Overview: what markers expect from dissertation chapters

UK markers look for five things across your dissertation chapters: (1) a focused research question and clear objectives;
(2) familiarity with the field and a justified gap; (3) a feasible, ethical method; (4) results reported accurately; and
(5) a discussion that answers the research question, acknowledges limits, and explains implications. Presentation, referencing,
and integrity standards carry decisive weight. Use the structures below to make those strengths visible.

Planning the whole project (scope, ethics, feasibility)

Define scope fast

• Question: State a single, researchable question (plus 3–5 objectives).
• Population/Context: Who/what, where, when? Keep it feasible.
• Outcome: Draft what a convincing answer will look like.

Ethics first

Many programmes require documented ethical approval before any data collection. Prepare a clear protocol, consent forms,
and data management plan aligned to UK expectations (e.g., confidentiality, minimising harm, fair processing).
See the QAA Academic Integrity Charter.

Feasibility checks

• Access: Can you actually reach participants/datasets?
• Time: Pilot → collect → analyse → write within your deadline.
• Skills: Comfortable with SPSS/NVivo? If not, simplify design.

Suggested 10–12 week timeline & milestone map

Data, notes, and version control: staying organised

• Foldering: 01-Admin, 02-Lit, 03-Data, 04-Analysis, 05-Writeup, 06-Appendices.
• Versioning: Save files as ch3-methodology_v3_2025-03-10.docx.
• Backups: Cloud + local. Encrypt sensitive files.
• Reference manager: Zotero or Mendeley; keep consistent styles (Harvard/APA 7).

Chapter 1 – Introduction (aim, objectives, significance)

Purpose: Establish the problem, why it matters, and what you’ll do about it.

Suggested structure

1. Context & problem background
2. Research gap (1–2 paragraphs)
3. Research question and 3–5 objectives
4. Scope & definitions
5. Significance (academic, practical, policy)
6. Chapter roadmap (one sentence per chapter)

Paragraph frame

Claim: State the specific problem. Evidence: Cite 2–3 recent sources. Implication: Why this matters. Link: How your dissertation chapters will address it.

Chapter 2 – Literature Review (map, critique, gap)

The literature review anchors your dissertation chapters in the field.
Go beyond summary: synthesise patterns, tensions, and absences.

Three moves that impress markers

1. Mapping: Thematic sections with signposted scope (e.g., “User engagement: intrinsic vs extrinsic drivers”).
2. Critique: Methods, measures, samples, biases, generalisability.
3. Gap: A precise statement of what is under-examined and why it matters now.

Mini-template

Theme claim → representative evidence → critique → what follows for your study.

Chapter 3 – Methodology (design, ethics, trustworthiness)

This chapter convinces the reader your approach is fit for purpose. Use a consistent tense and subheadings.

Common headings

• Design (e.g., cross-sectional survey, case study, experiment)
• Philosophical stance (if required): pragmatism, interpretivism, etc.
• Sampling strategy & recruitment
• Instruments & measures (validity, reliability)
• Procedure (pilot, amendments after pilot)
• Analysis plan (quant tests or qual coding framework)
• Ethics (consent, anonymity, data security)
• Limitations & mitigation

Quant notes

• Justify sample size (power, rules of thumb).
• Assumption checks (normality, homoscedasticity, independence).
• Missing data, outliers, transformations: document decisions.

Qual notes

• Trustworthiness (credibility, dependability, confirmability, transferability).
• Reflexivity statement (role, position, potential influence).
• Audit trail (coding log, memos, exemplar extracts).

Chapter 4 – Results/Findings (quantitative & qualitative)

Report clearly and minimally interpret here (full interpretation belongs in the discussion).
Keep tables/figures numbered and referenced in text.

