文獻綜述的寫作流程

一、確定論文的主題

在某種意義上講,論文選題是最重要的,因為論文的選題不好,論文也不會更好。
學生在選題時常見的五種錯誤:
1.對選題不感興趣
許多學生總是在最后期限時才開始考慮選題,倉促決定,以至于在寫作中沒有興趣持續下去。其實,有趣的選題不會突然出現在你的腦海中,一定要有充分的時間仔細考慮,慎重選擇。
2.選題過于容易或過于保守
學生寫論文的目的是為了學習,因此應該選擇一個相對不太熟悉的主題(雖然不是完全陌生)是有好處的。但學生有時為了保險(或得到更好的分數)而擇熟悉的主題。如果選擇背景知識不很充分的選題,學生能學到更多的知識。
3.選題太難
可能學生對某個選題很感興趣也想做得很好,但有可能會發現選題過難,許多文獻都沒法看懂。假如其中有許多需要某種高級統計概念,大多數本科生還從未接觸,所以很難寫出優秀的論文。這種任務難度大,也很耗時間,所以要確定你的選題不需要理解你的背景知識不允許你掌握的概念。
4.沒有合適的文獻資料
由于各種原因,心理學上許多有趣的選題尚未得到充分研究,有些是因為人們還沒有仔細考慮這些問題,也有可能是因為有人考慮過但發現很難進行實驗分析或其他類型的分析。這種主題就不適合做文獻綜述。
5.選題太寬泛
這是學生選題時最常犯的錯誤。寫論文之前,學生對某個選題方面的文獻資料的多少只有模糊的概念,教材往往只停留在表面。只有深入鉆研主要的原始資料才能知道相關的文獻資料的范圍。一旦你暫定一個主題,不要急于為寫論文做筆記,而應該編輯參考文獻目錄單,瀏覽其中的一些參考文獻,這樣可以避免使你的選題過于寬泛或過于狹隘。不要全盤放棄,而應該考慮如何把選題縮小??梢杂靡韵氯我庖环N方法來縮小你的選題。方法很多,最好根據你的選題、可用的文獻及你的興趣來確定。一定要在論文開頭部分說清楚你采用的限制方法,好的標題有助于讀者理解你的限定方法。
從年齡上進行限制,如是成人還是兒童或是嬰兒。
從物種上進行限制,如是考慮人類還是老鼠。
從病理類型上進行限制,如是針對殘疾人還是心理障礙的人。
從心理學觀點進行限制,如是成人還是兒童或是嬰兒。
從內容上進行限制,如只談言語、數學或是空間問題。

