Lit rev, methodology, intro, chapters, conlusions

Hi Pea,

these type of quesions are always the best. In my opinion the best would be the introduction. This provides you the means regarding what you are going to present. For the ones interested you should then present the literature review, others can then go to methodology, results and conclusions.

Does that sound reasonable?

Correction; the best would be to start with the introduction, the literature review, methodology, results and finally conclusion

Which subject, can you check similar theses/thesis in your lab?
For Biochem I'd have:
abstract, lit review, intro, M&M, results and conclusion.
Some Chemists put M&M in with the appropriate results.

My intro is actually at the end of the lit review chapter (chapter 1) and my abstract is before chapter 1.

Hoo. Well in my subject (field biology) the lit review is incorporated into the introduction - for lucky folks the lit review forms the whole first chapter (introduction chapter) - mine needs considerable re-writing. Also since I use slightly different methods in each chapter, each chapter is like a mini paper with the methods incorporated into the chapter. So my thesis looks like: Introduction - Analysis Ch1 - Analysis Ch2 - Analysis Ch3 - Analysis Ch4 - Discussion. And each chapter is introduction-methods-results-discussion. But I know folks who have a completely separate methods chapter.

Interesting that everyone's are so different. Mine is intro, lit review, theoretical framework, methodology, 3 chapters of analysis and discussion, conclusions.

Mine is exactly the same format as Seabirds.

I was required to write a 3500 word lit review in the first 6 months of my PhD. It was a terrible piece of work, but my supervisor wanted to publish it as a review paper. So in my 2nd year I spent a couple of months working on expanding and rewriting it (with a lot of help from 4 other authors) and it was accepted for publication. Boy, did the champagne flow that day!

As I was first author, that paper went straight into my thesis as my lit review/introduction unchanged, saving me a lot of time and effort in the write-up stage. My suggestion is to look at your own lit reviews and maybe some of you could get yours published as a review-type paper in a similar way? Review papers are great because everybody refers to them in subsequent papers; lots of "This work has been reviewed in detail previously (Piglet et al. 2004)" and "For a review of this work refer to Piglet et al (2004)".

He Piglet,

and et al stands for the other "piggies"?

Nice that you have publised and that you are referred to.

Thanks, rick. Our review article was actually in the top 10 most requested articles from that journal the year it was published .

Hi all & thanks for the responses and not making me feel like a numpty for asking such a dumb question.

I actually sit somewhere between social sciences ad humanities. Thesis is mainly communications, but with a bit of socio-economics and cultural studies thrown in.
I am starting writing up and supers want me to produce an outline of how it will work first for approval. Its a nightmare - historical approach v thematic approach blah blah blah, and there doesn't appear to be any type of template for the where the introduction should sit. I sat there yeserday with a pad and a packet of felt-tips, drawing flow charts ???. Basically, I think I am getting a bit hung up on it. But good advice about lit review/ intro combo and that will make it a lucky "number 7" set of chapters; as from reading the thread the other day it seems that having an odd number of chapters is vital to sucess in later life.

Hi Pea

I'm in a similar area to you (technology in education, culture, semiotics)... if it helps - mine goes something like: Intro, Lit Review 1 (theory), Lit Review 2 (empirical), Methodology, Pilot, Main Study, Discussion, Conclusions. How I used the intro was as a 'setup' for the chapters that followed basically, so it made sense to put it first, although I guess it depends what you mean by 'intro' and what it contains. Although, generally, the word 'intro' would tend to suggest that it comes first, no? Good luck with it anyway.

Bakuvia ( i always see baklava...mmm..yummy... when I read your name). Thanks so much - this is v.helpful & you're so right about the intro suggests the beginning lol, it's funny how we get so bogged down with details and forget the blindingly obvious.

ps I am technology /culture too!

I always think of baklava when I see posts by bakuvia too!

Mmm... baklava would be a bit sweet for me, I prefer savoury stuff. The name is a made up one - I was visiting Baku in Azerbaijan for an extended stay and needed an email name my friends back home would remember easily... so I came up with Baku + via (road to Baku).