Quant reporting template

1. Sample description (N, demographics, response rates)
2. Scale reliability (α), manipulation checks if any
3. Assumption diagnostics (brief)
4. Main analyses (test, statistic, df, p, effect size, CI)
5. Sensitivity/robustness analyses (if relevant)

Qual reporting template

1. Participants/context and corpus size
2. Analytic approach (e.g., reflexive thematic analysis)
3. Themes with thick description and short, well-chosen extracts
4. Deviant/negative cases that refine the interpretation

Chapter 5 – Discussion (answer-first analysis)

Lead with the answer in the first paragraph, then build your case.
Map each finding to literature, theory, and objectives.

Simple discussion frame

Answer: One-sentence answer to the research question. Because: Two-sentence rationale pointing to key results. So what: Implications for practice/policy/theory. However: Limits and boundary conditions.

Evaluation moves

• Convergence/divergence with prior studies (why?)
• Mechanisms: what explains the pattern?
• Generalisability: to whom, where, when?

Chapter 6 – Conclusion & recommendations

1. Concise answer to the research question
2. Key contributions (bullet points)
3. Practical recommendations (feasible, costed if possible)
4. Limitations (plain, non-defensive)
5. Future research (specific; variables, contexts, designs)

Front matter: title page, abstract, acknowledgements

Abstract (150–300 words)

One paragraph: context → aim → method → key results → implications. Write last.

Acknowledgements

Thank supervisors, participants, funders; keep concise and professional.

Tables, figures, and visuals: UK presentation tips

• Each table/figure must be referenced in text before it appears.
• Caption above tables, below figures; consistent numbering.
• Use readable fonts; avoid decorative colours; maximise clarity.
• Place notes under tables (e.g., “Note. Values are means (SD).”).

Referencing & academic integrity (Harvard, APA 7)

Be consistent and complete across your dissertation chapters. Quote sparingly; prefer paraphrase with citation.
For quick guidance, see the Harvard ‘Cite Them Right’ quick guide.
For APA 7 tables/figures/reporting, consult APA Style.

Discipline playbooks

Business & Management

• Justify frameworks (RBV, PESTLE, stakeholder); avoid buzzwords.
• Data transparency for cases/financials; triangulate sources.

Nursing & Healthcare

• Ethics and safeguarding first; protect confidentiality.
• Connect findings to practice standards and patient outcomes.

Education

• Link to pedagogy and inclusion; reflect on context constraints.

Psychology

• Report effect sizes/CIs; preregistration if relevant; ethics coverage.
• For qual, show reflexivity and thick description.

Engineering/IT

• State assumptions, constraints, acceptance criteria; include test logs.
• Security and performance trade-offs explicit.

Quant reporting quick-start (SPSS/R) with narrative templates

Assumption check (example)

“Residuals were approximately normal (Shapiro–Wilk p = .21) and homoscedastic; no influential outliers (|Cook’s D| < 0.5).”

t-test (example)

“Students receiving the intervention scored higher (M = 72.4, SD = 8.1) than controls (M = 66.3, SD = 9.0), t(118) = 4.05, p < .001, d = 0.74 [95% CI 0.38, 1.10].”

Regression (example)

“Engagement predicted performance, β = .41, t(196) = 6.12, p < .001; model R² = .28, F(3,196) = 25.6, p < .001.”

Qual reporting quick-start (NVivo/Manual coding) with examples

Theme vignette

Theme 2: Quiet confidence — Participants described “slow-burn” confidence, built through small wins. One noted, “I kept notes of every little success… it added up.” This illustrates a non-dramatic, cumulative process that complements Bandura’s mastery pathway.

Negative case

“Two participants rejected reflective journals as ‘extra admin’; their disengagement qualified the theme and pointed to workload limits.”

Editing passes & proofreading checklists

Four editing passes for all dissertation chapters

1. Structure pass: Does each chapter fulfil its purpose?
2. Argument pass: Claim → evidence → analysis → implication.
3. Language pass: Short sentences; active voice; British English.
4. Reference pass: In-text ↔ reference list consistency; DOIs/URLs.

Proofreading checklist

• Numbers, names, dates verified; table/figure numbering consecutive.
• Captions present; cross-references correct.
• Front matter formatted; file name tidy.