二、搜索文獻資料
做文獻綜述時準備兩套記筆記的卡片將十分有用。
1.作者卡片
格式:用小的索引卡片(3×5),也可用電腦制作同樣功能的虛擬卡片。在卡片上寫下以后寫論文時編輯資料所需要的全部信息。每一條資料來源都應該作記錄。記錄的形式因資料來源的特點而定:
⑴期刊文章。包括作者的姓氏、名字第一個單詞和中間的單詞起首的大寫字母;出版年份;文章標題;期刊名稱;卷號;文章的頁數??ㄆ瑯颖救缦拢?br /> Janis, I. L., & King, B. T.(1954). The influence of role-playing on opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 211-218.
⑵書籍。書的記錄應該包括作者的姓氏、名字第一個單詞起首的大寫字母(不用名字中間的單詞起首的大寫字母);出版年份;書的標題;書出版的城市名稱;出版商名稱。例如:
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson.
⑶編輯而成的書。編輯成的書中的文章的記錄應包括作者的姓氏、名字第一個單詞和中間的單詞起首的大寫字母;出版年份;文章標題;書的編者;書的標題;文章在書中的頁數;書出版的城市名稱;出版商名稱。例如:
Webb, E. J., & Salancik, J. R. (1970). Supplementing the self-report in attitude research. In G. F. Summers (Ed.), Attitude measurement (pp.317-327). Chicago: Rand McNally.
作者卡片的好處:
⑴你會有一整套參考書,不可能忘記所需要的任何一本參考書。
⑵每一個參考書都有完整的記錄。
⑶論文的參考文獻部分已經完成了。
2.標題卡片
格式:最好用大的索引卡片(5×7),也可用電腦制作同樣功能的虛擬卡片。在每張卡片上記錄:文章標題;與標題有關的信息;每條信息的來源及其你的評價。
每張卡片上只記錄一個標題。用不同方式表述的標題記在同一張卡片上。每一個標題的筆記應該盡量完整,這樣你今后不用再去查閱資料的來源了。要避免不能表示有用信息的與主題無關的的話。如果做論據的筆記時,確信你抓住了論據的要點,以便你今后重新組織作者的觀點。
你敘述時,要寫清楚資料的來源,寫下作者的姓氏和出版時間。如果直接引用或解釋時,一定要記清楚你筆記中的內容,寫下適當的頁碼。
當你對信息進行評價時,要先在標題卡片上注明這個不是作者的評價而是你的評價。通常你閱讀時是你評價的最好時間,因為那時材料和上下文在你腦海中最清晰,對你今后的寫作也最有價值。閱讀心理學文獻時,通常你應從五個方面來評價作者的觀點。
⑴觀點的準確性
作者做每個辯論的基礎是什么?觀點是正確地被證明的嗎?如何證明的?幾乎所有的心理學家對期刊文章(或學生的論文)進行評論時對準確性問題非常敏感。十分常見的一種方法是作者可能提出一個似是而非的理論,設計一個實驗或列舉證據來檢驗另一個似是而非的理論,然后得出結論說原來的理論是正確的。因此,在讀一篇文章或一本書時,確保你自己不僅對理論的檢驗很有說服力,而且評價的是一個正確的理論。
⑵觀點的內在的一致性
各個觀點互相矛盾嗎?各個觀點與作者的總論點矛盾嗎?在正確性上,要特別注意觀點和論據之間的關系;要特別注意觀點和其他觀點之間一致性問題。
⑶觀點的研究假設
作者提出觀點時的研究假設是什么,尤其是作者沒有告訴讀者或自己沒有意識到的假設是什么?這些研究假設現實嗎?這些研究假設是增強了還使減弱了觀點的影響?
⑷觀點的推論含義
每個觀點的含義是什么,尤其是作者忽略的含義是什么?這些含義增強了還使減弱了觀點的影響?這些含義與其他觀點的含義一致嗎?
文獻綜述的寫作步驟3
⑸觀點的重要性
某個觀點是重要的嗎,是你想在文章中詳細描述的那個觀點嗎?或者這個觀點不重要,因此不值得一提,或只需要一帶而過?學生論文常見的缺點是強調所有的觀點,不管是否重要。這種做法不可避免地會減少論文整體的影響力。
標題卡片的好處:
⑴你開始準備寫理論時,就有了你所需要的所有信息。
⑵你可以找到每個觀點或每條信息的來源。你不用去記住你想說的話。
⑶你會發現組織論文容易多了。因為標題卡片為你下一步寫提綱提供了信息。

