CPM: Cohort 10 Dissertation Writing: Bringing it all together Dr Íde O’Sullivan, Lawrence Cleary Shannon Consortium Regional Writing Centre

CPM: Cohort 10CPM: Cohort 10Dissertation Writing: Dissertation Writing:

Bringing it all togetherBringing it all together

CPM: Cohort 10CPM: Cohort 10Dissertation Writing: Dissertation Writing:

Bringing it all togetherBringing it all together

Dr Íde O’Sullivan, Lawrence ClearyDr Íde O’Sullivan, Lawrence Cleary

Shannon Consortium Regional Writing Shannon Consortium Regional Writing CentreCentre

Regional Writing Centre 2

Workshop outline

• Motivation (keeping going)• Time management (finishing on

time)• Planning and outlining• Writing results and discussion• Bringing it all together• Writing the abstract• Peer review

Motivation and Time Motivation and Time ManagementManagement

Motivation and Time Motivation and Time ManagementManagement


Where am I?

• What writing have you done for the dissertation, and what writing do you need to do in order to complete the dissertation on time?

• Keep writing non-stop for 5 minutes.• Write in sentences.• Do not edit or censor your writing.• Private writing -- no one will read it.• Discuss what you have written in

pairs.


It is not too late• Take stock of where you are now• Outline your research• Make plans based on the time that is

left• Organise your time accordingly• Get writing• Keep writing• Allow time for revision and to put it all

together• Let family and friends know• Be selfish with your time


Outlining (Murray, 2006)

• Title and draft introduction• Level 1 outlining

– Main headings

• Level 2 outlining– Sub-headings

• Level 3 outlining– Decide on content


Outlining (Murray, 2006)

• Title and draft introduction– Chapter 1 (title)

• Section 1 (title)• Section 2 (title)• Section 3 (title)

– Chapter 2 (title)• Section 1 (title)• Section 2 (title)• Section 3 (title)

– Chapter 3 … … …


Writing goalsOutline Words/Timeframe

TitleChapter 1 (title)

Section 1 (title)Section 2 (title)Section 3 (title)

Chapter 2 (title)Section 1 (title)Section 2 (title)Section 3 (title)

Chapter 3 … … …


Keep writing• Where and when do you write?• How long does it take you to get started?• What kind of avoidance tactics go on?• Why are you not writing?• Write about why you are having difficulty

making advances in your paper– “I don’t feel ready to write.”– Writers’ block– …

• Why write about why you are having difficulty?


Keep writing• Getting unstuck

– Writing to prompts/freewriting (write anything)

– Set writing goals– Write regularly– Integrate writing into your thinking– Break it down into a manageable process

• Don’t allow yourself to freeze up. When you are feeling overwhelmed…– Satisfy yourself with small advances until

you feel more confident and unstuck.– Seek help. Talk to friends. Talk about how

you feel, but talk about your ideas as well.– Eat lots of chocolate.


Keep writing• Be patient• Be creative• Taking pleasure in writing • Be proud of your writing• Get stuck in


Peer support• Dialogue about writing • Getting feedback on writing• Peer-review

– Generative writing– The “writing sandwich” (Murray,

2005:85): writing, talking, writing– Writing “buddies” (Murray and

Moore, 2006:102)– Writers’ groups– Writers’ retreats


Writing the Results Writing the Results and Discussionand Discussion

Writing the Results Writing the Results and Discussionand Discussion


Results and discussion

• Chapter 1- Introduction• Chapter 2 - Background and

literature review• Chapter 3 – Research design and

methodology• Chapter 4 - Data analysis / results

and discussion • Chapter 5 – Conclusion


Sample comments • Essentially a descriptive study.• Showed a reasonable understanding of

the issues involved but could have been more analytical in the presentation of the issues and indeed the results.

• Descriptive analysis only and little basis to support conclusions.

• The qualitative approach was very subjective - this needed additional explanation.

• No major / minor addition to the topic emerged in the research nor was the application overly original.


Results and discussionMake Sure…

– that the methodology address both the procedure for the collection of your data and the one for the analysis of your results.

– that you section the analysis so that the argument unfolds in a clearly stated, detailed, logical progression.

