PUBLIC HEALTH SEMINAR_GANLE_2022.pptx

1. Writing a successful
dissertation/thesis: some practical
guidance
John K. Ganle
University of Ghana
School of Public health

2. Objectives
 Explore the key elements of the student dissertation/thesis
and understand what examiners look for.
 Familiarise students with some dissertation/thesis writing
guidelines.
 Discuss and share experiences on innovative ways to
improve writing different sections of the
dissertation/thesis.
2

3. Starting the conversation…
dissertation/thesis structure
• Mostly six chapters for masters and possible 7-8 for PhD
 Introduction/background
 Literature review
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
• Other key parts
 Abstract
 References
 Data collection tools
 Consent forms etc

4. Introduction/background
• Establishes the context of dissertation by summarizing
relevant literature and current knowledge
gaps/debates/controversies.
• Purpose is to give the reader essential information to
understand why the study is relevant.
• It is not a full review of the chosen field; but a focused
articulation of the magnitude of a particular problem in
context.

5. Practical guidelines for writing
introduction/background
• Check if your introduction/background has a funnel shape
 General background (what is this all about) – global, regional, national and local.
 What is known and what is not known about the subject/topic of study;
 Why is the study/paper needed or important – what could happen if this
study/paper is not done;
 Study aim clearly articulated.
• Ensure introduction is the starting point of the story being told.
• Check length: should be 10-15% of entire dissertation.
• Check, will the introduction sell the dissertation to examiners?

6. Writing the problem statement and
justification for the study
• There is really no research without a research
problem.
• Identification and formulation of the research
problem is the first step of the research process.
• Most good research studies need lots of time for
selection of research problem.

7. Research problem - definition
• Several possible definitions
• ‘A research problem is a statement about an area of
concern, a condition to be improved upon, a difficulty
to be eliminated, or a troubling question that exists in
scholarly literature, in theory, or in practice that points
to the need for meaningful understanding and
deliberate investigation’.
- Bryman, Alan, 2007.
• In other words, a research problem is an area of
concern where there is a gap in knowledge.

8. Research problem - dimensions
• Research problem could be:
- Empirical (e.g. evidential gap, insufficient evidence,
contradictory evidence etc.)
- Theoretical (e.g. theoretical ambiguity, validation/testing of
particular theory in particular situations etc.)
- Methodological (e.g. methodological ambiguity,
development/validation/testing of particular methodology,
methodological comparison in particular situations etc.)

9. Research problem - sources
• Research problem could be:
- Empirical (e.g. evidential gap, insufficient evidence,
contradictory evidence)
- Theoretical (e.g. theoretical ambiguity, validation/testing of
particular theory in particular situations)
- Methodological (e.g. methodological ambiguity,
development/validation/testing of particular methodology,
methodological comparison in particular situations)

10. Criteria for selecting a good research
problem

11. 1. Significant
• A problem which a researcher is selecting should have
significance to the particular field of study.
• A research problem is significant when it is directed to
generate, develop or refine a body of knowledge in a
particular field of study.

12. 2. Original
• The research problem should not be over researched.
• It is fundamentally expected that every research
problem should be new and unique in itself.
• Therefore, it is a key responsibility of a researcher to
avoid duplication.
• Originality will most likely enhance significance and
interest in the research.

13. 3. Feasible
• Feasibility is an essential consideration in any research project.
• Not all research problems are feasible/researchable!
• Regardless of how significant or researchable a problem may be, the
feasibility of the research problem should be checked.
• Feasibility in reference to:
- researcher’s competence
- time
- availability of subjects/participants,
- facilities, equipment,
- Costs/resources
- ethical considerations

14. 4. Researchable/solvable
• A chosen research problem is considered good only if it is
solvable so that the chance of insolvability is minimised.
• For example, a researcher selects a research problem to know
the existence of God in the universe.
• These sorts of problems are ambiguous and are likely to be
impossible to solve.
• With time, a seemingly unsolvable problem could be solvable
however!
• But solvability will enhance relevance and acceptance

15. 5. Current
• A good research problem must be based on
current problems and needs in a particular
field of study.
• Currency of the problem will most likely
generate interest in, and support for, the
research.

