Manual for the Academic Skills Seminar Course RMIDS

Title course
Professional and Academic Skills seminar
Course catalogue number
75050011FY
Credits
6 EC
Entry requirements
Students should have completed their field research within the framework of the research master
International Development Studies and be writing their MSc thesis parallel to the Academic Skills
seminar.
Instruction language
English.
Time period
Study year 2014-2015, second semester, block 3 and 4.
Dates and location
Five sessions are scheduled on Tuesdays from 1-4 p.m. on 13 January, 3 February, 24 February, 14
April, and 2 June. In addition, two sessions are scheduled during the Policy and Practice seminar
week for MAIDS students: one on policy analysis on 23 March 2015 and one on the Research
Impact Pathway on 26 March 2015 (the latter is specific for RESMA students and open to MAIDS
students). Finally, one session can be scheduled on an individual basis at any moment you need it
during the thesis writing process. This session is optional and meant to discuss issues that you cant
resolve with your supervisor or prefer not to discuss in class. Contact Dr Mirjam A.F. Ros-Tonen
for issues related to the writing process and Dr Michaela Hordijk for issues related to the portfolio,
or the lecturer of your preference for other thesis and academic-skill related issues.
Place: See programme overview on pages 8-10. Updates can be checked at http://rooster.uva.nl/
Lecturer(s)
Dr Mirjam A.F. Ros-Tonen
Dr Michaela Hordijk
Room B4.05
Room B4.04
Nieuwe Achtergracht 166
Nieuwe Achtergracht 166
1018 VW Amsterdam
1018 VW Amsterdam
The Netherlands
The Netherlands
m.a.f.ros-tonen@uva.nl
m.a.hordijk@uva.nl
020-5254179
020-5254058
Due to irregular presence in our offices the fasted and preferred way to contact us is by e-mail.
Course objectives and their contribution to exit qualifications
This course aims:
1. To support and guide students in the process of data analysis and thesis writing by providing
structure, advice and information on the various stages (A2, A4, C1-3);
2. To enable students to complete their thesis within the set time frame (deadline: 31 May 2015;
rewrite 30 June 2015) (L1);
2. To provide academic skills with an emphasis on presentation of research orally and in different
written products (abstract, thesis, academic paper, policy brief) (C1-3);
1

3. To let students critically reflect on their ontological and epistemological position as well as on the
ethics, relevance, and quality of their research (J2);
4. To prepare students to their future professional practice (L1);
5. To provide a forum for exchange of experiences and information between students in the same
phase of thesis and article writing, partly accomplished through group work and peer review (A6).
Learning objectives
After completing the course, the students will know:
1. How to organise their primary and secondary research data (A2, A4);
2. How to present and report on the research carried out (A2; C1, C2, C3)
3. How to transpose their research results into a thesis and article (A5, C1-3);
4. How to take ontological, epistemological and ethical considerations into account in the thesis
writing process (J2);
5. How to cope with the pressure of the thesis writing process (L1).
Contribution to exit qualifications
The thesis seminar contributes to the following exit qualifications of the RMIDS:
Applying knowledge and understanding
A2 Adequately describe and critically analyze the object of research at various levels of abstraction
and scale.
A 4 Process and interpret research data, either quantitative, qualitative or mixed, adequately.
A 5Transpose the research results into a thesis that satisfies the thesis requirements, and an article
that satisfies the requirements for submission to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
A 6 To work in a multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary environment
Making judgements
J2 Give due consideration to the societal and ethical aspects of research and act in accordance with
them.
Communication
C1 Express him/herself at an academic level both verbally and in writing in English to the required
scholarly standard, making use of theoretical insights relevant to the particular research problem
under study;
C2 The ability to present ones position in a debate in a structured and transparent way
C3 Report the findings of research in speech and writing to the scientific forum and/or the world of
policy makers.
Learning skills
L1 Display the knowledge and personal skills required to qualify for a PhD study, or to function as a
researcher in the scientific and/or policy circuit, either independently or as part of a
(multidisciplinary) team.
Course content
Sessions are meant to be supportive to the thesis writing process and the portfolio that RMIDS
students need to develop (notably abstract, paper and conference presentation). In addition, it aims
to provide skills for students future work. As such, the course is meant to provide both academic
and professional skills.
Thesis writing
As far as the thesis writing process is concerned, there are several phases that you will go through
between field research and the completed thesis. Although there are differences between students as
2

well as supervisors as far as the preferred order is concerned, we find it helpful to distinguish the
stages below. We will use those as a basis for the course outline as specified under programme.
1. A brainstorm phase
Be creative here, use primarily your fieldwork memories, impressions and photos, without being
hampered by any literature or data analysis; just trust your gut feeling you can substantiate it
later. For further details see Assignment 1 (back-from-fieldwork report and poster) under
Programme. Prepare this assignment before you come to the first meeting.
2. A getting started phase
You may consider creating a working document in your word processing programme which reflects
the structure of your thesis (chapter, section and sub-section headings; use automated styles so that
you can see the structure on screen if you want to; insert page numbers). You may discover that you
already have a lot based on your research proposal, from which you are allowed to copy and paste
(the only document for which this is allowed!). Integrating these parts in the working document
(notably the introductory, theoretical and methodological chapters) can give you the pleasant feeling
of being well under way. The methodological chapter can almost be finalised immediately; adapt the
text from the proposal to what you have actually done in the field; turn the future tense into the past
tense; and add a reflection on your role as researcher and (if applicable) your role as participantobserver and how this may have influenced the data collected. After data analysis you add a a
thorough motivation of what each method contributes to answering your research question and how
they are complementary, and a reflection on validation and triangulation; You will probably fine tune
the introductory chapter at the end when you know exactly what is in the thesis. Check whether and
where the theoretical chapter needs to be further elaborated. Although some students (and
supervisors) prefer to have the data organisation done first, seeing quick progress may be quite
rewarding. Depending on your and your supervisors preferences, you could also decide to combine
this and the next phase (e.g. writing these chapters in the morning and working on the organisation
of your data in the afternoon).
3. The Coming to grips with your data phase
o Make an inventory: what data do you have? (e.g. field notes, interviews, numbers,
observations, surveys, case studies, documents, visual material, newspaper clippings);
o Organise the data:
on the basis of themes and categories that you find relevant for the research
and see what patterns emerge (see e.g. OReilly);
use SPSS or another programme for statistical analysis, exploring and testing
patterns and relations.

Description: briefly describe your research population and research situation (the location), the
main background characteristics that are relevant for answering your research question. This can
include the use of cross-tabulation in order to see important patterns and relations between
members of your research population.

