| name | Academic Research Skill |
| description | Patterns for thesis writing, dissertations, research papers, literature reviews, scholarly work, and venue-specific publication drafting |
| applyTo | **/*paper*,**/*manuscript*,**/*journal*,**/*conference*,**/*CHI*,**/*HBR*,**/*publication*,**/*thesis*,**/*dissertation* |
Academic Research Skill
Patterns for thesis writing, dissertations, research papers, literature reviews, and scholarly work.
Research Project Types
| Type | Duration | Output | Review Process |
|---|
| Master's Thesis | 1-2 years | 80-150 pages | Committee defense |
| PhD Dissertation | 3-7 years | 150-300+ pages | Committee + external |
| Journal Article | 3-12 months | 5,000-10,000 words | Peer review (2-12 mo) |
| Conference Paper | 2-6 months | 4,000-8,000 words | Peer review (2-4 mo) |
| Literature Review | 1-6 months | 5,000-15,000 words | Varies |
| Grant Proposal | 1-3 months | 5-50 pages | Panel review |
Thesis/Dissertation Structure
Standard Chapter Flow
- Introduction — Problem, significance, research questions, scope
- Literature Review — Theoretical framework, prior work, gaps
- Methodology — Research design, data collection, analysis methods
- Results/Findings — Present data without interpretation
- Discussion — Interpret results, connect to literature
- Conclusion — Summary, contributions, limitations, future work
Variations by Discipline
| Discipline | Structure Variation |
|---|
| Sciences | Methods-heavy, often includes "Materials and Methods" |
| Humanities | May have multiple analysis chapters by theme |
| Social Sciences | Often has separate "Theoretical Framework" chapter |
| Engineering | May include "Implementation" and "Evaluation" chapters |
Literature Review Strategies
Systematic Review Steps
- Define research questions
- Establish inclusion/exclusion criteria
- Search multiple databases
- Screen titles/abstracts
- Full-text review
- Data extraction
- Quality assessment
- Synthesis
Synthesis Approaches
| Approach | When to Use |
|---|
| Thematic | Organize by concepts/themes across sources |
| Chronological | Show evolution of field over time |
| Methodological | Compare research approaches |
| Theoretical | Organize by competing frameworks |
| Concept Matrix | Map concepts to sources in a table |
Literature Gap Types
- Empirical gap — No studies in specific context
- Theoretical gap — Theory not applied to this domain
- Methodological gap — New methods could reveal new insights
- Population gap — Understudied demographic
- Practical gap — Theory exists but not applied
Research Question Development
PICO Framework (Empirical)
- Population — Who is being studied?
- Intervention — What is being tested?
- Comparison — Against what?
- Outcome — What is measured?
FINER Criteria
| Criterion | Question |
|---|
| Feasible | Can it be done with available resources? |
| Interesting | Does anyone care? |
| Novel | Does it add new knowledge? |
| Ethical | Can it be done ethically? |
| Relevant | Does it matter to the field? |
Methodology Design
Qualitative Methods
| Method | Best For | Sample Size |
|---|
| Interviews | Deep understanding | 10-30 |
| Focus Groups | Group dynamics | 4-8 per group |
| Ethnography | Cultural context | 1+ settings |
| Case Study | Detailed exploration | 1-10 cases |
| Grounded Theory | Theory generation | Until saturation |
Quantitative Methods
| Method | Best For | Sample Size |
|---|
| Survey | Breadth, generalization | 100-1000+ |
| Experiment | Causation | Power analysis |
| Quasi-experiment | When randomization impossible | Varies |
| Secondary Analysis | Large datasets | Varies |
Mixed Methods Designs
- Convergent — Qual + quant simultaneously, merge results
- Explanatory Sequential — Quant → Qual to explain findings
- Exploratory Sequential — Qual → Quant to test findings
Citation Management
Citation Styles by Discipline
| Style | Discipline |
|---|
| APA 7 | Psychology, social sciences, education |
| MLA 9 | Humanities, literature |
| Chicago | History, some humanities |
| IEEE | Engineering, computer science |
| Vancouver | Medicine, biomedical |
