Skip to content

Qualitative Literacy: A Guide to Evaluating Ethnographic and Interview Research (my reading notes)

Qualitative LiteracyI had been waiting to get my hands on this book by Mario Luis Small and
Jessica Calarco for a very long while, as I was on Twitter while Jess was writing it and witnessed the conversations on here about it. I finally received my copy this week, so I decided to write a few reading notes about the book. There are several elements I like about Qualitative Literacy: A Guide to Evaluating Ethnographic and Interview Research and obviously (I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t), a number of quibbles. Overall, I like the book and I appreciate the criteria that Small and Calarco set forth to consider when examining research projects where the data acquisition methods are ethnographic fieldwork and interviews. I particularly liked their honesty in explaining exactly what their book is and isn’t.

Evaluation is complicated because it requires setting specific standards and comparing against those standards and verifying whether the evaluated item complies (or not) with those standards. Evaluating qualitative research is very complicated, for many reasons, as my notes here will show. it is always hard to write about evaluation of qualitative research, precisely because of the complexity of developing and setting those standards and then undertaking the empirical work to evaluate said standards (yes, it feels like evaluation-inception, but so it is!).

What I like most about Small and Calarco’s book is that they don’t actually set standards against which to compare and tick boxes or determine compliance ranges through some sort of Likert scale. Their work develops 5 characteristics of “well-done” qualitative research. I used quotation marks for a very specific reason. Small and Calarco do NOT say that the characteristics they use to evaluate ethnographic and interview research are the only ones. So, they are also NOT implying that there are specific standards for solid research. But they do mply that, on average (and on the whole), most research that we (the community of scholars and practitioners who use and consume QR, collectively) would be able to see as “good” qualitative research, share these characteristics. I commend Small and Calarco for this honesty.

Small and Calarco are also VERY clear that their book is on criteria for users and consumers of qualitative research that they can use to conduct an assessment of TWO qualitative DATA ACQUISITION PROCESSES. Evaluating qualitative analyses, qualitative research designs and a whole other set of elements of QR would take, as they aptly say, a whole lot of additional books.

The way I see Small and Calarco’s “Qualitative Literacy” is very much the way I see Elinor Ostrom’s 8 Principles (which are very widely misunderstood, and I have to frequently clarify their use and meaning): as observed empirical regularities of systems/processes. Small and Calarco say (not an exact quotation, but my interpretation of their book) that “these are the characteristics that various types of ethnographic and interview research projects/processes share. We believe these, on average/on the whole, represent solid examples of well-conducted data acquisition processes”.

Evaluating qualitative research as a whole (from research design to implementation to analysis to write-up) is always complicated, so I really appreciate and value Small and Calarco’s contribution to building this knowledge base for additional, future projects. Overall, I liked Small and Calarco’s “Qualitative Literacy”, as someone who teaches, supervises, conducts and evaluates qualitative research projects.

10/10 recommend.

Posted in academia, qualitative methods, reading notes, research, research methods.

Tagged with , , , , .

On the importance of networks in graduate school and beyond (and the challenges of switching disciplines and fields)

NetworksBy all measures, I’m pretty well networked now. I have a globally popular blog and Twitter account (follow me there if you want, @raulpacheco). People from all over the world read my blog, regularly use my resources in their teaching and their own teaching, and I have solid networks across multiple fields and disciplines (political science, human geography, public policy, public administration, qualitative methods, mixed methods).

It wasn’t always like this, and I wanted to write about this, because my current situation (extremely well networked) was far from what I experienced as a graduate student. I woke up this morning (September 4th, 2022) pondering about the role and value of networks in graduate school and post-PhD, and how I did not have “the correct networks” leading to my studying a Masters and a PhD.

I studied chemical engineering as an undergraduate. From that vantage point, I knew more or less where to go if I wanted to do a Masters (Instituto Tecnológico de Celaya, of course) leading to a PhD. The Tec de Celaya’s chemical engineering department is top-notch, and at the time I was finishing my undergraduate, ALL faculty members were Mexicans with foreign PhDs. I had met several of them through events I organized as a student (I brought them to my university to speak), so I knew that if I wanted to do my PhD in process control, I would have to go to University of Wisconsin Madison (where Arturo Jimenez did his PhD).