Analysis: what does your data tell you

Qualitative:
o Code interviews and other data: finding themes;
o And/or: pose questions to your data and sort the data on the basis of these
questions;
o Write down per question (or per theme) what the data tell you about it;
o Explanation: use concepts and theories as aides (see, e.g., OReilly);
o Choose cases for illustration: cases of people, events, etc.; what do these cases tell us?
and:
o Choose quotes for illustration.
3

Quantitative:
o Insert your data into SPSS and/or use GIS for spatial analysis;
o Describe your population by using relevant variables;
o Search for relevant relations and interconnections between two or more variables;
o Select data with which to answer your question.
When using mixed methods, in addition to the above:
o Aim for validation and triangulation between the results from different methods;
explore contradictions/ tensions and how the data from different methods can
strengthen each other;
o Provide a thorough motivation in your methodology chapter of what each method
contributes to answering your research question and how they are complementary;
o Reflect on your role as participant-observer and how this may have influenced the
data collected.
4. The getting the bigger picture phase
Making links between data analysis and literature by distinguishing between different levels of
analysis:
o What do your data suggest in terms of answering your research question? What does
your study contribute empirically?
o How do you position your data and the conclusions drawn in the broader academic
debate? What does your study contribute academically?
o What are the implications of the results? What does your thesis contribute societally?
5. The finalization phase:
Finalise your thesis, check consistency, style, grammar, layout, references, etc.
Academic and professional skills
Now your thesis is (almost) ready. What next? As a future researcher you may wish to learn how to
bring the results of your research under the attention of both an academic and professional audience,
to learn how to network for a (new) job, and to develop new research activities. We therefore offer
hands-on training in (i) the ins and outs of writing a scientific article starting with the abstract, (ii)
policy analysis, (iii) networking skills, (iv) research impact pathways, and (v) presentation skills. For
more information see the programme details.
Teaching methods/learning formats
Seven research seminars of three hours
One or more lectures in the MAIDS Policy & Practice seminar (policy analysis session
mandatory; others optional)
Individual and in-class group assignments
Peer review
Helpdesk: referral to people to be consulted for specific questions related to SPSS, Atlas-ti,
GIS, etc.
Course evaluations & adjustments of the course
This course is new, but experience with and suggestions from students regarding the thesis and
Policy & Practice seminars have been taken into account, e.g. regarding the formation of peer groups
consisting of students working on similar topics; optimal alignment of assignments with thesis
writing and portfolio activities; attention to the art and craft of writing; and attention to networking
and presentation skills.
4

Course load
This is a 6 EC course, with an equivalent to 168 study hours. These are divided as follows:
Contact hours (6*3) + 1 + 2 + (3*3)
Assignment 1: Back-from fieldwork report and poster
Assignment 2: Abstract and methodological reflection
Assignment 3: Reflection on your research and transparency document
Assignment 4: Policy analysis (including reading policy document)
Assignment 5: Research impact pathway (in-class assignment)
Assignment 6: Article setup analysis and elevator pitch
Assignment 7: Peer review
Assignment 8: Prepare a presentation
Literature (5 pp/hr; total 300 pages)
6*28 hrs

30 hours
16 hours
12 hours
12 hours
16 hours
3 hours
7 hours
4 hours
8 hours
60 hours
168 hours

Minimum effort rule, manner & form of assessment and assessment requirements & criteria
Attendance to all classes is mandatory. Active participation is required.
There are eight assignments, each one related to one session. All assignments should be submitted
on Blackboard unless specified otherwise (see extended information per session on page 12 ff. The
deadlines for submitting the assignments is specified under the assignments; generally two days prior
to the day on which there is a meeting, by midnight (23.59 hrs.), but earlier if peer review is involved,
or later if the assignment can be brought to class. Lecturers will not provide feedback to assignments
submitted after the deadline.
The assignments for this course which are related to thesis writing are meant to be complementary
to the process you go through with your supervisor. It is therefore highly recommended to send
your assignments to you supervisor as well and discuss them with him/her if necessary.
Some of the assignments are meant to be hands-on training (e.g. research impact pathway, elevator
pitch, peer review) and will be assessed with an AVV (aan verplichtingen voldaan) if the requirements
are met satisfactorily. Others are mandatory (e.g. transparency document) or feed directly into your
thesis (e.g. methodological reflection) and will therefore also be assessed with an AVV if done in a
satisfactory way. The AVV also applies to attendance of the sessions. These AVVs need to be
completed before an overall grade can be given.
The grade for this course will be given based on:
Assignment 1: the back-from-fieldwork report and accompanying poster (40%)
Assignment 2: abstract (30%)
Assignment 4: policy analysis (30%)
The assignments will be assessed based on whether the instructions and guidelines are adequately
incorporated (specified in the assignments) and writing style. Assignment-specific assessment criteria
are specified below.
Assessment criteria assignment 1:
The back from fieldwork report is meant to start developing the major message and storyline of your
thesis off the cuff mainly based on your fieldwork impressions rather than on literature or data
analysis. We will assess it as work in progress; it is perfectly okay if you present contradictory
findings or loose ends. It is also totally okay if you have to revise your research questions and
conceptual scheme later. Specific assessment criteria for assignment 1 include:
5

Coherence and consistency between conceptual scheme, (revised) research questions and
preliminary findings;
Quality of the reflections (including on inconsistencies, if there are noted);
For the poster in addition: originality and layout attractiveness/readability: is it easy to
capture the main message in 2 minutes? Limit the use of words, try to be as graphic as
possible (pics, schemes, graphs, etc.) and use bullet points.

Assessment criteria assignment 2:

The quality of the abstract will be assessed based on the presence, clarity and quality of the following
components:
Problem statement
Knowledge gap addressed
Methods / evidence base
Bottom line findings / results
Added value of the research (contribution to theory; relevance for policy/practice)
Keywords
Assessment criteria assignment 3:
The policy analysis assignment will be assessed based on:
The quality of the policy deconstruction and discussion of the components mentioned in the
assignment (causal and normative relations, objectives & means, underlying deliberations,
etc.);
The quality of the stakeholder analysis and associated reflections;
Overall quality of argument and writing style.
Deadline retake
In exceptional cases and after approval of the lecturers, assignments can be handed in one week
later. The last assignment is to be submitted not later than 10 June 2015.
Inspection of exams/assignments, feedback
Lecturers will provide feedback on assignments within five working days after submission.
Opportunity will be offered to discuss specific issues, either during the sessions or individually.
Rules regarding fraud and plagiarism
The provisions of the Regulations Governing Fraud and Plagiarism for UvA Students apply in full.
You are able to access this regulation at http://www.student.uva.nl/preventfraud-plagiarism. All
assignments will be Ephorus checked. In case of alleged plagiarism and/or fraud, the
examination committee will be informed immediately.
Literature/materials
Obligatory literature and materials are specified in the programme overview.
In addition, the following references may provide a starting point when you feel you need some
additional guidance in the phase of data analysis and thesis writing.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Particularly
Chapters 14, 22, 23 and 27 (on data analysis ) available in the Pierson Revesz Library).
Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS Release 20 for Windows. A
guide for social scientists. Hove, UK: Routledge.
Creswell, J. and Plano Clark, V. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousands
Oaks CA: Sage.
6

Nichols, P. (1995). Social survey methods. A field guide for development workers. Development
Guidelines No. 6. Oxford: Oxfam Publications.
OReilly, K. (2005). Ethnographic analysis: From writing down to writing up. London: Routledge,
(Particularly Chapter 8 on ethnographic methods).
Miles, M. and Hubeman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. A sourcebook of new methods.
Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Overton, J. and Diermen. P. van (2003). Using quantitative techniques. Pp. 37-55 (Chapter 3) in R.
Scheyvens and D. Storey (eds.) Development fieldwork: A Practical Guide. London: Sage.
Russel Bernard, H. (2005). Research methods in anthropology. Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Lanhan MD: AltaMira Press. (Particularly Chapters 16 to 21 - available in Bushuis Library).