三、列提綱
1.使用標題卡片
做好筆記之后,你可以準備列提綱了。標題卡片上的標題就是提綱的基礎,因為它們可以用來作標題或副標題。把所有的標題寫在紙上。然后剪成小條,每個條上留一個標題。如果你用電腦,你可以使用文字處理程序中的”提綱”功能。你現在的工作是把紙條上的標題按陳述的邏輯順序重新排列。各個標題不需要也不應該在同一水平上。其中一些標題構成主標題,一些構成小標題,另外一些套入這些小標題下。你需要在提綱中加入一些引言部分和結論部分,以及使文章流暢的過渡性標題。每個標題下最低水平的副標題應該代表論文終稿中的一個句子。
2.提綱的類型
主要有三中種類型的提綱。一旦你把提綱的標題排好順序之后,你就必須決定你用哪種類型來完成提綱。下面以TAT和MMPI兩個人格測驗的比較為例來討論這三種類型的提綱。
(1)關鍵詞提綱(在每個描述水平上都要限制在關鍵詞范圍內)
I. 引言
II. 內容
A. TAT:圖片
B. MMPI:文字
III. 施測
A. TAT:口頭
B. MMPI:書面
IV. 計分
A. TAT:主觀
B. MMPI:客觀
V. 結論
(2)標題提綱(在每個描述水平上都要用短語和從句)
I. TAT和MMPI的比較
II. 內容的類型
A. TAT:各種情境下人的圖片,一些是真實的,一些不是。
B. MMPI:描述行為或信仰的描述,被試標記對與錯來描述自己。
III. 施測的方式
A. TAT:主試按順序向被試呈現圖片,被試敘述圖片上的事件產生的原因、當時發生的事以及隨后要發生的事。
B. MMPI:給被試裝有一整套描述性的小冊子,被試可以按自己的速度進行。
IV. 計分方式
A. TAT:通常采用默瑞”需要–壓力”分類法主觀計分
文獻綜述的寫作步驟4
B. MMPI:通過每個診斷量表獨立的答案的方式客觀計分
V. 區別:內容、施測和計分
(3)句子提綱(在每個描述水平上都要用完整的句子)
I. 本提綱分別從內容、施測和計分幾個方面對TAT和MMPI進行比較。
II. 這兩個測驗的內容不同。
A. TAT包括許多人在不同情境中的圖片,一些是真實的,一些不是。
B. 而MMPI包括許多描述行為或信仰的描述,被試標記對與錯來描述自己。
III. 這兩個測驗的內容施測方式也不同。
A. 在TAT施測時,主試按順序向被試呈現圖片,被試敘述圖片上的事件產生的原因、當時發生的事以及隨后要發生的事。
B. 在MMPI施測時,給被試裝有一整套描述性的小冊子,被試按自己的速度進行。
IV. 最后,這兩個測驗用不同的方式計分。
A. TAT通常采用默瑞”需要–壓力”分類法主觀計分。
B. MMPI通過每個診斷量表獨立的答案的方式客觀計分
V. 可以得出結論,這兩個測驗在內容、施測和計分幾個方面都有很大的不同。
選擇一種提綱這三種類型的提綱各有特點,關鍵詞提綱可以留給你寫論文時最大程度的靈活度,但內容很少;句子提綱基本可以用于論文寫作,但很浪費時間。因此你應該嘗試這三種類型的提綱,然后根據你的經驗選擇最適合自己的提綱。
3.組織提綱組織提綱的方法多種多樣,依具體情況而定。但有五種常見的原則:
(1) 提綱應該包括開頭、中間和結尾。給讀者一個大概的描述,告訴他們你的論文的內容,你是如何組織的。當讀者讀完論文的主體,你需要把主要意思進行總結以及你的最終評論。
(2) 一旦決定了組織的原則,就要堅持下去。如果改變文章的組織方式,會使讀者感到迷惑。如果一定要改變其組織方式,一定要告訴讀者。但盡量不要改。
(3) 有主題地組織文章。這一原則有兩種例外情況。一是你要進行綜述的文章沒有形成一個主題,如不同的理論家處理不同的問題。二是當你要強調的是對對象的比較,如你想描述的是每個人格理論家的理論觀點時不一定要有主題。
(4) 分級組織文章。論文往往有很多個觀點,讀者很難理解這些觀點,更難記住這些觀點。一定要把這些觀點進行分級,這樣可以提高你和讀者交流的效率。
(5) 為你的聽眾組織文章。寫提綱時一定要記住你的聽眾是誰。在提綱中每個標題描述的程度應該適合你的目標聽眾。
4.列提綱的好處
(1) 有助于你組織寫作。
(2) 防止刪掉相關的話題。在做研究或編輯標題卡片時,你可能無意中刪掉你本來在文章中要用到的一個相關的內容。在開始寫論文之前通過列提綱就可以很容易地改正。
(3) 防止包含不相關的話題。有時候你會發現一開始覺得相關的內容在組織文章時覺得與你的主題不相關了,就可以放棄,這樣寫論文時就不要分散精力了。
本章的這一部分很簡短,因為適應文獻綜述的大部分原則同樣也適合研究報告的寫作,后面的章節將詳細討論。寫文獻綜述是,要記住前面提到的評價作者觀點的五個標準。讀者也會以同樣的或相似的方式評價你的論文。

文獻綜述和論文的撰寫(英文)

Finding, formulating and exploring your topic.
Different topic creations
Many students have in mind something that they want to work on; others want to work with a particular scholar or research centre. In the first case, students search for a compatible supervisor. In the second, for a topic. Regardless of these preliminary circumstances, the topic is very likely only roughly formulated at this stage. This is usually enough to have your enrolment accepted.

Reading the literature
Once you have a general idea, you could start by talking to your supervisor and other scholars. But, most importantly, you have to think why you would like to work on it, or why anyone would want to do so. Ask yourself, “Why is it important? What is interesting about this? Suppose I solve it, or find it, or pull it all together, what use is it? What is its significance?” Then, with some questions such as these in mind, go and read more about it to see what is there and find out what aspects of it have been exhausted, what neglected, what the main ideas, issues and controversies are in the area. It is regarded as your supervisor’s role to direct you to the most fruitful starting point in reading and surveying the literature.

