ku thesis guidelines

• Enroll & Pay
• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Degree Programs

Theses and Dissertations

As you embark upon this important element of your academic career, you should be aware of what a dissertation or thesis looks like. After all, how can you write a dissertation chapter if you've never read one before? Advisers often focus on the content of your dissertation or thesis since this is the culmination of a stage of your academic career and as such should showcase your writing, research, and critical thinking skills-but the form of a dissertation or thesis is also important, and commensurately more difficult to teach.

For every discipline there are differing expectations as to what a dissertation or thesis should include, as well as how it should be formatted. Even though as a writer you have control over how to explain your ideas and how to organize them within the text, scholars in your field have agreed upon how a dissertation/thesis should be organized: what types of chapters you should include, the minimum number of chapters a dissertation or thesis should have, and how those are formatted. This is where seeing and reading what other writers within your discipline and department have done will be helpful. You should do this sooner rather than later.

Getting Started: 

• Start by asking your adviser if they have any suggestions of dissertations or theses you should look at. They may point you to things like the writings of an ex-advisee or a certain literature review article in a journal.
• After speaking to your adviser, you can seek out either a reference librarian or a subject librarian to find other dissertations or theses in your subject area. Find out more about how to access completed dissertations and theses at Dissertations and Theses at KU . 
• Reading not just for content but also for form will help you understand better how to put together your dissertation or thesis. Learn about thesis and dissertation formatting via  KU Libraries: Thesis and Dissertation Formatting . 
• Think about how the project as a whole is organized as well as how the individual chapters are organized: how do they separate their literature review from their discussion of their results, for example? Do they utilize headings and subheadings or bulleted lists at any point?
• Moreover, take notes about elements of the project that stand out to you: use of tables, inclusion of photographs, striking introductions, chapter titles.
• Based on what you know so far, brainstorm ideas for what to include in your project and how those ideas can be organized. See Prewriting Strategies.  

Finding and Synthesizing Sources: 

Produce a research question that you hope your research will answer. If you are at the beginning stage of this process, you may have a general or vague question or set of questions. Eventually you want to create a set of questions that focus on a specific problem within your area of interest and join an existing academic conversation. 

Begin researching. The KU Libraries has many guides and tutorials for how to use the library resources. You can also set up a meeting with a librarian . 

Compile a list of sources that seem to approach your subject of interest. In the beginning you may want to compile at least a list of 10 sources and to organize them in a matrix or an annotated bibliography where you note the subject matter of the source, its novel argument, its theoretical relationship to the subject and field, and what may be lacking within the analysis. At a later stage, you may want to synthesize what is different between each source and similar to all the sources you compile and decide on the specific problem you want your research to cover based on the existing viewpoints and conversations on the topic. Find more information on Annotated Bibliographies in our Bibliographies guide. 

Find data and a data source that is appropriate and compatible with your research problem and question. If you are collecting your own data, make sure that you complete the appropriate protocols to ensure that your project will be completed within the intended timeframe.  

Keep track of your sources through citation management tools like EndNote and Zotero. See How to Select and Use Citation Management Tools . 

Additional steps will depend on the kind of project you are completing. At this point it may be a good idea to meet with the Graduate Writing Coach for more guidance on additional steps.

Literature Reviews: 

The point of the literature review section of your thesis or dissertation is to demonstrate an understanding of the ongoing conversations, disagreements, and conceptualizations of your topic of interest. As a form of writing that tends to be highly technical, it will probably undergo several changes before you are able to reach a draft that closely resembles your final product. Your literature review should directly correspond to your research questions, research purpose, and may be used to justify the methodology of the study. Learn more through our Literature Reviews guide. 

Getting Feedback: 

Stuck in your writing process? You may benefit from a consultation with our graduate writing director. To schedule a meeting and for more information see the following: Graduate Writing Coaching | KU Writing Center  

Faculty Feedback: Throughout your thesis and dissertation process you will have to keep consistent communication with your advisor/chair and committee members. It is important to view all faculty feedback throughout this process as a conversation that will allow your research to both improve and reach the required conventions of research in your field. If you find yourself stuck with contradictory comments or unclear questions, you may want to reach out to your advisor for additional help. If you have questions throughout this process, you may also want to consider making a coaching appointment with the graduate writing director at the link above.   

Time Management: 

It is important that you learn and intentionally prioritize your thesis and dissertation research and writing.  

