THE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG
Faculty of Education
Office of Research
Reason, Argument, and Technique in Dissertation Writing
This presentation aims to enable students to write better. Our concern here is with the process of
actually writing the dissertation (and not really with research methodology or strategies for managing
the project), with a focus on argumentation, logical reasoning, structure, and the like. We will pay
particular attention to:
1. the introductory paragraphs as a means of clarifying your concerns (both for yourself and for
your reader);
2. the use of a purpose/content rubric to manage and tighten your writing;
3. the importance and purpose of structure;
4. the use of language and terminology;
5. different ways of defending an argument; and
6. the conclusion.
Writing up the dissertation is for many students the most daunting aspect of the PhD. This
presentation aims to introduce you to some writing techniques that will enable you to approach that
task with confidence.
Mark Mason
Faculty of Education
The University of Hong Kong
1.
The Introduction
The Introduction or Abstract should briefly outline:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
The problem that the paper addresses;
The question that arises from that problem;
The thesis, claim, or proposal which you seek to justify or explore in the paper;
The aims and purposes of the paper;
The research context, or theoretical paradigm and literature in which you’re writing;
The premises or assumptions from which you start;
The method (eg, by observation and inference; by logical analysis; etc) which you will use to
achieve your aim;
The results you found;
The conclusion which you will reach;
The outcomes of the paper; and
The significance of the paper.
The introduction should clearly distinguish the premises of the main argument from the conclusion
that will be reached.
The following is roughly what an opening paragraph or abstract should look like. Naturally each
sentence need not be structured as in this example: the point is that an introduction should deal
briefly and explicitly with all of these issues, making a clear map for your reader. You should find this
a very useful means of clarifying your concerns (both for yourself and for your reader).
“In this study I address the problem of …. The main question, arising from this problem, which I
address is …. My central thesis in addressing this question is …. My aims and purpose in this
study are thus to …. The research context of this study is in the domain of … literature / theory. I
start from the premise that …, assuming that …. The method I use to achieve these aims is …. My
results show that …, and from these I conclude that …. The outcomes of this study are …. The
significance of this study lies in ….
In short, this study addresses the problem x by doing y in order to achieve z.”
This last sentence is a summary of what the study does, how it does it, and why it does it.
The second, longer, paragraph should expand spirally on the first, thus:
“The problem which I address lies in …. Associated with the key question, q, are the
questions r, s, and t. My thesis, t, … (say a little more about your thesis). While my main
aim in this study is a, my purposes are also b, c, and d. The central theory / literature /
research findings on which I draw in this dissertation are …. My assumptions that form the
premises of this study are warranted because …. I have selected the method of research, m,
because …. (Say a little more about your results.) Apart from my major conclusion that …,
I conclude further that …. Apart from its main outcomes, this study also has the following
outcomes: …. In addition to the implications i and j, these conclusions have applications
k, l, and m, and consequences n, o, and p. Thus the further significance of the study lies
in ….”
2.
The Purpose/Content Framework
In order to help with the above, prepare a Chapter and Section Outline that shows the heading of
each chapter and each section and sub-section (as far as you are able to at this stage). Under each
chapter, section, and sub-section heading, write just two sentences:
“The purpose of this chapter/section/sub-section is ….
It therefore contains the following content that serves that purpose: ….”
Let all your writing be driven by purpose. Indeed, let this purpose/content rubric guide all of your
writing through the dissertation. Naturally it will need to be changed as you work your way through
the project. It will help you to manage and control the whole project, and will help to keep your
writing tightly focussed.
3.
The Structure of the Dissertation
Having completed the first paragraphs of the introduction, and with the help of your purpose/content
framework, complete the introductory chapter with the following:
Consider the problem more fully, and the question(s) which arise(s) from it.
Now, state and discuss what you aim to achieve (or what the purposes of this study are), what the
outcomes and significance of the study are, and what your thesis (argument, idea of a solution,
hypothesis) is (why is your thesis warranted, etc). Consider further your assumptions and premises
on which you ground your thesis.
Now introduce the background literature, theoretical context, previous research findings (a
summary of the literature review, often Chapter 2, of the dissertation).
Now introduce and briefly justify the method you use in your study: it could be by literature review
and argument; it could be by experimentation; it could be by observation and inference; etc (a
summary of the methodological chapter, often Chapter 3, of the dissertation).
Now summarize your argument or your findings and results. Making an argument is a
sophisticated procedure – see Section 5, below, on ways to structure an argument, and to deal
with other arguments (often Chapter 4, results/findings/argument, of the dissertation).
Now draw your conclusions (see Section 6, below).
All of the above will be dealt with in summary form in Chapter 1, the Introduction. The whole first
chapter is, in other words, a summary of the whole dissertation.
Ask yourself the following questions with respect to the structure:

Is it evident that the dissertation has been written with a definite purpose in mind strictly in
accordance with an outline structure?

Have you used subheadings that denote the major sections of each chapter?

Are the ideas presented in a natural order so that they are clear and accessible?

Are the paragraphs thus linked in a natural order that follows a logical sequence in constructing
the argument?

Does each paragraph start with a topic sentence that captures the essence of that paragraph?

Does each paragraph deal with one particular issue, providing explanations, illustrations,
arguments and counter-arguments with regard to only that particular issue?
4.
Language and Terminology
Ask yourself the following questions with respect to the language and terminology:

Is the language used definite and concrete?

Have you used language clearly, simply and directly, that is not unnecessarily complicated (in
order to try to impress your reader or to hide your own confusion), so that it is clear that you
understand what you are writing about?

Are important, unusual or contentious terms clearly defined?