Cycle of literature review
All of this is not a once only activity, but is a cycle you go through again and again. So you read, think, and discuss it with your supervisor and then, as a result, come closer to the formulation of the topic. And then with each cycle of reading, thinking and discussing your topic becomes more specific and focussed. This is not the final formulation and the last time you will focus your topic. But you could probably let go of this round of general exploration and embark on the next stage. Your supervisor by this time should have enough of an idea of your topic to judge whether or not what you propose to do is feasible within the time available and has the potential to meet the required standards for a PhD. To see the full potential of your topic or, to the contrary, see that it is not going to deliver what you wanted, you do need to begin doing your research. This, of course, is why pilot studies are often undertaken.
Making sense of the literature
We do truly wish we could tell you about a reliable or simple way to make sense of the literature. We can say, however, that you need to attend to things at two levels:
? One is establishing a system that will allow you to organise the hard copies of the articles etc., and develop a data base for references, so you have easy access under relevant categories and don’t chase the same references repeatedly.
? The other is the more demanding task of understanding and using the literature for your purposes.
Without attending to the first task, you could easily become inefficient and frustrated. However, although it is necessary to have some way of keeping track, don’t spend all your energies on perfecting your system. It may be a good idea to attend a course for researchers on handling information. Check whether your university’s library or computer centre offers such a course.

The other task ahead of you – of understanding, reviewing and using the literature for your purposes – goes to the heart of your thesis. We consider this in three stages.

Making sense of the literature – first pass
When you first come to an area of research, you are filling in the background in a general way, getting a feel for the whole area, an idea of its scope, starting to appreciate the controversies, to see the high points, and to become more familiar with the major players. You need a starting point. This may come out of previous work you’ve done. If you’re new to the area, your supervisor could suggest fruitful starting points. Or you could pursue some recent review articles to begin.

Too much to handle
At this stage there seems to be masses of literature relevant to your research. Or you may worry that there seems to be hardly anything. As you read, think about and discuss articles and isolate the issues you’re more interested in. In this way, you focus your topic more and more. The more you can close in on what your research question actually is, the more you will be able to have a basis for selecting the relevant areas of the literature. This is the only way to bring it down to a manageable size.

Very little there
If initially you can’t seem to find much at all on your research area – and you are sure that you’ve exploited all avenues for searching that the library can present you with – then there are a few possibilities:
? You could be right at the cutting edge of something new and it’s not surprising there’s little around.
? You could be limiting yourself to too narrow an area and not appreciating that relevant material could be just around the corner in a closely related field.
? Unfortunately there’s another possibility and this is that there’s nothing in the literature because it is not a worthwhile area of research. In this case, you need to look closely with your supervisor at what it is you plan to do.
Quality of the Literature
This begins your first step in making sense of the literature. You are not necessarily closely evaluating it now; you are mostly learning through it. But, sometimes at this stage students do ask us how they can judge the quality of the literature they’re reading, as they’re not experts.

You learn to judge, evaluate, and look critically at the literature by judging, evaluating and looking critically at it. That is, you learn to do so by practising. There is no quick recipe for doing this but there are some questions you could find useful and, with practice, you will develop many others:
? Is the problem clearly spelled out?
? Are the results presented new?
? Was the research influential in that others picked up the threads and pursued them?
? How large a sample was used?
? How convincing is the argument made?
? How were the results analysed?
? What perspective are they coming from?
? Are the generalisations justified by the evidence on which they are made?
? What is the significance of this research?
? What are the assumptions behind the research?
? Is the methodology well justified as the most appropriate to study the problem?
? Is the theoretical basis transparent?
In critically evaluating, you are looking for the strengths of certain studies and the significance and contributions made by researchers. You are also looking for limitations, flaws and weaknesses of particular studies, or of whole lines of enquiry.

Indeed, if you take this critical approach to looking at previous research in your field, your final literature review will not be a compilation of summaries but an evaluation. It will then reflect your capacity for critical analysis.

Making sense of the literature – second pass
You continue the process of making sense of the literature by gaining more expertise which allows you to become more confident, and by being much more focused on your specific research.