Useful websites on thesis writing in the social sciences:

http://learningforsustainability.net/research/phd_research.php
(Thesis and dissertation thoughts and tips)
www.ece.nus.edu.sg/stfpage/eleamk/phd/phdth3.html
(Three little-known keys to writing a thesis)
www.yale.edu/graduateschool/writing/forms/Writing%20Theses%20and%20Dissertations.pdf
(useful tips for writing a thesis or dissertation)
Useful app for non-native writers in English: http://writefullapp.com/ (one-time contribution of
US& 5 required).
Some general writing tips:
http://www.raulpacheco.org/2013/02/improving-your-academic-writing-my-top-10-tips/
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2012/11/28/lupton-30-tips-writing/
http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/about-this-site/pdf-links-for-students
Date final grade
The grade will be given not later than 15 working days after submission of the last assignment.

Programme overview
Date
Session 1
13 January 2015
1-4 p.m.
REC P0.14

Session
Getting started
Meet & greet
Intro to the course
How to write an
abstract

Assignment
Assignment 1 (deadline :
11 January 2015, 23.59
hrs.)
Back-from-fieldwork
report
Poster

Session 2
3 February 2015
1-4 p.m.
REC P1.25

Getting on the road

Peer review
abstract &
lecturers feedback
World Caf

Assignment 2 (deadline: 1
February, 23.59 hrs.)
Abstract
Methodological
reflection

Optional: Morning
session of the Policy
& Practice seminar
MAIDS
4 February 2015
9 a.m. -12.30 p.m.
REC-G S.14

Professional skills

The aid architecture and job

market

Literature and materials

Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Section on
research questions (pp.69-74) (6 pp.)
How to write a research question from
http://s3.amazonaws.com/chssweb/documents/16115/original/HowtoWriteaResearc
hQuestion.docx?1405015020 (2 pp.)
How to make a great poster from
http://www.evergreen.edu/scicomp/docs/workshops/Poster_Tips2.pdf (2 pp.)
Abstract from http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/about-this-site/pdf-links-for-students 1
pp.)
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Extracts on
epistemological and ontological considerations (pp. 13-20, 8 pp.) and ethics in social
research (pp. 113-130; 18 pp.) (26 pp.).
Resnik, D.B. (2011). What is ethics in research and why is it important? URL:
http://www.veronaschools.org/cms/lib02/NJ01001379/Centricity/Domain/588/Wha
t%20is%20Ethics%20in%20Research%20Why%20is%20it%20Important.pdf (9 pp.)
Your essential how-to guide to writing good abstracts. (2 pp.) URL:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2011/06/20/essential-guide-writinggood-abstracts/
Optional (but informative!)
Blickley, J. L., Deiner, K., Garbach, K., Lacher, I., Meek, M. H., Porensky, L. M., ... &
Schwartz, M. W. (2013). Graduate student's guide to necessary skills for nonacademic
conservation careers. Conservation Biology, 27(1), 24-34 (11 pp).
Kharas, H. & Rogerson, A. (2012) Horizon 2025. Creative destruction in the aid
industry, London: Overseas Development Institute: 36, Chapter 1-7 (23 pages).
Available online on: http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odiassets/publications-opinion-files/7723.pdf
United Nations/Development Policy and Analysis Division (2010). The World Economic
and Social Survey, Chapter 3 Towards a new aid architecture (p. 47-70) (24 pages).
Available online on: http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/6065809/towards-anew-aid-architecture-introduction
8

Session 3
24 February 2015
1-4 p.m.
REC P0.18

Reflectivity
World caf
Putting pen on
paper (lecture by
Mirjam Ros)

Assignment 3 (deadline:
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22 February, 23.59 hrs.)
Extracts on assessing the quality of your research (pp, 31-35; 5 pp. and pp. 375-384; 9
Reflection on your
pp.) and writing up research (pp. 660-679) (20 pp) (34 pp. total)
research
Meyrick, J. (2006). What is good qualitative research? A first step towards a
Transparency document
comprehensive approach to judging rigour/quality. Journal of Health Psychology 11(5):
799-808 (10 pp).

Session 4
23 March 2015
9-11 a.m.
REC-JK B.11

Professional skills

Assignment 4 (deadline:
30 March, 23.59 hrs.)
Policy analysis

Runhaar, H., Dieperink, C. and P. Driessen (2006). Policy analysis for sustainable
development: The toolbox for the environmental social scientist, International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education 7(1): 34-56 (23 pp.)
Project document relevant for your thesis (see assignment description)

Optional:
24 March 2015
REC-JK B.11

Professional skills
Morning session Policy
& Practice seminar

The project cycle

management, logframe and
tender writing

Optional:
25 March 2015
REC-JK B.11

Professional skills
Morning session Policy
& Practice seminar

Project evaluation and

monitoring

Optional:
Dearden, P. and P. Kowalski (2003) Programme and Project Cycle Management
(PPCM): Lessons from South and North, Development in Practice 13(5): 501-514 (13 pp.)
Middleton, A. (2005) Logical Framework Analysis: A Planning Tool for Government
Agencies, International Development Organizations, and Undergraduate Students (7
pp.). Accessible through:
http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/23722/1/Logical%20Frame
work%20Analysis%20A%20Planning%20Tool%20for%20Government%20Agencies%
20International%20Development%20Organizations%20and%20Undergraduate%20Stu
dents.pdf?1
Swedish International Development Corporation Agency (2005) The Use and Abuse
and the Logical Framework Approach, SEKA resultatredovisningsprojekt,
November 2006, pp. 1-21. Accessible through:
www.intrac.org/data/files/resources/518/The-Use-and-Abuse-of-the-LogicalFramework-Approach.pdf
Optional:
Catley, A., Burns, J., Abebe, D., and Suji, O. (2013) Participatory Impact Assessment: A
Design Guide. Feinstein International Center, Tufts University, Somerville, pp. 1-23.
Available through: http://fic.tufts.edu/assets/PIA-guide_revised-2014-3.pdf
9

Session 5
26 March 2015
10-12 a.m. REC
G.S14 & 1-4 p.m.
REC P0.14

Preparing for impact

Lecture on
research impact
pathway by
JanJoost Kessler
(AidEnvironment)
In-class assignment

Assignment 5 (in-class
assignment, to be
presented in class and
submitted the same day
not later than 23.59 hrs.)
Research impact
pathway

Session 6
14 April 2015
1-4 p.m.
REC P.0.14

Article writing &

networking
How to write an
article by Mirjam
Ros
Effective
networking by
Brigitte Hertz (tbc)
First aid
Individual
appointment for
issues you cant
resolve with your
supervisor.

Assignment 6
Structure of scientific
articles (deadline 12
April 23.59 hrs)
Prepare an elevator
pitch to be presented in
class.