I switched fields for my Masters (economics of technical change), and for my PhD (human geography and political science). This meant that I had ZERO networks in any of the 3 fields. I joined programmes literally walking in without knowing anyone and very little about the actual disciplines I was about to study. Moving from natural sciences and engineering to economics was a shocker, but entering political science and human geography absolutely shattered my understanding of the world and how I was supposed to study phenomena. They’re different! In chemical engineering I knew what I needed to do to analyze a chemical reaction. I had blueprints, equations to analyze distillation towers, design chemical plants. In political science, human geography and economics, analysis meant something entirely different.

Paper, pen, HP TouchPad, coffee, scone. All important tools of the trade #academia

No networks, no tools either.

So, for my Masters and PhD, not only did I not have the right networks, I didn’t have the right tools either. I entered completely unrelated fields and had to be fully retrained to understand description, analysis and many other concepts in an entirely different way.


So when I see a social scientist (say a political science PhD) who did an undergraduate degree in political science, followed up by a Masters AND a PhD in the same discipline and sometimes even the same field, I immediately think “you moved within the same discipline, the challenges you faced are completely different from those crossing disciplines in such a stark way”.

Certainly, my knowledge of chemical engineering and economics enhances what I study and shapes how I conduct research as a political scientist and human geographer, but I say this now as a tenured, senior professor with a pretty decent publishing career.

As a graduate student, I was TERRIFIED.

So, my experience also colors my approach to mentoring and teaching students, and makes me more inclined to continue writing my blog and sharing resources others may need. Because God knows I sure needed them, didn’t have them during graduate school!

Posted in academia.

Tagged with , , .

A partial, commented bibliography on focus groups

I have taught qualitative methods and written about them for a very long while, and I frequently feel like there’s a substantive misunderstanding of what a focus group is. It’s not a “collective interview”, nor “a way to save time and money on interview because we have them all in one place”. The focus group explicitly looks at the relationships WITHIN and interactions among the members of the group.

Focus Group

Focus group. Credit: Dave Shea on Flickr. CC BY 2.0

What is a focus group? I really enjoyed how Dr. Jennifer Cyr (Universidad Torcuato Di Tella) describes the portrayal of focus groups in multiple media (television, print materials):

“Focus groups bring individuals together to discuss a set of questions. These conversations typically take place around a table, and they include a moderator who guides and nurtures the discussion.”

Cyr, Jennifer. 2019. Focus Groups for the Social Science Researcher Methods for Social Inquiry. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, New Delhi, Singapore: Cambridge University Press, p. 1.

Dr. Cyr refers to David L. Morgan’s definition of focus groups as:

“… a research technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determind by the researcher. This definition has three essential components. First, it clearly states that focus groups are a research method devoted to data collection. Second, it locates the interaction in a group discussion as the source of the data. Third, it acknowledges the researcher’s active role in creating the group discussion for data collection purposes” (Morgan 1996, p. 130)

Morgan, David L. 1996. “Focus Groups.” Annual Review of Sociology 22(August 1996): 129–152.

I have this nagging feeling that the relational nature of a focus group gets lost in how we teach focus as part of a suite of qualitative methods. I may be wrong, but it’s what I perceive from how some scholars report their use of focus groups in research. And from the replies to my Twitter thread, it looks like I am not wrong.

So, what if you DO want to compare how individual interviews would perform against focus groups? Well, my dear friend Dr. Amber Wutich (Arizona State University) and her collaborators have just the perfect paper for you: Wutich, Amber et al. 2010. “Comparing Focus Group and Individual Responses on Sensitive Topics: A Study of Water Decision Makers in a Desert City.” Field Methods 22(1): 88–110.

If you want to delve deeper into focus groups as a qualitative research method you can peruse my partial, commented bibliography on the topic. (Click on the hyperlink to go to the PDF file).

Hope this post and the partial, commented bibliography I compiled help those looking for some guidance on how to design and implement focus groups as a qualitative data gathering technique.

Posted in academia, qualitative methods, research methods.

Tagged with , , , .

The logic of research inquiry and the use of the puzzle approach in research design

I like solving and putting together puzzles.


Photo credit: Olga Berrios on Flickr. Photo license: CC-BY 2.0

I like assembling evidence and theories to think about the problem, which can also be a metaphor for a puzzle (or as my dear friend Amber Wutich said, a jigsaw). I actually don’t like the type of physical puzzles shown in the photo (my brother loves assembling them but I hate not being able to complete the puzzle assembly). BUT I do like thinking about research questions and phenomena that leave me puzzled, baffled, mystified, perplexed, flummoxed.

