paragraph.

A purpose statement is specific enough to satisfy the requirements of the assignment. Purpose statements are common in research papers in some academic disciplines, while in other disciplines they are considered too blunt or direct. If you are unsure about using a purpose statement, ask your instructor.

This paper will examine the ecological destruction of the Sahel preceding the drought and the causes of this disintegration of the land. The focus will be on the economic, political, and social relationships which brought about the environmental problems in the Sahel.

Sample purpose and thesis statements

The following example combines a purpose statement and a thesis statement (bold).

The goal of this paper is to examine the effects of Chile’s agrarian reform on the lives of rural peasants. The nature of the topic dictates the use of both a chronological and a comparative analysis of peasant lives at various points during the reform period. . . The Chilean reform example provides evidence that land distribution is an essential component of both the improvement of peasant conditions and the development of a democratic society. More extensive and enduring reforms would likely have allowed Chile the opportunity to further expand these horizons.

For more tips about writing thesis statements, take a look at our new handout on Developing a Thesis Statement.

Writing Process and Structure

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Getting Started with Your Paper

Interpreting Writing Assignments from Your Courses

Generating Ideas for Your Paper

Creating an Argument

Thesis vs. Purpose Statements

Developing a Thesis Statement

Architecture of Arguments

Working with Sources

Quoting and Paraphrasing Sources

Using Literary Quotations

Citing Sources in Your Paper

Drafting Your Paper

Introductions

Paragraphing

Developing Strategic Transitions

Conclusions

Revising Your Paper

Peer Reviews

Reverse Outlines

Revising an Argumentative Paper

Revision Strategies for Longer Projects

Finishing Your Paper

Twelve Common Errors: An Editing Checklist

How to Proofread your Paper

Writing Collaboratively

Collaborative and Group Writing

How To Write A Dissertation Introduction

A Simple Explainer With Examples + Free Template

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By Dr Eunice Rautenbach (D. Tech) | March 2020

If you’re reading this, you’re probably at the daunting early phases of writing up the introduction chapter of your dissertation or thesis. It can be intimidating, I know. 

In this post, we’ll look at the 7 essential ingredients of a strong dissertation or thesis introduction chapter, as well as the essential things you need to keep in mind as you craft each section. We’ll also share some useful tips to help you optimize your approach.

Overview: Writing An Introduction Chapter

• The purpose and function of the intro chapter
• Craft an enticing and engaging opening section
• Provide a background and context to the study
• Clearly define the research problem
• State your research aims, objectives and questions
• Explain the significance of your study
• Identify the limitations of your research
• Outline the structure of your dissertation or thesis

A quick sidenote:

You’ll notice that I’ve used the words dissertation and thesis interchangeably. While these terms reflect different levels of research – for example, Masters vs PhD-level research – the introduction chapter generally contains the same 7 essential ingredients regardless of level. So, in this post, dissertation introduction equals thesis introduction.

Start with why.

To craft a high-quality dissertation or thesis introduction chapter, you need to understand exactly what this chapter needs to achieve. In other words, what’s its purpose ? As the name suggests, the introduction chapter needs to introduce the reader to your research so that they understand what you’re trying to figure out, or what problem you’re trying to solve. More specifically, you need to answer four important questions in your introduction chapter.

These questions are:

• What will you be researching? (in other words, your research topic)
• Why is that worthwhile? (in other words, your justification)
• What will the scope of your research be? (in other words, what will you cover and what won’t you cover)
• What will the limitations of your research be? (in other words, what will the potential shortcomings of your research be?)

Simply put, your dissertation’s introduction chapter needs to provide an overview of your planned research , as well as a clear rationale for it. In other words, this chapter has to explain the “what” and the “why” of your research – what’s it all about and why’s that important.

Simple enough, right?

Well, the trick is finding the appropriate depth of information. As the researcher, you’ll be extremely close to your topic and this makes it easy to get caught up in the minor details. While these intricate details might be interesting, you need to write your introduction chapter on more of a “need-to-know” type basis, or it will end up way too lengthy and dense. You need to balance painting a clear picture with keeping things concise. Don’t worry though – you’ll be able to explore all the intricate details in later chapters.

Now that you understand what you need to achieve from your introduction chapter, we can get into the details. While the exact requirements for this chapter can vary from university to university, there are seven core components that most universities will require. We call these the seven essential ingredients . 

The 7 Essential Ingredients

• The opening section – where you’ll introduce the reader to your research in high-level terms
• The background to the study – where you’ll explain the context of your project
• The research problem – where you’ll explain the “gap” that exists in the current research
• The research aims , objectives and questions – where you’ll clearly state what your research will aim to achieve
• The significance (or justification) – where you’ll explain why your research is worth doing and the value it will provide to the world
• The limitations – where you’ll acknowledge the potential limitations of your project and approach
• The structure – where you’ll briefly outline the structure of your dissertation or thesis to help orient the reader

By incorporating these seven essential ingredients into your introduction chapter, you’ll comprehensively cover both the “ what ” and the “ why ” I mentioned earlier – in other words, you’ll achieve the purpose of the chapter.

Side note – you can also use these 7 ingredients in this order as the structure for your chapter to ensure a smooth, logical flow. This isn’t essential, but, generally speaking, it helps create an engaging narrative that’s easy for your reader to understand. If you’d like, you can also download our free introduction chapter template here.

Alright – let’s look at each of the ingredients now.

#1 – The Opening Section

The very first essential ingredient for your dissertation introduction is, well, an introduction or opening section. Just like every other chapter, your introduction chapter needs to start by providing a brief overview of what you’ll be covering in the chapter.

This section needs to engage the reader with clear, concise language that can be easily understood and digested. If the reader (your marker!) has to struggle through it, they’ll lose interest, which will make it harder for you to earn marks. Just because you’re writing an academic paper doesn’t mean you can ignore the basic principles of engaging writing used by marketers, bloggers, and journalists. At the end of the day, you’re all trying to sell an idea – yours is just a research idea.

So, what goes into this opening section?

Well, while there’s no set formula, it’s a good idea to include the following four foundational sentences in your opening section:

1 – A sentence or two introducing the overall field of your research.

For example:

“Organisational skills development involves identifying current or potential skills gaps within a business and developing programs to resolve these gaps. Management research, including X, Y and Z, has clearly established that organisational skills development is an essential contributor to business growth.”

2 – A sentence introducing your specific research problem.

“However, there are conflicting views and an overall lack of research regarding how best to manage skills development initiatives in highly dynamic environments where subject knowledge is rapidly and continuously evolving – for example, in the website development industry.”

3 – A sentence stating your research aims and objectives.