16. 6. Interesting
• Self-interest or professional interest is important.
• A research problem may only be considered good only if it
is in accordance with the researcher’s field of interest.
• The problem should be particularly fascinating to the
researcher so that the research is conducted with
enthusiasm and not merely for its accomplishment.
• Self-interest is particularly critical at higher levels of
studies e.g. doctoral level.

17. The process

18. 1. Selection of a research area
•Formulation of a research problem begins with selection
of a broad research topic from personal experience,
existing literature, previous research, theories etc.
• For example, a researcher experiences domestic violence
or malaria.
•She or he then initially begins with such broad topics as
domestic violence and malaria, and then works inwardly to
focus on specific issues and contexts

19. 2. Review of literature and theories/methods
• Literature is reviewed to know what has already been
done in the chosen area of research or how the issues of
interests have been approached theoretically and
methodologically.
•A useful approach is to ask:
- What do we know in relation to this particular area
of research?
- What do we not know in relation to this particular
area of research?

20. 3. Delimiting the research topic
• In this step, the researcher proceeds from a general area
of research interest to more specific topic of research.
•E.g. From an initial broad interest in domestic
violence, the researcher narrows down to focus on
‘Factors associated with domestic violence against men
in matrilineal societies’.

21. 4. Evaluating the research problem
• Once the researcher is clear about the specific research
problem, she/he must next carefully evaluate the
problem for its significance, originality, feasibility,
researchability, currency and interest.
• Feasibility should particularly be evaluated with
reference to:
- researcher’s competence
- time
- availability of subjects/participants,
- facilities, equipment,
- Costs/resources
- ethicality

22. 5. Formulating final statement of research
problem
• Once the specific research problem is carefully evaluated
for its significance, originality, feasibility, researchability,
currency and interest, the researcher must now formulate a
final statement of the problem.
•A statement of research problem should have two
elements:
-A clear description of the scale of the problem in context (from
global to local setting). E.g. how prevalent is domestic violence
against men in matrilineal societies globally, in Africa, in Ghana,
and in Legon?
-Declarative statement of the gaps in knowledge. E.g. little research
exist on the factors associated with domestic violence against
men in matrilineal societies.

23. Justifying a study

24. The confusion…
• There is confusion sometimes between
rationale/justification and problem statement.
• But the two are different.
• One provides the basis for undertaking a
particular research, and the other is about the
potential practical utility of the particular
research research findings

25. Justification
• Research justification refers to the rationale for the research, or
the reason why the research is being conducted, including an
explanation for the design and methods employed in the research.
• Relates more to research’s practical relevance, and seeks to
indicate the potential for research results to be used in solving a
particular problem or improving diagnostic accuracy, treatment
of particular disease condition or delivery of health services.
• Research that cannot be justified in relation to practical utility or
methodological or theoretical development is most likely
unethical because it wastes precious resources.

26. Literature review

27. Reviewing your literature
• A good literature review provides the basis for,
and drives, good research.
• So there is really no good research without a
good literature review.
•And literature review is a requirement for most
academic research and writing, including academic
papers, dissertations/thesis, and research grant
proposals.

28. The typical literature in research
context
.

29. What is lit. review?
• The negative definition:
- Lit. review is not simply a regurgitation of who said what on a particular subject!
• A successful review is an interpretative and/ or
analytical piece of work that offers an assessment of the
quality and scope of existing lit./studies in a particular
subject area.
• It brings together what is known in order to state what is
unknown.
• In essence, a good lit. review acknowledges what has come
before and how this can be built upon and expanded.

30. So why do a literature review?

31. So why do a literature review?

32. Purpose of a literature review (see
Booth et al., 2012)
• Identify what has been covered by previous scholars to prevent needlessly
duplicating their effort.
• Signpost the way forward for further research.
• Set a context for a research/study and provide a rationale for addressing a
particular research question in the light of an existing body of literature.
• Locate your original work within the existing literature.
• Re-place each work in the context of how it contributes to an
understanding of the subject under review.
• Describe how each work relates to the others under consideration.
• Identify new ways to interpret, and shed light on gaps in, previous research.
• Identify and resolve conflicts across seemingly contradictory previous
studies.
Types – Grant & Booth (2009) 14 typology
of reviews
• Critical narrative review
• Integrative review
• Mapping review
• Rapid review
• Scoping review
• State-of-the- art review
• Mixed studies/methods review
• Overviews
• Realist review
• Umbrella review
• Systematic search and review
• Systematic review
• Meta-analysis
• Meta-synthesis

33. Types
• These may be put into two broad
types of lit. reviews:
-Traditional/Narrative Literature review
- Systematic Literature Review

34. Narrative Vs Systematic – the confusion
• We seem to have a problem with terminology
here…
• All reviews should be systematic, in terms of
how they are conducted…not so?
• So, what is the difference?

