Thesis Outline… Version 2

As my research developed, its structure evolved as well, to an extent where I felt that the previous research outline I had set last year was not articulating the progression accurately enough. I had a cluster of new thoughts, methods, and areas that I knew the research should address, but they didn’t seem to have a place within the previous thesis structure.

Amidst this confusion, I decided to write down every single thing that came to mind on a post it note, so basically putting my mind down on paper. Then I started to shuffle the post-it notes around and organise them into the headings, subheadings, and hierarchies of a research structure:

This helped me produce the thesis outline below, and assign a word count for every section. I realised that the outline does not necessarily run in a linear format, and as a result, the thesis’ flow will be cross-referencing different sections constantly:

I then used the literature and practice review list I had compiled to date, and dissected it under the different sections. I believe this will be very useful when I am writing up each part of the thesis, as I will know which literature I need to refer to:

Ironically, when I was sharing my Thesis Outline… Version 2 with my colleague, Sheila Pontis who’s in her last research year, she laughed and said: “Oh your outline will change many many more times!”. So I’m expecting many many more versions to come!

Note: I will be restructuring the categories of the blog to work better with the current research structure.

Mapping the Literature Review!

As is the case with most PhDs, researchers get bombarded with information, books, resources and data. There are many methods for organising the literature review and making sure that every piece of information can be found and accessed with ease when needed. Being a visual researcher, I decided to create a system customised for my research techniques and skills. I mapped my literature review to date according to 5 different variables:

WHO: This is the standard Harvard style bibliographical listing by alphabetical order of the authors’ last names. This is a good method to make sure that all resource details are documented.

WHO is the author?

WHAT: This mapping colour codes the different resource mediums: red (books & chapters), orange (journals & e-journals), yellow (reports & e-reports), green (conference papers & e-papers), turquoise (newspapers & magazines, e-newspapers & e-magazines), light blue (other websites & blogs), dark blue (theses), violet (interviews & correspondance), magenta (CDs, DVDs, VHS, etc.)

WHAT is the medium?

WHEN: This categorises the literature review according to publication date, to make sure that the spectrum of material covered pans across different decades.

WHEN was it published?

WHERE: This identifies the different locations that the literature focuses on. This will help me guarantee that I have covered enough international context to produce a transferable set of guidelines.

WHERE is it focused?

WHY: This brings together a number of variables such as WHEN and WHERE to outline the relevance of the particular resources to my research according to Theoretical, Historical, and Contemporary Contexts, and Practice Review.

WHY does it relate to the research?

As I progress in the literature review, I plan to feed into, evaluate and restructure the mapping system to achieve a thorough and user friendly documentation scheme for the research.

WHY: close-up of practice review