It often happens that the plan seems to be good, but when you try to write a section on it, its logic does not line up. This is understandable: it is one thing to “play” the material in the “mind”, so to speak, in mental speech, the other is to put it on paper. After all, paper, contrary to popular belief, not everyone can tolerate! In this case, you build the section plan anew, and it also happens that you have to change the section title and the whole structure of the thesis, if its logic is not built according to the planned plan.
Of course, you can not follow this recommendation on planning sections, write, how to spell something and work. Some thesis candidates do that. But in this case, firstly, as a rule, much more time is spent on all sorts of rework work. And if the modifications are carried out without a specific plan, the process is delayed for a very long time. Secondly, an ethical problem also arises here you bring a “cohesive” chapter or dissertation in some way to an entire research supervisor, to the department or to the laboratory to which you are attached, and force your colleagues to waste time reading »Work in which you yourself are not convinced.
Of course, it is necessary to give readings to colleagues and ask them to read even individual sections of the dissertation, but only when you yourself are convinced that you have written it, or you are at a dead end and you do not know how to get out of it this also often happens Starting to write a thesis, it is necessary to pay special attention to the clarity and availability of presentation of the material, your literary language. Often, beginning researchers are afraid to express their thoughts in a simple, accessible language after all, this is supposedly “unscientific”. I dare to assure you that your scientific character is not in love, but in those thoughts, ideas that they carry. The panache of “scientific” terms, complex turns of speech, and stationary constructions of sentences is not a scientific nature, but a “scientific form” that occurs, so to speak, in “near-scientific circles”, and not among real scientists.
After all, even such a simple question widely spread among the people: “What is the accordion for?” can be expressed in a science-like language: “On the question of the advisability of using keyboard-pneumatic musical instruments by persons of ecclesiastical rank”. Therefore, constantly monitor yourself for each written sentence, each paragraph and why they are written so that you can convince yourself that you are clever, well-read, how many new terms you have learned, or to inform other people about your future readers some new information that they did not know and that only you could tell them. And this is, in the end, the ultimate goal of any scientific work to convey to people new knowledge.