I know that in social science scholarly circles, some people like the puzzle approach to developing research questions and others don’t particularly appreciate the model. So I asked on Twitter where we were with respect to the puzzle approach. I got several great responses (of which I reproduce a few below).

Dr. Mirya Holman, by the way, is amazing at research design.

As is Dr. Amber Wutich.

Dr. Sheena Chestnut Greitens and I talk about research design all the time.

There are, obviously, very valid critiques and concerns, as Dr. Ernesto Castañeda expresses here.

I use both my Twitter account and my blog as avenues to think out loud and get feedback on ideas I have been marinating. I’ve been thinking a lot about research puzzles, research questions, and research design in social science. This is normal for me, because I teach the foundational courses in our institution’s methodology sequence for the Masters and PhD programmes. I normally teach Research Design, Mixed Methods, Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data, and Research Methods in Social Science. Thus, I am always thinking about better ways to teach how to craft good research questions and how to improve research design. The puzzle approach is popular in several disciplines within the social sciences and I thought I’d think about it more, this time in writing.

There are a lot of approaches to constructing research questions (and entire books focused on that very activity!), but one of the most popular is the development of a “puzzle” (or a “research puzzle”). I’ve been thinking about this particular approach for a very long time.

When you find something puzzling, you think “hmmm… this phenomenon is not operating the way I thought or I hypothesized it would, why would that be the case?” In this case, we’re not talking about puzzles like the ones you assemble, but what you find puzzling (or perplexing).

I’ve read a lot of articles and book chapters on this, and I find multiple definitions and classifications of puzzles (research puzzles, that is) somewhat idiosyncratic. But the mere notion of puzzle IS idiosyncratic: what you find puzzling, I may not find perplexing at all!

Let me give you an example: the scholarly literature on water conflicts indicates that one of the key factors to solving a dispute is to have all stakeholders agree and offer good faith solutions. HOWEVER, this did not hold in a case I studied (the Zapotillo aqueduct and dam). This conflict remained protracted for decades until the current President of Mexico came and unilaterally decided that one of the main stakeholders in the conflict (the state of Guanajuato) would not get water from the El Zapotillo dam and aqueduct.

An external actor TERMINATED he conflict, all of a sudden (not really as there are still some tensions and negotiations, but for practical purposes, that’s the case). So the puzzle here is: why (and how) did the President’s intervention change the dynamics of this water conflict? It really is puzzling!

To some water conflict experts (or specialists in conflict resolution), this external actor intervention intended to terminate a conflict may not feel puzzling at all. That’s why I find the research puzzle approach a bit shaky. The puzzle seems to be the “selling strategy”.

And by “the selling strategy” I mean the approach a scholar takes to convince the reader that the question they are asking merits being investigated, because it makes us scratch our collective heads.
“Look! This question is interesting, it left me puzzled!”

I DO teach my students and my thesis advisees how to construct a research puzzle because I find it a good “selling strategy”. Tell me why I (and the research community) should care about the question you are asking, and justify the investment in the research you will be doing.

I find that the review of the literature is a foundational step to design a good research puzzle and craft a solid research question. Puzzles specify the conditions and parameters under which the phenomenon under study contradicts the reality we are observing.

As I specified in my thread, the puzzle approach (which can be seen as putting together a puzzle or as finding something puzzling, two different but complementary views) helps researchers set a potential direction for the study. That doesn’t mean serendipity doesn’t play a role.

The concept of research puzzles as thinking about something that a researcher find puzzling , strange, unexpected is in complete agreement with your point about luck and the serendipitous nature of research. So I don’t think we disagree (I also like the patchwork quilt metaphor shared by Dr. Louise Seamster)

I think Dr. Seamster summed it up well:

I do hope this blog post is helpful for readers in choosing whether they want to use a puzzle approach, both to teach their students and to use in their own research projects.

Posted in academia, research, research methods.

Tagged with , , , , .

4 lessons I learned (the hard way) about health, overwork, and life as an academic

I almost died this summer of 2022. Four times.

This summer, I learned (the hard way) 4 lessons about health, overwork, and life as an academic.

