The Thesis Pro-Forma
One capitalised B, repeated across six documents by six researchers over four submission years, is the hard evidence. A second marker that looked just as good turned out to be local to half the corpus — and the difference is worth understanding before you cite either.
The eight headings, in order
Seven examined master's works in project management, by seven different researchers, on seven unrelated topics, submitted across roughly three years, carry one section skeleton. The works themselves are mapped at Eight Examined Theses Compared. No work names a template, cites a template, or explains why its sections are what they are. The inference that a supplied pro-forma sits behind them is this library's, drawn from the wording, the order and one capitalisation anomaly — and it must be attributed that way wherever it is used.
- Introduction
- Research background
- Aims and objectives
- Research Boundaries
- Literature review
- Research method
- Discussion
- Conclusions and further research
Two works carry all eight. One carries six: it has no Research Boundaries heading — a limitations section stands in that slot — and no Discussion heading, its results and discussion merged into one chapter. Across the four works examined first, seven of the eight headings are word-for-word identical in all four; the eighth is renamed in one, where the method chapter becomes "Research plan".
WHICH WORKS CARRY WHICH HEADINGS
| Heading | Level | Carried by | Notable variation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Introduction | H1 | All seven | Frequently zero words of body text — the chapter opens straight into its first sub-heading |
| Research background | H2 | All seven | One work capitalises "Background" and drops the section number |
| Aims and objectives | H2 | All seven | One prefixes it "Research Aims and objectives" |
| Research Boundaries | H2 | Six of seven | All six capitalise the B. The seventh replaces the slot with a limitations section |
| Literature review | H1 | All seven | Two works place it after the method chapter |
| Research method | H1 | All seven | One renames it "Research plan"; one places it second, before the review |
| Discussion | H1 | Six of seven | One folds it into "Project results and discussion" |
| Conclusions and further research | H1 | All seven | Capitalisation drifts; one uses the singular "Conclusion" |
Counts verified heading by heading against the works' own heading structures and contents pages. These are the observed carriers, not a requirement.
The evidence that it is one form — and the evidence that is weaker than it looks
Two independent markers were offered for the pro-forma inference. Only one survives testing across the whole corpus, and the difference between them is the most useful methodological lesson on this page.
One further trace is worth recording because it points the same way without being a defect. One work answers the pro-forma's front-matter prompts rather than deleting them, printing "Not Applicable." twice — against a list of tables and a list of symbols it does not have. That is the clearest visible trace of a supplied form anywhere in the corpus, and it is also the correct thing to have done if the form required an answer. Present it as a trace, not as a fault.
Where the order breaks, and why it breaks there
Five of the seven print Literature review before Research method. Two invert it, and the inversion is not stylistic. It tracks what the literature review is for.
Literature review as background — five works
- The review establishes context and the gap; the method chapter then describes how new data were collected.
- The review precedes the method because it precedes the fieldwork in time as well as in the argument.
- This is the order the template supplies, and for a study that collects its own data it is the right one.
Literature review as evidence — two works
- In one, the review chapter is the systematic review: it carries the search process, the criteria, the exclusion validation, the results summary and the review's own findings and conclusion.
- In the other, the review supplies the five causal themes that become the interview schedule and then the survey items — it is round zero of the design.
- A results chapter cannot precede the method that produced it. Both works moved the method chapter in front of the review, and neither says why.
That is the finding to take away. The template's ordering fails precisely when the literature review stops being context and starts being evidence. If your review is going to carry a search, criteria and counts, or if it is going to generate your instrument, you are in the second column — and one sentence explaining the move is all the template needs from you. See Structuring a Literature Review for the internal organisation and A Worked Systematic Literature Review for what the first of these two works actually reported.
The 280-word method chapter
The systematic review still wears the template, and the template could not hold it. Its chapter headed "Research method" runs to 280 words — 2.6% of the document, the smallest method chapter in the library — and contains only design rationale: why a systematic quantitative review, why a questionnaire, with two cited justifications.
The method itself is somewhere else. The search strategy (576 words), the review criteria (200 words) and the exclusion validation (267 words) sit inside the Literature review chapter. The participant eligibility criteria, recruitment and sample description (554 words) sit inside a fourth chapter headed "Addressing the gap" — a chapter that is not called a results chapter and is not called a method chapter, so a reader looking for either from the contents page will not find them.
The placeholder that survived examination
Two of the works print a chapter literally headed "Main chapters" — an H1, in the body and in the table of contents, with the real content nested beneath it as sub-headings. A chapter called "Main chapters" is a template instruction that was never replaced with a title. The template is visible through the finished document in two cases, and neither examiner's copy had it removed.
One work has no results heading at all. Its findings sit as an H2 inside the method chapter, with four H3 sub-results beneath. The design decision is defensible — the method and its output sit together, so the reader sees the focus group's design and its yield without turning a page — but it has one cost, and the cost is structural: it is the only work of the seven in which a reader cannot find the findings from the table of contents.
Three of the four works examined first carry a heading reading "Summary of Findings", identically worded and at three different numbering positions. The one that drops it is the one with no results chapter. One later work carries the same heading twice, once per data-collection round. On the evidence, "Summary of Findings" belongs to the form.
