Information Science -

Centre for Knowledge Dynamics and Decision-making

Inligtingwetenskap -

Sentrum vir Kennisdinamika en Besluitneming

www.informatics.sun.ac.za/mikm

TheMastersProgrammeinInformationandKnowledgeManagement

Pitfalls
inThesisConstruction andPresentation
a frame of reference for students and supervisors

In the academic world the results of a major research project is mostly presented to the public in the form of a thesis. In SA this may be at HEQF level 9 ( a Masters thesis) or at HEQF level 10 (a doctorate). No matter at what level, to construct a thesis requires a far above average degree of reasoning, technical writing and rhetorical skills, as described in the HEQF level descriptors. It is very rare that the same degree of skills are expected in daily business or societal life. Many students are, consequently, surprised and unsettled when they receive examiners reports that are highly critical. The list of items below represent the major, and frequently recurring, problems that examiners (and supervisors) find in submissions for examination. Every one of them is a fatal flaw meaning that the thesis has to be revised, at least partially. Students are strongly advised to check any submission to their supervisors against this list before they hand it in. Learning to identify the pitfalls yourself, is the best long term investment you can make in your own intellectual abilities.

1.

OVERALL REASONING STRUCTURE a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. no real research question or problem to solve1 or the research question is not focussed and properly delimited2 the problematic raised by the research question is not investigated and analysed in depth3 a coherent theoretical frame applied to the research question is lacking4 inadequate level extrapolation5 of authentically independent interpretation and

dependence on the supervisor or any other person for vital aspects of the thesis6 plagiarism7 core concepts not adequately defined and differentiated8 failure to differentiate between core and peripheral dimensions of a topic9 inadequate conclusion, in other words no real and comprehensively reasoned answer to the research question (a proper conclusion is a detailed, and usually lengthy, exposition of the meaning and implications of the results of the research investigation)10

2.

METHOD: a. b. c. lack of or inadequate methodological motivation of the chosen approach confusion of empirical with conceptual thinking no clear method chosen, or method drift

1 2

The document is merely a description/report/story of interesting points or observations Often evident in conceptual drift as the thesis unfolds. As the thesis progresses, new questions pop up The author does not really know what the question implies and the result is a compendium of generalisations or quick solutions Mostly evident in the need to introduce new theory towards the end of the thesis The document contains merely a collection of views, literature, observations, and data In other words the end product cannot be seen as independent and authentic work Making use of another persons ideas (either in the same words or verbatim) but not acknowledging it Often evident in ambiguous and/or different meanings attached to the concepts in different parts of the thesis All sources are presented as if they carry equal weight / all dimensions of a theory are presented instead of only that aspect which is relevant to the topic Often evident in the confusion of summary with conclusion, or a conclusion of just a few pages

4 5 6 7

10

2|P a g e o f

Pitfalls in Thesis Construction and Presentation

d. e. 3.

the correct method incorrectly applied method superficially applied

GENERAL SCIENTIFIC LOGIC a. b. inadequate (too few or wrong) facts/data/observations inadequate utilisation of sources (mostly evident in too few references, or reliance on only same school authors, or absence of secondary discourses about primary issues) a significant part of the thesis is made up of academic fluff background information, interesting content and any other form of content that do not relate directly to the research question a bibliography to impress with numbers rather than with quality (usually seen in the fact that very few titles in the bibliography is operative in the body text of the thesis) evidential references from websites/ popular journals/ lexicons/ and newspapers without providing plausible validations why such sources carry academic weight endorsement (without plausible substantiation) of views which are generally considered false by expert peer groups (generally a result of an inadequate bibliography) validating claims on the basis of authority, rather than presenting plausible arguments open to debate opinionating instead of providing evidence

c.

d.

e.

f.

g. h. 4.

PRESENTATION a. b. system of referencing does not allow for easy access to the core ideas of the thesis incoherent presentation, structure and argumentation (mostly reflected in repetition of ideas and arguments, or the introduction of new concepts and theories in the conclusion) language syntax, grammar and composition not clear and edited professionally physical presentation/layout is not professional technical standard of the electronic document not professional (advanced use of MSWord / LateX / PDF is todays version of what the skill of handwriting was for previous generations)

c. d. e.

3|P a g e o f

Pitfalls in Thesis Construction and Presentation