No session in May,
but note the
assignment!
First aid session is
an option, but is not
mandatory and not
restricted to this

Assignment 7 (deadline 10
May 2015 23.59 hrs)
Peer review of texts

Khandker, S., Koolwal G. H. Samad (2012) Handbook on Impact Evaluation.

Quantitative Methods and Practices, Washington: The World Bank, pp. 1-30
Available through:
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/2693/520990PUB0E
PI1101Offi cial0Use0Only1.pdf?sequence=1
Vogel, I. (2012) Review of the use of Theory of Change in international development,
UK Department for International Development (DFID), pp. 8-24.
Available through:
http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/pdf/outputs/mis_spc/DFID_ToC_Review_VogelV7.pdf
Springer-Heinze, A., Hartwich, F., Henderson, J. S., Horton, D., and Minde, I. (2003).
Impact pathway analysis: An approach to strengthening the impact orientation of
agricultural research. Agricultural systems, 78(2), 267-285 (19 pp.).
Vogel, I. (2012) Review of the use of Theory of Change in international development,
UK Department for International Development (DFID), pp. 8-24 (17 pp.). Available
through:
http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/pdf/outputs/mis_spc/DFID_ToC_Review_VogelV7.pdf
WOTRO handout (n.d.): Everything you always (didnt) want to know about theory of
change, research impact pathway and indicators (18 pp.)
Bates College (2011). How to write a paper in scientific journal style and format. URL:
http://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/writing/HTW_Guide_Sections
_3-7-2011.pdf (17 pp.)
Tips for elevator pitches, e.g.
o https://cfn.upenn.edu/aguirre/wiki/public:elevator_pitch
o http://thepostdocway.com/content/elevator-pitches-scientists-what-when-whereand-how
o http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2010/03/cover-elevator-speeches.aspx
Grammar and mechanics. URL:
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/678/01/ (12 pp.)
Writing http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/about-this-site/pdf-links-for-students, items
related to:
o effective processing of your readings (critical reading and writing, skimming and
scanning, summarizing) (4 pp)
o how to use readings (how not to plagiarize, paraphrase and summary, using
10

month available once

during the entire
course.

Session 7
2 June 2015
1-4 p.m.
REC P.0.18

Presenting
Prepare a presentation
effectively
Presenting
effectively by Karin
Herrebout (tbc)
Three
presentations

quotations) (8 pp.)
o how to improve the structure of your text (introduction and conclusion, developing
coherent paragraphs, topic sentences)(5 pp.)
o how to improve your writing and writing style (active voice, passive voice, revising
and editing, wordiness, using the computer to improve your writing) (10 pp.)
o how to write correctly (parade of errors, punctuation, tools and rules to improve your
spelling, subject-verb agreement, unbiased language) (15 pp.)
o how to overcome a writers block (2 pp)
See also Appendix G.
Delivering an effective presentation http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/ld/resources/studyguides-pdfs/presentation-skills-pdfs/delivering-presentation-v1%200%20-2.pdf (4
pp.)
Hill, M.D. (1997) Oral Presentation Advice
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~markhill/conference-talk.html#badtalk (5 pp.)
How to fix your presentations http://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/how-to-fix-yourpresentations-21-tips.html
How to make an effective presentation
http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/Tools_and_Training/Documents/how-to-makeeffective-presentations.pdf (PPT presentation; good tips!)
Presenting effectively (3 videos)
http://services.unimelb.edu.au/academicskills/all_resources/speaking-andpresenting/presenting_effectively_1

11

Session 1 Tuesday 13 January 2015, 1-4 p.m.

Getting started
Session setup:
Meet & greet: experiences in the field
Introduction to the course
Meeting in sub-groups: presenting and discussing the posters (see Assignment 1)
Reports from sub-groups
o Reflections, questions, challenges ahead
Lecture about:
o the course;
o the organisation of your thesis writing process and writing routine (where, when and how); and
o how to write an abstract.
Discussion and final tips: looking forward to the next session.
Literature to be read:
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Section on
research questions (pp.69-74) (6 pp.)
How to write a research question from
http://s3.amazonaws.com/chssweb/documents/16115/original/HowtoWriteaResearchQuestion.
docx?1405015020 (2 pp.)
How to make a great poster from
http://www.evergreen.edu/scicomp/docs/workshops/Poster_Tips2.pdf (2 pp.)
More tips and templates for poster making:
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/staffres/poster.pdf
http://colinpurrington.com/tips/academic/posterdesign
http://www.siam.org/meetings/guidelines/poster.php
http://www.writing.engr.psu.edu/posters.html
Assignment 1: Back-from-fieldwork report and poster
This assignment consists of two parts, which need to be uploaded on Black Board not later than
Sunday 11 January by midnight (23.59 hrs.).
I. Write a 3-5 pages back-from-the-field report in which you:
a) Give an overview of the main findings of your field research
b) Present the most interesting and surprising aspects
c) Formulate a provisional answer to the research question
d) Formulate the (adjusted?) central question and sub-questions that will guide your thesiswriting, and that will be answered by your thesis, as you presently perceive them (= work in
progress)
Important: the idea is to write this report without diving too much into your field data yet. In other
words: try to write the report based on memory, in order to focus on red lines and larger patterns.
II. Building on the report, design a poster (A-1 format) which makes clear
a) What is your problem statement
b) What are your research questions
c) How does your study area looks like (use map and photo(s)?
d) What data you have collected (e.g. x surveys, y in-depth interviews, z focus group(s) on ,
etc., think also of observations, documents, visuals, newspaper clippings, etc.?
e) How your conceptual scheme looks like (any reason for adaptation?)?
f) What are your preliminary findings (the most important ones; what do you expect to come
out of your data; highlight the most interesting or surprising one(s))?
12

g) What is the provisional answer to your main research question?

Text in bullet points only; use visuals (photos, schemes, designs). Be creative and just like in the
back-from-the-field report, dont be hindered by any literature or extensive data analysis; use
primarily your fieldwork memories, impressions and photos; just trust your gut feeling you can
substantiate it later.
Take a picture of the poster and upload it on A-4 format on Blackboard not later than Sunday 11
January at midnight (23:59 p.m.), together with the report.
Bring the poster to the first session where it will be discussed in groups of 3-5 students working on
similar topics or regions. After the session it is recommended to hang the poster on the wall in your
study or print the A-4 format version to be kept within sight during the entire thesis writing process.
It will help you maintain oversight.
NB You could use the same components as on the poster for a PowerPoint presentation to be
presented on your laptop to your supervisor at your first meeting with him/her after return from the
field.
It is also very useful to send your back-from-the-field report to your supervisor for the first meeting
with him/her.
Session 2 Tuesday 3 February 2015, 1-4 p.m.
Getting on the road
Session setup:
Peer review of the abstracts in subgroups of students working on similar research topics. The
lecturers provide plenary feedback.
World Caf (see Appendix A for more information). For this and the next session we opt for a
World Caf setting in order to enable exchange of experience and discussion on specific topics in
small groups.
Provisional World Caf scheme 3 February 2015
Round 1 (2.00-2.45 p.m.)
Ontological and
epistemological aspects (MH)
Round 2 (3-3.45 p.m.)
The writing process (MR)

Ontological and
epistemological aspects (MH)
Ethical issues (MR)

Themes can be adapted depending on group preferences.

