Chapter 7 — Dissertation writing and limitations
Lesson map
Lesson 07 published. Map, example, EX039.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["7.1 Structure"]
N2["7.2 Limitations"]
N3["7.3 Findings versus recommendations"]
N4["7.4 Writing for two audiences"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX039"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["7.1 Structure"]
N2["7.2 Limitations"]
N3["7.3 Findings versus recommendations"]
N4["7.4 Writing for two audiences"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX039"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[7.1 Structure]
|
v
[7.2 Limitations]
|
v
[7.3 Findings versus recommendations]
|
v
[7.4 Writing for two audiences]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX039]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) structure a master's dissertation; (2) write limitations that inform readers; (3) separate findings from recommendations.
7.1 Structure
Tomás structures his dissertation around the question: introduction and question, literature and governance models, design and ethics, pilot findings on measurement, main results, rival checks, discussion, limitations and recommendations. He writes the abstract last, stating the effect, interval, design and main limit in four sentences. Dr. Solberg advises him to put the pilot's finding about normalisation in its own section, because it is a separate contribution: measured duplicate rates depend on rules, so organisations must govern their quality rules. Each chapter answers one part of the question.
7.2 Limitations
Tomás's limitations section names five issues: two treated departments, non-random selection, a synthetic reproduction of figures rather than direct analysis of all records, a six-month follow-up that cannot show whether gains persist, and possible unmeasured differences such as manager quality. For each, he explains the likely direction of bias and what future work could address it. He avoids generic statements such as more research is needed, which tell readers nothing about what research or why. Most of these would bias the estimate upward.
7.3 Findings versus recommendations
Tomás separates what the evidence shows from what he recommends. The finding is the estimated effect and its mechanism under the pilot's conditions. The recommendations are to extend stewardship to the other three departments with the same decision rights, keep measuring correction time to the last system and publish the address normalisation rules. He flags the recommendations as judgements informed by evidence, so readers who disagree with his weighting can still use the findings independently. Judgement and evidence stay clearly labelled.
7.4 Writing for two audiences
The dissertation serves examiners and the council. Tomás writes a two-page summary for council officers with the main result in plain words, a chart of correction times and the recommendations. The full dissertation keeps technical detail for examiners. He checks that both versions agree on numbers and claims. Dr. Solberg notes that inconsistency between technical and summary versions is a common way for research to lose credibility once it reaches decision-makers who compare them. Both versions cite the same table of results.
Worked example
Tomás structures the dissertation, names five specific limitations with bias direction, separates findings from recommendations and writes a consistent two-page council summary.
Synthetic case. The dissertation is synthetic.
Errors and limits
Summaries tend to drop caveats; keep the main limit in the summary.
Exercises
- EX039 — Separate contribution. What separate contribution gets its own section? Rubric: 3 = duplicate rates depend on normalisation rules;; 2 = mentions rules;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX040 — Limitations count. How many limitations does Tomás name? Rubric: 3 = five;; 2 = partly correct;; 1 = wrong;; 0 = none.
- EX041 — Follow-up limit. Why is six months a limit? Rubric: 3 = cannot show whether gains persist;; 2 = partly correct;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX042 — Generic phrase. Which generic phrase does Tomás avoid? Rubric: 3 = more research is needed;; 2 = partly correct;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX043 — Recommendation example. Name one recommendation. Rubric: 3 = extend stewardship, measure to last system, publish rules;; 2 = one;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX044 — Consistency. Why must summary and dissertation agree? Rubric: 3 = inconsistency damages credibility;; 2 = mentions credibility;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
Continue studying — lesson 07 (chapter 07 of 08)
← Chapter 06 · Course chapter index · Chapter 08 →
Continue to the next authored lesson.