Division of Philosophy, KTH

Theory and Methodology of Science

Essay writing guidelines for PhD students
Rikard Levin, January 2 0 0 5
Updat ed Sept ember 2 0 0 7 by Birgit t e Wandall
Minor rev. by JJ, Sept ember 2 0 0 9
Minor rev. by ED, January 2 0 1 2
Minor rev. by RO, November 2 0 1 2

1 Introduction
Youre asked to write a short essay (3000-3500 words) on a topic relevant for the
course. The default approach is to write about a question or problem within your own
research project, and discuss some methodological or philosophical aspect of it. That
youre supposed to discuss is hopefully made clear below, but it cant be stressed
enough. We want you to actively reflect on, and problematise, some issue that you feel
isnt quite clear to you. You should discuss these issues in light of concepts youve
learnt from the TaMoS course, for example: internal- or external validity, theory
dependence, selection bias, observer effects or experimental errors, falsificationism.
You should, so to speak, raise the level of discussion one level up from what the day-to-
day research requires. Youre also supposed to make use of the course literature in your
essay, and whatever relevant philosophical literature you find.
When choosing the topic of your essay you might be helped by taking one of the
four themes suggested in the appendix as a point of departure.

1.1 How long should the essay be?

The obvious reason for the limitation to 3500 words is that three of your course mates
at the examination seminar as well as John and I must have a reasonable chance to read
what you've written. This means that you must limit the problem you like to treat. Its
better to make a narrow delimitation of your problem, and then discuss that in detail,
than to try to apply everything touched upon at the course in your essay. The final result
will most certainly be more interesting that way.
No one prevents you from writing 15 or 22 pages if the writing happens to be
easy, but make sure the text you hand in is of no more than 3500 words. (Of course, we
want to encourage your doing philosophy, and use what you learnt. Maybe you can
discuss it with the collegues at your department, friends, people on the bus, or with your
course mates.)

2 Structure of the essays, advice on writing etc.

2.1 How to organise and not organise the essay

You probably already know how to structure and write papers in your own field. In most
fields, a paper should have something like the IMRAD structure (Introduction
MethodResultsandDiscussion) as outlined below. In philosopy of science this
format is seldom, if ever, used, but rather the ID structure (IntroductionDiscussion).

2.2 Why not the IMRAD format in philosophy

In empirical science some specific part of reality is investigated. For the investigation to
be systematic a method is needed. Using the method yields results that are to be
presented and interpreted.
In philosophy, on the other hand, one investigates ideas, concepts, lines of
thought, or the like. The inquiry has to be systematic, but there are no (or very seldom)

1
 Division of Philosophy, KTH

methods to use that resemble chemical experiments, methods and devices for materials
testing, interview techniques, statistical sampling, computer simulations and so on.
Experiments are as a rule limited to thought experiments. (In that sense there is an
experimental method in philosophy, but that doesn't make philosophy an experimental
science.) The methods used resemble what you will do in the seminar called
definition clinic.

2.3 Organisation of your essays

The point here is that, although you should not follow the ID format strictly, you should
definitely avoid the IMRAD format. Especially, you shouldnt limit your discussion to
only one page. Rather, we suggest that you use something like the other structure
below, named Philosophy-of-science-course essays.

1 Science, t echnology, social science,

( The IMRAD f ormat )

Int roduct ion ( p.)

( What is t he problem? Previous research,

out line of t he paper)

Met hod ( 1 pp.)

( How did you gat her dat a? Experiment al

set up/ t heory or t ehniques used)

Result s ( 2 pp.)

( What did you f ind using t he met hod?)

Discussion ( 1 p.)

( How do you int erpret your f indings?)

Conclusions ( 1 / 2 p.)

3 Philosophy-of-science-course essays

( The 1 N5 1 1 3 / -4 f ormat )

Int roduct ion ( p.) Very brief int roduct ion t o your f ield/ research. Brief ,
very clear f ormulat ion of t he issue t o t reat / analyse/ .

( A quest ion t o answer or a t hesis t o def end)

Out line of t he paper

Your research project ( 1 p.) Present at ion of t hat in your research t hat is relevant t o

t he issue; background inf o. 1

1 Its a good idea to accomplish this section as the last thing in the writing process. Not until youve
discussed your problem youll know what part of your research will need to be presented.

2
 Division of Philosophy, KTH

Discussion of t he [ This is t he import ant sect ion.] Analysis needed f or

philosophical/ met hodological problems anwering t he quest ion ( if possible) . Argument s f or and

( 4 p.) against your t hesis. Discussion of problems in t he

met hods you use in your research use TaMoS

concept s.

Conclusions ( 1 p.) Import ant sect ion requires somet hing t o draw

conclusions f rom! St at e your claim and main argument s.

3 Some advice on writing

3.1 Style
Write plainly: do not complicate your text more that absolutely needed. Say what you
mean as simply as possible. (Of course, dont oversimplify things either.) When needed,
use the appropriate technical terms (from your own field and from the course books),
but do not use them excessively. If you need to include equations or formulas, thats
OK, but usually you should explain their meaning.
It's good to have an intended reader in mind when trying to get at the appropriate
level. A reasonable demand is that things both your outline of the relevant research
and your discussion of your problems should be sufficiently simple as to be under-
stood by other students in the course, and by John and me. (Thus, you can take for
granted that the reader knows what a hypothesis is, or what falsification is, and such
basic concepts dont need to be explained in detail unless you intend to problematise
or question them.) Yet, since there shouldnt be any doubts about what is meant by key
terms its a good idea to say a few words on how you understand, or how you will use
them. Define if needed. (It is, after all, better to give too much explanation than too
little.)