Literature to be read:
Abstract from http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/about-this-site/pdf-links-for-students 1 pp.)
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Extracts on
epistemological and ontological considerations (pp. 13-20, 8 pp.) and ethics in social research
(pp. 113-130; 18 pp.) (26 pp.).
Resnik, D.B. (2011). What is ethics in research and why is it important? URL:
http://www.veronaschools.org/cms/lib02/NJ01001379/Centricity/Domain/588/What%20is
%20Ethics%20in%20Research%20Why%20is%20it%20Important.pdf (9 pp.)
Your essential how-to guide to writing good abstracts. (2 pp.) URL:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2011/06/20/essential-guide-writing-goodabstracts/

13

Assignment 2: Abstract and methodological reflection

I. This is the period to take the first step towards a conference presentation: you probably have to
summit your abstract soon. Write an abstract of max 400 words for submission to a conference,
using tips on http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2011/06/20/essential-guide-writinggood-abstracts/
II. This assignment is meant to trigger your thoughts about the issues and questions that are most
relevant to you, before you enter into the discussions during the World Caf. Write a 600-800
word document containing a methodological reflection on your research. In your methodological
reflection you can choose to focus on (1) ethical considerations, (2) your ontological and
epistemological position, or (3) upon the added value of your research in scientific and societal
terms. Ethical considerations relate, for example, to the way in which you deal with sensitive
information, whether you are sharing results with respondents before publishing your thesis, etc.
You can integrate the reflection into your final thesis.
Upload the documents on Blackboard before Sunday 1 February 23.59 hrs..
Session 3 Tuesday 24 February 2015, 1-4 p.m.
Reflectivity
Session setup:
Putting pen on paper (lecture by Mirjam Ros) lecture with tips that help you to:
o Write concisely and to-the-point and, above all, reader-friendly
o Write convincingly
o Improve your structure and style
o Avoid common errors in English
World Caf (see Appendix A for more information), with a focus on the quality of your research
(issues related to reliability, validity, etc.) and possibilities to discuss the ups and downs of the
write up.
Provisional World Caf scheme 24 February 2015
Round 1 (2.00-2.45 p.m.)
Assessing the quality of your
research (MH)
Round 2 (3-3.45 p.m.)
The writing process (MR)

Assessing the quality of your

research (MH)
Structuring your thesis (MR)

Themes can be adapted depending on group preferences.

Literature to be read:
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Extracts on
assessing the quality of your research (pp, 31-35; 5 pp. and pp. 375-384; 9 pp.) and writing up
research (pp. 660-679) (20 pp) (34 pp. total)
Meyrick, J. (2006). What is good qualitative research? A first step towards a comprehensive
approach to judging rigour/quality. Journal of Health Psychology 11(5): 799-808 (10 pp).
Assignemnt 3: Reflection on your research and transparency report
I. Reflection report
Write a short document with your own reflections on your research (600-800 words). For this
assignment, you could focus on (1) your conceptual scheme and/or on (2) the operationalization of
your research questions. You can address, for example, the modifications you had to make to your
conceptual scheme after your field research. You could also address how and why you made changes
14

to the operationalization of your research questions and how your operationalization may impact on
(the validity of) your conclusions.
Alternatively (or additionally) you could choose to reflect on the quality of your research. This
includes questions related to the reliability and validity of the data that you have gathered, and how
you deal with weaknesses in these.
The texts can be included in your final thesis.
Upload the document on Blackboard before Sunday 22 February 2015, 23.59 hrs.
II. Transparency in research (see also Appendix F)
It is good research practice to be as transparent about your data collection and sources as possible.
In the IDS department we therefore agreed that upon return from the field students compile a
complete list of respondents and methods used and bring this list to one of the first meetings with
their supervisor. This part of todays assignment covers this requirement. You may want to decide
not to upload it on Blackboard for privacy reasons. However, it has to be sent to/shared with your
supervisor at all times, with either a c.c. to the lecturers or a confirmation from the supervisor that
the transparency document has been received.
Assignment: Make a numbered list of all respondents included in the research, indicate what method
was used (interview, focus group, survey, etc.) and include their key characteristics (name, age, sex,
location), as well as the date of interview/participation.
Deadline: Sunday 22 February, 23.59 hrs.

Optional sessions Policy & Practice seminar MAIDS

On 4 February 2015 and in the week from 23 March RESMA students can participate in the morning sessions of
the Policy & Practice seminar of the MAIDS. See programme overview on page 8-10. The morning session on policy
analysis is mandatory as Session 4 of the RESMA Professional and Academic skills seminar. Session 5 is also
scheduled in this week and open to MAIDS students.
Session 4 Monday 23 March 2015, 8-11 a.m.
Policy analysis
Session setup:
Lecture on policy analysis
Literature to be read:
Runhaar, H., Dieperink, C. and P. Driessen (2006). Policy analysis for sustainable development:
The toolbox for the environmental social scientist, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education 7(1): 34-56 (23 pp.)
Project document relevant for your thesis
Assignment 4: policy analysis
Students select a policy document that is relevant for their thesis topic. This document should be
analysed by applying the policy reconstruction methodology outlined in the session on policy
analysis in the Policy & Practice seminar and the Runhaar et al. (2006) article.
The aim is to conduct a policy analysis on this policy document by applying, first, the policy
reconstruction methodology and, second, a stakeholder analysis. Both methods are introduced in the
Runhaar et al. (2006) article, and will be further explained in the lecture.
15

For the policy reconstruction pay attention to the following aspects:

1. Discuss the policy problem and underlying argumentation and assumptions about the
relations between causes and effects (causal relations, Runhaar et al. 2006: 39).
2. Discuss objectives, means/instruments (programme resources, personnel, administration,
and general organisation) and the relations between the two (final relations, Runhaar et al.
2006: 39). What impacts do policymakers envisage that the instruments chosen will have on
the problem(s) and the solution thereof?
3. In the selection of objectives and means/instruments choices have been made. Reflect on
these choices, their underlying strategic deliberations and the possible trade-offs.
4. How will the target population be reached? And how and when will the programme be
terminated?
5. Explain the problem perceptions upon which the policy rests by addressing the normative
relations (Runhaar et al. 2006: 39).
6. Discuss, based on your policy analysis, what you expect to be the potentials and pitfalls
regarding success or failure (i.e. the effects) of the policy.
The article by Runhaar et al (2006) presents four other methods for policy analysis. Particularly the
stakeholder analysis presents itself as a useful additional method to practice. Based on the document
that you have reconstructed, and taking into account your analysis of the causal/final and normative
relations, deliberate on the following questions:
7. Identify the stakeholders which you see as the most important in the context of this policy
problem. What are their interests in solving or maintaining the problem? How do you think
they perceive the problem?
8. How relevant are these actors (in terms of critical resources: power, support,
authority, and the like?
9. Which policy alternative would be supported by most stakeholders, and why do you think
so?
10. How are the stakeholders related? Which actors or actor coalitions may support or block
problem-solving activities?
11. Finally: which additional insights has the stakeholder analysis brought to your policy analysis?
Post the results of your assignment (MS Word format) in maximum 600 words on Blackboard no
later than Monday 30 March at 23.59 hrs.
The policy analysis could provide inputs for the contextual chapter of your thesis.
Session 5 Thursday 26 March 2015, 10-12 a.m. (lecture) and 1-4 p.m. (in-class assignment)
Preparing for impact
Session setup:
Lecture on research impact pathway by Jan Joost Kessler (AidEnvironment)
Literature to be read:
Springer-Heinze, A., Hartwich, F., Henderson, J. S., Horton, D., and Minde, I. (2003). Impact
pathway analysis: An approach to strengthening the impact orientation of agricultural
research. Agricultural systems, 78(2), 267-285 (19 pp.).
Vogel, I. (2012) Review of the use of Theory of Change in international development, UK
Department for International Development (DFID), pp. 8-24 (17 pp.). Available through:
http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/pdf/outputs/mis_spc/DFID_ToC_Review_VogelV7.pdf
WOTRO handout (n.d.): Everything you always (didnt) want to know about theory of change,
research impact pathway and indicators (18 pp.)
16