Getting the most from supervisor feedback

Email template:

Dear [Name],
I’ve attached the latest draft (Ch.2 and Ch.3). My specific questions are: (1) Is the gap statement sufficiently precise? (2) Is the sampling rationale convincing? A 15-minute slot this week would be wonderful. Thank you for your guidance.

Risk log, contingency, and viva preparation

• Risks: low recruitment, software failure, deadline compression.
• Mitigation: broader channels, parallel backups, earlier draft reviews.
• Viva basics: rehearse a 2-minute summary; prepare “why this method” and “limits” answers.

FAQs

How long should each chapter be?

Varies by programme. A common pattern: Intro 10–15%, Literature 25–30%, Method 15–20%, Results 20–25%, Discussion 15–20%, Conclusion 5–10%.

Can I combine Results and Discussion?

Yes if your handbook allows. Keep clear signposting and avoid repeating the same sentences across chapters.

What similarity index is acceptable?

Your institution sets the threshold; lower is not always better if references are properly cited. Focus on correct paraphrase and citation.

External resources (DoFollow)

• JSTOR – peer-reviewed articles.
• Google Scholar – discovery and citation trails.
• British Library – catalogues and collections.
• Office for Students: Quality & Standards – what to expect.
• Turnitin: plagiarism overview – paraphrasing & citation basics.

Internal support

• Dissertation Methodology Help: 10 Proven Steps
• Affordable Proofreading Services UK
• Assignment Writing Services UK
• How It Works

Ready to order?

Get a precise plan for your dissertation chapters with clear milestones, formatting, and integrity safeguards.
Share your brief and deadline and we’ll map a calm, feasible schedule.
Start your order · Prefer a walkthrough first? See How It Works.

Worked examples: turning raw output into readable prose

Quantitative (two-way ANOVA): Suppose you tested whether feedback type (none vs formative) and study mode (in-person vs online) influence exam scores. After checking assumptions (normal residuals; equal variances), the model showed a main effect of feedback, F(1, 196) = 12.41, p < .001, partial η² = .06 [95% CI .02, .11], with formative feedback yielding higher scores (M = 71.8, SD = 7.9) than no feedback (M = 68.0, SD = 8.5). The main effect of study mode was non-significant, F(1, 196) = 1.73, p = .19, partial η² = .01. The interaction was small but significant, F(1, 196) = 4.37, p = .038, partial η² = .02: the benefit of formative feedback was larger for online students (+5.2 points) than for in-person students (+2.4 points).

How to narrate it: “Formative feedback improved exam performance, especially online. While study mode alone did not change scores, feedback effects were stronger for online students, suggesting feedback may compensate for the lower incidental support typical of distance learning.”

Qualitative (reflexive thematic analysis): After coding 18 interviews with NVivo, three themes captured students’ experience of formative feedback. Seeing the path described clarity (“I knew what to fix next”). Safety to try reflected reduced fear of failure (“I could ‘practice wrong’ and still learn”). Load management concerned time costs (“feedback helps, but I had to plan extra hours”). A negative case—two participants who ignored marginal comments—highlighted that feedback format and timing matter as much as content.

How to narrate it: “Students valued formative feedback for direction and psychological safety, but its benefits depended on deliverability (timely, skimmable comments) and workload fit.”

Formatting details UK markers quietly reward

• Front matter order: title page → abstract → acknowledgements → table of contents → lists of tables/figures → abbreviations → chapters.
• Pagination: roman numerals (i, ii, iii…) for front matter; arabic (1, 2, 3…) from Chapter 1 onward; position bottom-right or centred.
• Headings: consistent levels (e.g., 1, 1.1, 1.1.1). Avoid skipping levels. Use Word styles so your ToC auto-updates.
• Tables/figures: use sentence-case captions; number per chapter (Table 3.1, Figure 4.2). Each must be cited in the text before it appears.
• Appendices: label A, B, C… and reference them in the relevant chapter (“see Appendix B for the interview guide”).
• Accessibility: meaningful alt text for essential figures; avoid colour-only encodings; ensure 1.5 line-spacing and readable contrast.

What to park in the appendices (and what to keep in-chapter)

Consent wording snippet (adapt to your institution): “Participation is voluntary. You may withdraw at any time before data aggregation without penalty. Data will be anonymised and stored securely for 12 months, then deleted.”

Reporting standards that raise credibility

Align your write-up with established checklists where relevant. For trials/experiments, consult CONSORT (EQUATOR). For systematic reviews, see PRISMA. For qualitative interviews/focus groups, consider COREQ. Even when your project is smaller-scale, echoing the spirit of these frameworks (clear sampling, transparent analysis, limits) signals methodological maturity.

For data stewardship and sharing norms, the UK Data Service RDM guidance is practical and UK-specific. If you pre-register, the Open Science Framework provides a simple workflow.

Troubleshooting: common snags and quick fixes

• Low response rate: simplify eligibility, widen channels, shorten surveys, add a non-monetary nudge (e.g., summary of findings). Document the change in Method and reflect in Limitations.
• Messy quantitative data: pre-register decision rules; handle missingness (pairwise/listwise; imputation where justified); report what you did and why.
• Qual coding drift: set a weekly coding calibration (two transcripts double-coded; discuss discrepancies); maintain a memo log to stabilise definitions.
• Too descriptive literature review: end each subsection with a 2–3 sentence synthesis: “what most studies do,” “the tension,” “the gap this study addresses.”
• Overlong Discussion: lead with the precise answer in paragraph one; collapse repetition; move tangential analyses to an appendix.

Mini viva prep: five questions to rehearse

1. Why this question, now? Practically and theoretically justify its relevance.
2. Why this method? Name alternatives you rejected and why yours fits the objectives.
3. What would you change with 6 more months? Shows reflection and feasibility awareness.
4. What are the boundary conditions? Specify where, for whom, and when your findings apply.
5. How should stakeholders use this? Offer concrete, ethical recommendations.

Submission-day checklist (15-minute final pass)

1. Update table of contents, list of tables, and list of figures (right-click → Update field).
2. Search for “Error! Reference source not found.”—fix broken cross-references.
3. Scan headings for parallel grammar (noun phrases vs questions—be consistent).
4. Run a reference audit: in-text citations all appear in the list; list entries all cited; DOIs/URLs present where required.
5. Export to PDF using “document structure tags for accessibility”. Check alt text on essential figures.

If you want a calm, independent polish in the last 48 hours, consider our Affordable Proofreading Services UK or a focused Methodology Help check.

Micro-templates you can paste into your dissertation chapters

Limitation sentence starters

• “The sample skews toward […], which may inflate/deflate […]. Future work should recruit […].”
• “Our measures prioritised […]; a validated alternative (cite) might capture […].”
• “Because we examined […], the findings generalise best to […].”

Implication sentence starters

• “For practitioners, this suggests prioritising […], particularly when […].”
• “Policy-makers could test […], given the observed effect size (≈ …) and low cost.”
• “Theoretically, the results support [mechanism], extending [author, year] to […].”

Ethics sentence starters

• “Participants received an information sheet and provided recorded consent; data were stored encrypted and anonymised within 24 hours.”
• “We pre-agreed withdrawal procedures and honoured two requests without penalty.”

Tooling that saves time (and marks)

• Reference managers: Zotero/Mendeley with a single output style set (Harvard/APA 7). Lock it early to avoid reformatting later.
• NVivo/Taguette: choose one and stick to it. Keep a coding “changelog” so your Method shows an audit trail. See NVivo.
• OSF preregistration: a short, public timestamp of hypotheses/plan improves transparency; link it in your appendix via OSF.

Next steps (calm and concrete)

Pick one chapter to advance today. Draft two heading-level outlines (e.g., 2.3–2.6 in the literature review) and fill each with one paragraph following the pattern claim → evidence → critique → implication. Tomorrow, convert the best outline into 500 draft words. In a week, you will have a defensible skeleton; in two, a working draft ready for focused feedback. If you prefer a guided plan with milestones and a light editorial safety net, start with our How It Works page or go directly to the order form.