Structures of Thesis-Driven, IMRD, Problem-Solution

Introductions

TD: example of what analysis looks like or why analysis is important. Uses of a story or a quick sample of analysis is common.

IMRD: getting right into what the conversation is from other scholars on the topic. Lots of citations of other scholars right away.

PS: Directly offering what the problem is and the context of that problem before exploring in more depth later.

Methods

TD: in the thesis, the way for making knowledge is hinted at before a more in-depth description is offered later on. Not really a separate section for this more in-depth description, but there can be. Most humanities fields are interpreting texts in specific ways and perspectives (i.e., “lenses”) and often outline that perspective as a way to explain the method. This is often combined with thinking through what other scholars have claimed about the topic, which makes methods/introductions very integrated rather than separate. Other considerations could be how texts are selected for analysis.

IMRD: Written almost like a recipe, to try to outline all decisions made in trying to gather and analyze information using qualitative and/or quantitative ways to do so. Theoretically, someone should be able to read a methods section and would then know exactly what steps to take to replicate the study.

PS: This is a flexible structure, but, generally, the method is implied in the structure. That is, it reviews a body of evidence, thus, it synthesizes information like a literature review does as a way to set up the solution section later. Sometimes, this is lacking because unlike TD or IMRD, it is hard to know how to do the same way of replicating how the author found/analyzed information.

Analysis

TD: Once the method for analysis is explained and demonstrated, the analysis is then carried out in sections separated by different themes or topics around the thesis. The significance of what is found in the analysis can sometimes be integrated into these sections of analysis prior to a fuller investigation in the conclusion. In the humanities, because it deals so much with interpreting texts, you “see” most of the analysis within the text itself.

IMRD: The results section will provide information about what was found when the analysis was carried out. Much of the analysis is done “off the page” and is then reported here in the results section (with knowledge of “what” was done from the previous methods section). No interpretation is usually directly made (though, indirectly, you can certainly gather what that interpretation would be).

PS: The analysis is carried out both in the background information section(s) where a collection of knowledge is defined for the subject but also in the solutions section(s) when there is a justification made for why a specific solution would work best based on the background information known. Like the TD, analysis/conclusion are a bit integrated.

Conclusion

TD: Usually something at least slightly new happens here, where the writer wants to gesture toward the value of the analysis carried out, possible new directions or applications of the analysis completed, and perhaps some space toward what limitations they ran up against (though, this could have happened in earlier sections too). In a thesis-last formulation, the “new” part is the thesis here, now fully developed.

IMRD: The discussion section now provides a direct comment on the interpretation of the results, there is usually mention about limitations in the study, there is often a gesture toward future directions for the research.