Assignment 5 (in-class assignment):

For the research impact pathway assignment you are allowed to work in groups of 2-3 students.
Work with peers who work on a similar research topic. The objective is to put your research topic
and objective in a broader perspective and define impact, outcomes, and outputs (in that order).
Imagine the difference between outputs, outcomes and impacts along a continuum along which your
influence ranges from strong via weak to no influence: outputs are concrete deliverables within your
sphere of control; outcomes are the changes in behaviour you would like to bring about and could
be within your sphere of influence (e.g. by making presentations, producing infosheets or policy
briefs, undertaking action research, etc.); and impacts are the changes in the state of things that you
want to contribute to, but which are beyond your sphere of influence. Start reasoning back: what
outcomes are needed for the impact that you want to make, and what outputs are needed to generate
these outcomes?
Proceed in three steps:
1. Design a research impact pathway diagram, which relates the objective of your research to
(potential) outputs, outcomes and impacts. Start with the impact(s) and reason back what is
necessary to have that impact. You are allowed to redefine the objective of your research for the
purpose of this exercise if that is needed to find common ground. Use this diagram:
Research objective

Outputs

Outcomes

Impacts

Users

Community-level impacts

2. Define SMART indicators for outputs and outcomes (See WOTRO handout for meaning and
examples of SMART indicators). Use the following diagram (the actual number of rows depends
on the number of outcomes needed for an impact, or numbers of outputs to realise the outcome):
Research outputs

Indicators

Research outcomes

Indicators

Impact

3. Write a 300 word reflection on the limitations of a thesis project and what could be done to
increase its impact.
Each group presents the results in the plenary session and submits the assignment on Blackboard
after the session, not later than 23:59 p.m..
Session 6 Tuesday 14 April 2015, 1-4 p.m.
Article writing and networking
Session setup:
Lecture on the how-to of article writing and the publication process by Mirjam Ros.
Effective networking by Brigitte Hertz (tbc)

17

Literature to be read:
Bates College (2011). How to write a paper in scientific journal style and format. URL:
http://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/writing/HTW_Guide_Sections_3-72011.pdf (17 pp.)
Tips for elevator pitches, e.g.
o https://cfn.upenn.edu/aguirre/wiki/public:elevator_pitch
o http://thepostdocway.com/content/elevator-pitches-scientists-what-when-where-and-how
o http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2010/03/cover-elevator-speeches.aspx
Assignment 6: Article setup analysis and elevator pitch
I. Article writing
Analyse your two of your favourite articles, and note how they are structured, how the abstract is
done, how the introduction is set up (is there a problem statement; indication of the knowledge gap
addressed; objective and research question; paper set up?), how the methodology is explained, how
the results are presented (figures and tables? text not repeating but interpreting those?), how the
discussion is done (merely interpretation of results or also comparing with findings in other studies
and theoretical and/or methodological reflection?), what is in the conclusion (does it answer the
research question? summarise the main findings? indicate the implications of the findings? offer
suggestions for further research?). Summarise your findings in max 250 words and upload on
Blackboard not later than Sunday 12 April 2015, 23.59 hrs.
II. Prepare an elevator pitch prior to the meeting making use of the tips in the material provided
under Literature and materials.
Assignment 7 (deadline 10 May 2015) no session
Peer review
You are close to the thesis deadline now and may wish to receive tips on how to improve your
writing style so we organise a peer review. Submit a chapter from your thesis not later than Sunday 3
May at 23.59 hrs. You will peer review and receive a peer review yourself on a 5-7 page writing
sample, which includes the introduction, one or more sections (depending on their length) and the
conclusions. Use the material provided in the programme overview and Appendix G as well as the
writing tips given in Session 3 to improve the texts. Take the peer review guidelines in Appendix E
into account. Submit your peer review BY E-MAIL (not Ephorus!!) no later than Sunday 10 May
23.59 hrs. and send it to the author as well. You will receive two peer-reviewed writing samples of
your own, including one from the lecturers.
Session 8 Tuesday 2 June 2015, 1-4 p.m.
Presenting effectively
Session setup:
Looking back to the peer review process
Presenting effectively by Karin Herrebout (tbc)
Three presentations for professional and peer feedback.
Literature to be read:
Delivering an effective presentation http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/ld/resources/study-guidespdfs/presentation-skills-pdfs/delivering-presentation-v1%200%20-2.pdf (4 pp.)
Hill, M.D. (1997) Oral Presentation Advice http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~markhill/conferencetalk.html#badtalk (5 pp.)
18

 How to fix your presentations http://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/how-to-fix-yourpresentations-21-tips.html

How to make an effective presentation
http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/Tools_and_Training/Documents/how-to-make-effectivepresentations.pdf (PPT presentation; good tips!)
Presenting effectively (3 videos)
http://services.unimelb.edu.au/academicskills/all_resources/speaking-andpresenting/presenting_effectively_1
Assignment 8. Prepare a presentation
Read the various tips provided in the materials and prepare a presentation of max 10 minutes on
your thesis. Dont put too much text on a slide; bullet points only. Use images. Take tips from the
materials provided into account. Three students will be selected ad random to make their
presentation in class.

