The Examined Thesis Quick Reference
Every design, scale, structure, instrument and defect from eight examined theses on one page, each marked by what kind of claim it is and which work it belongs to.
Research Projects articles in the KEVOS Project Delivery library. 267 pages.
Every design, scale, structure, instrument and defect from eight examined theses on one page, each marked by what kind of claim it is and which work it belongs to.
Why accounting and economics answer different questions about the same project, the tool taxonomy that follows, and the two-sided rule for sizing an R&D budget.
Epistemology, methodology, methods, ontology and theoretical perspective — the five-element frame, plus the second source table that defines two of them differently.
Five components that form a complete argumentative arc - what the conversation is about, what is settled, where it divides, what is missing, and what you will add.
The component model the source sets out for building a qualitative study, component by component, with the interactions between them that the list format hides.
Find a topic, choose a contested area, design the question, find resources, summarise and critique - the source's own five-step table, with the tension it creates against earlie…
Do no harm, free choice, plagiarism and honest reporting - the four principles the source names, and the four integrity questions it poses and never answers.
Introduction, literature review, methods and methodology, additional information - the section model, the three competing structures the same week gives, and the section that qu…
The full catalogue of methods the source lists - every one a bare label with no definition, no criteria and no example. Mapping what is named against what is taught is the page'…
The three-tier model that places philosophy under methodology under methods — the full label set, how to read the figure, and what it does not tell you.
All fourteen methodologies named on the methodological pyramid, grouped and cross-referenced against the seven the source actually defines — with the undefined ones marked as …
The week's one quantitative rule, stated entirely in a unit the week never defines - what the rule says, what it requires to hold, and what you need a second source for.
Three linked papers instead of one monograph - how the format works, why the literature review appears three times, and what that redundancy buys and costs.
Five things a proposal must show, why the plans are explicitly not binding, and the four questions it has to answer: what, why, significance and how.
The factors the source says to consider when designing a qualitative study, worked into a checklist you can run - including the ethics item that has no framework standing behind…
Fourteen components - the richest single list in the whole subject - including four design decisions that appear here and are taught nowhere in fourteen weeks.
The only place in the supplied teaching material where you are told to write down your understanding of the nature of knowledge - and everything else this section must carry.
From identification of the research problem to reporting and evaluating — the seven stages, and the source's warning that they are an ever-changing process, not a fixed set of s…
The longer ten-step process used for a thesis, mapped against the seven-stage model — including the enumeration mismatch the source leaves unresolved.
Fourteen weeks of material assembled into one arc from first idea to submission - what the subject teaches at each stage, what you must get elsewhere, and where the gates sit.
The six core skills the source lists for a successful researcher, what each one actually looks like in a project research project, and how to develop the ones you lack.
Fourteen learning objectives stated across six weeks, none fully delivered - the reconciled audit, what each week promised, and the one pattern that explains almost all of it.
The step sequence the source sets out, plus a three-stage model recovered from a slide diagram - raw data to organised, reduced to interconnected, themes to theoretical understa…
Seven of eight examined works carry the same eight headings in the same order - the evidence that it is a template, where it breaks, and what it cannot accommodate.
A document that sets out the problem, the method and the plan of research, approved at three separate gates before writing begins - and how it differs from the proposal taught e…
The wording faults the source names - leading, double-barrelled, ambiguous, assuming - each with what goes wrong and how the question is repaired.
The philosophical framework informing the methodology, how assumptions become embedded in it, and why the source ties the framework to organisational context.
A stated learning objective the supplied source does not deliver on — what can honestly be reconstructed from the structure observed in the exemplar volume, and what cannot.
A monograph, a two-review thesis, a portfolio of papers, a journal article and a conference paper set side by side - what each format demands and what it costs.
What counts as qualitative data, why description has to be thick to be usable, the memo as an analytical instrument, and the role the source assigns to creativity in analysis.
Six published figures traced through instrument, raw file, tabulation and chart. Five survive. One does not - and the chart printed beside it carries the right number.
A four-period evolution and a four-direction transformation model from a single case study - with the outcomes it evidences separated from the outcomes it asserts.
Seven sections against six, quoted from an external text - including a quantitative sequence that puts data before methods, and the one heading left undescribed.
Seven named behaviours from breaking participant confidentiality to misrepresenting results - what each looks like in a project study and how each is usually rationalised.
Measuring what you claim to measure, and getting the same answer twice - the two quality criteria, what each does not guarantee, and the treatment depth the source actually offers.
The alternative criteria proposed in place of validity and reliability - what each one asks you to demonstrate, and what evidence actually satisfies it.
Spread is named as a key feature of every distribution and no measure of it appears anywhere in a quantitative analysis week. That absence is this page's finding.
Why captive audiences are the classic problem, what fully informed actually requires, and how consent is obtained when the researcher holds power over the participant.
Ten chapters as one reviewer describes them, marked throughout as the review's account rather than the book's content - and several library gaps it names without filling.
The source states the same warning three times: a review is not a descriptive list and not an annotated bibliography. What the distinction actually costs you if you get it wrong.
The closure document an ethics office asks for - and the supplied example belongs to a different project, which is why only its blank template can be relied on.
Four questions every reviewer asks and the four claims a good proposal makes in reply - they map one to one, and two of the three reassurances a reviewer wants are about feasibi…
Holistic and context sensitive - the two properties the source uses to characterise qualitative analysis, and what each one rules out about how you handle your data.
An empirical study's classification rules and findings on what separates R&D projects that succeed from those that fail - with every figure marked as that study's own.
The source states its central rule about interpretation three incompatible ways across five slides. All three are given here, and the conflict is left standing.
The capstone: what the corpus shows about structure, method, evidence and honesty - and the five things worth copying from work that was good.
Nine demonstrable defects in that schedule - rollups that do not roll up, durations that do not match their dates, weekend working, and no time at all allocated to editing.
A critical and evaluative summary, not a summary of everything - the four stated aims, the five things it gives an overview of, and why it narrows towards your research question.