“This research aims to identify and evaluate skills development approaches and strategies for highly dynamic industries in which subject knowledge is continuously evolving.”.

4 – A sentence outlining the layout of the chapter.

“This chapter will provide an introduction to the study by first discussing the background and context, followed by the research problem, the research aims, objectives and questions, the significance and finally, the limitations.”

As I mentioned, this opening section of your introduction chapter shouldn’t be lengthy . Typically, these four sentences should fit neatly into one or two paragraphs, max. What you’re aiming for here is a clear, concise introduction to your research – not a detailed account.

PS – If some of this terminology sounds unfamiliar, don’t stress – I’ll explain each of the concepts later in this post.

#2 – Background to the study

Now that you’ve provided a high-level overview of your dissertation or thesis, it’s time to go a little deeper and lay a foundation for your research topic. This foundation is what the second ingredient is all about – the background to your study.

So, what is the background section all about?

Well, this section of your introduction chapter should provide a broad overview of the topic area that you’ll be researching, as well as the current contextual factors . This could include, for example, a brief history of the topic, recent developments in the area, key pieces of research in the area and so on. In other words, in this section, you need to provide the relevant background information to give the reader a decent foundational understanding of your research area.

Let’s look at an example to make this a little more concrete.

If we stick with the skills development topic I mentioned earlier, the background to the study section would start by providing an overview of the skills development area and outline the key existing research. Then, it would go on to discuss how the modern-day context has created a new challenge for traditional skills development strategies and approaches. Specifically, that in many industries, technical knowledge is constantly and rapidly evolving, and traditional education providers struggle to keep up with the pace of new technologies.

Importantly, you need to write this section with the assumption that the reader is not an expert in your topic area. So, if there are industry-specific jargon and complex terminology, you should briefly explain that here , so that the reader can understand the rest of your document.

Don’t make assumptions about the reader’s knowledge – in most cases, your markers will not be able to ask you questions if they don’t understand something. So, always err on the safe side and explain anything that’s not common knowledge.

#3 – The research problem

Now that you’ve given your reader an overview of your research area, it’s time to get specific about the research problem that you’ll address in your dissertation or thesis. While the background section would have alluded to a potential research problem (or even multiple research problems), the purpose of this section is to narrow the focus and highlight the specific research problem you’ll focus on.

But, what exactly is a research problem, you ask?

Well, a research problem can be any issue or question for which there isn’t already a well-established and agreed-upon answer in the existing research. In other words, a research problem exists when there’s a need to answer a question (or set of questions), but there’s a gap in the existing literature , or the existing research is conflicting and/or inconsistent.

So, to present your research problem, you need to make it clear what exactly is missing in the current literature and why this is a problem . It’s usually a good idea to structure this discussion into three sections – specifically:

• What’s already well-established in the literature (in other words, the current state of research)
• What’s missing in the literature (in other words, the literature gap)
• Why this is a problem (in other words, why it’s important to fill this gap)

Let’s look at an example of this structure using the skills development topic.

Organisational skills development is critically important for employee satisfaction and company performance (reference). Numerous studies have investigated strategies and approaches to manage skills development programs within organisations (reference).

(this paragraph explains what’s already well-established in the literature)

However, these studies have traditionally focused on relatively slow-paced industries where key skills and knowledge do not change particularly often. This body of theory presents a problem for industries that face a rapidly changing skills landscape – for example, the website development industry – where new platforms, languages and best practices emerge on an extremely frequent basis.

(this paragraph explains what’s missing from the literature)

As a result, the existing research is inadequate for industries in which essential knowledge and skills are constantly and rapidly evolving, as it assumes a slow pace of knowledge development. Industries in such environments, therefore, find themselves ill-equipped in terms of skills development strategies and approaches.

(this paragraph explains why the research gap is problematic)

As you can see in this example, in a few lines, we’ve explained (1) the current state of research, (2) the literature gap and (3) why that gap is problematic. By doing this, the research problem is made crystal clear, which lays the foundation for the next ingredient.

#4 – The research aims, objectives and questions

Now that you’ve clearly identified your research problem, it’s time to identify your research aims and objectives , as well as your research questions . In other words, it’s time to explain what you’re going to do about the research problem.

So, what do you need to do here?

Well, the starting point is to clearly state your research aim (or aims) . The research aim is the main goal or the overarching purpose of your dissertation or thesis. In other words, it’s a high-level statement of what you’re aiming to achieve.

Let’s look at an example, sticking with the skills development topic:

“Given the lack of research regarding organisational skills development in fast-moving industries, this study will aim to identify and evaluate the skills development approaches utilised by web development companies in the UK”.

As you can see in this example, the research aim is clearly outlined, as well as the specific context in which the research will be undertaken (in other words, web development companies in the UK).

Next up is the research objective (or objectives) . While the research aims cover the high-level “what”, the research objectives are a bit more practically oriented, looking at specific things you’ll be doing to achieve those research aims.

Let’s take a look at an example of some research objectives (ROs) to fit the research aim.

• RO1 – To identify common skills development strategies and approaches utilised by web development companies in the UK.
• RO2 – To evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies and approaches.
• RO3 – To compare and contrast these strategies and approaches in terms of their strengths and weaknesses.

As you can see from this example, these objectives describe the actions you’ll take and the specific things you’ll investigate in order to achieve your research aims. They break down the research aims into more specific, actionable objectives.

The final step is to state your research questions . Your research questions bring the aims and objectives another level “down to earth”. These are the specific questions that your dissertation or theses will seek to answer. They’re not fluffy, ambiguous or conceptual – they’re very specific and you’ll need to directly answer them in your conclusions chapter .

The research questions typically relate directly to the research objectives and sometimes can look a bit obvious, but they are still extremely important. Let’s take a look at an example of the research questions (RQs) that would flow from the research objectives I mentioned earlier.

• RQ1 – What skills development strategies and approaches are currently being used by web development companies in the UK?
• RQ2 – How effective are each of these strategies and approaches?
• RQ3 – What are the strengths and weaknesses of each of these strategies and approaches?

As you can see, the research questions mimic the research objectives , but they are presented in question format. These questions will act as the driving force throughout your dissertation or thesis – from the literature review to the methodology and onward – so they’re really important.

A final note about this section – it’s really important to be clear about the scope of your study (more technically, the delimitations ). In other words, what you WILL cover and what you WON’T cover. If your research aims, objectives and questions are too broad, you’ll risk losing focus or investigating a problem that is too big to solve within a single dissertation.

Simply put, you need to establish clear boundaries in your research. You can do this, for example, by limiting it to a specific industry, country or time period. That way, you’ll ringfence your research, which will allow you to investigate your topic deeply and thoroughly – which is what earns marks!

