How to Write Your Thesis
compiled by Kim Kastens, Stephanie Pfirman, Martin Stute, Bill Hahn,
Dallas Abbott, and Chris Scholz
I. Thesis structure
Title Page
Title (including subtitle), author, institution, department, date of
delivery, research mentor(s) and advisor, their instututions and
email adresses
Abstract
- A good abstract explains in one line why the paper is
important. It then goes on to give a summary of your
major results, preferably couched in numbers with error
limits. The final sentences explain the major
implications of your work. A good abstract is concise,
readable, and quantitative.
- Length should be ~ 1-2 paragraphs, approx. 400 words.
- Absrtracts generally do not have citations.
- Information in title should not be repeated.
- Be explicit.
- Use numbers where appropriate.
- Answers to these questions should be found in the
abstract:
- What did you do?
- Why did you do it? What question were you trying to
answer?
- How did you do it? State methods.
- What did you learn? State major results.
- Why does it matter? Point out at least one
significant implication.
|
Table of Contents
- list all headings and subheadings with page numbers
- indent subheadings
- it will look something like this:
|
|
Page # |
| List of Figures |
xxx |
| List of Tables |
|
Introduction
subheads ...? |
|
Methods
subheads ...? |
|
Results
subheads ...? |
|
Discussion
subheads ...? |
|
| Conclusion |
|
| Recommendations |
|
| Acknowledgments |
|
| References |
|
| Appendices |
|
List of Figures
List page numbers of all figures.
The list should include a short title for each figure but not the
whole caption.
List of Tables
List page numbers of all tables.
The list should include a short title for each table but not the
whole caption.
Introduction
You can't write a good introduction until you know what the body of
the paper says. Consider writing the introductory section(s) after
you have completed the rest of the paper, rather than before.
Be sure to include a hook at the beginning of the introduction.
This is a statement of something sufficiently interesting to
motivate your reader to read the rest of the paper, it is an
important/interesting scientific problem that your paper either
solves or addresses. You should draw the reader in and make them
want to read the rest of the paper.
The next paragraphs in the introduction should cite previous
research in this area. It should cite those who had the idea or
ideas first, and should also cite those who have done the most
recent and relevant work. You should then go on to explain why
more work was necessary (your work, of course.)
What else belongs in the introductory
section(s) of your paper?
- A statement of the goal of the paper: why the study
was undertaken, or why the paper was written. Do not
repeat the abstract.
- Sufficient background information to allow the
reader to understand the context and significance of
the question you are trying to address.
- Proper acknowledgement of the previous work on which
you are building. Sufficient references such that a
reader could, by going to the library, achieve a
sophisticated understanding of the context and
significance of the question.
- The introduction should be focused on the thesis
question(s). All cited work should be directly
relevent to the goals of the thesis. This is not
a place to summarize everything you have ever read on
a subject.
- Explain the scope of your work, what will and will
not be included.
- A verbal "road map" or verbal "table of contents"
guiding the reader to what lies ahead.
- Is it obvious where introductory material ("old
stuff") ends and your contribution ("new stuff")
begins?
Remember that this is not a review paper. We are looking
for original work and interpretation/analysis by you.
Break up the introduction section into logical segments by
using subheads. |
Methods
What belongs in the "methods" section of a scientific
paper?
- Information to allow the reader to assess the
believability of your results.
- Information needed by another researcher to
replicate your experiment.
- Description of your materials, procedure, theory.
- Calculations, technique, procedure, equipment, and
calibration plots.
- Limitations, assumptions, and range of validity.
- Desciption of your analystical methods, including
reference to any specialized statistical
software.
The methods section should answering the following
questions and caveats:
- Could one accurately replicate the study (for
example, all of the optional and adjustable parameters
on any sensors or instruments that were used to
acquire the data)?
- Could another researcher accurately find and
reoccupy the sampling stations or track lines?
- Is there enough information provided about any
instruments used so that a functionally equivalent
instrument could be used to repeat the experiment?
- If the data are in the public domain, could another
researcher lay his or her hands on the identical data
set?
- Could one replicate any laboratory analyses that
were used?
- Could one replicate any statistical analyses?
- Could another researcher approximately replicate the
key algorithms of any computer software?
Citations in this section should be limited to data
sources and references of where to find more complete
descriptions of procedures.
Do not include descriptions of results. |
Results
- The results are actual statements of observations,
including statistics, tables and graphs.
- Indicate information on range of variation.
- Mention negative results as well as positive. Do not
interpret results - save that for the
discussion.
- Lay out the case as for a jury. Present sufficient
details so that others can draw their own inferences
and construct their own explanations.
- Use S.I. units (m, s, kg, W, etc.) throughout the
thesis.
- Break up your results into logical segments by using
subheadings
- Key results should be stated in clear sentences at
the beginning of paragraphs. It is far better to
say "X had significant positive relationship with Y
(linear regression p<0.01, r^2=0.79)" then to start
with a less informative like "There is a significant
relationship between X and Y". Describe the
nature of the findings; do not just tell the reader
whether or not they are significant.
|
Note: Results vs. Discussion Sections
Quarantine your observations from your interpretations. The writer
must make it crystal clear to the reader which statements are
observation and which are interpretation. In most circumstances,
this is best accomplished by physically separating statements about
new observations from statements about the meaning or significance
of those observations. Alternatively, this goal can be accomplished
by careful use of phrases such as "I infer ..." vast bodies of
geological literature became obsolete with the advent of plate
tectonics; the papers that survived are those in which observations
were presented in stand-alone fashion, unmuddied by whatever ideas
the author might have had about the processes that caused the
observed phenomena.
