Academic Research Skill
Patterns for thesis writing, dissertations, research papers, literature reviews, and scholarly work.
Research Project Types
| Type |
Duration |
Output |
Review Process |
| Master's Thesis |
1-2 years |
80-150 pages |
Committee defense |
| PhD Dissertation |
3-7 years |
150-300+ pages |
Committee + external |
| Journal Article |
3-12 months |
5,000-10,000 words |
Peer review (2-12 mo) |
| Conference Paper |
2-6 months |
4,000-8,000 words |
Peer review (2-4 mo) |
| Literature Review |
1-6 months |
5,000-15,000 words |
Varies |
| Grant Proposal |
1-3 months |
5-50 pages |
Panel review |
Thesis/Dissertation Structure
Standard Chapter Flow
- Introduction — Problem, significance, research questions, scope
- Literature Review — Theoretical framework, prior work, gaps
- Methodology — Research design, data collection, analysis methods
- Results/Findings — Present data without interpretation
- Discussion — Interpret results, connect to literature
- Conclusion — Summary, contributions, limitations, future work
Variations by Discipline
| Discipline |
Structure Variation |
| Sciences |
Methods-heavy, often includes "Materials and Methods" |
| Humanities |
May have multiple analysis chapters by theme |
| Social Sciences |
Often has separate "Theoretical Framework" chapter |
| Engineering |
May include "Implementation" and "Evaluation" chapters |
Literature Review Strategies
Systematic Review Steps
- Define research questions
- Establish inclusion/exclusion criteria
- Search multiple databases
- Screen titles/abstracts
- Full-text review
- Data extraction
- Quality assessment
- Synthesis
Synthesis Approaches
| Approach |
When to Use |
| Thematic |
Organize by concepts/themes across sources |
| Chronological |
Show evolution of field over time |
| Methodological |
Compare research approaches |
| Theoretical |
Organize by competing frameworks |
| Concept Matrix |
Map concepts to sources in a table |
Literature Gap Types
- Empirical gap — No studies in specific context
- Theoretical gap — Theory not applied to this domain
- Methodological gap — New methods could reveal new insights
- Population gap — Understudied demographic
- Practical gap — Theory exists but not applied
Research Question Development
PICO Framework (Empirical)
- Population — Who is being studied?
- Intervention — What is being tested?
- Comparison — Against what?
- Outcome — What is measured?
FINER Criteria
| Criterion |
Question |
| Feasible |
Can it be done with available resources? |
| Interesting |
Does anyone care? |
| Novel |
Does it add new knowledge? |
| Ethical |
Can it be done ethically? |
| Relevant |
Does it matter to the field? |
Methodology Design
Qualitative Methods
| Method |
Best For |
Sample Size |
| Interviews |
Deep understanding |
10-30 |
| Focus Groups |
Group dynamics |
4-8 per group |
| Ethnography |
Cultural context |
1+ settings |
| Case Study |
Detailed exploration |
1-10 cases |
| Grounded Theory |
Theory generation |
Until saturation |
Quantitative Methods
| Method |
Best For |
Sample Size |
| Survey |
Breadth, generalization |
100-1000+ |
| Experiment |
Causation |
Power analysis |
| Quasi-experiment |
When randomization impossible |
Varies |
| Secondary Analysis |
Large datasets |
Varies |
Mixed Methods Designs
- Convergent — Qual + quant simultaneously, merge results
- Explanatory Sequential — Quant → Qual to explain findings
- Exploratory Sequential — Qual → Quant to test findings
Citation Management
Citation Styles by Discipline
| Style |
Discipline |
| APA 7 |
Psychology, social sciences, education |
| MLA 9 |
Humanities, literature |
| Chicago |
History, some humanities |
| IEEE |
Engineering, computer science |
| Vancouver |
Medicine, biomedical |
| Harvard |
Business, some social sciences |
Citation Principles
- Cite primary sources when possible
- Acknowledge all borrowed ideas
- Cite recent and foundational works
- Balance seminal vs. contemporary
- Avoid over-relying on single sources
Committee Navigation
Advisor Relationship
- Meet regularly (weekly/biweekly)
- Come prepared with specific questions
- Document agreements in writing
- Manage expectations early
- Give drafts with enough lead time
Defense Preparation
- Anticipate likely questions
- Prepare 20-30 minute presentation
- Know your limitations
- Have backup slides for deep dives
- Practice with friendly audience
- Prepare for "So what?" questions
Common Committee Concerns
| Concern |
How to Address |
| "Why this topic?" |
Strong motivation section |
| "What's your contribution?" |
Explicit contributions list |
| "How is this valid?" |
Robust methodology |
| "What about X?" |
Acknowledge scope, future work |
| "How does this connect?" |
Clear theoretical framework |
Academic Writing Quality
Hedging Language
| Strong Claim |
Hedged Version |
| "This proves..." |
"This suggests..." |
| "Always causes" |
"May contribute to" |
| "Definitely shows" |
"The evidence indicates" |
Signal Phrases by Purpose
| Purpose |
Phrases |
| Agreement |
"Consistent with...", "Similarly..." |
| Contrast |
"In contrast...", "However..." |
| Extension |
"Building on...", "Extending..." |
| Gap |
"Yet to be explored...", "Remains unclear..." |
Common Pitfalls
| Problem |
Solution |
| Scope creep |
Define boundaries early, revisit often |
| Literature overwhelm |
Set search limits, use concept matrix |
| Perfectionism |
"Good enough" for drafts, perfect for final |
| Isolation |
Join writing groups, find accountability |
| Imposter syndrome |
Remember: you're learning, not failing |
Synapses
High-Strength Connections
- [writing-publication] (High, Complements, Bidirectional) — "Academic writing standards"
- [bootstrap-learning] (High, Uses, Forward) — "Knowledge acquisition methodology"
Medium-Strength Connections
- [knowledge-synthesis] (Medium, Uses, Forward) — "Literature synthesis patterns"
- [root-cause-analysis] (Medium, Applies, Forward) — "Research problem analysis"
Supporting Connections
- [cognitive-load] (Low, Considers, Forward) — "Information chunking in writing"
- [meditation] (Low, Supports, Forward) — "Knowledge consolidation after research sessions"