Need a helping hand?

#5 – Significance

Now that you’ve made it clear what you’ll be researching, it’s time to make a strong argument regarding your study’s importance and significance . In other words, now that you’ve covered the what, it’s time to cover the why – enter essential ingredient number 5 – significance.

Of course, by this stage, you’ve already briefly alluded to the importance of your study in your background and research problem sections, but you haven’t explicitly stated how your research findings will benefit the world . So, now’s your chance to clearly state how your study will benefit either industry , academia , or – ideally – both . In other words, you need to explain how your research will make a difference and what implications it will have .

Let’s take a look at an example.

“This study will contribute to the body of knowledge on skills development by incorporating skills development strategies and approaches for industries in which knowledge and skills are rapidly and constantly changing. This will help address the current shortage of research in this area and provide real-world value to organisations operating in such dynamic environments.”

As you can see in this example, the paragraph clearly explains how the research will help fill a gap in the literature and also provide practical real-world value to organisations.

This section doesn’t need to be particularly lengthy, but it does need to be convincing . You need to “sell” the value of your research here so that the reader understands why it’s worth committing an entire dissertation or thesis to it. This section needs to be the salesman of your research. So, spend some time thinking about the ways in which your research will make a unique contribution to the world and how the knowledge you create could benefit both academia and industry – and then “sell it” in this section.

#6 – The limitations

Now that you’ve “sold” your research to the reader and hopefully got them excited about what’s coming up in the rest of your dissertation, it’s time to briefly discuss the potential limitations of your research.

But you’re probably thinking, hold up – what limitations? My research is well thought out and carefully designed – why would there be limitations?

Well, no piece of research is perfect . This is especially true for a dissertation or thesis – which typically has a very low or zero budget, tight time constraints and limited researcher experience. Generally, your dissertation will be the first or second formal research project you’ve ever undertaken, so it’s unlikely to win any research awards…

Simply put, your research will invariably have limitations. Don’t stress yourself out though – this is completely acceptable (and expected). Even “professional” research has limitations – as I said, no piece of research is perfect. The key is to recognise the limitations upfront and be completely transparent about them, so that future researchers are aware of them and can improve the study’s design to minimise the limitations and strengthen the findings.

Generally, you’ll want to consider at least the following four common limitations. These are:

• Your scope – for example, perhaps your focus is very narrow and doesn’t consider how certain variables interact with each other.
• Your research methodology – for example, a qualitative methodology could be criticised for being overly subjective, or a quantitative methodology could be criticised for oversimplifying the situation (learn more about methodologies here ).
• Your resources – for example, a lack of time, money, equipment and your own research experience.
• The generalisability of your findings – for example, the findings from the study of a specific industry or country can’t necessarily be generalised to other industries or countries.

Don’t be shy here. There’s no use trying to hide the limitations or weaknesses of your research. In fact, the more critical you can be of your study, the better. The markers want to see that you are aware of the limitations as this demonstrates your understanding of research design – so be brutal.

#7 – The structural outline

Now that you’ve clearly communicated what your research is going to be about, why it’s important and what the limitations of your research will be, the final ingredient is the structural outline.The purpose of this section is simply to provide your reader with a roadmap of what to expect in terms of the structure of your dissertation or thesis.

In this section, you’ll need to provide a brief summary of each chapter’s purpose and contents (including the introduction chapter). A sentence or two explaining what you’ll do in each chapter is generally enough to orient the reader. You don’t want to get too detailed here – it’s purely an outline, not a summary of your research.

Let’s look at an example:

In Chapter One, the context of the study has been introduced. The research objectives and questions have been identified, and the value of such research argued. The limitations of the study have also been discussed.

In Chapter Two, the existing literature will be reviewed and a foundation of theory will be laid out to identify key skills development approaches and strategies within the context of fast-moving industries, especially technology-intensive industries.

In Chapter Three, the methodological choices will be explored. Specifically, the adoption of a qualitative, inductive research approach will be justified, and the broader research design will be discussed, including the limitations thereof.

So, as you can see from the example, this section is simply an outline of the chapter structure, allocating a short paragraph to each chapter. Done correctly, the outline will help your reader understand what to expect and reassure them that you’ll address the multiple facets of the study.

By the way – if you’re unsure of how to structure your dissertation or thesis, be sure to check out our video post which explains dissertation structure .

Keep calm and carry on.

Hopefully you feel a bit more prepared for this challenge of crafting your dissertation or thesis introduction chapter now. Take a deep breath and remember that Rome wasn’t built in a day – conquer one ingredient at a time and you’ll be firmly on the path to success.

Let’s quickly recap – the 7 ingredients are:

• The opening section – where you give a brief, high-level overview of what your research will be about.
• The study background – where you introduce the reader to key theory, concepts and terminology, as well as the context of your study.
• The research problem – where you explain what the problem with the current research is. In other words, the research gap.
• The research aims , objectives and questions – where you clearly state what your dissertation will investigate.
• The significance – where you explain what value your research will provide to the world.
• The limitations – where you explain what the potential shortcomings and limitations of your research may be.
• The structural outline – where you provide a high-level overview of the structure of your document

If you bake these ingredients into your dissertation introduction chapter, you’ll be well on your way to building an engaging introduction chapter that lays a rock-solid foundation for the rest of your document.

Remember, while we’ve covered the essential ingredients here, there may be some additional components that your university requires, so be sure to double-check your project brief!

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:

42 Comments

Thanks very much for such an insight. I feel confident enough in undertaking my thesis on the survey;The future of facial recognition and learning non verbal interaction

Glad to hear that. Good luck with your thesis!

Thanks very much for such an insight. I feel confident now undertaking my thesis; The future of facial recognition and learning non verbal interaction.

Thanks so much for this article. I found myself struggling and wasting a lot of time in my thesis writing but after reading this article and watching some of your youtube videos, I now have a clear understanding of what is required for a thesis.

Thank you Derek, i find your each post so useful. Keep it up.

Thank you so much Derek ,for shedding the light and making it easier for me to handle the daunting task of academic writing .

Thanks do much Dereck for the comprehensive guide. It will assist me queit a lot in my thesis.

thanks a lot for helping

i LOVE the gifs, such a fun way to engage readers. thanks for the advice, much appreciated

Thanks a lot Derek! It will be really useful to the beginner in research!

You’re welcome

This is a well written, easily comprehensible, simple introduction to the basics of a Research Dissertation../the need to keep the reader in mind while writing the dissertation is an important point that is covered../ I appreciate the efforts of the author../

The instruction given are perfect and clear. I was supposed to take the course , unfortunately in Nepal the service is not avaialble.However, I am much more hopeful that you will provide require documents whatever you have produced so far.

