Writing Up and Submission Quick Reference
The last two weeks of the subject are the best-delivered material in it. This page indexes what they hand you — and marks which of it is the subject's own voice, which is one student's artefact, and which was written by someone else entirely.
How to read this page
Everything below comes from the last two weeks of a fourteen-week research methods subject and the artefacts supplied with them. Each row carries two labels: what kind of claim it is, and whose. A table that flattens one student's estimate and a stated requirement into one list is worse than no table.
THE TWO LABELS ON EVERY ROW
| Label | What it means |
|---|---|
| Source requirement | Something the material states a proposal, report or abstract must contain or do |
| Source example | An illustration the material supplies. Copy the shape, not the content |
| Illustrative value | A number describing one case. Never promote it to a standard |
| General principle | This library's synthesis, or a convention the material implies without stating |
| Teaching material | The subject's own voice — proposal, writing-up, abstract, supervision and assessment content |
| Student work (anonymised) | The thesis schedule; the one response to the final case study. Faults belong to the artefact, never the person |
| External published material | The checklist (a methods text's toolkit, 2012); the report structures (chapter 29 of a methods text); the annotated abstract (a writing-tips page); a 2019 book review |
The first four labels say what kind of claim a row is; the last three say whose.
The proposal: what a reviewer asks, and what the proposal answers
THE FOUR REVIEWER QUESTIONS AND THE FOUR ANSWERING CLAIMS
| # | What the reviewer asks | What a good proposal shows |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | "What problem or issue does the research address?" | It "addresses a real life problem, issue, concern or conundrum" |
| 2 | "How will the research contribute to existing knowledge?" | It "provides new knowledge that will contribute to addressing this problem or concern" |
| 3 | "How will the research achieve its stated objectives?" | It "adopts a method and methodology appropriate to the research question" |
| 4 | "Is the research doable within the given time and resource constraints? Are there any special considerations that affect the feasibility of the research?" | It "can be successfully completed within the given time, resource and other research constraints" |
Source requirement · teaching material throughout. The one-to-one pairing across the two columns is this library's reading, not a source claim. Question four is the only one about the researcher rather than the research.
THE FOUR PROPOSAL SECTIONS
| Section | What it holds, as stated |
|---|---|
| Introduction | Problem and aims, key terminology, the field of literature and practice, plus a summary of the gap and of the research design |
| Literature review | Previous research, ending by "highlighting what is significant about your research, or the contribution the research will make" |
| Methods and methodology | How the design fulfils the aims or answers the question, plus ethical considerations and non-standard resource implications |
| Additional information | "A proposed time line for the research, references, bibliography, appendices, and any special features" |
Source requirement · teaching material. The material states that these sections "accord with the key questions introduced above".
The component lists
These are the fullest component lists in the subject, and the reason its proposal objective is the first delivered in full. Every count below is this library's; the source states none.
THE INTRODUCTION — EIGHT COMPONENTS
| # | Component | Note |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | "A succinct statement of the topic (opening sentence)" | — |
| 2 | "An explanation of the problem or issue motivating the research" | — |
| 3 | The fields the research grows out of and aims to contribute to, in terms "widely recognised both within and beyond the field" | The list's only illustration is a field name |
| 4 | "A summary overview statement of the focus or approach of previous literature" | — |
| 5 | "A concise description of the 'gap' within the literature" | Repeated at the end of the literature review |
| 6 | "Concise statement of one of the following: research hypothesis, question, aim or objectives" | A four-way choice with no criterion for choosing |
| 7 | "A concise description of the methods and methodology" | Similar to the methods section's opening |
| 8 | "Concise definitions of any specialized terms used throughout the proposal" | — |
THE LITERATURE REVIEW — FIVE COMPONENTS
| # | Component | Its move in the argument |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | "An introduction to the central concerns or questions in the literature" | What the conversation is about |
| 2 | "A discussion of what is known or remains uncontested" | What is settled |
| 3 | "A description of the similarities and differences in approaches to the problem" | Where it divides |
| 4 | "An argument for a 'gap', unresolved question, controversy or issue" | What is missing |
| 5 | "A statement of what the proposed research aims to offer to the existing field" | What you will add |
The right-hand column reads the five as a complete argumentative arc. That reading is this library's; the source prints a flat list in no stated order.
