Analytical material
Your supervisor has returned your dissertation plan with comments — what next?
Your supervisor’s comments on an outline may address several aspects of the research. The same document might ask you to narrow your topic, refine your research question, change the chapter structure or explain your methodology more clearly. Working through the comments in the order they appear and simply adjusting the wording rarely resolves the underlying academic issue.
The reason is that the elements of a research project depend on one another. Changing your research question may mean revising the structure, while a new methodology may change the data you need. Adjusting the research aim affects both the introduction and the eventual conclusion.
Start by identifying the reason behind each comment. This helps you distinguish a minor editing task from a request to reconsider the logic of your research.
Feedback on an outline does not necessarily mean starting again
An outline is a working model of the research you intend to carry out. At an early stage, its structure remains open to discussion between you and your supervisor.
Comments help test the research logic before you write substantial sections. This is also part of university practice: some programmes require students to submit a short dissertation outline and receive formative feedback before completing the main project.
Your first task is to identify the academic reason behind each comment. “Too broad” may refer to the topic, “the logic of this chapter is unclear” may indicate a structural problem, and a request to explain your choice of method concerns the research design.
The distinction matters. Changing a few words will not resolve a methodological problem, and rearranging chapter titles will not fix an overly broad research question.
First, separate the comment from the underlying issue
A supervisor’s comment describes a problem from their perspective. Your task is to identify which element of the research has prompted it. A simple feedback record helps keep revisions organised.
Start by recording the supervisor’s original wording. Then identify the academic issue and the element of the research it affects. Once you understand the cause, define the action required. Finally, explain how you will check whether the revised version addresses the issue.
This turns a collection of comments into a clear revision plan.
For example, “the topic is too general” calls for a review of the research boundaries. “It is unclear why this chapter is needed” calls for a review of the section’s purpose. “The method does not match the question” requires you to compare the research question, the data and the approach to analysis.
If your supervisor asks you to narrow the topic
An overly broad topic causes difficulties before you even write the first chapter. A large research area makes it harder to formulate a specific question and select material for analysis.
“The impact of social media on business” covers a vast range of possible subjects and outcomes. To develop it into a viable study, you need to identify the specific phenomenon, the available data and the boundaries of the analysis.
After feedback that a topic is too broad, review your research question. It should make clear what you will analyse and allow you to develop a reasoned answer within the scope of the dissertation.
For a more detailed explanation, see the M&P Advertising guide How to narrow your research question.
If the feedback concerns the dissertation structure
Structural feedback calls for a review of each chapter’s purpose. The title matters less than the role the section plays in the overall argument.
The theoretical section should provide a foundation for the analysis that follows. The literature review should explain the state of the scholarly debate and help justify the research problem. The methodology should explain how you will answer the research question. The results section should present your findings. The discussion should interpret those findings in relation to the research task and the literature.
The precise structure depends on your discipline and university requirements. There is no single table of contents that suits every dissertation.
When reviewing feedback on an outline, examine the connections between neighbouring sections. Each section should create a logical reason for the next. Including a chapter simply because you saw something similar in another dissertation is a weak justification.
If your supervisor says the chapters do not connect
The problem usually goes deeper than the chapter titles. The structure should develop one coherent research project.
The research question sets the direction. The literature review establishes the scholarly foundation. The methodology explains the approach to analysis. The empirical section applies that approach. The conclusion returns to the original question.
When those connections break down, the dissertation can read like several independent texts placed in one document. To revise it, check what each chapter contributes to the main research task. One useful question is: what does this section do to help answer the research question?
If the comment concerns your methodology
Methodological feedback needs particular attention. Renaming the method without revisiting the research design may introduce further contradictions. Your methodology must fit both the research question and the data available.
One research question may require a comparison, another may involve examining a relationship between variables, and other projects may analyse texts or documents. The chosen method must enable you to obtain the evidence needed for your particular question.
After receiving the feedback, check whether you can access the material required for analysis. A methodology that sounds convincing has little practical value if the necessary data are unavailable.
For example, a study of the impact of marketing communications on actual sales needs evidence that can support a relationship with commercial outcomes. Analysing a company’s posts without sales data does not automatically establish the claimed effect.
If your supervisor asks you to add literature
An instruction to add sources does not always mean simply making the bibliography longer. The argument may lack a sufficient academic foundation, the discussion may not engage with differences between scholars, or the work may rely on secondary accounts instead of relevant studies.
Before adding publications, identify what each source needs to do. A source may support the definition of a concept or justify the chosen method. A study may establish a finding that you can compare with your own work. A publication may also reveal limitations in earlier research and help justify a new investigation.
If a comment is too brief or unclear
Comments such as “clarify”, “rework the structure” or “weak methodology” can have several meanings. Guessing increases the risk of unnecessary rewriting.