Thank you very much

Thanks so much ❤️😘 I feel am ready to start writing my research methodology

This is genuinely the most effective advice I have ever been given regarding academia. Thank you so much!

This is one of the best write up I have seen in my road to PhD thesis. regards, this write up update my knowledge of research

I was looking for some good blogs related to Education hopefully your article will help. Thanks for sharing.

This is an awesome masterpiece. It is one of the most comprehensive guides to writing a Dissertation/Thesis I have seen and read.

You just saved me from going astray in writing a Dissertation for my undergraduate studies. I could not be more grateful for such a relevant guide like this. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much Derek, this has been extremely helpful!!

I do have one question though, in the limitations part do you refer to the scope as the focus of the research on a specific industry/country/chronological period? I assume that in order to talk about whether or not the research could be generalized, the above would need to be already presented and described in the introduction.

Thank you again!

Phew! You have genuinely rescued me. I was stuck how to go about my thesis. Now l have started. Thank you.

This is the very best guide in anything that has to do with thesis or dissertation writing. The numerous blends of examples and detailed insights make it worth a read and in fact, a treasure that is worthy to be bookmarked.

Thanks a lot for this masterpiece!

Powerful insight. I can now take a step

Thank you very much for these valuable introductions to thesis chapters. I saw all your videos about writing the introduction, discussion, and conclusion chapter. Then, I am wondering if we need to explain our research limitations in all three chapters, introduction, discussion, and conclusion? Isn’t it a bit redundant? If not, could you please explain how can we write in different ways? Thank you.

Excellent!!! Thank you…

Thanks for this informative content. I have a question. The research gap is mentioned in both the introduction and literature section. I would like to know how can I demonstrate the research gap in both sections without repeating the contents?

I’m incredibly grateful for this invaluable content. I’ve been dreading compiling my postgrad thesis but breaking each chapter down into sections has made it so much easier for me to engage with the material without feeling overwhelmed. After relying on your guidance, I’m really happy with how I’ve laid out my introduction.

Thank you for the informative content you provided

Hi Derrick and Team, thank you so much for the comprehensive guide on how to write a dissertation or a thesis introduction section. For some of us first-timers, it is a daunting task. However, the instruction with relevant examples makes it clear and easy to follow through. Much appreciated.

It was so helpful. God Bless you. Thanks very much

I thank you Grad coach for your priceless help. I have two questions I have learned from your video the limitations of the research presented in chapter one. but in another video also presented in chapter five. which chapter limitation should be included? If possible, I need your answer since I am doing my thesis. how can I explain If I am asked what is my motivation for this research?

Thank you guys for the great work you are doing. Honestly, you have made the research to be interesting and simplified. Even a novice will easily grasp the ideas you put forward, Thank you once again.

Excellent piece!

I feel like just settling for a good topic is usually the hardest part.

Thank you so much. My confidence has been completely destroyed during my first year of PhD and you have helped me pull myself together again

Happy to help 🙂

I am so glad I ran into your resources and did not waste time doing the wrong this. Research is now making so much sense now.

Gratitude to Derrick and the team I was looking for a solid article that would aid me in drafting the thesis’ introduction. I felt quite happy when I came across the piece you wrote because it was so well-written and insightful. I wish you success in the future.

thank you so much. God Bless you

Thank you so much Grad Coach for these helpful insights. Now I can get started, with a great deal of confidence.

It’s ‘alluded to’ not ‘eluded to’.

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

• What Is a PhD Literature Review?
• Doing a PhD

A literature review is a critical analysis of published academic literature, mainly peer-reviewed papers and books, on a specific topic. This isn’t just a list of published studies but is a document summarising and critically appraising the main work by researchers in the field, the key findings, limitations and gaps identified in the knowledge.

• The aim of a literature review is to critically assess the literature in your chosen field of research and be able to present an overview of the current knowledge gained from previous work.
• By the conclusion of your literature review, you as a researcher should have identified the gaps in knowledge in your field; i.e. the unanswered research questions which your PhD project will help to answer.
• Quality not quantity is the approach to use when writing a literature review for a PhD but as a general rule of thumb, most are between 6,000 and 12,000 words.

What Is the Purpose of a Literature Review?

First, to be clear on what a PhD literature review is NOT: it is not a ‘paper by paper’ summary of what others have done in your field. All you’re doing here is listing out all the papers and book chapters you’ve found with some text joining things together. This is a common mistake made by PhD students early on in their research project. This is a sign of poor academic writing and if it’s not picked up by your supervisor, it’ll definitely be by your examiners.

The biggest issue your examiners will have here is that you won’t have demonstrated an application of critical thinking when examining existing knowledge from previous research. This is an important part of the research process as a PhD student. It’s needed to show where the gaps in knowledge were, and how then you were able to identify the novelty of each research question and subsequent work.

The five main outcomes from carrying out a good literature review should be:

• An understanding of what has been published in your subject area of research,
• An appreciation of the leading research groups and authors in your field and their key contributions to the research topic,
• Knowledge of the key theories in your field,
• Knowledge of the main research areas within your field of interest,
• A clear understanding of the research gap in knowledge that will help to motivate your PhD research questions .

When assessing the academic papers or books that you’ve come across, you must think about the strengths and weaknesses of them; what was novel about their work and what were the limitations? Are different sources of relevant literature coming to similar conclusions and complementing each other, or are you seeing different outcomes on the same topic by different researchers?

When Should I Write My Literature Review?

In the structure of your PhD thesis , your literature review is effectively your first main chapter. It’s at the start of your thesis and should, therefore, be a task you perform at the start of your research. After all, you need to have reviewed the literature to work out how your research can contribute novel findings to your area of research. Sometimes, however, in particular when you apply for a PhD project with a pre-defined research title and research questions, your supervisor may already know where the gaps in knowledge are.

You may be tempted to skip the literature review and dive straight into tackling the set questions (then completing the review at the end before thesis submission) but we strongly advise against this. Whilst your supervisor will be very familiar with the area, you as a doctoral student will not be and so it is essential that you gain this understanding before getting into the research.

How Long Should the Literature Review Be?

As your literature review will be one of your main thesis chapters, it needs to be a substantial body of work. It’s not a good strategy to have a thesis writing process here based on a specific word count, but know that most reviews are typically between 6,000 and 12,000 words. The length will depend on how much relevant material has previously been published in your field.

A point to remember though is that the review needs to be easy to read and avoid being filled with unnecessary information; in your search of selected literature, consider filtering out publications that don’t appear to add anything novel to the discussion – this might be useful in fields with hundreds of papers.