3.2 References, use of others's ideas etc.

As usual, it should always be clear to the reader whether that which you present is
someone elses idea.. Thus, use references and quotations as usual. If youre not sure of
how to do, take a look at an article or a book and see how others have done. When you
refer to the course books or other books, dont merely write: Hacking (1998). Include
page numbers.
Generally, it should always be clear who says or thinks what. A special case is
when you present your own ideas or thoughts. Then, make that clear. Dont write it is
thought that so or so, it is doubted that about your own opinion, but instead: I
think that or I doubt that . This probably isnt the most usual style in academic
writing although it should be.

3.3 Defending a thesis is recommended

Writing this essay is an opportunity for you to discuss issues in your research that you
may not address in your regular research articles, because they aren't directly relevant to
your research problem, at least not to the degree that you may discuss them in detail in
an article. You should discuss these issues in light of concepts youve learnt from
the TaMoS course, for example: internal- or external validity, theory dependence,
selection bias, observer effects or experimental errors, falsificationism.

3
 Division of Philosophy, KTH

It becomes more fun to read, and probably also more fun to write if you take an
own position to the issue, and formulate a thesis that you defend and test against
counter-arguments. The thesis may very well be bold. If it turns out that you cant
defend it fully (and it is therefore refuted), then that can also be an interesting result.

3.3.1 Do speculate but dont forget the arguments

Normally in your essays, its not sufficient merely to say that you think so or so. You
should provide arguments for your opinion or belief. Compare with the paradigmatic
case of mathematics or formal logic. If one believes that one can prove a certain
theorem within some system using one axiom less than is usually thought, no one would
believe one if one just says that one can do that, or that it is ones opinion that it is
possible the proof has to be supplied.
Thus, if an idea or thesis is your own make it plausible by providing arguments
for it. (Explain why a certain interpretation or analysis is better than another, etc.) In
addition, test the idea against possible counter-arguments. Counter-arguments are of
course also needed if you disagree with someone elses idea, including those presented
in the course literature.
A classical text on argumentation theory is Arne Nss: Communication and
Argument: Elements of Applied Semantics, 1966. (In Swedish: Empirisk semantik,
Esselte 1961, and later editions.)

4
 Division of Philosophy, KTH

Appendix
SOH, Feb 2002 (minor changes by Erik Dahl, January 2012)

The major purpose of this essay of 46 pages is that you should relate your own research
to issues in the philosophy of science or to general issues in research methodology. The
essay should be written in English.

What follows are four examples of subject types. You can choose one of these, or mix
them as you like, or for that matter, treat some other subject that is accepted by one of
the teachers of the course. However you do, the questions may be used as a starting
point.

My experiment
1. The purpose: What does the experiment aim at finding out? Could this
information be obtained in some other way? Why was this method chosen?
2. Theory dependence. Does the experiment or its intended interpretation depend
on some background theory?
3. Variables: Which are the dependent and independent variables in the
experiment? Is the choice of variables self-evident, or could other variables have
been included? Are all variables under sufficient control?
4. Observations and measurements. Will you be able to measure what you aim at
measuring, or are there problems with validity? What sources of errors are there?
Is the degree of precision known?
5. Observer effects. Are there any such effects? Could they be brought under better
control?
6. Problems of interpretation.
7. Conclusion. Can the experiment be improved?

Methodological problems in previous research in this area

1. Background: The research area and its major issues.
2. Selection. You have chosen to discuss some previous papers in the area. What
criteria have you used in selecting these papers? (Such as: much quoted, recent,
treat issue that you are going to study yourself.)
3. Presentation of methodological issues. You have chosen some methodological
issues that you are going to study in the selected articles. (Such as selection bias,
experimental errors of different kinds, observer effects, statistical interpretation
etc.)
4. A run-down of the selected articles. In this section you go through the chosen
studies, one after the other, and treat the selected methodological issues,
systematically, in each of them.
5. Summary and conclusions.

5
 Division of Philosophy, KTH

Verification and falsification in my area of research

1. Background: The meaning of verification and falsification.
2. The research area: What is it that researchers try to find out?
3. Hypotheses: What are the major types of hypotheses? Is explorative
(hypothesis-free) research common?
4. Falsifiability and verifiability: Are the hypotheses falsifiable, and/or verifiable,
with todays research methods?
5. An example (or two): Study more in depth one particular hypothesis. What
attempts have been made to falsify or verify it? What is known about it today?
What types of investigations are important to make?
6. Conclusion. The role of falsification and verification in this area of research.

A central concept in my research. What do we mean by the term X?

1. Introduce the term. What significance does it have in your area of research? How
is it defined in textbooks, handbooks, dictionaries? Has the definition changed?
Is it problematic in some way (controversial/contested, inexact, )?
2. Select a number of examples in order to test the common definition/definitions,
using the method you learnt in the definition clinic (the counterexample
method). Compare the different defintions, if there are several of them.
3. Conclusion. How do you think the term should preferably be defined? Argue for
your conclusion!