(1) “If you don’t make time for your wellness, you’ll be forced to make time for your sickness” — Joyce Sunada

I was, in fact, forced to take time off because of COVID and its sequelae. This week I sat down with my physician and we did a “post mortem” of my illness. He said: “you have overworked for a very long time. You push your physical limits all the time. You are very energetic, active and passionate about your work, but you keep pushing yourself. Not healthy”.

This was really embarrassing to hear from my treating doctor and a wake up call: I keep advocating for NOT overworking, and yet, in some twisted way, I kept doing it because it didn’t feel (yet) like I was exhausted.

Until it did.

In May, I went to Germany and the US. In normal times, and under normal circumstances, these two trips would have been a piece of cake because I am/was used to travel All The Time. However, this year has been particularly busy with teaching, administrative duties, and course preparation, reading theses, providing feedback. SUPER BUSY.

So (we all know where this is going…) I did not pay attention to my tiredness (in May 2022) because I attributed it to jet lag from going to Germany. But when I went to Washington DC, I was already tired, and kept pushing myself. The last day, two dear friends of mine said: “you look TIRED. You need to take care of yourself. We need you healthy.” (Thanks, Leila and Sameer).

When I returned from Washington DC, my Mom got COVID, so I had to take care of her. She had a very mild case, but I think being stressed about her health was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I then got COVID, and my body was already very weakened from travel, stress and overwork.

We all know how this went. I spent all of June sick (and taking care of a COVID patient and then getting it myself!), July so sick with COVID sequelae that I almost died 3-4 times (depends on how you count), and August in slow-but-steady recovery.

The second lesson is, therefore:

Sunset in Vancouver and North Vancouver

(2) Pay attention to signs of potential burnout.

I had felt burnt out before and could recognise the signs: de-motivated, didn’t want to read academic articles, exhausted with no apparent reason. But again, the travel hid all the signs. I had them all, I just didn’t see them. This is particularly important in academia: we attribute burnout to other factors: “maybe I’m just tired this week”, or “it will get better once I get all these 457 things out of the way and I can clear my deck”. Well, I got news for you: the deck is never cleared.

I’ve written on my blog several times about the importance of not overwork, but for some reason, when it came down to it, I did not recognise the signs that clearly showed anybody except me (because I was too blind to see them) that I was entirely, completely and absolutely burnt out.

(3) Seek support (and this includes emotional support).

In desperation about my lack of health improvement, I tweeted “I’ve lost all interest in academia and all I care about is being healthy again”. I received HUNDREDS of responses sending love and wishes for good health.

The bird app can be hell sometimes, but it is definitely a truth that my Twitter community kept me afloat (my Facebook friends also deserve a very big Thank You because they kept checking in on me, daily). I did not realize I could have so much support from the Twitter hellsite, and it really helped me improve. I received so much emotional support that I began feeling extremely hopeful that I would be, eventuallly, able to recover fully (and I am currently in the process of doing just that).

My physician has prohibited me from returning to my usual hyper-energetic self. He said, deadpan: “I want you to return to normal people’s normal, not YOUR normal — this means dialing it down on the workload and intensity”. As a neoinstitutional theorist, I follow rules to a T. And I have no plans of dying any time soon, so I am paying close attention to my body and how I well am feeling on an hourly, daily and weekly basis. If I need to take a rest, I take it, work life be damned.

But I did not get well UNTIL I went to see a pulmonologist.


So the fourth lesson is:

(4) Be your own advocate for your health.

I went to a general MD, then the otorrhinolaryngologist, and it wasn’t until I went to the pulmonologist that we figured out what was wrong and how to fix it. COVID is an extraordinarily strange illness, and it’s so unpredictable nobody really knows the potential outcomes. I am lucky to be alive. Given that I had an immune system weakened from overwork and exhaustion, it was pure sheer luck that I made it alive and in one piece.

What really brought home the severity of my illness and the importance of taking care of myself was this utterance by my pulmonologist: “you survived this time – you probably won’t get another chance – your body won’t withstand another crisis like this. TAKE CARE!”.


In closing: Academic friends: look at yourselves in my mirror. Take care of yourselves *before* you are forced to take time off to take do exactly that: take care of yourselves.

I HAVE, finally, learned my lesson.

Posted in academia, research.

Tagged with , .

Reading is writing: To situate your work within the broader literature, you need to READ

I want to make something perfectly clear, particularly because it looks like people want to jump and “do research”, “collect data”, “analyse things” and would rather do any of those rather than read. READING IS WRITING. You NEED to read, to be able to situate your work.