You’re still reading and perhaps needing to re-read some of the literature. You’re thinking about it as you are doing your experiments, conducting your studies, analysing texts or other data. You are able to talk about it easily and discuss it. In other words, it’s becoming part of you.

At a deeper level than before,
? you are now not only looking at findings but are looking at how others have arrived at their findings;
? you’re looking at what assumptions are leading to the way something is investigated;
? you’re looking for genuine differences in theories as opposed to semantic differences;
? you also are gaining an understanding of why the field developed in the way it did;
? you have a sense for where it might be going.
First of all you probably thought something like, “I just have to get a handle on this”. But now you see that this ‘handle’ which you discovered for yourself turns out to be the key to what is important. You are very likely getting to this level of understanding by taking things to pieces and putting them back together.

For example, you may need to set up alongside one another four or five different definitions of the same concept, versions of the same theory, or different theories proposed to account for the same phenomenon. You may need to unpack them thoroughly, even at the very basic level of what is the implied understanding of key words (for example ‘concept’, ‘model’, ‘principles’ etc.), before you can confidently compare them, which you need to do before synthesis is possible.

Or, for example, you may be trying to sort through specific discoveries which have been variously and concurrently described by different researchers in different countries. You need to ask questions such as whether they are the same discoveries being given different names or, if they are not the same, whether they are related. In other words, you may need to embark on very detailed analyses of parts of the literature while maintaining the general picture.

Making sense of the literature – final pass
You make sense of the literature finally when you are looking back to place your own research within the field. At the final pass, you really see how your research has grown out of previous work. So now you may be able to identify points or issues that lead directly to your research. You may see points whose significance didn’t strike you at first but which now you can highlight. Or you may realise that some aspect of your research has incidentally provided evidence to lend weight to one view of a controversy. Having finished your own research, you are now much better equipped to evaluate previous research in your field.

From this point when you have finished your own research and you look back and fill in the picture, it is not only that you understand the literature and can handle it better, but you could also see how it motivates your own research. When you conceptualise the literature in this way, it becomes an integral part of your research.

Writing the literature review
What we are talking about here is the writing of the review. We assume that you have made sense of the literature, and that you know the role of the literature and its place in your thesis. Below are links to other sections covering these aspects.
You will doubtless write your literature review several times. Since each version will serve a different purpose, you should not think you are writing the same thing over and over and getting nowhere. Where you may strike trouble is if you just try to take whole sections out of an earlier version and paste them into the final version which, by now, has to be differently conceived.
In practical terms, it is necessary to have an overall picture of how the thread runs through your analysis of the literature before you can get down to actually writing a particular section. The strategy which writers use as a way to begin the literature review is to proceed from the general, wider view of the research you are reviewing to the specific problem. This is not a formula but is a common pattern and may be worth trying.
Let’s look at an example taken from the first pages of a literature review. This shows us the progression from general to specific and the beginning of that thread which then continues through the text leading to the aims.
Despite the undisputed success of quantum mechanics, many important fundamental problems and questions remain unanswered (see for example X, 1973): the measuring process cannot be satisfactorily described in QM formalism; there are great mathematical stumbling blocks to attempt to make QM consistent with the assumptions of special relativity; ……….., just to name a few.

[This is basically an introductory section, which starts with a statement of the problem in very broad terms, alerting us to the fact that not everything is rosy, and proceeds to sketch in specific aspects.]
Without doubt, one of the most widely discussed of these… is …[this closes in on what the focus of the problem is] Like most fundamental issues in physics, this question leads to challenges at several levels of thought. At the philosophical level this issue poses questions about …. At the physical level we are forced to examine …. At the mathematical level many questions are raised about the completeness and logical consistency ….

[The text moves on to specify issues at various levels. Although the focus is sharper, the coverage at the same time opens out.]
An important instance in which all of these challenges converge occurs with the concept of ‘angle’ in the description of quantum systems…
[Thus the text has set up the situation where all aspects of the problem–theoretical, practical, etc.–are brought together.]
Whatever the pattern which fits your work best, you need to keep in mind that what you are doing is writing about what was done before. But, you are not simply reporting on previous research. You have to write about it in terms of how well it was done and what it achieved. This has to be organised and presented in such a way that it inevitably leads to what you want to do and shows it is worth doing. You are setting up the stage for your work.

For example, a series of paragraphs of the kind:
“Green (1975) discovered ….”;
“In 1978, Black conducted experiments and discovered that ….”;
“Later Brown (1980) illustrated this in ……”;
demonstrates neither your understanding of the literature nor your ability to evaluate other people’s work.