THE RESEARCH DESIGN — FOURTEEN COMPONENTS
| # | Component | Status in the subject |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Underlying research rationale or methodology | Taught elsewhere |
| 2 | Terminology specific to the research design | — |
| 3 | The methods used | Taught elsewhere |
| 4 | The research phases and their relationship | — |
| 5 | Study setting — naturalistic or contrived | Neither term defined in fourteen weeks |
| 6 | Time horizon — snapshot, longitudinal, retrospective, multiple points in time | Four options, none defined; the only appearance of it |
| 7 | Pilot project information and results that shaped the design | Named as already done; the pilot stage is taught nowhere |
| 8 | Selection criteria for participants, organisations or texts — inclusions and exclusions | Second appearance; neither defines them |
| 9 | Limitations — generalisability, experimental skews, definitional and purpose limitations | "Experimental skews" used once, defined nowhere |
| 10 | How information sources will be negotiated and accessed | Covered in the ethics stream |
| 11 | Equipment, techniques, measures, scales or materials | — |
| 12 | How data will be analysed | Taught elsewhere |
| 13 | Ethical considerations — exploitation, harm or coercion of subjects or of the researcher; animal distress; hazardous substances | The only line naming harm to the researcher |
| 14 | Non-standard resource requirements | — |
Fourteen bullets as printed — the richest single list in the subject, and four of its items introduce content taught nowhere.
Length, and what reviewers want reassurance about
THE THREE REASSURANCES A REVIEWER WANTS
| What reviewers "want to be reassured" of | Kind of assurance |
|---|---|
| "The research will fulfil the degree requirements (the research is important, new and appropriately conceived)" | Merit |
| "The necessary resources are available" | Feasibility |
| "The research will be finished on time" | Feasibility |
Two of the three are about whether you can finish rather than whether the work is any good, after component lists almost entirely about intellectual content. The merit and feasibility labels are this library's.
Writing up: three stages, the recoverable components, two structures
- First draft
- Re-writing and editing
- Polishing — the final draft
The first draft is "a major milestone" whose scale "at first sight … is always impressive" — encouragement, not a claim about draft quality, since the same slide insists "a great deal of work is done in producing the final draft". Getting started gets three words: start early, be persuasive, get feedback.
WHAT THE REPORT SLIDES YIELD — AND WHERE THEY STOP
| Slide | Recoverable items | Status |
|---|---|---|
| "The report should include:" | Cover · Title page · Acknowledgements | Source requirement · teaching material. The slide continues past what the file's extractable text returns |
| "The format and presentation should incorporate the following:" | Section numbering · Paragraph numbering · Page numbering | Also truncated. Paragraph numbering is a technical-report convention rather than a thesis one, stated without comment or condition |
TWO REPORT STRUCTURES, QUOTED BY THE SUBJECT FROM A METHODS TEXT
| # | Quantitative report | Qualitative report |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Introduction | Introduction |
| 2 | Theory | Background |
| 3 | Data | Methods |
| 4 | Measurements | Findings |
| 5 | Methods | Discussion |
| 6 | Results | Conclusion |
| 7 | Conclusion | — |
Seven sections against six; the source states neither count. External published material, reproduced from chapter 29 of a methods text — not the subject's own design.
The abstract: what binds, what is a guideline, where the example fails
THE ABSTRACT RULES AND HOW FAR EACH ONE BINDS
| Rule as stated | Standing |
|---|---|
| "Usually … 300 words or less" | Illustrative value. The hedge makes it a guideline, not a requirement |
| One paragraph | Source requirement. Stated without a hedge |
| A prescribed sequence: overall purpose and the research problems investigated; the basic design of the study; major findings or trends | Source requirement. The slide's list continues past what the file yields; three elements are recoverable and no more |
| "Use the active voice when possible" | Source requirement. The qualification is unexplained; the previous week gives no voice rule at all |
| "Concise, but complete, sentences" | Source requirement |
| "Always use the past tense because you are reporting on research that has been completed" | Source requirement. Agrees with the previous week's results rule |
| "Written last since it will summarise the contents of your entire paper" | Source requirement. The worked schedule places it second-to-last by date — student work, and it settles nothing |
Teaching material throughout.
The four moves in the worked example
- Why there was a need for research
- What was done
- Key results, and how
- Significance of the results
Those four labels are printed on the subject's only annotated worked example of academic writing: an abstract with colour-coded labels pointing at underlined segments, reproduced from a university writing-tips page. It is a materials-engineering abstract, and its technical content is neither taught nor engineering instruction — its value is entirely structural. Five sentences, about 110 words, which shows the four moves do not need the full allowance.
ABSTRACT, INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSION — THREE PURPOSES, THREE ORDERS
| Piece | Stated purpose | Stated order | Left unstated |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract | "To preview or summarise the whole thesis or report" — contents, conclusion, new information, relevance | Usually the paper's own order of main points | A length: the notes give none, the slides' figure is hedged |
| Introduction | To "locate or situate your chapter/paper in the broader field"; the topic is the main focus | General to specific, in five moves: the field and its significance · how your research fits · why it is needed · your aims · an outline of sub-sections | A length |
| Conclusion | "Generalisations based on your findings, implications of those findings and recommendations for future work" | Generalisations · implications · recommendations | A length. Also the only definition of "recommendations" in the subject |
The material's framing: the three "all seem to require you to include similar details but each needs to be written differently because they all have different purposes".
