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

Identify your claim(s). Reflect on your papers and everything else you have learnt during your PhD: what are the key takeaways of all of your research results, and the research process? What would you like to say? Distil your arguments into four to seven core claims. You can include ones related to the results or the methods, such as these titles taken from real PhD theses written using this method: ‘People are segregated across activity spaces’, ‘Ecological connectivity is more than just lines on a map’ or ‘High data resolution is crucial for correct interpretations’.

Structure your introductory chapter around the claims. Use the claims as section headings in your synopsis. Aim to write one or two pages discussing each claim, ideally drawing from several papers to enhance the discussion. Structure the text to ease the writing process. For example, an outline of the chapter might look like: “The results in these two articles showed that …”; “This is in line with (or contrasts with) the previous research …”; “On the other hand, the findings of another article suggest that …”; “While examining the results, it is important to remember that …”; ”In the future it is important to …”; “To conclude …”

Write the introduction, background and data and methods sections last. Begin drafting these sections only after you have a clear idea about the main outcome. This approach allows you to frame your research in the most relevant context and engage with the literature to support your findings.

Find the original post and more great content on the Nature Careers Website – doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01061-8