Why you should write your PhD thesis backwards

PhD theses usually come in two forms. Standard monographs, a comprehensive dissertation written by a single author, continue to be used, but theses based on collections of published articles are becoming the norm in the natural sciences.

For monograph-style theses, the research process is relatively straightforward: you might first read extensively, then narrow down your ideas to what is relevant and interesting, formulate a focused research question or hypothesis based on the literature and then proceed with data collection, analysis and, finally, writing the dissertation.

Article-based theses consist of works published in scientific journals, written by a student during the course of their PhD training, alongside an introductory chapter that ties the articles together. The path to these theses might be winding, because each article has its own narrative, influenced by the journal and the co-authors. The introductory chapter, or synopsis, synthesizes the individual articles and presents a broader narrative tying the literature into the findings of the thesis. In simple terms, the synopsis aims to describe how the author’s contributions advance science. In some ways, it might be best thought of as a literature review fused with new results obtained over the course of a PhD.

In my own field, quantitative geography, article-based theses are most common. At the University of Helsinki, where I teach, a PhD student typically finalizes three or four first-author articles, at least half of which are accepted or published.

Making your claim

How, then, can a high-quality synopsis be written efficiently? This is where my approach might be useful.

In Finnish, a PhD defence is called väitös, which directly translates to ‘claim’ or ‘argument’. My early supervisor, the late geomorphologist Matti Seppälä, was known for his intelligence as well as his laser-sharp stare. He often asked students approaching their defence an intimidating question: “So, what’s your claim?”, referring to the single, clarified, fundamental message that a reader should take from those years of gruelling PhD work.

When I was struggling to write my own synopsis in 2006, this question lingered in my mind. Ultimately, thinking about how to answer it helped me to shape my synopsis and guided me through the overall process. Since then, I have supervised a dozen students writing article-based PhD theses, and have often encouraged them answer Seppälä’s question to guide their thinking and writing when it’s time to wrap up their theses.

I’ve found that the approach helps the student to identify the most important content and gain the broader perspective needed for the synopsis. On the basis of comments by the pre-examiners and reviewers, the students create a clear, logical and easy-to-read structure.

The approach might even help natural scientists who are writing a research paper. Focusing on key takeaways in the discussion, then writing the remainder of the paper from that point, is an effective way to write any paper.

A recipe for a clear synopsis

Enjoying our latest content?
Login or create an account to continue

• Access the most recent journalism from Nature's award-winning team
• Explore the latest features & opinion covering groundbreaking research

Access through your institution

or

Sign in or create an account Continue with Google Continue with ORCiD

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01061-8

This is an article from the Nature Careers Community, a place for Nature readers to share their professional experiences and advice. Guest posts are encouraged.

This story originally appeared on: Nature - Author:Tuuli Toivonen