What a section skeleton can and cannot tell a reader
The seven works this template produced are not comparable studies. One is a focus group of four people. One is a questionnaire of a hundred. One collects data from nobody at all. One screens 348 records and retains 33. A form that accommodates all of those without changing a single heading is telling the reader nothing about what kind of work it contains — which is why Thesis Structures and Styles treats format as a decision rather than a given.
That is the most important consequence of the structural finding, and it is only visible because there are seven. It also tells you where your own effort belongs: not in the headings, which are supplied, but in the two or three sentences under each one that say what this particular study did and why.
Using a supplied structure without being used by it
- Check every heading you were given against what the chapter beneath it actually contains. If the method is somewhere else, say so in the method chapter's first sentence.
- If your literature review carries a search, criteria or counts, move the method chapter in front of it — and add one sentence saying why.
- Replace every placeholder heading. "Main chapters" is not a chapter title, and two passed theses prove that nobody downstream will catch it for you.
- Give your findings a heading a reader can find from the contents page, even if the findings sit inside another chapter.
- Add the headings the form omits and your design needs: a research question, limitations, ethics, and — if you are studying people you belong to — your position.
- Answer front-matter prompts rather than deleting them if the form asks for an answer. "Not applicable" is a legitimate answer and leaves no orphaned promise behind.
- Run the contents page against the body as a final check. One work's generated page numbers put the Introduction and an appendix on the same page; another's hand-typed contents disagrees with the body it describes in nine places.
What to carry forward
- Cite the capitalised B: six of six works that carry the heading capitalise it against sentence case above. That is the marker that survived testing on the whole corpus.
- Do not cite the shared title-page typo as evidence of the template. It appears in one half of the corpus and in none of the other, and a marker that holds on four documents can fail on the fifth.
- A template's chapter order is an assumption about what your literature review is for. When the review becomes evidence, the order breaks — and one sentence of explanation repairs it.
- Headings are supplied; content is not. A form that fits four participants and one hundred equally well tells a reader nothing, so the work of orientation falls to your opening sentences.
- Replace every placeholder, and make your findings findable from the contents page. Two passed theses show that neither happens by itself.
Frequently asked questions
How do you know these works share a template when none of them says so?
You do not know it; you infer it, and the inference belongs to this library rather than to the works. It rests on four things: identical heading wording, identical order, one identical capitalisation anomaly in six of six works that carry the heading, and one work that answers the form's front-matter prompts with "Not Applicable." rather than deleting them. No work names or cites a template.
Why can't the shared typographical error be used as evidence?
Because it does not replicate across the whole corpus. It appears in three of the four works examined first and in none of the three examined afterwards, where both title pages carrying a divisional line have the space intact. A marker that appears in one sub-group and not another is a property of that sub-group, not of the form.
Should I put my method chapter before my literature review?
Only if your literature review is doing the work of a results chapter or generating your instrument. Two of these seven works did exactly that and the inversion is right in both. If your review is background for data you collect yourself, leave it where the template puts it — five works did, and none of them needed to explain the choice.
Is a 280-word method chapter a fault?
The chapter is not the whole picture. In that work the method is distributed across three chapters and totals 1,877 words; the chapter named for it holds 14.9% of them. The defect is locational, not one of effort — but it means a reader cannot find the method from the contents page, and any comparison of method-chapter lengths has to state which figure it is using.
What is a "Main chapters" heading?
It is the pro-forma's own placeholder, printed unchanged. Two of the seven works carry an H1 reading "Main chapters" in the body and in the table of contents, with the real content nested beneath it. Both were examined and passed in that state, which is the practical reason to check your own headings against the form you were given.
What should I add that the template does not ask for?
On the evidence of what these works needed and did not have: a heading for your research question, a heading for limitations, a heading for ethics, and — where you are researching people or an organisation you belong to — a statement of your position. Four of the seven added a limitations heading; one added an ethics heading; one added a positionality statement and turned it into a design control.
References and source attribution
- Seven examined master's works in project management written to one section skeleton, supplied as student work. Every heading in every work was extracted from the documents' own heading structures and compared, with each section's body word count recorded. Researchers, supervisors, institutions, jurisdictions and employers scrubbed.
- The consolidated extract of the first four of those works, which records the eight common headings, the four structural departures and what each one buys, and the front-matter prompts answered rather than deleted.
- The consolidated extract of the three works examined afterwards, which tests both proposed pro-forma markers against a systematic review, a case study and a hybrid Delphi study, confirms the capitalisation marker at six of six and withdraws the title-page marker.
- The supplied teaching source: weekly study notes, slide decks and assessment activities for a master's-level research methods subject in project management, whose own report structure places limitations in the Discussion and which supplies no thesis template. Author, institution and year not stated in the supplied files.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- Where should my method chapter sit relative to my literature review?
- What headings does a standard thesis template leave out that I need to add?
- How do I know whether my section skeleton was supplied or chosen?
- How long should a method chapter be as a proportion of the thesis?
- How do I make my findings findable from the contents page?
- What checks should I run on my contents page before submission?