– that you view the data objectively. Don’t ignore data that disproves the hypothesis or claim.


Results and discussion• The results section must not only

present the results; it must make the results meaningful for the reader.

• The discussion should not simply provide more detail about the results; it should interpret and explain the results.

• Methods of organising the results and discussion.


ResultsOrganising the results• Readability• Accessibility (graphs, tables)• Use of appendices for raw data• Making the results meaningful

– Explanation– Simplification– Trends– Significant results– Relationships/correlations


DiscussionOrganising the discussion• Summarise the main results in order to

remind the reader of your key findings.• Put the results of the research into

context.• Support the validity of the results by

referring to similar results.• Explain the differences between your

findings and that of previous researchers. • Can you explain the unexpected results?


Discussion (Swales, 1990: 172/3)

1. Background information2. Statement of results3. (Un)expected results4. Reference to previous research5. Explanation6. Exemplification7. Deduction and hypothesis8. Recommendation


Conclusion• To what extend have the aims of the

study been achieved?• How has your primary and secondary

research helped answer the research question posed?

• Have your hypotheses been proved/disproved/partially proved?

• Did the study raise any further questions?

• Any recommendations for future research?


Elements of a good conclusion

• A conclusion should:Remind the reader of the main

points of your argumentBring ‘closure to the interpretation of

the data’ (Leedy, 2001: 291)Be clearBe logicalBe credible



• A summary of the investigation, the results, and the analysis

• A summary of the conclusions drawn from the analysis and discussion of the data / results

• An account of whether the research has answered the research question

• An assessment of whether the hypothesis or claim has been proved, disproved, or partially proved



• A discussionion of the implications of the findings

• A demonstrable awareness of the limitations of the outcome

• Suggestions for future developments – Remember: A summary alone of what you have done is a weak conclusion

• A final, strong, positive statement


Academic principles• Maintaining academic principles

– Ethics– Referencing– Honesty– Objectivity

• Hedge. Distinguish between absolutes and probabilities. Absolutes are 100% certain. Probabilities are less than 100% certain.

• Be responsible. Provide traceable evidence and justifications for any claims you make or any opinions you have formed as a result of your research.


Persuasion and truth in academic writing

• Because it is argumentative, academic writing tends to be persuasive.

• An argument should be persuasive, but don’t sacrifice truth in favour of persuasion.

• Academic inquiry is a truth-seeking pursuit.• facts are distinguished from opinions.• relative truths are distinguished from

absolute truths.• The integrity of the conclusions reached

in an academic essay or report is based on its honest pursuit of truth.

Bringing it all Bringing it all togethertogether

Bringing it all Bringing it all togethertogether


Writing a ‘page 98 paper’

• Early: to establish direction/focus• Associate your project with the literature• Distinguish your project from the literature• Build on research question/hypothesis• Focus reading/thinking• Manageable writing task: 325 words• To develop thinking about your thesis thesis?• Late: to focus thinking as you draft conclusion

and revise your introduction(Murray, 2006: 105)


Writing a ‘page 98 paper’

• My research question is … (50 words)• Researchers who have looked at this subject are …

(50 words)• They argue that … (25 words)• Debate centres on the issue of … (25 words)• There is work to be done on … (25 words)• My research is closest to that of X in that … (50

words)• My contribution will be … (50 words)

(Murray, 2006: 104)


Sample comments• The main criticism of the thesis is that the

research was not focused enough in the topic under discussion. This negated the research & methodology sections in particular; while some of the findings are valid, the ‘scientific’ basis of these is weak.

• There was a sense of ‘stop & start’ throughout the thesis, particularly in the earlier chapters making it a challenge to follow the argument.

• Difficult to read & needed a more comprehensive set of recommendations.

• A bit unwieldy, lacking clarity and focus. A research topic needs to be more than ‘interesting’.


Bringing it all together

• Key rhetorical considerations• The organising principle:

– Research question– Thesis statement– Hypothesis

• Focus• Flow• Readability


The organising principle

• From beginning to end, the point of order is the initial question, claim or hypothesis.

• Chapter and section headings announce the organisation with a logical, linear, progressive arrangement of ideas.