If I am reading an article inside my office, I AM WORKING. I am not relaxing, I am not wasting time, THIS IS PART OF MY JOB. I used to work with consultants who were VERY time-based. They would see me read an article and tell me “which project are you billing your time to?”

I was like “uh, I NEED to read in order to create a literature review from where I can provide a framework for your consultancy project, you dumb-a$$”. Those hours you spend meticulously scribbling notes, making sense of how one piece of writing connects with another, are RESEARCH.

Would it be nice to be able to just crack my laptop open and have words automagically appear on screen and make sense and connect all the different bodies of literature I need to, and VOILA, produce a paper in 3 days? Hell yeah. I totally would love that. That’s not how it works.

Reading IS PART OF YOUR JOB. You don’t need to justify that some days, you get to the office, crack a book open, and read for hours. This IS work. Other days, you may get to analyse data. Others, you may get to write full paragraphs. This job is very varied. BUT YOU MUST READ.

ADDENDUM; Reading should NOT be something we do on weekends, evenings, and on our spare time. It’s WORK. It should be done during working hours. I worked for a terrible boss who would say “you should be running experiments right now, you can catch up on reading at night”. And we need to stop feeling guilty about reading. I feel the guilt, myself. I have to return an R&R on a topic that isn’t water conflicts, but I came across a couple of really key journal articles yesterday, and I have to present a paper on this for a major conference in a month.

Public Policy Books

Do I feel kind of guilty about reading this and other’s papers today? Yes, of course I do. I’m human and feel the same things you all do. BUT my major grant-funded project IS on water conflicts, and these papers did help me move this project forward. I’m the PI. So even if I devoted 1-2 hours to water conflicts over the course of a day or a week, I can still work on my other stuff the rest of the day (or the week). BUT these are important papers and I HAD TO process them.

Now, you may ask – how do I keep up with the literature. Well…

What if not everything I read can be skimmed? I use the acronym “TBRMID” = “To Be Read More In Detail” and add it to the article. That’s how I note articles I quickly skim using AIC when I realize I must come back to them.

Again, the core point of this blog post remains the same I’ve advocated for over the years: READING IS WRITING.

“You learn to write by writing, and by reading and thinking about how writers have created their characters and invented their stories. If you are not a reader, don’t even think about being a writer.”
― Jean M. Auel

Posted in academia, reading strategies, writing.

Tagged with , , , .

3 fundamental lessons about reading and academic writing

Whenever I teach academic writing I tell my students a number of things I strongly believe are fundamental. The three lessons I list here are in my view of the utmost importance.

Highlighting, scribbling marginalia, reading, writing

First, to learn how to write, you need to read. On my blog, I have written multiple times about the value of reading and why we need to legitimise reading as an intrinsic element of writing, about different reading strategies, and the importance of being able to triage your reading and choose across multiple strategies and approaches to how deeply you are going to read some materials.

“You will learn more about writing from one hour of reading than you will in six hours of writing.”
― John McAleer

Book reading

Second, to learn how to write well you need to read folks who write well, whose prose is clear, and whose style you like. I always point people to the writing of writers I find extremely clear and powerful. That doesn’t mean YOU will find them equally good nor their writing will make you think or feel the things it does to ME. You need to determine who you like and love reading.

“The greatest part of a writer’s time is spent in reading, in order to write: a person will turn over half a library to make one book.”
― Samuel Johnson

Books and bookshelves

The third lesson on reading and academic writing I emphasize is that you need to read broadly and all sorts of materials. I was a library rat since I was a child so I’ve done a lot of the traditional literature and that’s also why I now read more academic books than fiction. However…lot of academic writers could benefit from reading creative prose, fiction, even no -fiction but unrelated to their research area.

“Read, read, read. Read everything, good and bad, and see how they do it. Just like a carpenter who works as an apprentice and studies the master. Read! You’ll absorb it. Then write. If it’s good, you’ll find out. If it’s not, throw it out of the window.”
― William Faulkner

I understand that it is challenging to set aside time to read with multiple commitments and time pressures. But your writing will improve.

Posted in academia, writing.

Tagged with , , , .