Maybe at an earlier stage, or in your first version of your literature review, you needed a summary of who did what. But in your final version, you have to show that you’ve thought about it, can synthesise the work and can succinctly pass judgement on the relative merits of research conducted in your field. So, to take the above example, it would be better to say something like:
“There seems to be general agreement on x, (for example, White 1987, Brown 1980, Black 1978, Green 1975) but Green (1975) sees x as a consequence of y, while Black(1978) puts x and y as …. While Green’s work has some limitations in that it …., its main value lies in ….”
Approaching it in this way forces you to make judgements and, furthermore, to distinguish your thoughts from assessments made by others. It is this whole process of revealing limitations or recognising the possibility of taking research further which allows you to formulate and justify your aims.

Keep your research focused
It is always important to keep your research focused, but this is especially so at two points. First when you have settled into the topic and the time for wider exploration has to end. And then again at a later stage when you may have gathered lots of data and are starting to wonder how you are going to deal with it all.
Focus after literature review
First, it is a common temptation to prolong the exploration phase by finding more and more interesting things and straying away from what was once regarded as the possible focus. Either you or your supervisor could be guilty of this. In some cases, it might be you who is putting off having to make a commitment to one line of enquiry because exploration and realising possibilities is enjoyable and you’re always learning more. In other cases, it could be your supervisor who, at every meeting, becomes enthusiastic about other possibilities and keeps on suggesting alternatives. You might not be sure if this is just sharing excitement with you or if you are supposed to follow them all up.

Either way you need to stop the proliferation of lines of enquiry, sift through what you have, settle on one area, and keep that focus before you. It could even be a good idea to write it up on a poster in front of your desk. Unless you have this really specified in the first place, with the major question and its sub-questions, and you know exactly what you have to find out to answer these, you will never be focused and everything you find will seem to be ‘sort of’ relevant.

You have to close off some lines of enquiry and you can do so only once you decide they are not relevant to your question. We continually meet students who, when we ask, “So what is the question you’re researching?”, will answer, “My topic is such and such and I’m going to look at x, y and z”. Sometimes further probing from us will reveal that they do indeed have a focus, but many times this is not so. Thinking in terms of your topic is too broad. You need to think, rather, of what it is you are investigating about the topic.
? Questions force you to find answers; topics invite you to talk about things.
Focus after data collection
Then, at a later stage, you could find yourself surrounded by lots of data which you know are somewhat relevant to your project, but finding the ways of showing this relevance and using the data to answer your question could be a difficult task. Now you have to re-find your focus to bring it all together.
Again, it is your research question and sub-questions which will help you to do this because your whole thesis is basically the answer to these questions, that is, the solution to the problem you presented at the beginning. This may strike you as a very simplistic way to view it. However, approaching it in this way does help to bring the parts together as a whole and get the whole to work. We even recommend that, to relate the parts to each other and keep yourself focussed , you could tell yourself the story of the thesis.
Making a deliberate attempt to keep focused will help you to shape your research and keep you motivated.
Apparently I have to write a research proposal. What do I need to do?
The main purpose of a research proposal is to show that the problem you propose to investigate is significant enough to warrant the investigation, the method you plan to use is suitable and feasible, and the results are likely to prove fruitful and will make an original contribution. In short, what you are answering is ‘will it work?’

The level of sophistication or amount of detail included in your proposal will depend on the stage you are at with your PhD and the requirements of your department and University.
? In initial stages, the document you need to write will probably be three to five pages long. It will give a general idea of what you are proposing to do but it isn’t a binding contract. Often it serves as a starting point for discussions with your supervisor to firm up the topic, methodology and mechanics of your research.
? Some of you will be required to write a proposal at the time of confirming your candidature (usually at the end of the first year). In some instances, this is a document of four to five pages and may be viewed as a mere formality. In other cases a much more substantial document of 30 – 40 pages is expected. Therefore it is essential for you to check the requirements with your department.
Regardless of the above distinctions you should never see writing a proposal as a worthless chore. Indeed, if it isn’t formally required, it is a very good idea to write one anyway. You can use it to your advantage. It always forces you to think about your topic, to see the scope of your research, and to review the suitability of your methodology. Having something in writing also gives an opportunity to your supervisor to judge the feasibility of the project (whether it is possible to finish in time, costs, the equipment needed and other practicalities, time needed for supervision), to assess its likelihood of success, and its ability to meet the academic standard required of a PhD thesis.

