How-to-Write-a-Better-Thesis

154 Appendix
ful rather than superficial, and key arguments have been diligently explored. I try
to not be too critical of presentation (in particular because the majority of theses I
have examined are by students whose first language is not English), but I do value a
thesis where the copy-editing is careful and significant effort has gone into creation
of figures and tables that are easy to understand.
Characteristics of a Poor Thesis
• Objectives and protocol of the study are not stated.
• The research questions are either not significant or are self-evident (no risk of a
successful outcome).
• The principal purpose or argument of the thesis is difficult to discern.
• No clear delimitations to the study.
• Overly simplistic comments and generalizations.
• The scope of the thesis is overly ambitious.
• Grasp of the literature has serious limitations (the student is unaware of major
relevant works, or uses older works that are no longer authoritative or never were
authoritative).
• The description of the literature is serial rather than interpretative (with scant
critical analysis or argument emerging).
• There is no clear connection between the focus of the study and the logic or
foundations of the research on which it is based.
• Theoretical perspectives or conceptual frameworks are left implicit; the rationale
for a particular theoretical approach is missing or undeveloped.
• Shows no awareness of the alignment or compatibilities of particular theoretical
and methodological approaches.
• The overview of theory is broad and lacks depth or persuasiveness (especially
noted by a reliance on undergraduate texts without reference to primary authors).
• The description of the sample selection strategy is inadequate (inclusion and
exclusion criteria not stated).
• The arguments are intrinsically weak.
• Large slabs of (qualitative) data are used to present a point when smaller excerpts
with richer or deeper analyses are needed.
• No demonstrated understanding of appropriate statistical analyses and interpretation,
or insufficient detail on how the data analysis was undertaken.
• Triangulation often claimed but rarely delivered.
• Contains sweeping, unfounded conclusions that have little or no basis in evidence.
• Definitions of key terms are either omitted or imprecise.
• Contains poor photos, confusing diagrams, and inadequately labelled tables.
• Contains poor written expression that detracts from the candidate’s argument.
Littered with spelling and typographical errors; has incorrect or inconsistent referencing.