Many students believe that the structure of a thesis is a creative act. In reality, it is prescribed in most degree programs – often in the form of a Word template or a guide.
Your job is not to reinvent the wheel, but to understand precisely what the template is intended to mean so that you can fit your content into it properly.
This article shows you in five steps how to interpret guidelines confidently, identify typical deviations (e.g., Results vs. Discussion), and bring your thesis into the right structure.
IMRaD as a template: Why structure isn’t an art
Most templates are derivatives of IMRaD (Introduction–Methods–Results–and Discussion).
Caution: The terms and delineations vary depending on the institute. “Discussion” may, for example, be a standalone section or merged with “Results.” “Theory” may be called “Related Work/Literature Review.”
This is less problematic than it may seem. Your task is to understand the intention behind the labels, not to defend the labels themselves.
Step 1: Understand the template
Before you begin your own work, it is essential to understand the template precisely. It is the foundation of your thesis. That means for you:
- Collect documents: Examination regulations, guide, Word/LaTeX template, and sample papers from the institute.
- Clarify terminology:
- “Theory,” “state of the art,” and “related work” — do they mean the same thing?
- Are “Results” and “Discussion” separate or combined?
- Is there a separate “Conclusion/Conclusions” section?
- Where do “Implications/Limitations” belong?
- Pay attention to page limits/word counts: There are often recommended lengths for each chapter.
- Write purpose statements: For each chapter, you should allow for one line: “This chapter shows …” — this prevents misclassification.
Step 2: Map your content
The structure should mirror your research question. To check this, you can run a quick scope test:
Example
If “motivation” appears in the research question and relevance section, you need motivation as a paragraph in theory, a measure in methods, findings in results, and interpretation/implications in the discussion.
Step 3: Common deviations—and how to solve them
- Results vs. Discussion
- Separation required? → Results: What came out (without interpretation). Discussion: What does it mean?
- Combined? → Organize each finding with a brief interpretation right away; put outlook/limitations at the end.
- Theory vs. Related Work
- Theory: define concepts/models and establish connections.
- Related Work: summarize empirical findings and positions.
- These are often combined: first concepts, then the main empirical findings from the literature.
- Method vs. Methodology
- Methodology: justification of the approach
- Method: concrete procedure: design, sample, instruments, analysis
- Is only the method required? Then address the methodology briefly and focus on replicability.
- Conclusion vs. Implications
- Conclusion: key message and contribution
- Conclusions/Implications: consequences for practice/policy/research
- Are both required? Then keep the conclusion concise and list the implications separately as bullet points
Step 4: Micro-outline with key sentences
Is your structure in place now? Then create a Bare-Bones Version:
This is how you can get feedback early—on logic, not style.
Step 5: Attend office hours early
The earlier you gain clarity, the less you will have to rewrite later. So go to your supervisor early on with specific questions:
- Chapter structure: Should the Results and Discussion sections be presented separately?
- Place of the implications: In the Discussion or in a separate chapter?
- Theory vs. Related Work: Should I separate the two?
- Methods section: How detailed should the analysis be described (e.g., models, software, parameters)?
- Formalities: What length should I plan for each chapter? Are there guidelines for figures and tables?
- Sample theses: Can your supervisor recommend 1–2 sample theses to you?
Bring your bare-bones outline (with key sentences) – that will speed up the feedback considerably.