While there are no hard and fast rules governing the structure of a proposal, a typical one would include: aims and objectives, significance, review of previous research in the area showing the need for conducting the proposed research, proposed methods, expected outcomes and their importance. In experimentally based research it often includes detailed requirements for equipment, materials, field trips, technical assistance and an estimation of the costs. It could also include an approximate time by which each stage is to be completed.
write a abstract
. Indeed, the final version of the abstract will need to be written after you have finished reading your thesis for the last time.
However, if you think about what it has to contain, you realise that the abstract is really a mini thesis. Both have to answer the following specific questions:
1. What was done?
2. Why was it done?
3. How was it done?
4. What was found?
5. What is the significance of the findings?
Therefore, an abstract written at different stages of your work will help you to carry a short version of your thesis in your head. This will focus your thinking on what it is you are really doing , help you to see the relevance of what you are currently working on within the bigger picture, and help to keep the links which will eventually unify your thesis.
Process
The actual process of writing an abstract will force you to justify and clearly state your aims, to show how your methodology fits the aims, to highlight the major findings and to determine the significance of what you have done. The beauty of it is that you can talk about this in very short paragraphs and see if the whole works. But when you do all of these things in separate chapters you can easily lose the thread or not make it explicit enough.

If you have trouble writing an abstract at these different stages, then this could show that the parts with which you are having a problem are not well conceptualised yet.
We often hear that writing an abstract can’t be done until the results are known and analysed. But the point we are stressing is that it is a working tool that will help to get you there.

Before you know what you’ve found, you have to have some expectation of what you are going to find as this expectation is part of what is leading you to investigate the problem. In writing your abstract at different stages, any part you haven’t done you could word as a prediction. For example, at one stage you could write, “The analysis is expected to show that …”. Then, at the next stage, you would be able to write “The analysis showed that ….” or “Contrary to expectation, the analysis showed that …..”.

The final, finished abstract has to be as good as you can make it. It is the first thing your reader will turn to and therefore controls what the first impression of your work will be. The abstract has
? to be short-no more than about 700 words;
? to say what was done and why, how it was done, the major things that were found, and what is the significance of the findings (remembering that the thesis could have contributed to methodology and theory as well).
In short, the abstract has to be able to stand alone and be understood separately from the thesis itself.
Is there a particular thesis structure I have to follow?
There are certain conventions specific to certain disciplines. However, these structures are not imposed on a piece of work. There are logical reasons why there is a conventional way of structuring the thesis, which is after all the account of what you’ve achieved through your research. Research is of course not conducted in the step-by-step way this structure suggests, but it gives the reader the most accessible way of seeing why this research was done, how it was done and, most importantly, what has been achieved. If you put side by side all the questions you had to answer to finish your research and what is often proposed as a typical structure of a thesis, then you see the logic of the arrangement. That does not mean, however, that you have to name your chapters in this way. In some disciplines, it very often is like this; in others, this structure is implied. For example, in many science theses, the following basically is the structure; in many humanities theses, the final structure looks very different, although all of these questions are answered one way or another.
Why am I doing it? Introduction
Significance
What is known?
What is unknown? Review of research
Identifying gaps
What do I hope to discover? Aims
How am I going to discover it? Methodology
What have I found? Results
What does it mean? Discussion
So what? What are the possible applications or recommendations?
What contribution does it make to knowledge? What next? Conclusions

Occasionally a thesis is written which does not in any way comply with this structure. Generally the reasons you want to have a recognised, transparent structure are that, to some extent, it is expected and the conventional structure allows readers ready access to the information. If, however, you want to publish a book based on the thesis, it is likely the structure would need to be altered for the different genre and audience.

相關文章

版權聲明:

本網站(網站地址)刊載的所有內容,包括文字、圖片、音頻、視頻、軟件、程序、以及網頁版式設計等均在網上搜集。

訪問者可將本網站提供的內容或服務用于個人學習、研究或欣賞,以及其他非商業性或非盈利性用途,但同時應遵守著作權法及其他相關法律的規定,不得侵犯本網站及相關權利人的合法權利。除此以外,將本網站任何內容或服務用于其他用途時,須征得本網站及相關權利人的書面許可,并支付報酬。

本網站內容原作者如不愿意在本網站刊登內容,請及時通知本站,予以刪除。