Not too long ago my PI gave me the green light to come up with an outline
for my thesis. I take this as a very positive sign that he and I both
have the same timeline in mind for my graduation date.
I am excited to be starting my thesis in any form, though I have a
feeling that this is the easiest part. I can make a rough outline of
my thesis in under 2 minutes. It would go as follows:
1) Introduction
2) Chapter 1 – “An Auspicious Beginning”
*Project from first two years of grad school that led to a publication
3) Chapter 2 – “Why Grad School Takes So Long”
*Torturous time concerning third and fourth years of grad school when
the highs and lows of research were at their greatest
4) Chapter 3 – “Still Under Construction”
*Triumphant return of successful science and meaningful results
*All three projects finished and tell a complete story
5) Conclusion
6) References
Of course, this sort of outline isn’t very helpful to my writing and I
highly doubt this is what my PI is looking for from me.
So I’m wondering, how detailed did you make your outline? Did you make
it just for yourself or did you share it with your PI?
Happy writing!
Shouldn’t there be a chapter between your 3 and 4 detailing the nervous breakdown?
I would make sure that you and your PI are clear on the format of the thesis. I have seen students write their thesis with all introduction at the start, then all results followed by conclusions. Once they have turned it into their PI they are told that they want each project written into its own chapter (intro/results/conclusions – repeated for each project).
I agree the order is important. I did all my results and figures first, then wrote the discussion, then the intro at the end. (Bit hazy about the methods and the refs.) But definitely, the structure of the thesis is one that you and your supervisor can interact about so that when you do start writing you have an agreed framework. Therefore, it seems to me that your post is very much along the right lines ;-) I think it can only help to get plenty of feedback before you have put in masses of solitary effort.
I had to share mine with my entire supervisory committee (my own supervisor and two other people) and it was basically a list of the title chapters and bullet points of the main results.
Don’t forget to include the section on outstanding, groundbreaking future results that would be derived from your project if you actually had the time to keep working on it for an extra couple of years but you won’t because you want to graduate
In my department, the formula was so set that there wasn’t really a point in writing an outline.
- Title page, copyright, all that jazz
- Acknowledgments
- TOC, lists of figures and whatnot
- Introduction and literature review
- Data chapters (usually three)
- Summary and future directions
- Appendices containing lots of interesting data and stuff that you forgot to put in earlier
I found it helpful to do the title page and the acknowledgments first – get the easy stuff out of the way ;)
All flippancy aside, the best advice I got (from a fellow, more senior grad student) was to do the figures and legends first, thereby laying out the story. For me, anyway, this really helped in crystallizing how the thing was going to go. You could provide a list of the figures and key findings represented by each one to your supervisor – that might be a useful way of outlining it?
Usually, I start with the Materials and Methods, as that’s a straightforward chapter, easy to write and helps me to “warm up”.
Lots to think about here
I should probably mention that our lab has only had a handful of students graduate with PhDs so far, and none yet in my field (Microbiology). Thus, this will probably mean more flexibility but also no model to build from.
@Maxine and Eva: I agree that it seems like making a list of significant results would be a good place to start as it will set the tone for the rest of the sections
@Cristian: Hmm, interesting. I didn’t even think about including a section for pointing out why they’ll miss me when I’m gone…
@Richard: Good point! I’ve heard quite a number of horror stories about formatting, Microsoft Word and the insertion of figures and legends after everything is written
I’ve heard quite a number of horror stories about formatting, Microsoft Word and the insertion of figures and legends
shudder Don’t get me started…
It is a lot easier to set up a thesis outline in countries in which PhD’s are awarded based upon cumulative publications (e.g. Netherlands):
1. General Introduction
2. Publication 1
3. Publication 2
4. Publication 3
5. Publication 4
6. Publication 5
7. General Discussion
However, getting the publications out there, that’s the hard part.
I probably said this already, but you folks in The Netherlands also get to put fancy covers on, and have matching bookmarks made. Very nice.
Downside – don’t you have to write the abstract in two languages?
Richard,
As far as the workload is concerned, that is a downside (a small one, though). I usually do see it as an upside, especially since most peers will only read the English abstract and most family members and friends (wondering what the hell you have been doing for 4-7 years) read the Dutch version. A more complete Table of Contents of a Dutch thesis would thus be:
1. General Introduction
2. Publication 1
3. Publication 2
4. Publication 3
5. Publication 4
6. Publication 5
7. General Discussion
8. English Abstract
9. Dutch Abstract
10. CV
I do have to admit that I am one of the exceptions here, I wrote a book, with chapters and stuff (and an ISBN number, for that matter), but also with a fancy cover ;-)