| Harvard | Business, some social sciences |
Citation Principles
- Cite primary sources when possible
- Acknowledge all borrowed ideas
- Cite recent and foundational works
- Balance seminal vs. contemporary
- Avoid over-relying on single sources
Committee Navigation
Advisor Relationship
- Meet regularly (weekly/biweekly)
- Come prepared with specific questions
- Document agreements in writing
- Manage expectations early
- Give drafts with enough lead time
Defense Preparation
- Anticipate likely questions
- Prepare 20-30 minute presentation
- Know your limitations
- Have backup slides for deep dives
- Practice with friendly audience
- Prepare for "So what?" questions
Common Committee Concerns
| Concern | How to Address |
|---|
| "Why this topic?" | Strong motivation section |
| "What's your contribution?" | Explicit contributions list |
| "How is this valid?" | Robust methodology |
| "What about X?" | Acknowledge scope, future work |
| "How does this connect?" | Clear theoretical framework |
Academic Writing Quality
Hedging Language
| Strong Claim | Hedged Version |
|---|
| "This proves..." | "This suggests..." |
| "Always causes" | "May contribute to" |
| "Definitely shows" | "The evidence indicates" |
Signal Phrases by Purpose
| Purpose | Phrases |
|---|
| Agreement | "Consistent with...", "Similarly..." |
| Contrast | "In contrast...", "However..." |
| Extension | "Building on...", "Extending..." |
| Gap | "Yet to be explored...", "Remains unclear..." |
Common Pitfalls
| Problem | Solution |
|---|
| Scope creep | Define boundaries early, revisit often |
| Literature overwhelm | Set search limits, use concept matrix |
| Perfectionism | "Good enough" for drafts, perfect for final |
| Isolation | Join writing groups, find accountability |
| Imposter syndrome | Remember: you're learning, not failing |
Paper Drafting & Publication
Drafting Philosophy
Writing IS thinking. You don't figure out your argument first and then write it — you figure it out BY writing it.
Messy Draft → Clarity → Structure → Polish → Submit
↑ ↓
└────── Reviewer Feedback ───────────┘
Venue Quick Reference
| Venue | Type | Word Limit | Review Time | Focus |
|---|
| ACM CHI | Conference | 7,500 (full) / 3,000 (LBW) | 3-4 months | HCI, interaction design |
| Harvard Business Review | Magazine | 2,500-3,000 | 2-4 weeks | Business practice, executives |
| Cognitive Systems Research | Journal | 8,000-12,000 | 3-6 months | Cognitive science, AI systems |
| Minds & Machines | Journal | 8,000-12,000 | 3-6 months | Philosophy of AI, consciousness |
Venue Selection
| Your Research Has... | Best Venue |
|---|
| User study with metrics | CHI |
| Business implications, case study | HBR |
| Cognitive architecture, theory | Cognitive Systems Research |
| Philosophical argument about AI | Minds & Machines |
| Quick preliminary findings | CHI LBW or Workshop |
Publication Strategy (Venue Sequencing)
- Trade publication → immediate visibility
- arXiv pre-print → establish priority
- Workshop paper → academic credibility
- Journal/conference → peer-reviewed validation
Writing Principles
- Precision over flair; evidence for claims
- Active voice preferred; define terms on first use
- Structure arguments via CARS model (territory → niche → contribution)
- Acknowledge limitations honestly, early
Responding to Reviews
| Feedback | Response Strategy |
|---|
| "Missing related work" | Add citations, explain positioning |
| "Claims not supported" | Add evidence or soften claims |
| "Unclear methodology" | Expand description |
| "Limited evaluation" | Add studies or acknowledge |
Synapses
High-Strength Connections
- [bootstrap-learning] (High, Uses, Forward) — "Knowledge acquisition methodology"
Medium-Strength Connections
- [knowledge-synthesis] (Medium, Uses, Forward) — "Literature synthesis patterns"
- [root-cause-analysis] (Medium, Applies, Forward) — "Research problem analysis"
Supporting Connections
- [cognitive-load] (Low, Considers, Forward) — "Information chunking in writing"
- [meditation] (Low, Supports, Forward) — "Knowledge consolidation after research sessions"