Flow• Logical method of development• Effective transition signals• Good signposting• Consistent point of view• Conciseness (careful word choice)• Clarity of expression• Paragraph structure

– Unity– Coherence


Paragraph structure• Chapters or sections are divided into

paragraphs in a meaningful way.• Like chapter and section headings,

paragraphs also signal the logically organised progression of ideas.

• Just as an essay is guided by a thesis statement, a paragraph is organised around its topic sentence.

• A topic sentence informs the reader of the topic to be discussed. It contains controlling ideas which limit the scope of the discussion to ideas that are manageable in a paragraph.


Paragraph structure: Unity

• Paragraphs should be unified.• ‘Unity means that only one main idea

is discussed in a paragraph. The main idea is stated in the topic sentence, and then each and every supporting sentence develops that idea’ (Oshima and Hogue, 1999: 18).


Paragraph structure: Coherence

• Coherence means that your paragraph is easy to read and understand because – your supporting sentences are in some

kind of logical order– your ideas are connected by the use of

appropriate transition signals– your pronoun references clearly point to

the intended antecedent and is consistent

– you have repeated or substituted key nouns. (Oshima and Hogue, 2006: 22)


New writers’ errors(Murray, 2005:4)

• “Writing too much about ‘the problem’.”

• “Overstating the problem and claiming too much for their solution.”

• “Overstating the critique of others’ work.”

• “Not saying what they mean, losing focus through indirect writing.”

• “Putting too many ideas in one paper.”


Reasons for rejecting manuscripts

• Methodology or research design problems

• Poorly developed idea• Poor writing skills• Poor research skills• Data interpretation problems• Literature review not

relevant/comprehensive/up to date• Key terms and concepts not clearly

defined• Failure to consider the audience• Failure to follow the guidelines


Revision and editing

• Editing a document is revisiting it for publication

• It is ‘sharpening a thought to a gemlike point and eliminating useless verbiage’ (Leedy, 2001: 54)


Types of edit

• Policy edit• Integrity edit• Screening edit• Format edit• Mechanical style edit• Language edit• Substantive edit


Macro and micro edits• Macro Issues

− content and organisation− logical sequence of ideas− audience adaptation− purpose

• Micro Issues− grammar− style− format

• Only edit one thing at a time• Listen to your voice


Revision• Revising the structure

– Introduction– A clear logical structure– Your arguments / evidence– Conclusion

• Revising the research methodology/design and methods

• Revising the content – Accuracy– Style– Use of words


Revising the structure

• Introduction– Have you stared what you are doing

and why?– Are your aims clear?– Have you told your reader what they

will gain from reading your paper?– Have you outlined the structure?

• Swales’ (1990) CARS model• Create a Research Space


CARS model• Establishing a territory

– Claiming centrality– Reviewing items of previous research

• Establishing a niche– Counter-claiming– Identifying a gap– Question-raising

• Occupying the niche– Outlining purpose

Swales (1990:141)


Revising the structure

• A clear logical structure– Did you lead the reader clearly through

the dissertation?– Did you follow the map outlined in the

introduction?– Did you give directions to the reader?

(Check coherence, topic sentences and transition signals.)

– Have you delivered on all your promises?


Revising the structure• Your arguments / evidence

– Is each argument developed sufficiently?– Do you give enough evidence to support

your argument?– Do you use the appropriate language to

reflect the evidence?– Is the content of each paragraph

relevant?– Does irrelevant information get in the

way?• Conclusion


Revising the research methodology

• Is the methodology appropriate? • Are the following clear and appropriate?

– Sampling strategy– Data collection– Data analysis

• Are the findings presented clearly?• Are the findings supported by sufficient

data?• How important are the findings?


Revising the content• Accuracy

– Facts: Is the content accurate?– Quotations: Is it clear which ideas

are mine / those of others?– Are all sources and references

acknowledged?– Is everything in the bibliography?


Revising the content• Style / use of words

– Are there words, phrases, sentences or paragraphs that are unnecessary?

– Will the reader get lost in long sentences?– Are there any obscure / ambiguous

words?– Is the appropriate voice used?– Are there unnecessary modifiers?

• Final read– Does it flow smoothly / read well?– Is it interesting?– Is the pace / rhythm appropriate?– Does it look neat and professional?