19

Appendix A World Caf method

What is the World Caf?
According to theworldcafe.com., the World Caf is a conversational process based on a set of integrated
design principles that reveal a deeper living network pattern through which we co-evolve our collective
future. As a conversational process, the World Caf is an innovative yet simple methodology for
hosting conversations about questions that matter. These conversations link and build on each other
as people move between groups, cross-pollinate ideas, and discover new insights into the questions
or issues that are most important in their life, work, or community. As a process, the World Caf can
evoke and make visible the collective intelligence of any group, thus increasing peoples capacity for
effective action in pursuit of common aims. As the aim of the thesis seminar is to share experiences
in the thesis writing process and draw collective lessons from the experience, we opt for this method
to discuss questions considered relevant by the students and generate lessons for optimising the
thesis writing process.
Design
Characteristic for the World Caf is its design along seven integrated principles:
Set the context
Create hospitable space
Explore questions that matter
Encourage everyones contribution
Connect diverse principles
Listen together and notice patterns
Share collective discoveries
Setup
Students can join tables in two rounds to discuss various themes that have been identified based on
prior seminars and an inventory of priority themes among students prior to the third meeting. Each
table will have a host one of the participants who facilitates the discussion and coordinates the
summary of main outcomes in bullet points at the end of the session. To kick off the discussion, one
of the lecturers or an invited speaker (a graduate student or colleague lecturer) will prepare a 5
minute launch of a powerful question that matters. Such a question is simple and clear and thought
provoking, generates energy, focuses inquiry, surfaces assumptions, opens new possibilities, invites
deeper reflection and seeks what is useful. The host will encourage participants to react and to
generate other relevant questions, and to visualise their contributions, either through a drawing,
formulating keywords or making a diagram on the flip chart paper with which the tables are covered.
At the end of the two rounds time is reserved to translate the insights, patterns, themes and deeper
questions into major lessons learned for presentation in the plenary session. Each table is expected
to generate three bullet points that the table host will present at the plenary. Students are asked to
bring their laptops so that at least one laptop will be available on each table to formulate these bullet
points as a collective process.
Themes
Two World Caf rounds will be offered during the seminar, on 4 themes. These include the
following.
1. Organising the writing process how to stay focused, inspired and fit?
Table host: Mirjam Ros
Possible issues to be discussed include: how to organise the writing process, how to deal with a
writers block, how to stay focused and fit, how to remain inspired?
20

2. Reflections on your ontological and epistemological position

Table host: Michaela Hordijk
Possible issues to be discussed: is it necessary to make your epistemological position explicit?
What epistemological dilemmas can be faced in a mixed method research design? What are
potential limitations to your research of your ontological and epistemological position?
3. The ethics of research: How to deal with sensitive information and anonymity?
Table host: Mirjam Ros
Possible issues to be discussed include: how to deal with sensitive information, how can
data/quotes be anonymised, should sensitive information be sent to respondents and should they
be given an opportunity to adapt the quotes, etc.
4. How to assess the quality of your research (and how to include this reflection in your
thesis)?
Table host: Michaela Hordijk
Possible issues to be discussed include: validity, reliability and authenticity, transferability and
relevance.
5. Structuring your thesis: how to ensure internal and external coherence?
Table host: Mirjam Ros
Possible issues to be discussed include: what is external and internal coherence, how to enhance
this in writing, what could you do before writing, how useful are mind maps?
Take home messages
Each group extracts three bullet points that reflect the outcome of the discussion on their table.
These will be posted on Blackboard.

21

Appendix B Procedures and regulations concerning thesis hand-in

Deadlines:
Discuss with your thesis supervisor how and when draft chapters are to be submitted and when the
final draft of your thesis is to be submitted. This will be around the first half of April, depending on
your supervisors availability.
31 May 2015: Regular deadline for submitting the final version, to your supervisor and second
reader.
In consultation with your supervisor and second reader a thesis defence will be planned in the week
thereafter.
A defence is mandatory at all times. If, for any unforeseen reason the student, the supervisor or the
second reader is abroad (or not available for some other reason), a defence via Skype is an acceptable
alternative.
Handing in the thesis and the Ephorus plagiarism check:
Upon the deadline (31 May 2015) you send your final thesis to your supervisor and the second
reader. This may be done either digitally or in hard copy, depending on what you have agreed upon
with your supervisor.
You are also required to submit your thesis on Blackboard for a plagiarism check on the same day as
the final version is submitted to your supervisor and second reader. This should be done on the
course website on BlackBoard titled Research Project IDS - Field Work and Thesis. Both you and
your supervisor have access to this site. After Ephorus (the plagiarism software) has performed the
checks (this may take up to 1 or 2 days), your supervisor will check the Ephorus score. This score
will be included on the thesis grade form.
Finally, you have to submit a digital copy of your thesis to the Registrars Office (registrargsss@uva.nl). If you do not wish your thesis to be published in the digital library you can indicate
this in your email. The thesis will then only be archived. NOTE: submission of a digital copy of your
thesis (the final version, check whether it is a clean copy) to the Registrars office is mandatory at all
times; the Registrars Office is not allowed to schedule your graduation ceremony of it has no digital
copy of your thesis!
Graduation ceremony:
The date of the Graduation Ceremony in August/September will be made known a.s.a.p.!
Thesis rewrite:
The second chance for submitting your thesis is 30 June 2015. If you go beyond this date, you will
need to ask for an extension with the GSSS Examination Committee. Please be aware that passing
the set deadline could have repercussions in terms of supervision; supervision is not guaranteed
during the summer (between mid July and mid August).

22

Appendix C Formal requirements of the research masters thesis IDS

The following is an overview of the main criteria of the research masters thesis IDS:
o The thesis is based on original empirical research (primary sources) complemented by relevant
literature (secondary sources).
o The problem statement of the thesis is clearly embedded in the international scientific debate.
o It starts from a clear central question, followed by chapters that systematically answer this
question (through a presentation and analysis of the relevant data).
o The thesis shows that the student is capable of using and reflecting well on empirical data and
relevant literature.
o It demonstrates a sound understanding of the theories relevant to the thesis topic.
o It is not an extended version of an earlier paper written by the student.
o The length of the thesis is between 25,000-30,000 words, exc. bibliography and appendices, but
including footnotes.
o When writing the thesis, aim for a good balance between the presentation of empirical data on
the one hand, and theory and interpretation on the other.
o See also the section on course content in this manual and Section 10.3 of the Thesis manual and
Academic Skills guide posted on Blackboard for valuable information on thesis writing.

