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 Recommendations"]
N4["7.4 Writing for practitioners"]
N5["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5
N5 --> 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 Recommendations"]
N4["7.4 Writing for practitioners"]
N5["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> Q["EX039"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[7.1 Structure]
|
v
[7.2 Limitations]
|
v
[7.3 Recommendations]
|
v
[7.4 Writing for practitioners]
|
v
[Synthesis]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX039]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) structure the dissertation; (2) state limitations honestly; (3) write recommendations and a practitioner summary.
7.1 Structure
Jonah structures the dissertation as introduction and question, literature review, method, results, discussion, limitations and recommendations. Each chapter opens by stating its purpose and ends by linking to the next, so the argument flows from question to evidence to conclusion. Tables carry the key numbers, with the script that produced each named in a note. He writes the method chapter first, while details are fresh, and the introduction last, once he knows exactly what the dissertation shows. Clear signposting helps examiners follow the argument and helps busy readers find what they need.
7.2 Limitations
Jonah states his limitations plainly. The study covers one organisation over three months, so long-term effects, such as whether recovery requests keep rising, are unknown. Department order was not randomised. Aggregate data cannot show individual experiences, such as whether some staff struggled repeatedly. Ticket categories depend on desk staff judgement, though sampling found them consistent. For each limitation he explains its likely effect on the results and how future work could address it, which shows examiners that he understands the boundaries of his evidence rather than overselling it.
7.3 Recommendations
Recommendations follow directly from the evidence. Continue passkey enrolment, since it reduced resets and improved sign-in success. Encourage every staff member to register a second passkey or security key, reducing lost-device recovery. Keep the strong identity check for recovery, because the recovery path is now the more attractive target. Upgrade the remaining old browsers. And keep measuring resets, recovery and sign-in success monthly. Each recommendation names its cost, an owner and how success will be measured, so Halyard can act on it rather than file it away.
7.4 Writing for practitioners
Jonah also writes a two-page summary for Halyard's managers and desk staff. It explains in plain language what passkeys are, what changed, the main numbers, the shift towards recovery and the recommended next steps, with one simple chart of the reset rate. Technical details and statistical methods stay in the dissertation. The summary is reviewed by a desk team leader for clarity. Practitioners make the decisions that turn research into practice, so writing for them is as important as writing for examiners.
Worked example
Jonah writes a signposted dissertation with honest limitations, five evidence-based recommendations with owners, and a two-page practitioner summary reviewed by a desk team leader.
Synthetic case. The dissertation, recommendations and reviewers are synthetic.
Errors and limits
Hiding limitations to make results look stronger undermines trust when examiners find them anyway.
Exercises
- EX039 — Chapter order. List the dissertation's main chapters in order. Rubric: 3 = introduction, literature, method, results, discussion, limitations, recommendations;; 2 = most;; 1 = few;; 0 = none.
- EX040 — Writing order. Which chapters are written first and last? Rubric: 3 = method first, introduction last;; 2 = one;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX041 — Long-term gap. Which long-term question remains unknown? Rubric: 3 = whether recovery requests keep rising;; 2 = long-term effects;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX042 — Recovery recommendation. Why keep the strong recovery check? Rubric: 3 = recovery is now the more attractive target;; 2 = target;; 1 = cost;; 0 = none.
- EX043 — Recommendation parts. What does each recommendation name? Rubric: 3 = cost, owner and success measure;; 2 = two;; 1 = one;; 0 = none.
- EX044 — Summary reviewer. Who reviews the practitioner summary? Rubric: 3 = a desk team leader, for clarity;; 2 = desk lead;; 1 = examiner;; 0 = none.
Synthesis
Clear structure, honest limitations and practical recommendations make research useful to both examiners and practitioners.
Continue studying — chapter 07 of 08
← Chapter 06 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 08 (draft) →