How Do I Write the Literature Review?

Before you start writing your literature review, you need to be clear on the topic you are researching.

1. Evaluating and Selecting the Publications

After completing your literature search and downloading all the papers you find, you may find that you have a lot of papers to read through ! You may find that you have so many papers that it’s unreasonable to read through all of them in their entirety, so you need to find a way to understand what they’re about and decide if they’re important quickly.

A good starting point is to read the abstract of the paper to gauge if it is useful and, as you do so, consider the following questions in your mind:

• What was the overarching aim of the paper?
• What was the methodology used by the authors?
• Was this an experimental study or was this more theoretical in its approach?
• What were the results and what did the authors conclude in their paper?
• How does the data presented in this paper relate to other publications within this field?
• Does it add new knowledge, does it raise more questions or does it confirm what is already known in your field? What is the key concept that the study described?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of this study, and in particular, what are the limitations?

2. Identifying Themes

To put together the structure of your literature review you need to identify the common themes that emerge from the collective papers and books that you have read. Key things to think about are:

• Are there common methodologies different authors have used or have these changed over time?
• Do the research questions change over time or are the key question’s still unanswered?
• Is there general agreement between different research groups in the main results and outcomes, or do different authors provide differing points of view and different conclusions?
• What are the key papers in your field that have had the biggest impact on the research?
• Have different publications identified similar weaknesses or limitations or gaps in the knowledge that still need to be addressed?

Structuring and Writing Your Literature Review

There are several ways in which you can structure a literature review and this may depend on if, for example, your project is a science or non-science based PhD.

One approach may be to tell a story about how your research area has developed over time. You need to be careful here that you don’t just describe the different papers published in chronological order but that you discuss how different studies have motivated subsequent studies, how the knowledge has developed over time in your field, concluding with what is currently known, and what is currently not understood.

Alternatively, you may find from reading your papers that common themes emerge and it may be easier to develop your review around these, i.e. a thematic review. For example, if you are writing up about bridge design, you may structure the review around the themes of regulation, analysis, and sustainability.

As another approach, you might want to talk about the different research methodologies that have been used. You could then compare and contrast the results and ultimate conclusions that have been drawn from each.

As with all your chapters in your thesis, your literature review will be broken up into three key headings, with the basic structure being the introduction, the main body and conclusion. Within the main body, you will use several subheadings to separate out the topics depending on if you’re structuring it by the time period, the methods used or the common themes that have emerged.

The important thing to think about as you write your main body of text is to summarise the key takeaway messages from each research paper and how they come together to give one or more conclusions. Don’t just stop at summarising the papers though, instead continue on to give your analysis and your opinion on how these previous publications fit into the wider research field and where they have an impact. Emphasise the strengths of the studies you have evaluated also be clear on the limitations of previous work how these may have influenced the results and conclusions of the studies.

In your concluding paragraphs focus your discussion on how your critical evaluation of literature has helped you identify unanswered research questions and how you plan to address these in your PhD project. State the research problem you’re going to address and end with the overarching aim and key objectives of your work .

When writing at a graduate level, you have to take a critical approach when reading existing literature in your field to determine if and how it added value to existing knowledge. You may find that a large number of the papers on your reference list have the right academic context but are essentially saying the same thing. As a graduate student, you’ll need to take a methodological approach to work through this existing research to identify what is relevant literature and what is not.

You then need to go one step further to interpret and articulate the current state of what is known, based on existing theories, and where the research gaps are. It is these gaps in the literature that you will address in your own research project.

• Decide on a research area and an associated research question.
• Decide on the extent of your scope and start looking for literature.
• Review and evaluate the literature.
• Plan an outline for your literature review and start writing it.

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.

The PhD Discussion Chapter: What It Is & How To Write It

Sep 11, 2023

Your PhD discussion chapter is your thesis’s intellectual epicenter. Think of it as the scholarly equivalent of a courtroom closing argument, where you summarise the evidence and make your case. Perhaps that’s why it’s so tricky – the skills you need in your discussion chapter aren’t skills you’ve likely had to deploy before: it’s where you start to speak like a Doctor.

In this guide, I want to present a comprehensive guide to the PhD discussion chapter. We’ll look at a number of key topics:

What is the purpose of a PhD Discussion Chapter?

• Suggested outlines for a discussion chapter:

Advice for improving your discussion chapter

This is not a normal blog subscription.

Each week we send two short, thought-provoking emails that will make you think differently about what it means to be a PhD student. It is designed to be read in thirty seconds and thought about all day.

  The PhD discussion chapter is the place where your findings, research questions, literature, theoretical framework and methodology coalesce into a coherent narrative. A common pitfall is when students see the discussion chapter as a summary of everything that has come before. This isn’t the case. Instead, the PhD discussion chapter offers a deep, analytical synthesis of your research, providing context, interpretation, and evaluation of your findings.

It’s the place in which you engage with existing theories, explore the significance of your work, and directly address the “So What?” question, highlighting the real-world implications and academic contributions of your research.

 Let’s dig down into each of these things.

Summarising and explaining the research

Before you launch into the detail, start by laying out your findings in a clear, easy to follow way. This is typically done in the introduction and the first proper section of the chapter.

Starting the PhD discussion chapter by clearly laying out your findings serves as an anchor for your reader and sets the stage for the more complex discussions that follow. This foundational step ensures that the reader is equipped with all the necessary information to fully grasp the significance and implications of your work. It’s akin to laying the groundwork before building a complex structure; without a solid base, the intricate analyses may lose their impact or be misunderstood.

For example, if you’re a PhD student in environmental science studying the effects of a specific pollutant on marine life, begin by presenting the key data points, such as the pollutant concentration levels in various regions and the corresponding health indices of marine species studied. Use tables, figures, or graphs to help visualise the data and make it more accessible.

• Laying out Quantitative Findings : If your research is quantitative, use statistical measures to present your results. Clearly state the metrics you’ve considered, such as means, variances, p-values, etc., and what they imply about your research question.
• Laying out Qualitative Findings : In case of qualitative research, such as ethnographic studies or interviews, narrate the trends, patterns, or themes that have emerged. Use representative quotes or observations as illustrative examples.
• Mixed-Methods Approach : If you’ve used both quantitative and qualitative methods, start by outlining how these different types of data will be integrated in your discussion. This could involve presenting the qualitative findings as a contextual backdrop for quantitative data or vice versa.

Remember, your objective at this initial stage is not to overwhelm the reader with complexity but to build a transparent, easily-followable narrative of what you’ve found. By starting with a clear presentation of your findings, you’re laying the groundwork for a powerful, credible discussion chapter that can tackle sophisticated analyses and weighty implications, underpinned by a comprehensible and compelling dataset.