23

Appendix D Additional information related to the thesis writing process

A. What can you expect from a supervisor?
It is important to know that your supervisor has a maximum of 35 hours available for the
supervision. These 35 hours include his/her time for supporting you in the proposal writing, the
feedback while in the field, reading your chapters, the final version of your thesis and attending and
commenting upon the final presentation/discussion of your thesis. This means that s/he has only a
limited number of sessions with you. Typically, this amounts to two sessions before leaving for the
field, four sessions to discuss chapters (normally two together) and the final draft, and the final
presentation. Of course, this can differ subject to your needs and your supervisors availability. Make
sure that you stipulate the mutual expectations for the thesis writing process in the first meeting after
return from the field. Given the time constraints, it is important to make the best use of these hours
you can.
Within the time available you can expect that your supervisor:
Discusses with you how you plan to analyse your data, and the main outcomes of this
analysis;
Discusses with you the structure of the thesis, in order to present your data analysis, in
connection to a literature review in the best possible way;
Your chapters do not need to be perfect before you hand them in, supervisors are there to
improve the quality of your work. Yet: their time is limited and precious, so make sure that
you present something that is worth to discuss, preferably already indicating where you feel
you need specific help. It is also worthwhile to specifically indicate the topics you would like
to discuss during the meetings;
Agree with your supervisor when s/he needs to receive your work (research proposal,
chapters etc.) sufficiently in advance in order to be able to read them.
B. Thesis Writing
For the details of how to write up the thesis we refer the Dutch students to Het Schrijven van een
Scriptie and the international students to the GSSS manual. Also, we strongly recommend you to read
one of the many good guides available on this topic. Some often-used Dutch titles are M.
Aalbersberg Het afstudeerproject; U. Eco Het schrijven van een scriptie; H. Oost Hoe schrijf ik een betere
scriptie.
A few central points, however, are worth repeating:
Length: a thesis is between 25,000 and 30,000 words, +/- 10%, excluding reference list and
appendices, but including footnotes. This amounts to about 60-75 pages with a line spacing
of 1.5. If your work is longer than this, there is a real chance of it being turned down.
The importance of planning. Be aware of the time constraints involved. Although it is hard to
offer a blueprint, a typical thesis consists of about seven chapters: an introduction, a
theoretical chapter, a methodological chapter, a contextual introduction to the research
setting, two chapters with an analysis of empirical findings and a conclusion. If you have two
and a half months to write up your thesis, this means that you have two weeks to write up
each chapter, and about a day per subsection. Planning from this angle helps you to avoid
spending too much time on each chapter, or gathering a host of material that you will not be
able to use anyway.
The importance of working neatly: from day 1 of your project, try to establish clear procedures on
archiving your work. If you already had a thesis setup before you leave to the field, this can
help you in organising your findings. Be neat in copying quotations, add the page numbers,
and write down the full references of everything you need and use. Keep the reference list
up-to-date at all times. The use of Endnote or another library programme can save you an
24

enormous amount of work in editing your library, and also the frustration of knowing that
there is this great quote but where, where did I leave it. Endnote, and other computer
programmes, also allow you to label information designated for a certain chapter. Working
neatly also means trying to avoid spelling errors from the beginning. Another time-saving tip
is to use the cite function of Google Scholar.
The importance of establishing procedures for yourself: now is the time to find out what way of writing
works best for you. Many people benefit from writing in the morning, and reading up and
checking references in the afternoon. Others seem to thrive at night. Try to design a daily
routine that is molded on your personal strong points. The thesis guides referred to also go
into the practicalities of the writing process, and reading them can save you a lot of time and
lead to a much more enjoyable period.
The importance of tidy references: the thesis guides referred to provide you with information on
how to present references. Now that research by Google is on the rise, it is imperative to
underline the importance of tidy referencing also especially when it comes to electronic
references. All theses are checked in Ephorus (http://www.ephorus.nl) and plagiarism leads
to heavy sanctions.
The importance of relaxation: writing up a thesis is hard and often solitary work. It is important
not to become completely enmeshed by it, but to also relax at times, to keep one day a week
free from working on the thesis, and to pick up sporting or another form of relaxation.

25

Appendix E Peer review guidelines

How to comment to your peers work? Just praising or editing is not enough; what you all need in
this stage is constructive comments that help you and others to improve your outlines, chapters, etc.
So you can praise a drafts strengths, but the primary purpose of peer review is to improve each
others work.
For assignment 2 (abstract) pay attention to:
1. Is the abstract clear about the problem and knowledge gap addressed?
2. Is the abstract clear about what research question is addressed?
3. Is the abstract clear about the research design and methods used?
4. Is the abstract clear about the main findings and conclusions?
5. Is the abstract clear about the implications of the findings?
For assignment 5 (writing sample) pay attention to:
1. Overall strengths and weaknesses
2. Structure: is the overall organisation of the draft clear and effective and is the internal logic
convincing (is there some sort of introduction, body of text and closure to each section and
chapter)
3. Are the sections supportive to the respective headings? Are the contents of each section and
each paragraph clear and insightful? Have you noted any errors?
4. Is the argument clear and does the argumentation follow a logical storyline? Is it clear how the
section is embedded in the broader whole of the thesis?
5. Suggestions regarding style, transitions and mechanics (spelling, punctuation, etc.).
6. Specific suggestions to improve the draft
In general, some dos:
1. Treat your colleague with courtesy and respect.
2. Comment the draft, not the person.
3. Concentrate on the argument, not whether you agree or disagree with it.
4. Do aim for balance and completeness in pointing out strengths and problem areas.
5. Do comment on specific examples and problem areas.
6. Concentrate on how the work of your colleague student can be improved.
Some donts:
1. Dont use snippy marginal comments such as "So what?" or "Whats your point?" but be as
specific as possible.
2. Dont get into debate over irresolvable questions of individual value and belief.
3. Dont argue with the writer. Raise objections or ask for explanations only to clarify and suggest
ways of improving the conceptual note.
4. Dont confine your comments to mechanical details.
5. Dont make vague, global comments.
6. Dont rewrite for the writer.

26

Appendix F Primary data verification principles

It is good practice for a researcher to be as transparent about your data collection and sources as
possible. In the IDS department, we therefore agreed upon a number of principles. For students this
means the following:
1. The student should make a numbered list of all respondents included in the research, indicate
what method was used (interview, focus group, survey, etc.) and include their key characteristics
(name, age, sex, location), as well as the date of interview/participation. This list should be
handed to the thesis supervisor upon return from fieldwork.
2. When citing perspectives of respondents, a reference should be made in the text (or in a
footnote) which at least indicates the interview-number. In agreement with the supervisor other
aspects might be included (interviewed by, date, affiliation, or other specific characteristics
important for the analysis). The number should correspond to the number of the above
mentioned list.
3. The complete dataset, either in the form of interview transcripts or summaries thereof, or in the
form of an Excel/SPSS/STAT/GIS datasheet, should be submitted for verification to the thesis
supervisor during the thesis writing process.

27

Appendix G English for non-native speakers: grammar and mechanics

Source: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/678/01/ Links to one-pagers
Adjective or Adverb - This worksheet discusses the differences between adjectives and adverbs. It
defines adjectives and adverbs, shows what each can do, and offers several examples of each in use.
How to Use Adjectives and Adverbs - This resource provides basic guidelines of adjective and
adverb use.
How to Use Articles (a/an/the) - This handout discusses the differences between indefinite articles
(a/an) and definite articles (the).
Irregular Verbs - This handout contains a list and discussion of common irregular verbs.
Numbers - This section discusses numbers, how to write them correctly, and when to use numerical
expressions instead.
Prepositions - This section deals with prepositions and their standard uses.
Relative Pronouns - This handout provides detailed rules and examples for the usage of relative
pronouns (that, who, whom, whose, which, where, when, and why).
Sentence Punctuation Patterns - This handout describes eight sentence punctuation patterns with
examples.
Subject/Verb Agreement - This handout will help you understand the common grammar problem of
subject/verb agreement.
Two-Part (Phrasal) Verbs (Idioms) - This resource provides an overview and lists of phrasal/two
part verbs.
Verb Tenses - This handout explains and describes the sequence of verb tenses in English.
Verbals: Gerunds, Participles, and Infinitives - This handout provides a detailed overview (including
descriptions and examples) of gerunds, participles, and infinitives.
See also http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/about-this-site/pdf-links-for-students

28