Currently, Phd dissertations in Social Sciences and the Humanities in Portugal tend to lack the

“what for” part of the argument.

Abstract
I’m studying the absence of the “what for” part of the argument in PhD dissertations in Social
Sciences and the Humanities. I concentrate on dissertations defended at UCP in between 2005-
2010. I do it so in order to demonstrate the lack of writing tools and training that grad students
have. My argument is based on the works/ research carried out by XXXXXXX. The goal is that my
readers understand the rhetorical use of the “what for” part and why their dissertations end up
having no applicable purpose in society.

Introduction

1st paragraph  hook (story telling element)

During the last minute of her dissertation defense in 2005, right before her last breath
of desperation, Maria Joaquina was asked what was the point of researching her object for over
7 years.

2nd paragraph  argument lay out + corpus + methodology

I’m studying the absence of the “what for” part of the argument in PhD dissertations in
Social Sciences and the Humanities.

3rd paragraph  “they say, I say”: mini lit-review + back up (citations + references)
Anzini, P. has argued that the vast majority of dissertations lack the “what for” part for
the absence of writing training at higher education institutions. Citation of her work.
Paraphrasing of her work. Indirect reference to her work. Further explanation. PRACTICAL
examples and/or evidence. Transition/ Hook (pronoun, repetition, paraphrase, signpost,
indirect reference to what has been said, etc.).

4th paragraphs 
Harrison, on the other hand, has taken on the positive side of the discussion. He has
claimed that the reason for the “what for” lacking phenomenon is due to a new emerging
writing style in Academia.

5th paragraph  “I say”: restating my argument (2nd paragraph) contrasting/ complementing/

differentiating/ adding to the voices of the previous ones
To me, the reason is not only due to the ones raised by Anzini. More problematic is the
fact that lacking the “what for” part points to lacking an applicable purpose of scientific
production in society.

6th paragraph  step by step

 In part one, I ….
In part two, I….

7th paragraph  Transition (hook)

In the next section, let’s …..