The schedule: one student's plan, read as an artefact
HEADLINE FIGURES FROM THE WORKED THESIS PLAN
| Figure | As printed | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| Stated summary duration | 255 days? | The question mark is the tool's estimated-duration marker, as printed |
| Span | Mon 2/03/20 to Fri 19/02/21 | Roughly twelve elapsed months |
| Lines on the chart | 25 — one project summary plus 24 tasks | Two tasks are summary lines with children |
| Longest task | Literature Review, 51 days | Reading is front-loaded; a 45-day synthesis sits under it |
| Data collection | 4 weeks | Stated in weeks while most lines are in days |
| Ethical approval | 5 days?, five months before collection | A discrete predecessor task — the decision most worth copying |
| Estimated-duration flags | 17 of the 24 tasks, the summary among them | The marker exists to be cleared. None was |
| Time with nothing scheduled | 160 days — 8 June to 14 November 2020 | Unexplained and unlabelled. It may be a candidature break, a part-time pattern or a data window; the source says nothing and this page does not guess |
| Allocated to editing or polishing | None | The closing tasks are assembly, not revision |
| Last content task to submission | 2 days | One plan's own figure |
THE NINE DEFECTS IN BRIEF
| # | What the chart shows | What to check on your own plan |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Children finish after their parent — one ends 63 days after the summary above it | Summary dates should roll up; if not, they were typed, not calculated |
| 2 | Durations do not match date ranges — 10 days across 25, 45 across 122 | No working calendar is in force |
| 3 | Every estimated-duration flag is still set | Clear each marker as the estimate firms up |
| 4 | Tasks start and finish on weekends | No default calendar, so the plan assumes seven-day weeks — inflating apparent capacity by about 40% |
| 5 | A five-month hole with no task in it | If a gap is real, label it |
| 6 | Analysis starts seven days before collection ends | May be deliberate — the checklist says analyse as you collect |
| 7 | Coding starts three weeks into analysis and is shorter | Week 12 treats coding as the mechanism of qualitative analysis; this plan makes it a subtask inside it |
| 8 | No editing task exists at all | The same week names three drafting stages |
| 9 | Abstract second-to-last by date, but the list opens with a title page | Read a chart by dates, not row position |
Defects in the schedule, not in the student; several are artefacts of how the tool was used. Two features are strengths: ethical approval as a discrete predecessor to collection, and a front-loaded literature review.
The final week's checklist
THE CHECKLIST BY THEME — PARAPHRASED, NOT REPRODUCED
| Where it bites | What it asks of you | What it warns off |
|---|---|---|
| Framing | Think about the research early; settle specific questions; choose a strategy, then a design | Vague questions; leaving it all to the last minute |
| Planning and time | Build a timetable; allow generously for transcription | Overestimating time and money; expecting the plan to hold; the night-before dissertation |
| Recording as you go | Keep a research diary; note references as you collect them; keep searching | Failing to record what you did and when; assuming nothing exists on your topic |
| Supervision | See your supervisor regularly, act on the advice, show early drafts | Ignoring or avoiding them; an unconventional style without discussing it |
| Access, ethics, consent | Negotiate access, run a pilot, get approval first; inform participants and obtain consent | Starting without access or approval; ignoring your discipline's code; risking your own safety |
| Data handling | Sample deliberately; store data where only you can reach it, with backups | Storing data where others can reach it; assuming you must collect everything before analysing; assuming you need software; expecting a high response rate |
| Writing and finishing | Draft early; include every section; be honest about limitations; thank participants | Ignoring institutional rules on length and format; discriminatory language; forgetting to acknowledge help |
Counts and grouping are this library's; the source states no totals and draws no themes. At least four items are one instruction stated from both ends — the diary and the record, the two supervisor items, the two storage items, the timetable and the night-before warning.
Supervision and assessment
Decide at what level you are seeking feedback before you ask. The material names six; six is this library's count, and the source prints them unnumbered.
