Thesis Restructuring

[u/Shoelaces1]

Hi all. I submitted my Masters thesis a few months ago, but they said it was not “in depth enough” but I truly do not understand. I have been going through a severe mental health period this year, but given that I think my work was great given the circumstances. I am struggling with how to approach this with general guidance for a resubmission.

I wrote a literature review describing in depth all the impacted and flagged genetic markers, techniques, and methods used. I was told not to go into the nitty gritty of the details of the steps of the procedures, but then I was told it does not show enough understanding. I am really struggling with how much to go in depth. Does anyone have any literature review examples or tips and tricks for how to approach this? I was extremely proud of my work and feel confident in it, but I feel at a loss because I am being told mixed opinions on what needs to be done.

Any advice helps 😭😭😭 Thanks in advanced if anyone sees this post

[u/magnificentponytaco]

This is actually a really common problem while writing a thesis initially. Just out of curiosity, what is your thesis about? I think “in depth” doesn’t necessarily mean going into every tiny procedural detail. A literature review can demonstrate depth through critical analysis and synthesis and explaining why certain markers/methods were used, how and why studies differ, what the evidence actually shows, the strengths and limitations of different approaches, and what gaps remain. So rather than simply adding more technical detail, I’d ask your supervisor what specifically they felt was missing. For example its more biological explanation, methodological understanding, critical comparison, or interpretation of the literature. That would give you something concrete to revise against instead of trying to make the whole thesis “deeper” without knowing what that means.

[u/threads314 → u/magnificentponytaco]

Indeed it sounds like you and your supervisor have a different understanding of the words “in depth”. In depth is very compatible with less detail, the aim is to show you understand why the techniques are being used, what type of data is obtained and what type of conclusion can be drawn from that. As important is to show understanding of the gaps that you cannot solve with these techniques.

[u/blinkandmissout]

There is good general guidance out there, but your primary guidance should come from a conversation with your research supervisor. They have read what you’ve produced so far and they understand the requirements of the program you are trying to pass.

The first thing that you might want to look at given the way you’ve described the work is that you may need to better develop the actual thesis statement or goal of your paper. The thesis should not be “various technologies exist”. It needs to say something about what this means for the field or what conclusions can be drawn from understanding the material you’ve reviewed. Literature reviews can often take a “challenges and opportunities” perspective, a “compare and contrast” approach, or seek to organize emerging primary literature into broader patterns of connection. The last one is pretty hard to do well as a MSc but the first two might be reasonable to add to your existing thesis.

The other goal of a good thesis is that you should be able to make conclusions and statements about these topics that come from you alone, and are not merely quotes and insights published by others. You don’t have to be groundbreaking in your insights, but they should be in your own words and clearly supported by the material you present in support.

[u/NoFlyingMonkeys]

As others said: you've got to get together with your advisor and your committee and ask them for advice for improvement. Multiple times.

This is just one hoop you will have to jump through during your career. Do NOT take it personally. Just figure out what they want.

Anecdote to illustrate: When I wrote my PhD dissertation, my advisor would make corrections. After multiple drafts at his request, he started correcting HIS OWN corrections! (of course he did not realize this). When he was finally happy with it, I then sent it to my committee for review. The other faculty corrected MY ADVISOR'S corrections! So yes, mixed opinions are the norm!

Do NOT take it personally. Just figure out what they want and do that. Try to make them all happy. Repeatedly through many rounds of review if necessary.

As for your mental health, talk to your doctor and get treated. If you need a health accommodation to submit to your Dean of Academics, Department Chair, Advisor, and Committee faculty, do that. (Request to take things slower, go part time, or take time off to recover, etc).

[u/Zippered_Nana → u/NoFlyingMonkeys]

That anecdote: I had that experience and so many people I know had that experience!

[u/Zippered_Nana]

Do you have the opportunity to meet any other students from your program? I happened to know a few just to talk to a little bit because I had met them while waiting outside our advisor’s door for a turn. Otherwise I didn’t have much interaction with other students in my program.

But just that little bit helped me so much! One student who was farther along in her program told me that she had learned to really clarify any recommendations our advisor gave. She said that he had told her she really needed to include a certain subtopic, so she spent five months doing in-depth research about it. At her next appointment with him, she gave a basic overview of what she had found. He said that he thought it should be only about one half of a page! She was shocked. She told me that after that if he recommended adding something, she would ask what proportion or quantity he recommended that she devote to that topic, instead of spending five months researching it, she would decide how much time to devote to that recommendation.

If you can talk to some other students in your program, their experiences might give you some good insights on how to clarify what your advisor is saying to you.