There will be a necessary degree of overlap and repetition between this section (and the discussion chapter in general) and the findings chapter. However, there’s a subtle difference in the way in which the data is introduced in the findings and discussion chapters .

In the findings chapter, you’re generally presenting raw data or observations without interpreting what they mean. In the Discussion chapter, you take those same findings and begin to explore their implications, relate them to existing theories, and evaluate their significance. The danger, however, lies in creating excessive repetition between the two chapters, which can fatigue the reader and dilute the impact of your arguments.

To mitigate this, consider employing the following strategies:

• Selective Highlighting : Choose only the most critical findings to revisit in the Discussion chapter. You don’t need to regurgitate every data point, only those central to the questions you aim to answer in this chapter.
• Narrative Framing : When you bring up a finding in the Discussion chapter, introduce it as a stepping stone to a broader point or argument, rather than an isolated fact. This technique helps the reader understand why you’re revisiting this information and what new aspects you’ll be unveiling.
• Use Different Presentation Formats : If the Findings chapter is heavy on tables and figures, consider summarising key points in a narrative form in the Discussion chapter or vice versa.

By thoughtfully selecting what to revisit and framing it within a new context, you can transform what might appear as repetition into a coherent and evolving narrative that adds value to your thesis. Read more about the difference between the findings and discussion chapters here .

Interpreting and Contextualising Results 

It’s in the discussion chapter that you offer the interpretation and context for your research findings.

Here, you transition from being a data ‘gatherer’ to a data ‘interpreter’, weaving together the threads of research questions, data, methods, literature and theory to tell a complex story. While the Results chapter may offer the “what,” the PhD discussion chapter sheds light on the “why” and “how.” 

For example, if you’re a social scientist studying the effects of social media on mental health, your results chapter might show statistical data indicating a correlation between social media use and anxiety. However, it’s in your discussion chapter that you would compare these findings to existing literature, perhaps linking them to existing theories or debates. This adds a layer of depth and context that transcends the numerical data, inviting academic dialogue and potential future research avenues.

There are three ways in which you can synthesise your findings:

• Interpretation : Begin by interpreting your findings. Use comparisons, contrasts, and correlations to explain the significance of the results. This is where you should also address any unexpected outcomes and explain them.
• Contextualisation : After interpretation, provide a context to situate your findings within the existing body of knowledge. Link back to your Literature Review and Theoretical Framework to show how your research aligns with or diverges from previous work. More on this below.
• Evaluation : Finally, critically evaluate your own research. Discuss its limitations, the implications of your findings, and offer recommendations for future research.

Whether you’re in natural sciences exploring a new chemical compound or in humanities dissecting a piece of classical literature, the discussion chapter is your opportunity to show that your research not only answers specific questions but also contributes to a wider understanding of your field. It’s not enough to say, for instance, that a new drug successfully reduced symptoms of depression in 60% of study participants. You must explore what that 60% means.

• Is it a statistically significant improvement over existing treatments?
• What might be the physiological or psychological mechanisms at work?
• Could your research method have influenced these outcomes?

There’s an art to explaining and synthesising your findings [Link to “How to Explain Your Findings”], but think of it this way: this is where you shine a light on the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of your findings, delving into the nuances that raw data can’t express.

Evaluating Existing Theories and Models  

Beyond explaining your findings, the PhD discussion chapter allows you to evaluate the existing theories and models that you’ve cited in your literature review  and/or theory framework chapter (not sure of the difference? Click here) . Your results could either reinforce established theories or challenge them, both of which significantly contribute to your field.

• For instance, did your research on renewable energy technologies confirm the economic theories suggesting that green energy can be cost-effective?
• Or did your social research provide empirical evidence that contradicts widely held beliefs in your field?

The PhD discussion chapter therefore serves as the space where the theories, concepts, ideas and hypotheses that make up and informed your theory framework and which you touched upon in your literature review intersect with the empirical data you’ve presented.

You’re not just mapping your findings onto the theories and models; you’re dissecting them, affirming or challenging them, and potentially even extending or refining them based on what you’ve discovered.

For instance, if you’re working on a thesis in psychology concerning cognitive development in early childhood, your Literature Review may have discussed Piaget’s stages of cognitive development. However, let’s say your findings indicate some nuances or exceptions to Piaget’s theories, or perhaps children in a certain demographic don’t follow the stages as previously thought.

Your discussion chapter is where you can make the argument that perhaps Piaget’s model, while generally accurate, might require some modification to account for these cases.

• Affirming Theories : If your data aligns closely with the existing theories and models, the PhD discussion chapter serves to strengthen their credibility. Here, you’re lending empirical support to theoretical frameworks.
• Challenging Theories : Alternatively, your findings might contradict or challenge the prevailing theories. This is not a shortcoming; instead, it opens the door for re-evaluation and progress in the field, which is just as valuable.
• Extending or Refining Theories : Perhaps your research uncovers additional variables or conditions that existing models have not accounted for. In such cases, you’re pushing the envelope, extending the current boundaries of understanding.

As you evaluate existing theories and models, be comprehensive yet nuanced. Draw on varied disciplines if relevant. For example, if your thesis is at the intersection of public health and social policy, integrate models from both fields to offer a multi-faceted discussion. Being interdisciplinary can make your discussion richer and more impactful.

Ultimately, the discussion chapter offers you a platform to voice your scholarly interpretation and judgment. You’re participating in a broader academic dialogue, not just narrating your findings but positioning them in a web of knowledge that spans across time, disciplines, and viewpoints.

Discuss Unexpected Results

The discussion chapter is where you also discuss things that didn’t quite work out as planned. In particular, results that were unexpected.

Sometimes the most perplexing data offers the most valuable insights. Don’t shy away from discussing unexpected results; these could be the starting points for future research or even paradigm shifts in your field.

When your research yields findings that diverge from established theories or commonly held beliefs, you’re offered a unique opportunity to challenge and extend existing knowledge.

Take the field of primary education as an illustrative example. Assume you’re researching the efficacy of a specific teaching methodology that prior studies have lauded. However, your data reveals that while the method works wonders for one subgroup of students, it fails to benefit another subgroup. Far from diminishing the value of your research, this unexpected outcome presents an exciting opening. It beckons further inquiry into why the teaching methodology yielded disparate impacts, which could eventually result in more tailored and effective educational strategies.

In the realm of scientific discoveries, the significance of unexpected results cannot be overstated. Alexander Fleming’s accidental discovery of penicillin originated from what appeared to be a ‘failed’ experiment, but it revolutionised medicine. Similarly, the unintended discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation provided pivotal support for the Big Bang theory. In both instances, what seemed like anomalies paved the way for transformative understanding.