- The appropriateness of the methodology
- The general structure of your paper
- The quality of the evidence you are using
- The general flow of ideas
- The appropriateness of your writing style
- The best arrangement of your data
ASSIGNMENT 3, AS SPECIFIED ON THE FINAL SLIDE OF WEEK 13
| Component week | Stated length | Standing |
|---|---|---|
| Week 9 | 300 words | Teaching material |
| Week 10 | 600 words | Teaching material |
| Week 11 | 400 words | Teaching material |
| Week 12 | 400 words here — and 700 words on week 12's own activity slide | Two figures for one component, in two different weeks. Both given; neither withdrawn |
| Week 13 | 300 words | Teaching material |
| Derived total | 2,000 words | This library's arithmetic on the five stated figures. No total is stated, and this one rests on the 400 rather than the 700 |
The specification appears once, on a late slide, described as "finalised", after most of its component weeks have passed — the same pattern as the previous assignment. Both are specified retrospectively.
Where the detail lives
This page is an index. A reference table can carry the lists, the counts and the rules; it cannot carry the conflicts, the provenance or the gaps — and on this material those decide whether an item is safe to use. Where a row records two figures for one thing, a truncated list, or a term named and never defined, the linked page holds the evidence.
That is also how the subject asks to be used: it says you may not be applying the information immediately and should return to it as you progress on your thesis — see how this material expects to be used.
ROUTING TABLE
What to carry forward
- The proposal material is the fullest in the subject and you can write from it. It offers three structures in one week and reconciles none, so choose one, say which, and hold it.
- Two of the three things a reviewer wants reassurance about are feasibility, not merit. Your timeline is not an appendix item.
- Only one length rule here is unhedged: an abstract is one paragraph. The 300 words is a guideline, the 10 to 20 pages is one institution's, and no length is given for an introduction or a conclusion.
- The only worked schedule in the dataset is a student's plan, not a benchmark. Its most instructive feature is a defect: nothing allocated to editing.
- Where the material gives two figures for one thing — 400 words or 700 — it never withdraws either. Record which you followed and why.
Frequently asked questions
Can I write a proposal from this page alone?
You can write one from the component tables, and the proposal material is the fullest treatment in the subject. What the tables cannot do is choose for you: the same week gives three different proposal structures and reconciles none of them, and four items in the research design list are terms the subject never defines. Use the linked pages before you commit to a shape.
How long should a research proposal be?
The only stated limit in the material is ten to twenty pages, and it belongs to one named institution rather than to the field. The material also says most of the length goes to the literature review and methodology sections without saying how much. Use your own institution's figure and treat the source's as an illustration.
Do I really have to write the abstract last?
The material says so plainly, on the ground that an abstract summarises a paper that must exist first. The one worked schedule in the dataset places it second-to-last by date, but that is one student's plan and not a counter-rule. If you draft an abstract early, treat it as a planning device and rewrite it at the end.
Are the durations in the thesis schedule figures I can plan against?
No. Every one is one student's estimate for one thesis, in a plan whose durations and date ranges disagree and whose calendar assumes seven-day weeks. The shape transfers — ethical approval as a discrete predecessor to collection, reading front-loaded — the numbers do not.
Which word count applies to the week 12 assignment component?
Both figures are in the material: 400 words on the assignment specification slide and 700 words on week 12's own activity slide. The source never withdraws either. Ask your assessor; if you cannot, record which figure you worked to and why.
Why is the final week's checklist paraphrased instead of quoted?
It is external published material, reproduced by the teaching source from a publisher's website under a 2012 copyright line, so this library restates it rather than republishing it. Twelve of its items also cross-reference chapters and FAQs of a text the dataset does not contain, so it cannot be followed to the end from this material alone.
References and source attribution
- The supplied teaching source: weekly study notes, slide decks and assessment slides for a master's-level research methods subject in project management. Author, institution and year are not stated in the supplied files.
- The two report structures are quoted by the supplied source from chapter 29 of a methods text that the slide does not name. The subject's own reference lists cite Bryman, A. 2016, Social Research Methods, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, and the 2012 4th edition, among its readings.
- The 'Do's and Don'ts of social research' checklist is reproduced by the supplied source from a student-researcher toolkit accompanying a methods textbook, published on the publisher's website with a 2012 copyright line. It is paraphrased throughout this page and not reproduced.
- The annotated worked abstract is attributed by the supplied source to a university student-services writing-tips page. No author, title or date is given.
- The thesis schedule is student work supplied alongside the teaching material: a scheduling-application file and its printed chart, anonymised here. It is unpublished and is not part of the teaching material.
- A 2019 open-access book review of a 2014 research-design text, supplied with the same batch as external published material. Its bibliographic details are not recorded in the extract supplied to this library.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- What are the four questions a research proposal has to answer?
- What goes in the research design section of a proposal?
- How long should an abstract be and what must it contain?
- What is the difference between an abstract, an introduction and a conclusion?
- What typically goes wrong in a thesis schedule?
- How should I prepare for a supervision meeting?