Before making a substantial change to the research design, establish what the revision should achieve and, where necessary, ask your supervisor to clarify. Your question should show that you have already considered the issue. Rather than simply asking for an explanation, suggest a possible solution and check whether it is the right direction.
For example, if the topic is too broad, propose limiting the population you are studying or specifying the effect you want to examine. This demonstrates independent thinking and allows your supervisor to confirm the direction before you substantially revise the outline.
In what order should you address the feedback?
The order of revisions depends on the relationships within the research. First, review the research problem and question. Then check the research aim. Once the logic is agreed, revisit the methodology. Next, review the chapter structure. Adjust sources and individual wording once the core elements are stable.
Reworking an introduction is of limited value if the research question will change afterwards. Detailed revisions to a literature review may become unnecessary if the topic boundaries change. Developing the empirical section is risky before the methodology has been agreed.
A worked example of interpreting supervisor feedback
Imagine a master’s dissertation in marketing with the initial topic “The impact of social media on young people’s purchasing behaviour”. The supervisor comments that the scope is too broad and that the connection between the topic and the method is weak.
The first issue concerns the study’s boundaries. The wording covers different platforms, different forms of communication and a broad population. The next step is to specify the research context.
The second issue concerns the research design. The claimed impact requires data that allow the proposed relationship to be examined. Simply describing brands’ posts is not enough.
After analysing the feedback, the student has two connected tasks rather than two cosmetic edits. First, the research question needs to become more specific. Once it is clearer, the student can assess which method is suitable and whether the necessary data are available.
This helps avoid a revised outline that looks neater while leaving the original academic issue unresolved.
How to check your revised outline before resubmitting it
The research question should match the topic. The aim should reflect what the study intends to achieve. The methodology should provide the material needed to answer the question. Each chapter should fulfil a distinct role within the overall argument. The eventual conclusion should return to the original question.
You should also check the requirements of your university. Publicly available guidance can help explain academic reasoning, but your programme rules and supervisor’s feedback take priority for your particular dissertation.
If the feedback concerns the introduction, see the M&P Advertising guide How to write an introduction for a thesis research paper.
When a more detailed discussion of the feedback may help
Independent revision becomes harder when one comment affects several parts of the research. A request to change the research question may require revisions to the aim and methodology. A substantial methodological change may affect the structure of the empirical chapter. Feedback about weak argumentation may concern both the literature and the logic of the study.
In these situations, establish the extent of the changes before editing. M&P Advertising provides academic support for bachelor’s and master’s research, taking account of university requirements and supervisor feedback. The student remains the author of the research.
A free consultation is available for feedback on an initial topic and outline at the beginning of a bachelor’s or master’s project. The discussion helps identify structural issues and plan the next steps before substantial sections are written. Research decisions must be agreed with your supervisor.
What to prepare before a consultation
Your current outline and your supervisor’s comments are enough to begin a meaningful discussion. Departmental requirements help establish the formal constraints. Your research question shows the project’s central logic. If you already have a preliminary methodology, include it in the discussion too.
You do not need a completed dissertation to start a consultation. The main purpose of the meeting is to identify the reasons behind the feedback and decide the order of the next steps.
Frequently asked questions
Do you have to follow every supervisor comment literally?
Your supervisor’s feedback has a high priority within your academic project, but a brief comment may need clarification. If several interpretations are possible, agree the direction before making substantial changes. Acting on an interpretation that does not reflect the supervisor’s meaning may lead to another round of revisions.
What should you do if the comments seem contradictory?
First, check the apparent contradiction against the logic of the research. One comment may address the overall concept while another concerns a specific passage. If there is a genuine contradiction, ask your supervisor which requirement takes priority. Choosing between mutually incompatible requirements on your own creates an avoidable risk.
Can you change the research question after receiving feedback?
Changes are possible in the early stages of many research projects, but the procedure depends on programme rules and your supervisor’s decision. After changing the question, check the aim, methodology and structure again. Replacing a single formulation in isolation may undermine the coherence of the research.
How do you know the outline is ready to resubmit?
The revised version should clearly address your supervisor’s comments. The changes should be visible in the research logic. The research question should match the topic, the structure should support the task, and the method should fit the data and the purpose of the analysis. Keep the original comments until the outline is finally agreed so that you can check each revision against them.
Turn feedback on your outline into a clear action plan
Treat your supervisor’s comments as information about a weakness in the research design. Start by identifying the reason behind the comment so you can determine the extent of the change required.
Sometimes the wording needs clarification, sometimes the research question needs revisiting, and more substantial comments may require a change to the structure or methodology. Working through the feedback systematically can reduce repeated revisions and help maintain the connections between different parts of the dissertation.
If you have comments on your topic or initial outline at the beginning of a bachelor’s or master’s project, you can bring the materials to a free consultation with M&P Advertising. A specialist will help you assess the current situation and identify the next steps. Academic decisions remain subject to agreement with your supervisor and the requirements of your university.