Preparing for the PhD defense/viva? Use the GDN instead of a DTP

Doctoral candidates preparing for the PhD dissertation defense (or viva): I was asked whether I thought it was better to do a DTP (Dissertation Two Pager) or a GDN (Global Dissertation Narrative) in preparation for the defense.

My suggestion now is the latter: write a GDN.

The following two tweets explain my reasoning:

Thus I would say, write DTPs throughout the PhD (lots of Masters and Undergraduate students also use my DTP strategy) and THEN the last semester of your PhD, write both a final, final DTP AND a GDN.

I hope this is helpful to those of you who use my strategies.

Posted in academia, research, writing.

Tagged with , , , , , .

On Cornell Notes and the importance of noting down EVERYTHING including the article or book chapter (or book) full citation.

Those of you who have followed me for a time know that I do love taking notes off articles with the Cornell Notes method. I find it a very useful note-taking strategy when you are reading materials (articles, book chapters, books, etc.) Some people use it to take notes during class, but this is not the approach I use.


Of course, my mistake was forgetting to write down the citation for the articles I was reading. This is A BIG MISTAKE. For many reasons, you NEED to keep the full citation of what you read in every medium you use (Cornell Note, Everything Notebook, Index Card, etc.)

Obviously I needed to find the original articles, which I posted on here:

As far as filing systems, I use the same across different analog techniques.

I share a big mistake I made (and ways to correct it) because I think sometimes we learn more from our mistakes than from our successes. Hopefully that will be the case.

Posted in academia, writing.

Tagged with .

Writing the dissertation (thesis) III: Controlling the dissertation/thesis

I recently tweeted a thread of blog posts of mine that doctoral candidates can use to prepare for their defense (could be adapted to undergraduate or Masters) which I’ll turn into a blog post soon enough.

Now, you may ask, what about those doctoral candidates still in the throes of doing the PhD??

My advice is to always maintain control over the dissertation.

Several of my doctoral students (not my thesis advisees, but those I teach or have taught) have told me:“professor, I have no clue where to go from here. I passed my comprehensive exams and now I’m supposed to write the dissertation, but I feel at a loss”.

This is NORMAL.

One of the anti-climatic things that happened to me after I defended my PhD proposal and passed my PhD comprehensive exams (at UBC we did both when I did my doctorate) was that I was left with a question: NOW WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO?. This was probably because I did not feel like I had a schedule and a plan to develop my dissertation. I was too tired from defending my PhD prospectus.

Once I had time to rest and reflect on what I was supposed to be doing, I ended up creating a plan and finishing my dissertation relatively quickly. As the years have progressed and as I’ve become more senior as a professor and researcher, I’ve developed a few techniques to help my graduate students (and a few undergraduate) tackle their dissertation and theses, and more importantly, CONTROL THEM (don’t let them control YOU!)

These three Overview Devices (the Dissertation Two Pager, DTP, the Dissertation Analytical Table, DAT and the Global Dissertation Narrative, GDN) allow me (and my thesis students) to get a “bird’s eye view” of the dissertation/thesis. These three Overview Devices are very short documents, so preparing them is a good exercise on writing concisely. A two page summary of the dissertation, a one page table with all the components of the dissertation and a three page summary of the full work undertaken in the dissertation make up for 6 pages, which should be easy enough for a PhD advisor to read and provide feedback on.

Let’s take a quick look at each one of the three Overview Devices:

For me, a DTP evolves through time. It’s not the same as when my students start their degree. Therefore I ask my students to write a DTP every semester (or quarter).

One can construct a DAT for a manuscript-based dissertation or for a book-style type of dissertation. And as I’ve recommended to my post-PhD friends, it can also help you map out a full book manuscript.

Most of the time, my students will write their GDN as they approach their defense. However, I’ve also tested using it at the beginning (sort of helping them see the end line) and it’s worked wonderfully too. But yes, I will expect that doctoral candidates (or any other thesis-based research scholars) will have a better defined GDN as they approach their defense of the thesis/dissertation.

Writing a DAT, DTP and a GDN every semester helps the thesis writer feel like they can control where their dissertation is going. For me, as a thesis advisor, it helps me see where I need to help my students with their work. And all three Overview Devices work for undergrads and Masters thesis writers too.

This post is as much for those who are trying to control their dissertation (PhD candidates, Masters and undergraduate students) as much as for their advisors. Hopefully it will be useful to you all.

Posted in academia.

Tagged with , , , , , .