Tips for Dissertation Writing

Quantifying contributions

  • Make a table, containing in each column: 1-line summary of the contribution, type of contribution (design, frontend or backend), with whom you made the contribution, reference to the subsection in your portfolio that describes the contributions.

Writing the individual contributions

Describe:

  • What you exactly contributed.

  • Why did you things the way you did it? What are alternative ways of doing it, compare the pros/cons of your approach with the alternatives.

  • Motivate your considerations and design/implementations decisions using literature sources. (e.g., technical documents, scientific papers or reflective web articles).

Writing

  • Write clearly and concisely. Avoid using many complicated words and overly long sentences, particularly if you are aware that your English skills are limited.

  • Have every part of your dissertation proofread, ideally by different people.

Presenting designs

  • Make diagrams easy to read and consistent.

  • Justify every design choice you make, ideally by annotating your picture. Base as many of your justifications as you can on relevant literature sources.

  • Discuss the merits and drawbacks of alternative designs.

Self reflections

  • Avoid value judgements, such as “I did an outstanding job”. Instead, provide specific examples of contributions and mention the observations upon which you base your self reflections.

  • Always mention what you would different if you would do the same task again, and why.

Learning outcomes

  • Add body to your motivations by referring to relevant sections for details, but do not omit the main justification for meeting the Learning Outcomes in the Table itself.

FYP Dissertation Template

  • Here is an idea on how to divide your dissertation content, assuming a 10k word count total.

Dissertation Template (Click to expand)

  • Introduction: ~1500

    • Describe problem

    • Describe why it’s important

    • Describe how you plan to solve it (aims & objectives)

  • Background: ~3000

    • Describe related research + essential details for understanding your work

  • Approach: ~2000

  • Results: ~2000

  • Conclusion / discussion: ~1500

  • Appendices: any length (does not count towards word limit)

  • References: Typically 20-100, and be sure not to list only website references.

Writing an Introduction

A good start is to first write your aim (1 sentence) and your objectives (typically 4-6 bullet points). Both aims and objectives need to be focused, and realistically achievable in the time frame of the project (typically 3 person months for FYPs).

Typical objectives can include:

  • Some element of analyzing/reviewing existing literature.

  • Some element of designing/developing some kind of method that will serve to achieve your aim.

  • Applying your method to a number of test/validation situations.

  • Evaluating whether your method has been successful at achieving your aim, and how it can be improved in future projects.

When describing the problem, stick only to the themes that you directly mention in your aim and objectives. Other, more tangential information should be either in the background (if it’s of likely interest to the reader) or left out (if it is not).

Common Thesis Problems

The following are some of the issues frequently raised by examiners of doctoral theses, collated by the author over some 35 years and almost 200 examinations. They are presented in an order that combines both frequency and degree of seriousness.

Final Chapters (Click to expand)

  • No clear and detailed indication of the contribution made to knowledge (and/or practice if appropriate)

  • Lack of depth to discussion and conclusions – superficial

  • Cursory back reference to the literature to indicate what has been supported, exemplified, refuted, etc.

  • Implications for theory/practice not discussed in sufficient depth

  • Alternative explanations of results not considered in the discussion

  • Critical review of the research undertaken not included or cursory or unrealistic

  • Suggestions for future research not included or cursory

Literature Review/s (Click to expand)

  • Descriptive rather than critical literature review

  • Search system and procedure not described in enough detail or at all

  • Selection criteria for references unclear (or hardly applied!)

  • Review does not follow/produce a line of argument leading to (refined) research questions

Research Questions/Hypotheses (Click to expand)

  • Not clearly or sufficiently focused

  • Lack of transparent, well-articulated link between previous literature/research and research questions/hypotheses

  • Little indication of ownership of research

Assumptions (Click to expand)

  • Assumptions made not clearly articulated

Results (Click to expand)

  • Not clearly presented – lack of or poorly presented summaries or tables, graphs, diagrams, etc.

  • Results and discussion/conclusions not clearly differentiated

Design, Methods, Procedures (Click to expand)

  • Rationales for approach, design and methods inadequate or muddled

  • Lack of evidence to support selection of approach, design, methods, participant/subject or instruments, particularly data analysis techniques

  • Long-winded descriptions when tables or diagrams would be clearer

  • Application of instruments from other work without calibration or standardization to context

Presentation (Click to expand)

  • Account not taken, or unjustified assumptions made about, readers’ knowledge: jargon, acronyms and topic details not clearly explained

  • “Red thread” of argument from introduction to conclusion/discussion difficult to follow or not apparent

  • Lack of guidance to the reader through the use of signposts, links, references forward and back

  • Careless proofreading