Are terms used consistently and specifically? ie,
Does each particular term refer consistently and specifically to a particular concept? (Thus
avoiding the mistakes of using the same term for different ideas, or different terms for the same
idea.)

Is loaded or emotive language avoided?
5.
The Argument
An argument is a structured process of reasoning aimed at the rational persuasion of others. An
argument must therefore satisfy criteria with respect to:
 its own structure (the “Structural Criteria” [Johnson] for Argument); and
 the arguments of others (the “Dialectical Criteria” [Johnson] for Argument).
The Structural Criteria for Argument
S1
The premises must be relevant to the conclusion
S2
The premises must provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion
Sufficiency implies that there should be enough evidence, and that it should be appropriate.
S3
The premises must be acceptable to the audience
If the premises are not acceptable to the audience, then we would need to go one or more
steps back in our argument until these premises are accepted as true.
S4
The premises must be true
The Dialectical Criteria for Argument
D1
How well does the argument address itself to alternative positions?
One could fail to satisfy this criterion by:

Setting up and arguing against a straw man (a distorted opposition);

Attacking, ad hominem, the person and not their argument; or

Focussing one’s argument on a red herring (an irrelevant issue).
D2
How well does the argument deal with objections?
One would be offering an insufficient argument if it did not deal adequately with objections.
D3
How well does the argument handle consequences?
Failure to satisfy this criterion could set one on a slippery slope (ie, what are the implications of
holding to my conclusion in other cases?).
Note that arguments can be attacked substantively and/or with respect to their logic.
A substantive attack would aim at the content or truth of their premises.
An attack with respect to their logic would aim at the validity of the logical steps.
(Remember that a sound argument has true premises and valid reasoning.)
Try always to aim your criticism of an argument at its main points, at the heart of the matter. Try to
minimize time spent on criticizing peripheral matters that are tangential to the main argument.
Ask yourself the following questions with respect to the argument:

Is it evident in the argument that you have taken care about an honest and fair search for truth,
and are committed to critical reason in the pursuit of that truth?

Is it evident in the argument that you have read widely in your exploration of the issues around
the question?

Have you presented your argument simply, clearly, and directly, with every opportunity taken to
clarify by means of explanation, illustration by example, or analogy?

Does your study argue a particular position, rather than simply making unsubstantiated claims or
loose statements?

Is each step in the main argument justified by its own particular argument?
An argument differs from a claim or a statement in that it has two major parts: a conclusion,
and the reason(s) offered in support of the conclusion. In other words, it involves a step from
particular premises to a particular conclusion by means of justificatory reasons.

Are the steps in each particular argument presented in a natural order so as to make
comprehension easier?

Have possible counter-arguments been considered and refuted, however briefly?

Have possible objections and alternatives been considered and fairly supported, however briefly?

If arguments are made by appeal to authority:





If arguments are made by induction from observation:


Is more than one example provided?
Are the examples representative and appropriate?
Does the wider context of the examples justify the inductive inferences drawn?
Have counter-examples been considered?
If arguments are made by analogy:


Are the observations reliable?
If arguments are made by induction from examples:





Are the sources well informed and impartial?
Is each source accurately cited in terms of an appropriate referencing system?
Has care been taken to acknowledge all sources so that plagiarism has been avoided?
Do the arguments in the paper reflect your work, rather than depending too strongly on other
source material?
Is the analogy appropriate (relevantly similar)?
If arguments are made about causes:











Does the argument explain how cause leads to effect?
Has the argument avoided oversimplification and explained the complex relationship among
causes that lead to a particular effect?
Has the argument avoided confusing correlation with causality? ie
correlated events are not necessarily related;
correlated events may have a common cause;
either of two correlated events may cause the other;
correlated events may compound each other.
Does the conclusion identify the most likely cause?
If arguments are made by logical deduction:
When reasons are given in support of a particular conclusion, are they sufficient to justify that
conclusion?
When a conclusion is offered, does it necessarily follow from the reasons given?
6.
The Conclusion
The Conclusion should:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
7.
Give a brief summary of what you have shown in the dissertation;
Provide your conclusions that you draw from your arguments and results;
Consider the implications, applications and consequences of your conclusions;
Consider and give reasons for the shortcomings / limitations of your particular study;
Identify areas for further investigation;
Discuss the outcomes of your study; and
Show its significance for the field.
Thesis research: criteria of excellence
In a review of 603 PhD thesis examiner’s reports, Bourke and Hattie (2003) found that an
outstanding thesis is characterized by all of the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The significance and scope of the research topic;
A substantial amount of work being undertaken by the candidate;
The meticulous manner in which the research is conducted;
The difficulty and magnitude of the task;
The challenging nature of the research project;
The logic and clarity of the reporting and discussion; and
The extent to which the findings contribute to current knowledge and understanding in the
field.
Based on these findings, research postgraduate students aiming to submit an outstanding thesis
should follow these simple guidelines:


Choose (and execute) a topic/project:
 that is challenging and will involve a substantial amount of research (items 2, 4 & 5),
and
 whose outcomes will contribute significantly to the field (items 1 & 7); and
Conduct and write up your research meticulously and clearly (items 3 & 6).
8.
Further Reading / References
I am indebted to Weston and Johnson in particular for much of the material in these notes. Readers
should consult and acknowledge these sources should they wish to use this material.
Weston, Anthony (2001) A Rulebook for Arguments. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Warburton, Nigel (1996) Thinking from A to Z. London: Routledge.
Johnson, Ralph “Critical Reasoning and Informal Logic” in Talaska, Richard (Ed.) (1992) Critical
Reasoning in Contemporary Culture. Albany: SUNY Press
Office of Research
10 August 2010