I am a year and a half in and have collected a wide range of primary sources , more than I could have dreamed of. But because I am only now refining my research questions, and thesis argument, I am trying to find a way to slot these sources into a framework. I know I can do something different from the secondary lit. but it is finding 'hinge points' in the chronology which is a problem

How did any other humanities students develop their thesis argument?

I'm doing history also (3rd year). I started out with some research questions from the beginning, and by the end of the first year had a fairly solid idea of what issues each chapter should address...otherwise I think I would have found it hard to deal with the primary stuff because I use quite a broad range.

But I'm finding that when it comes to answering the questions, my opinion only becomes really clear in trying to write. It might have been more efficient to pick a very definite theory (in a pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey sort of way), and then look for evidence, but I didn't want to do it that way for two reasons. I think some of the older secondary lit in my area has suffered from major selection biases, and primary sources happen not to be all that thick on the ground, i.e. it's possible to get through most of what exists.

What's your area btw?

I am researching the cultural meanings of exotic animals in Britain during the long eighteenth-century. So exotic animals as commodities, material for natural philosophy, political (and gender) symbols, and as affective objects.

I guess I am afraid of writing 'grand narratives', so find it difficult to develop a argument to span over a century. I mean, I can see changes in my material, and probably fit it into other 'hinge points'. But I don't really like to be telelogical!

So I'm a hybrid between museology/ history of science/ art history/ eighteenth-century studies

That sounds really interesting chrisrolinkski! I am a second year history phder and having problems too. I don't think I can give much advice but what Procrastipro says really rang true. My supervisor has encouraged me to write a chapter outline and keep revising it. If you want to avoid a chronological approach can you theme your chapter headings? Even along the themes you've just given and maybe se if they link in with a key turning point in time?

Another Phder who finished recently suggested I think of each chapter as a separate entity and then join them all up at the end and develop the links between each one. Again just as ProcrastiPro said it's only when I've started writing that my opinion has become clearer. I've also found experimenting really useful - just picking an area that really interests me about my PhD based on say one piece of primary evidence and trying to construct an argument around it to see how it sounds. Maybe we could exchange tips?

I'm sitting down this afternoon and tonight with a nice pot of tea and trying to work this out.

Thanks for the advice, I shall let you know how it goes...

I'm doing a historical topic too (albeit in music) and from the beginning my supervisor encouraged me to devise a "thematic" structure rather than a chronological one. So I selected 5 topics and assigned a chapter to each topic, which I think is also meaningful from the publications point of view, as someone has already mentioned. Then inside each chapter there's of course some hints to the chronology to reflect the changes in perspectives and ideas. I also plan to develop a more traditional, chronological narrative in my introduction, but only to present the general framework in which I'm working.
The recent histories of music anyway tend to shift away from the chronological paradigm and they are usually organized by genres or by topics or by "ideas", I don't know if this is the case in your field.

I'm thinking of adopting a thematic chapter structure, with a chronology within each chapter.