The first task when you encounter unexpected findings is to set them apart from the expected outcomes clearly. Delineate a specific section in your discussion chapter to delve into these anomalies, affording them the attention they merit.

Next, engage in hypothesising why these peculiarities emerged. This could be the point where your years of study and your depth of understanding of your subject really shine. Are there confounding variables that weren’t initially apparent? Could there be an entirely unexplored underlying mechanism at play? Take your reader on this exploration with you, and offer educated guesses based on your literature review and study design.

Lastly, don’t forget to consider and discuss the wider implications of these findings. Could they potentially refute longstanding theories or present the need for a shift in the prevailing school of thought? Or perhaps they hint at previously unthought-of applications or solutions to existing problems? Reflect on how these unexpected results might fit into the broader academic conversation and where future research might take these findings.

By earnestly and transparently tackling unexpected results, you exhibit a commitment to rigorous academic research. The willingness to entertain complexity and to follow the research—even when it leads in unpredictable directions—is a mark of scholarly integrity and courage. This holds true irrespective of your academic discipline, from the humanities and social sciences to STEM fields.

Answering the “so what?” Question

 In your findings chapter you would have presented the data. In the discussion chapter, you answer the ‘so what’ question. Make sure to address it explicitly. Why does your research matter? Who benefits from it? How does it advance the scholarly discourse?

 As a PhD student, you’ve already invested a substantial amount of time and effort into your research. Therefore, it’s crucial to articulate its importance not only to validate your own work but also to contribute meaningfully to your field and, in some cases, to society at large.

 Answering the “so what?” question means connecting the dots between your isolated research findings and the larger intellectual landscape. It requires you to extend your analysis beyond the specifics of your study, considering how it advances the scholarly discourse in your field. For instance, if your research closes a significant gap in the literature, makes a theoretical breakthrough,

Example in Public Health : If your research finds that community-led sanitation programs are far more effective than government-implemented ones, then the “So What?” is clear: policy-makers need to see this data. But that doesn’t mean you don’t still need to discuss it.

Example in Literature : If your research uncovers previously unnoticed patterns of symbolism in 19th-century Russian literature, the “So What?” could be a deeper understanding of how literature reflects societal anxieties of the time.

In order to make your discussion chapter compelling and relevant, it’s imperative to always highlight why your research matters. This goes beyond simply reiterating your findings; you need to connect the dots and show how your research fits into the broader academic landscape. Are you challenging existing theories, confirming previous studies, or offering a new perspective? Establishing the academic importance of your work provides a solid footing for its wider application.

Further to establishing academic relevance, also aim to illuminate the real-world implications of your findings. What are the practical outcomes that could arise from your research? Are there specific scenarios or applications where your research could be a game-changer? For instance, if your study uncovers a more effective method of teaching reading to children with dyslexia, explicitly mention how this could revolutionise educational approaches and improve quality of life for those affected. Providing concrete scenarios enhances the applicability of your research, proving that it doesn’t merely exist in the realm of academic abstraction, but has tangible impacts that can affect change.

Limitations and Future Research

 The quest for perfection is more a journey than a destination. This especially holds true in the context of a PhD thesis. Therefore, a well-crafted Discussion chapter should include a section devoted to the limitations of your research, as it establishes the scope, reliability, and validity of your work. Acknowledging limitations is not an act of undermining your research; instead, it embodies scholarly integrity and rigorous academic thinking.

Being upfront about limitations is essentially about being honest, not only with your readers but also with yourself as a researcher. For instance, if you’ve conducted a survey-based study in psychology but only managed to collect a small number of responses, admitting this limitation provides context for your findings. Perhaps the conclusions drawn from such a sample size are not universally applicable but could still offer significant insights into a particular demographic or condition

• Do not shy away from discussing limitations in fear that it might weaken your arguments.
• Clearly delineate the scope of your research, specifying what it does and doesn’t address.

For example, in a medical research study, if your sample size predominantly consists of individuals from a particular age group, admitting this limitation helps frame your research within that context. Or, if you’re a literature student, if your analysis focuses solely on the works of a single author, your findings might not be generalisable to broader literary trends.

Discussing limitations openly doesn’t devalue your work; it adds a layer of trustworthiness. It assures the reader—and the academic community at large—that you have a nuanced understanding of your research context. It demonstrates that you can critically evaluate your own work, a skill that is paramount.

Your PhD Thesis. On one page.

Example outline for a discussion chapter:.

I’ve included a suggested outline for a PhD discussion chapter. It’s important to note that no two PhDs are alike, and yours may well (probably will) diverge from this. The purpose here is to show how all the various factors we’ve discussed above fit together.

Introduction

• Brief Overview of Research Objectives and Key Findings
• Purpose of the Discussion Chapter

Summary of Key Findings

• Brief Restatement of Research Findings
• Comparison with Initial Hypotheses or Research Questions

Interpretation of Findings

• Contextualisation of Results
• Significance and Implications of the Findings

Evaluation of Existing Theories and Models

• How Your Findings Support or Challenge Previous Work
• Conceptual Contributions of Your Study
• Acknowledgment of Study Limitations
• Suggestions for Future Research
• Summation of Key Points
• Broader Implications and Contributions of the Research
• Final Thoughts and Future Directions

Once you’ve navigated through the complexities of your PhD research, you’re now faced with the challenge of bringing it all together in your discussion chapter. While you’ve already considered various facets like summarising findings, evaluating existing theories, and acknowledging limitations, there are some “easy wins”—small, yet impactful steps—that can help strengthen this critical chapter.

The Power of a Well-Structured Narrative

Begin with a well-structured narrative that clearly outlines your arguments. Tell the reader what the destination is at the outset of the chapter, and then make sure each paragraph is a stepping stone to that destination.

Each paragraph should serve a purpose and should logically follow the previous one. This helps in making your discussion coherent and easy to follow.

• Use transition sentences between paragraphs to guide the reader through your argument.
• Make sure each paragraph adds a new dimension to your discussion.

Data Visualisation Tools

Visual aids aren’t just for presentations; they can provide tremendous value in a discussion chapter. Diagrams, charts, or graphs can provide a visual break and help to emphasise your points effectively.

• Use graphs or charts to represent trends that support your argument.
• Always caption your visuals and reference them in the text.

Integrate Feedback Actively

It’s often beneficial to have colleagues, advisors, or other experts review your discussion section before finalising it. They can offer fresh perspectives and may catch gaps or ambiguities that you’ve missed.

• Seek feedback but also know when to filter it, sticking to advice that genuinely enhances your work.
• Don’t wait until the last minute for feedback; give reviewers ample time.

