Diagnostics for Dissertations and Chapters

Peg Syverson

This document was intended to provide a useful framework for my own thinking about how to respond effectively to graduate students' dissertations, draft chapters, and Master's reports. It occurred to me that it might also be useful for graduate students as they are drafting and responding to peer drafts in study groups. It does not claim to be exhaustive. Not all drafts or dissertations will have responses in every area. Rather, this diagnostic paper provides a general set of reminders as a way to review important aspects of the work.

The focus of responses should be on the general topic, theoretical focus, reasoning, methods, and structure at draft stage; on style and mechanics at final revision stage. However, writers can expect that at any stage of the revision process, any of these questions might be raised. For example, serious problems with mechanics and style often reflect difficulties or confusion in the reasoning process. I'd appreciate any suggestions for additions or revisions to this list.

Topic:

The text: Is it clear what the topic is? Can it be expressed in a single sentence, or at most, two sentences?

The writer: Is the topic clearly of compelling interest to the writer? Does the writer seem adequately prepared to present himself or herself as reasonably expert on this topic?

The audience: Is it clear what part of the field is being addressed by this topic? Is the topic of potential interest in that section of the field? Will it make a contribution to understanding in the field? Does the text clarify the answers to these questions? What is the "news" for the field in this project? What challenges might be made against the topic? Suggestions or responses to the topic:

Theoretical perspective:

All dissertations are presented from a theoretical perspective of one kind or another: is the text clearly conscious of its theoretical assumptions and principles?

Is the theoretical foundation strong? Are the theoretical sources apparent? Are they appropriate for the topic? Do they need further explanation?

Is the theoretical foundation controversial, problematic, or otherwise challenging for the field? Is the theoretical foundation presented and integrated well?

Technical language is expected in expert discourse: However, does the text adopt theoretical jargon at the expense of clarity?

What challenges might be made against the theoretical framework? Suggestions or responses to the theory:

Methods:

Does the methodological approach or approaches to the topic seem feasible?

Do the methods seem appropriate to the topic and to the theoretical framework?

Does the methodology have credibility for the field?

Are the methods applied with appropriate care?

What challenges might be made against the methods?

Suggestions or responses to the methods:

Evidence:

Is it clear how the evidence was gathered? (see methods section)

Are the sources of evidence appropriate?

Are they adequate?

Are they timely?

Are they credible?

Is the evidence clearly connected to the topic?

Is there anything unexpected, counterintuitive, or new in the evidence?

Does the evidence support the reasoning?

What challenges might be made against the evidence?

Suggestions or responses to the evidence:

Reasoning:

Is the general reasoning sound? Does it avoid overgeneralizing, straw man or other fallacies, or straining? Does it avoid setting up artificial oppositions? Does it recognize and acknowledge the complexities in situations, concepts, and people?

Does the text demonstrate awareness of relevant research by others? Is it knowledgeably represented, discussed, integrated, accommodated, or refuted?

Is the reasoning accurate: Is it faithful to the topic and the evidence? Is it scrupulous and precise about its claims?

What challenges might be made against the reasoning?

Suggestions or responses to the reasoning:

Structure:

Part-whole relationships:

Is there overall coherence to each chapter?

Is it clear how it fits into the larger framework of the dissertation?

Does each chapter have subsections, and if so, are they appropriate? Are they clearly marked or signaled for readers? Do they follow a logical progression?

Does the structure support the reasoning? Would some other structure serve the piece better?

Suggestions or responses to the structure:

Style:

What aspects of style still need work?

Diction

Mechanics (grammar, spelling, punctuation)

Transitions

Citations-in text and bibliographic

Footnotes

Headings-all levels: consistency, parallelism, sequence

Suggestions or responses to the style: