Academic Research

Thesis/Dissertation Structure

Standard Chapter Flow

1. Introduction — Problem, significance, research questions, scope
2. Literature Review — Theoretical framework, prior work, gaps
3. Methodology — Research design, data collection, analysis methods
4. Results/Findings — Present data without interpretation
5. Discussion — Interpret results, connect to literature
6. Conclusion — Summary, contributions, limitations, future work

Variations by Discipline

Literature Review Strategies

Systematic Review Steps

1. Define research questions
2. Establish inclusion/exclusion criteria
3. Search multiple databases
4. Screen titles/abstracts
5. Full-text review
6. Data extraction
7. Quality assessment
8. Synthesis

Synthesis Approaches

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

Methodology Design

Qualitative Methods

Quantitative Methods

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

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

1. Anticipate likely questions
2. Prepare 20-30 minute presentation
3. Know your limitations
4. Have backup slides for deep dives
5. Practice with friendly audience
6. Prepare for "So what?" questions

Common Committee Concerns

Academic Writing Quality

Hedging Language

Signal Phrases by Purpose

Common Pitfalls

Paper Drafting & Publication

Drafting Philosophy

Writing IS thinking. You don't figure out your argument first and then write it — you figure it out BY writing it.

Messy Draft → Clarity → Structure → Polish → Submit
     ↑                                    ↓
     └────── Reviewer Feedback ───────────┘

Venue Quick Reference

Venue Selection

Publication Strategy (Venue Sequencing)

1. Trade publication → immediate visibility
2. arXiv pre-print → establish priority
3. Workshop paper → academic credibility
4. Journal/conference → peer-reviewed validation

Writing Principles

• Precision over flair; evidence for claims
• Active voice preferred; define terms on first use
• Structure arguments via CARS model (territory → niche → contribution)
• Acknowledge limitations honestly, early

Responding to Reviews

Response Letter Template

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on our manuscript "[Title]".
We have carefully addressed all comments. Below we detail our responses.

Major changes include:
1. [Summary of major change 1]
2. [Summary of major change 2]

---

## Response to Reviewer 1

### R1.1: "[Direct quote of concern]"

We appreciate this observation. [How you addressed it].

Changes made:
- Section X, paragraph Y: [quoted new text or description]

---

## Response to Reviewer 2
[Same pattern]

Venue-Specific Templates

ACM CHI Paper Types

CHI Contribution Types

CHI Writing Tips

HBR Article Types

HBR Writing Style Translation

HBR Submission Tips

1. Pitch first — HBR prefers pitches before full drafts
2. Lead with "What's new" — Why now? What's changed?
3. Name your framework — Memorable concepts spread
4. Include real companies — Real examples work better than anonymous
5. Write for the airport — Busy executive on a flight should get value

5-Phase Drafting Process

Phase 1: Preparation (1-2 weeks)

Phase 2: Rough Draft (1-2 weeks)

1. Don't edit while writing — Separate generation from editing
2. Start with what you know — Often Methods or Results, not Intro
3. Use placeholder brackets — [CITE Smith here], [need better transition]
4. Embrace imperfection — First drafts are meant to be messy

Phase 3: Revision (1-2 weeks)

Phase 4: Feedback (2-4 weeks)

Phase 5: Polish & Submit

• Format per venue requirements
• Verify all citations and word count
• Anonymize if required
• Test figure readability at print size
• Submit before deadline (not AT deadline)

Citation Weaving

Citation Density by Section

Structuring Arguments

CARS Model (Introductions)

1. Establish territory — topic importance, broad context
2. Establish niche — gap in knowledge, what's missing
3. Occupy niche — your contribution fills the gap

Heilmeier Catechism (Motivation)

• What are you trying to do?
• How is it done today? What are the limits?
• What's new in your approach?
• Who cares? What difference will it make?
• What are the risks and mitigation strategies?

Audience Adaptation

Word-Compatible Research Writing

Conventions for Markdown documents converted to Word via Pandoc or md-to-word.

Punctuation Rules

Formal Tone

Markdown Elements to Avoid for Word

Pre-Submission Checklist

• Abstract stands alone (no forward references)
• Contributions stated explicitly in introduction
• All claims supported by evidence or citations
• Limitations acknowledged honestly
• References complete and consistently formatted
• Figures/tables readable at print size
• Page/word limit respected
• Anonymized if required by venue

Research Tools