Highlight the Broader Implications

While you’ll delve into this more in your conclusion, don’t shy away from previewing the broader implications of your work in your discussion. Make it clear why your research matters in a wider context.

• State the broader implications but keep them tightly related to your research findings.
• Avoid making grand claims that your research can’t support

In the journey toward a PhD, learning ‘how to write like a doctor’ is more than mastering grammar or honing your prose; it’s about flexing your academic muscles with confidence and authority. It is in the discussion chapter that you really start flexing, and which you really can and need to speak like a doctor.

For many, this is the first instance of challenging the hegemony of existing literature, refuting established theories, or proposing innovative frameworks. It’s an intimidating task; after all, these are the ideas and research paradigms you’ve been learning about throughout your educational journey. Suddenly, you’re not just absorbing knowledge; you’re contributing to it, critiquing it, and perhaps even changing its trajectory. If it feels challenging, remember that’s because it’s new, and that’s why it’s hard. However, you’ve made it this far, and that alone testifies to your academic rigour and capability. You’ve earned the right to be heard; now it’s time to speak with the academic authority that has been years in the making. So, don’t hold back—flex those academic muscles and carve your niche in the scholarly conversation.

Share this:

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

RIT graduate pursues Ph.D. across time zones

Nastaran Nagshineh, center, defended her Ph.D. thesis at RIT in April. Faculty from RIT’s Rochester and Dubai campuses served on her thesis committee and include, from left to right, Kathleen Lamkin-Kennard, Steven Weinstein, Nathaniel Barlow, and David Kofke (a professor at the University at Buffalo). Mohamed Samaha participated remotely and appears on the video screen behind the group and alongside Nagshineh’s picture.

Nastaran Nagshineh is one of the first Ph.D. candidates to bridge RIT’s Rochester and Dubai campuses. Her accomplishment creates a path for future students at the university’s international campuses.

Nagshineh completed her Ph.D. in mathematical modeling while working full time as a mathematics lecturer at RIT Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, teaching as many as five classes a semester. She described her Ph.D. journey as “an exercise in perseverance” due to competing demands and long days. Rochester is eight hours behind Dubai, and the time difference meant many late-night classes and meetings.

“I saw this collaboration as an opportunity, rather than as a challenge, because my primary adviser, Dr. Steven Weinstein (RIT professor of chemical engineering), and my co-adviser, Dr. Mohamed Samaha (RIT Dubai associate professor of mechanical engineering), both have the same area of research interest,” she said. “They both worked toward my success.”

Nagshineh is one of 67 RIT Ph.D. students who defended their thesis this academic year and who will earn their doctorate. RIT awarded 63 Ph.D. degrees in 2023.

In 2020-2021, RIT’s Graduate School met and surpassed the university’s goal of conferring 50 Ph.D. degrees during an academic year. That number will continue to grow as students cycle through the seven new Ph.D. programs that RIT has added since 2017, said Diane Slusarski , dean of RIT’s Graduate School.

Meeting these goals puts RIT on a path toward achieving an “R1,” or research-intensive designation, from the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Learning. RIT is currently ranked as an R2 institution . Many factors go into changing a university’s status, including research investment and maintaining a three-year average of 70 Ph.D. degrees awarded per year, according to Slusarski.

“We have met the goals of the strategic plan, and now we look forward to contributing to the research innovation in the future,” Slusarski said. “We want to help the new programs thrive and win national research awards.”

RIT’s emphasis on high-level research is seen in Nagshineh’s Ph.D. work. She applies mathematical modeling to the field of fluid dynamics. Her research has been published in top-tier journals and has gained notice, said Weinstein, her thesis adviser.

Weinstein describes Nagshineh’s accomplishments as “a testament to a fantastic work ethic and commitment” and is inspirational to younger students at Rochester and Dubai.

“The collaboration between RIT Dubai/Rochester has continued,” he said. “Another paper was submitted a few weeks ago with Mohamed Samaha and Nate Barlow (RIT associate professor in the School of Mathematics and Statistics) as co-authors, as well as Cade Reinberger, a younger Ph.D. student in my research group.”

Mathematical modeling is one of RIT’s newer Ph.D. degree programs, and Nagshineh is among its earliest graduates. The program has doubled in size since it began accepting students in 2017, Slusarski said. This past fall, the mathematical modeling program had 35 students, with two graduating this year.

Altogether, RIT has 13 Ph.D. degree programs currently enrolling 438 students, with computing and information sciences accounting for the largest with 117 students. RIT’s other Ph.D. programs include astrophysical sciences and technology , biomedical and chemical engineering , business administration , color science , electrical and computer engineering, imaging science , mechanical and industrial engineering , microsystems engineering , and sustainability .

New programs in cognitive science and physics will launch in the fall.

The growth in RIT graduate education—with more than 3,000 master’s and doctoral students—reflects a demographic change in the student population, Slusarski said. “We have a higher percentage of women in the graduate programs than we have for RIT undergraduate programs.”

RIT’s graduate programs enroll 42 percent women, according to Christie Leone , assistant dean for the Graduate School.

Nagshineh, who also holds an MS in electrical engineering from RIT Dubai, welcomes her role as a mentor to other women students on both campuses.

“As a young woman in an Arabic country, the power of women is often underestimated and undervalued, and I hope to serve as a role model to female students, especially those that question their path,” Nagshineh said.

She plans to continue in her career as a professor and a researcher. “I would like to pursue a research program where I can advise my own students and teach them more deeply.”

Recommended News

May 17, 2024

Top Teacher: Minnetonka sign language teacher Dr. Tracy Ivy   

KMSP-TV selects Tracy Ivy '09 (secondary education for students who are deaf or hard of hearing) as a Top Teacher.

May 16, 2024

Kim Shearer’s passion for planning spans five decades at RIT

Kim Shearer's journey at RIT, marked by strategic planning and dedication, led to pivotal roles in shaping the university's computing college, spearheading expansions, fostering diversity, and leaving behind unique touches like binary code lights and cryptic messages within the campus architecture.

May 15, 2024

RIT student-faculty developed video game ‘That Damn Goat’ now available for purchase on Nintendo Switch console

A video game created by RIT students and faculty has reached a long-awaited milestone. That Damn Goat , developed and published through RIT’s MAGIC Spell Studios, is now available for purchase on the popular Nintendo Switch gaming console.

RIT researchers expect a rise in deepfake use in political campaigns   

Spectrum News interviews Christopher Schwartz, research scientist in the Department of Cybersecurity, and Kelly Wu, computing and information sciences Ph.D. student, about generating and detecting artificial intelligence deepfakes.