How do you do this?
- Physical separation into different sections or
paragraphs.
- Don't overlay interpretation on top of data in
figures.
- Careful use of phrases such as "We infer that ".
- Don't worry if "results" seem short.
Why?
- Easier for your reader to absorb, frequent shifts of
mental mode not required.
- Ensures that your work will endure in spite of
shifting paradigms.
|
Discussion
Start with a few sentences that summarize the most important
results. The discussion section should be a brief essay in
itself, answering the following questions and caveats:
- What are the major patterns in the observations?
(Refer to spatial and temporal variations.)
- What are the relationships, trends and generalizations
among the results?
- What are the exceptions to these patterns or
generalizations?
- What are the likely causes (mechanisms) underlying
these patterns resulting predictions?
- Is there agreement or disagreement with previous work?
- Interpret results in terms of background laid out in
the introduction - what is the relationship of the
present results to the original question?
- What is the implication of the present results for
other unanswered questions in earth sciences, ecology,
environmental policy, etc....?
- Multiple hypotheses: There are usually several
possible explanations for results. Be careful to
consider all of these rather than simply pushing your
favorite one. If you can eliminate all but one, that is
great, but often that is not possible with the data in
hand. In that case you should give even treatment to the
remaining possibilities, and try to indicate ways in
which future work may lead to their discrimination.
- Avoid bandwagons: A special case of the above. Avoid
jumping a currently fashionable point of view unless
your results really do strongly support them.
- What are the things we now know or understand that we
didn't know or understand before the present work?
- Include the evidence or line of reasoning supporting
each interpretation.
- What is the significance of the present results: why
should we care?
This section should be rich in references to similar work
and background needed to interpret results. However,
interpretation/discussion section(s) are often too long and
verbose. Is there material that does not contribute to one
of the elements listed above? If so, this may be material
that you will want to consider deleting or moving. Break up
the section into logical segments by using subheads. |
Conclusions
- What is the strongest and most important statement
that you can make from your observations?
- If you met the reader at a meeting six months from
now, what do you want them to remember about your
paper?
- Refer back to problem posed, and describe the
conclusions that you reached from carrying out this
investigation, summarize new observations, new
interpretations, and new insights that have resulted
from the present work.
- Include the broader implications of your
results.
- Do not repeat word for word the abstract, introduction
or discussion.
|
Recommendations
- Include when appropriate (most of the time)
- Remedial action to solve the problem.
- Further research to fill in gaps in our
understanding.
- Directions for future investigations on this or
related topics.
|
Acknowledgments
Advisor(s) and anyone who helped you:
- technically (including materials, supplies)
- intellectually (assistance, advice)
- financially (for example, departmental support, travel
grants)
|
References
- cite all ideas, concepts, text, data that are not your
own
- if you make a statement, back it up with your own data
or a reference
- all references cited in the text must be listed
- cite single-author references by the surname of the
author (followed by date of the publication in
parenthesis)
- ... according to Hays (1994)
- ... population growth is one of the greatest
environmental concerns facing future generations
(Hays, 1994).
- cite double-author references by the surnames of both
authors (followed by date of the publication in
parenthesis)
- e.g. Simpson and Hays (1994)
- cite more than double-author references by the surname
of the first author followed by et al. and then the date
of the publication
- e.g. Pfirman, Simpson and Hays would be:
- Pfirman et al. (1994)
- do not use footnotes
- list all references cited in the text in alphabetical
order using the following format for different types of
material:
- Hunt, S. (1966) Carbohydrate and amino acid
composition of the egg capsules of the whelk. Nature,
210, 436-437.
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(1997) Commonly asked questions about ozone.
http://www.noaa.gov/public-affairs/grounders/ozo1.html,
9/27/97.
- Pfirman, S.L., M. Stute, H.J. Simpson, and J. Hays
(1996) Undergraduate research at Barnard and Columbia,
Journal of Research, 11, 213-214.
- Pechenik, J.A. (1987) A short guide to writing about
biology. Harper Collins Publishers, New York, 194pp.
- Pitelka, D.R., and F.M. Child (1964) Review of
ciliary structure and function. In: Biochemistry
and Physiology of Protozoa, Vol. 3 (S.H. Hutner,
editor), Academic Press, New York, 131-198.
- Sambrotto, R. (1997) lecture notes, Environmental
Data Analysis, Barnard College, Oct 2, 1997.
- Stute, M., J.F. Clark, P. Schlosser, W.S. Broecker,
and G. Bonani (1995) A high altitude continental
paleotemperature record derived from noble gases
dissolved in groundwater from the San Juan Basin, New
Mexico. Quat. Res., 43, 209-220.
- New York Times (1/15/00) PCBs in the Hudson still an
issue, A2.
- it is acceptable to put the initials of the individual
authors behind their last names, e.g. Pfirman, S.L.,
Stute, M., Simpson, H.J., and Hays, J (1996)
Undergraduate research at ......
|
Appendices
- Include all your data in the appendix.
- Reference data/materials not easily available (theses
are used as a resource by the department and other
students).
- Tables (where more than 1-2 pages).
- Calculations (where more than 1-2 pages).
- You may include a key article as appendix.
- If you consulted a large number of references but did
not cite all of them, you might want to include a list
of additional resource material, etc.
- List of equipment used for an experiment or details of
complicated procedures.
- Note: Figures and tables, including captions, should
be embedded in the text and not in an appendix, unless
they are more than 1-2 pages and are not critical to
your argument.