Copyediting / Proofreading

• This is the careful editing of each line and each graphic to ensure that the material is expressed in simple, clear correct English.

• Checking errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, format, sentence structure.

• Proofreading is not editing in the broader sense – it is an effort to achieve correctness in the elements mentioned above.


Tips for editing• Set it aside for a few days and come

back with a fresh eye• Get someone else to proofread it as well

as you• Use the print preview button to check

layout • Always proofread on hardcopy• Hold paper below the line you are

proofreading• Use the find button to make changes• Be consistent!!


Editing a reference list• Check that in-text dates and page

numbers match reference list.• Only enter names in reference list that

you have mentioned in your text – it’s not a bibliography.

• Make sure that if a name is mentioned in the document that is in included in the reference list.

• Do a separate edit of your reference list, checking everything matches, everything is included and it is consistent.

Writing an AbstractWriting an AbstractWriting an AbstractWriting an Abstract


Sample comments

• Weak abstract. A good abstract should tell the reader the imperative for study, the method(s) of inquiry and analysis and key insights from the research.


Writing an abstract

• Brown’s 8 questions (Murray, 2005:108-114)

• Framework to help you draft an abstract• Allows you to see the paper as a whole

and focus on the main points of the argument

• Written at an early stage in the writing process, it helps you maintain the main focus as you write the paper.

• Revise it as you go.


Brown’s 8 questions1. Who are the intended readers? (3-5 names)2. What did you do? (50 words)3. Why did you do it? (50 words)4. What happened? (50 words)5. What do the results mean in theory? (50

words)6. What do the results mean in practice? (50

words)7. What is the key benefit for readers (25

words)8. What remains unresolved? (no word limit)


Analyse abstracts

Regional Writing Centre 59Regional Writing Centre 59

Analysing the journal/abstract

Cracking the codes• Analysing the genre/text and modelling• Identify important criteria that will make your

writing more effective• Ask yourself the following questions:

– How is the paper structured?– How is the contribution articulated?– What level of context is provided?– What level of detail is used? – How long are the different sections?


Analysing the journal/abstract

• What organisational features/patterns are in evidence? • How are arguments and counterarguments presented

and structured?• How does the author establish his/her authority and

credibility?• What stylistic features are prominent?• Is the text cohesive? How does the author achieve

such cohesion?• What kind(s) of persuasive devises does the author

employ?• Voice?


What should I include What should I include in the abstract?in the abstract?

• A clear concise summary of the entire report (not more than one page in length).

• The aim of the study and a brief justification for the investigation into the problem.

• A brief description of how the problem was approached and a justification for that approach.

• A summary of the outcomes and whether they confirm those that had been initially anticipated.

• The main results, conclusions and recommendations.


What should I not include?

• Lengthy historical summaries and background information

• Personal judgements: “I feel this thesis does an excellent job of…”

• Overstatements of the results: “This thesis proves…”

• Lengthy examples and supporting details • “[…] extraneous information and terms which

don’t support the content” (Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network)

Peer ReviewPeer ReviewPeer ReviewPeer Review


Peer review• Assess the strengths and weaknesses of

your own writing before giving it to a peer for review.

• Specify the type of feedback that would be most useful to your stage of the process.

• Be honest and specific about positive and negative feedback.

• Start with the positive.• Feedback and feedforward.• Rules for engagement.


Works cited• Brown, R. (1994/1995) ‘Write Right First Time’,

Literati Club, Articles on Writing and Publishing, Special Issue for Authors and Editors.

• Elbow, P. (1973) Writing without Teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.

• Murray, R. (2005) Writing for Academic Journals. UK: Open University Press.

• Murray, R. (2006) How to Write a Thesis. UK: Open University Press.

• Murray, R. and Moore, S. (2006) The Handbook of Academic Writing: A Fresh Approach. UK: Open University Press.

• Oshima, A. and Hogue, A. (2006) Writing Academic English, 4th ed. New York: Pearson Education.

• Swales, J. (1990) Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Documents

CPM: Cohort 10 Dissertation Writing: Bringing it all together Dr Íde O’Sullivan, Lawrence Cleary Shannon Consortium Regional Writing Centre