35. The narrative Review…
• Commonest form of review- student
dissertations/academic papers.
• Aims to show how concepts, theories and
methods have developed within particular
subject areas.
• Reviewer typically offers a critique in order to
assess, analyse and synthesize previous research
and place it in its current context.

36. The narrative Review: when is it
useful?
• When a research topic needs to be justified by demonstrating
that there is gap in knowledge based on what is previously
known.
• When a body of knowledge is rapidly expanding.
• When research on a topic is going in several different
directions at the same time.
• When research into one side of an issue is being supported, at
the risk of neglecting other perspectives/findings.
• When one research epistemology dominates the research,
producing biased research designs and findings.

37. The systematic review
• Aims to enable the researcher to appraise critically, the
most robust evidence available in an attempt to
synthesize what is known and unknown about e.g. the
efficacy of particular interventions.
• Usually it:
- Aims to answer a particular question or test a hypothesis
- Attempts to be as exhaustive as possible, identifying all known references
- Adopts rigorous and well-defined approach – inclusion/exclusion criteria.
- Details the time frame within which the literature was selected
- Details the methods used to evaluate and synthesize findings of the studies in
question.
- Places priority on judging the quality of evidence
- Relies heavily on the hierarchy of evidence.

38. The systematic review - example
The
typical
search
strategy

39. Narrative Vs Systematic – key differences

40. Assessing relevance and quality of
literature
• A major part of any lit. review involves making
judgement on the relevance of the literature that has been
read.
•Guidance for evaluating relevance of studies in systematic
reviews well documented e.g. Cochrane collaboration.
•Other key questions for assessing quality of studies for
inclusion in a lit review are:
 Conceptual framework:
- Are the aims clearly stated and research questions clearly defined
- Does the author link the work to existing body of knowledge

41. Assessing relevance and quality of
literature
 Study design:
- Are the methods appropriate and clearly described
- Is the context of the study well set out?
- Did the research design account for possible bias?
- Are the limitations of the research explicitly identified?
 Analysis
- Are the results clearly described, valid and reliable?
- Is the analysis clearly described?
 Conclusions:
- Are all possible influences on the observed outcomes considered?
- Are conclusions linked to aims of study?
- Are conclusions liked to analysis and interpretation of data?

42. Methods - the core

43. Methods – the core
• A substantial number of dissertations/thesis/manuscripts fail or are
rejected for publication on account of lack of methodological
innovation and rigour.
• Reason: If the methodology of a study is flawed or questionable, the
result is most likely flawed or questionable as well.
• So an important part of any research:
 Presents the obvious approach to answer the research question and define the
structure in which the results will be presented later.
 Provides the information by which a study’s validity is judged.
 Requires a clear and precise description of what was done to answer the
research question, describe how it was done, justify the experimental design,
and explain how the results were analyzed.

44. The key questions
• It must be written with enough information so
that:
 the experiment could be repeated by others to evaluate whether the
results are reproducible;
 the audience can judge whether the results and conclusions are valid.
• Critical guiding questions
 What did I do?
 Why did I do it/ not do it?
 How did I do it?
 Will a researcher be able to reproduce the study with the information
provided in the method?

45. Structure of methods section: Public Health
and Social Science
• Study design
• Setting
• Subjects/population: the selection criteria
and rationale for enrolling participants into the
study must be stated explicitly.
• Sampling, including sample size estimation
• Data collection
• Data analysis.
• Ethics.

46. Things to do
• Be sure to include all information that the reader needs to
understand how the key findings in this paper were derived.
• Mention the design of the present study, such as randomized
controlled trial, prospective/retrospective cohort study, case-
control study, or cross-sectional survey.
• Explain when and where the study was conducted, how the
sample was recruited or selected, and which
inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied.
• Provide a sample size calculation for studies set up to
statistically test a specific hypothesis.

