It must be concise and specific, it will adequately reflect the objective of the thesis and the fundamental aspects in which the applicant emphasizes his work. It is convenient to avoid the use of superfluous expressions. It must not exceed 15 words.

It must be selected with great care, so it is advisable to develop several variants to analyze the advantages and deficiencies of each.

Finally, the tutor and the applicant will make the selection of the most appropriate variant.

It must contain precise terms in the scientific-technological aspect. Similarly, proceed with the titles of the chapters and epigraphs of the thesis.


In it, the novelty and topicality of the subject, the object of the research, its objectives, the working hypothesis, the methodological foundation and the methods used to carry out the research work must be briefly but clearly explained. That is, the introduction is the scientific basis of the thesis in summary form.

  • The introduction should not exceed 10 pages.
  • Historical social context of the object of study.
  • You must locate the reader in the place where the research is conducted and its
  • general characterization.


We must expand what has been developed in the project and some questions on the subject could be: Does the world and the country have any experience related to this research and with similar or different results?

What have been the results of that experience? What publications are there and with what conclusions?

It is important to highlight if there is previous information about similar research in the country or in the world. Describe in detail that information.

Why is what has been done insufficient? In what sense is it different (quantitatively or qualitatively) what you did?

Justification / Theoretical Rationale

The conceptual elements that underlie the research are exposed in detail. Given the background and the approach to the problem, why this type of research and not another? How do the content and the elements differ?

essentials of what has been done so far? What theoretical elements allow us to suppose that research is necessary and timely and that it must be effective?

In the case that the thesis makes an evaluation, some questions for the justification of the investigation could be: why is it necessary to make a

evaluation? Why at this time? Is the evaluation self-justifying or is it a prerequisite for possible subsequent actions? What is the purpose of the evaluation: a technology, a product, a prior intervention? In this last case, to what extent has this intervention been evaluated? In what sense is it or

Are the previous evaluations insufficient? What factor does the current evaluation address, ie what has been proposed as the content of the project? Does it respond to an explicit demand, or is it an initiative of the authors of the evaluation object? Is the current evaluation company definitive or is it simply part of a larger, more comprehensive or longer-term evaluation?

If the thesis proposes a new product, some questions in the justification could be: Why and why this product? What emptiness, what insufficiency or what problem solves its existence? To what extent are these problems solved with the existence of this product? If the product replaces or complements a previous one, what was the insufficient, inappropriate the product that serves as background?

Definition of the scientific problem

The previous section will be the basis of this, the answers to all these questions will be the justification or rationale of the problem that arises and this must refer to two fundamental aspects: the practical problem, which some prefer to call “problematic situation”, and the problem scientific, which is invariably a problem of a cognitive nature.

As it was done in the project, but now in more detail, the thesis must describe in an explicit manner the practical problem that has been or has been attempted to solve and the scientific problem: what you want to know, demonstrate or confirm. There is no scientific research without a cognitive problem. The aspirant must remember that a problem well posed is a problem already partially solved; must also bear in mind that any

evaluative judgment on a thesis work, always refers to the objectives, and ultimately, to the problem posed.

Approach of the Hypothesis or Scientific Questions

Not all investigations have hypotheses; everything depends on the degree of knowledge about the problem being investigated. Only those investigations that have already passed the exploratory phase and are in a confirmatory or verifiable phase need hypotheses. The hypotheses are just the object of confirmation or verification. Try to force the presence of hypotheses when knowledge about a problem or the very nature of the problem does not

Consent is one of the most frequent mistakes that are made in practice.

The author of the thesis must always remember a well-known demarcatory principle of scientific hypotheses and that these must be “refutable” or “falsifiable”.

This means that in the context of the research it must be possible to formulate an empirical statement that leads to the rejection or refutation of the hypothesis. For example, that tobacco (or smoking) is a risk factor for chronic obstructive respiratory diseases, has long since been a

scientific hypothesis: it is not possible to imagine any experience that leads to review a proposal that the scientific community accepts beyond any reasonable doubt. Still another example: it makes no sense to hypothesize that moderate physical exercise contributes to the rehabilitation of patients who have suffered an acute myocardial infarction (it could be said that regardless of the result, in any investigation this is a hypothesis accepted a priori); however, it would make sense the hypothesis that moderate physical exercise contributes to slow the progression towards the total kidney dysfunction of a renal transplant recipient, because the evidences in that sense they are scarce and contradictory.


  • Current situation or diagnosis of the investigated object.
  • Determination of territorial, national and international trends.
  • Bases for the conformation of the Theoretical Model of the research object:
  • Theoretical background.
  • Existing theories, systematization.
  • Correspondence with the hypothesis or scientific questions.
  • Investigative process developed.
  • Theoretical results of the bibliographic and documentary review that support scientifically conducted research.
  • Raise the concepts and key definitions of the subject in question
  • The author must take sides according to his criteria. You must adopt a position, to explain to which theory you hold or enunciate your own.


(its inclusion is decided by the author)

If the key concepts and definitions that you have to gather in the research report are numerous, varied and novel, it deserves to be collected in an independent chapter.

If there are aspects that will have a particular or specific definition for the research that is developed.

If there are few definitions, they can be collected in the theoretical framework itself.


When an opponent, member of the court or general critic, needs to formulate an agile evaluative judgment about a thesis work, the path that any expert takes is to examine the degree of correspondence between the approach of the problem, the objectives and the conclusions. Therefore, the first recommendation is to observe a strict correspondence between the objectives and the approach of the problem.

The objectives must be specific goals that can be achieved or not, but it should be possible to verify when the execution of the project ends. It is very common to confuse objectives with tasks or with long-term goals, or with the expected results. The objectives of an intervention refer to concrete results that are constitutive of the intervention and not its mere consequence.

Some suggestions for writing the objectives are:

  • should not be trivial, it can be seen relatively often: contribute to

increase the quality …;

  • they should not be contaminated with methods or procedures, such as when writing: study the degree of satisfaction, through personal interviews and through the organization of focus groups.

Some institutions require explicit distinction between general objectives and specific objectives. There is, in principle, no reason for this scheme, which often leads to the writing of vague and lacking general information objectives. Nor is there any reason against this distinction, the author of the thesis who chooses to take it into account, must take care that the general objective is not

collect the how and guarantee a correspondence between the scientific problem, the scientific questions, the general objective and the specific ones.