I’ve recently been thinking about how my written up thesis will be organised, thinking it would be complicated and rather hard to mesh all of the interwoven interpretations together, especially once all of the literature is brought into play and discussion threads overlap and emerge from more than one story.
After more and more thinking I’ve boiled it down to something quite simple, which will hopefully suit the examiners:
What this means is that I can keep each story intact within the body of the thesis – no breaking it up artificially into coded, quoted, extracted elements. I feel that each of the guys’ stories will carry a central argument into which I can weave all of the external understanding brought to bear that will transform the interpretation and then each of the stories will bridge into the next using one of the overlapping experiences that both men share. The word allocation at this stage is entirely arbitrary, I just wanted a feel for how it could balance, however I feel justified in weighting the methodology chapter as I think it will warrant a detailed to discussion for anyone reading my thesis that does not have a knowledgeable grasp of hermeneutics, especially if someone is quite a hard-line social scientist and is so far removed from the origins of scientific thought that they see hermeneutics as a purely philosophical endeavour.