47. Things to do
• Define precisely what exposure or intervention you
investigated, what outcomes you measured (e.g., depression),
how you measured them (e.g., using a self-reported depression
scale), and when measurements were made (e.g., during the
screening visit and after 12 months of follow-up).
• Cite original research on existing measurement tools you used,
and state if you designed a tool specifically for the study.
• Provide details of measurement properties (reproducibility,
validity, and responsiveness) if these are crucial for the
interpretation of the main results.

48. Things to do
• State which statistical tests were done to analyze the data
• As there may be various ways to answer a research
question, explain why you made certain methodological
choices and why you think these were the best options given
the context.
 You can demonstrate the credibility of your methods by citing
previous research.
• Introduction/use of any novel method for measuring a
variable, or preparing/designing a model will require intense
discussion.

49. Things to do
• Only describe methods for which results are presented.
• Writing should be direct and precise and in the past tense.
• Since each journal has different requirements, review the
journal’s Instructions to Authors or Author Guidelines before
beginning to write your methods.
• Be systematic/methodical!

50. Recent methodological and reporting
guidelines
• Over 300 now.
 Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines
 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement
 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
(PRISMA) statement for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-
analyses ….PRISMA-P for protocols of systematic reviews.
 Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in
Epidemiology (STROBE)
 Survey Reporting Guideline (SURGE)
 Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ)

51. The STROBE guidelines

52. The CUREQ Guidelines (Focus group
discussions & individual interviews)
• A 32-item checklist for reporting studies that use
interviews and focus groups methods.
• Divided into three domains:
 Study design
 Research team and reflexivity
 Analysis

53. The CUREQ Guidelines: study design

54. The CUREQ Guidelines: research team and
reflexivity

55. The CUREQ Guidelines: analysis

56. Results
• Present results that are relevant to answering
your research questions/objectives.
• Present results according to objectives.
• Be organize!

57. Discussion - some guidance
• Aim: provide educated guesses on why you are
getting the results you got.
• Some guidance…
What did you find in brief
Consistency check
Explanation
implications

58. Other issues
-Title
- Abstract
- Conceptual framework

59. Title/abstract
• Most important selling point of every academic
paper!
 Editors/examiners scan the title and abstract to decide if paper
should be sent out for external peer review.
 Reviewers form a first impression of the paper by reading
abstract.
 Electronic search databases use words in the title and abstract to
yield search results.
 Title, abstract, and keywords are often the only parts of the paper
freely accessible to everyone online, including readers in low-
income countries.

60. Practical guidelines for writing the Title
• Decide on title format: Informative Vs. Descriptive titles.
 Smoking five sticks of Marlboro cigarette daily 5years increased the relative risk of developing liver
cancer by 40%
 The effect of smoking five sticks of Marlboro cigarette daily for 5years on relative risk of liver cancer: a
randomized controlled trial
• Write the most important keywords at the beginning of the title, as
readers’ attention is focused on the beginning.
• Make the title stand out from other literature in the field.
• Avoid abbreviations and passive voice in the title.

61. Practical guidelines for writing the abstract
(1)
• Abstract must clearly highlight the issue
addressed by the study/paper and the key
findings.
• Abstract should be a standalone piece of
information, without any reference to the main
text

62. Practical guidelines for writing the abstract
(2)
• Structured (background; objective; methods; results; conclusion).
• Unstructured (background/introduction through to recommendation
written as one single paragraph).
• The results section is the most important part of the abstract: start
by clearly and honestly stating the answer to the research
question.
• After results, ask yourself ‘‘So what?’’; Examiners Editors
and reviewers often ask themselves this question when
examining/reviewing papers.

63. Conceptual framework
• Abstract/hypothetical and or evidence-based hypothesis of how
exposure variables are related to outcome variables.
• Better developed after a comprehensive literature review.
 Better to place it in chapter 2.
• Diagrammatic representation useful, but discussion on the
various relationships more important.

64. In Summary…
• Writing about how the research was conducted is just as
important as doing it.
• The method section of a research/academic paper is critical
because it provides editors/reviewers/readers with information
they need to judge the study’s validity.
• A clear and precise description of how a particular study or an
experiment was done, and the rationale for specific method
choices and procedures could enhance acceptance, pass rate and
publishability.