Set aside a direct weekly block to complete your thesis/dissertation hours.  

Use SMARTER goals to help you keep track of your progress and to split the larger semester goal into weekly goals that can be measured, are concrete, and remain specific.  

Time-block your calendar so that you can set aside concrete time to finish your weekly writing goal and to block off time to complete your other responsibilities.  

Find an accountability buddy within your department, have consistent check-in sessions with your advisor or committee member, and/or join a KU writing group to help you stay on track.  

References: 

Foss, Sonja K., and Waters, William Joseph Condon. Destination Dissertation: a Traveler's Guide to a Done Dissertation. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007. 

(Updated July 2022)  

• Enroll & Pay

Campus Map | Directions | Campuses | Buses | Parking

Information Technology | Jobs at KU

Tuition | Bill Payments | Scholarship Search Financial Aid | Loans | Beak 'em Bucks

Browse by school

Search class sections | Online courses

Libraries | Hours & locations | Ask

Advising | Catalog | Tutors Writing Center | Math help room Finals Schedule | GPA Calculator

• Social Media

Search form

Master's thesis submission and publication.

This policy describes the requirements and submission process for a master's thesis.

Graduate students on the Lawrence and Edwards campuses

When the master’s candidate has passed the final oral examination and the members of the committee have signed the thesis, a title page and acceptance page with original signatures are to be delivered to the Graduate Affairs office of the school in which the student’s program resides so that completion of degree requirements may be officially certified. As a requirement of graduation, the candidate must arrange publication of the thesis and payment of all applicable fees through the electronic submission process found here .

Theses will be made available through UMI/Proquest and KU ScholarWorks unless there is an embargo in place or special circumstances pertain as outlined in the KU Embargo policy .

The student must be the author of the thesis, and every publication from it must indicate that authorship. Practices vary among disciplines—and even among scholars in a given field—as to whether the mentor’s name may appear as a co-author, and whether as senior or junior author co-author, on subsequent publication of the thesis (usually revised) or on articles prepared from it. It is expected that clear understandings in individual cases will be established during the apprenticeship period when ethical practices in publication are addressed within the professional development training of the program.

Graduate Studies 785-864-8040 [email protected]

Embargo Policy for Theses and Dissertations  Doctoral Dissertation

Electronic Thesis and Dissertation (ETD) Release Form Electronic Thesis and Dissertation (ETD) Release Form for Creative Writing MFA/PhD Students 

07/27/2023: Updated links, removed repetitive language, updated Approved by to Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor. 09/06/2013: Revisions of this policy approved by Graduate Studies and the Office of the Provost. 10/29/2010: Revisions of this policy approved by Graduate Studies and the Office of the Provost. This policy pre-dates the KU online Policy Library. The dates listed in the approval and effective date fields reflect the date it was moved into the Policy Library.

Let Us Help »

Request Previous Policy Version

• Spencer Research Library Retention Schedule
• KU Libraries Retention Schedule
• Technical Support for Classrooms, School of Pharmacy
• School of Engineering Bylaws, Bioengineering
• School of Engineering Bylaws, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
• Petition for Tuition and Fee Refund
• KU Libraries: Proxy Borrower Card
• KU Libraries: Gifts of Books and Other Library Materials
• Racial and Ethnic Harassment Policy
• Commercial Note-Taking Ventures, Provost's Statement on

Give to KU »

• Enroll & Pay

Dissertation Guidelines

A dissertation should be the culmination of course work completed in the School of Journalism and Mass Communications by a doctoral student. A dissertation is theoretically based, scientific research directed and critiqued by an academic committee selected by the graduate student.

Dissertation Proposal

The proposal consists of the first three chapters of the dissertation and outlines the capstone research to be conducted as part of completion of the doctoral degree. The proposal must be presented to the student’s academic committee and formally defended in front of that committee before the start of primary data collection. The proposal includes:

• An  introduction  that outlines the problem that will be examined, the purpose and importance of the research, a brief introduction of the theory and methods used in the study, and an overview of the dissertation’s chapters. (12-15 pages)
• An exhaustive  literature review  outlining the previous research conducted on the subject, an extensive explanation of the theory being used in the study, and research questions and/or hypotheses that the dissertation will address. (30-40 pages)
• A  methodology  of the data being used in the study. As applicable to the research method used in the study, the methodology will include but may not be limited to the sample and how it will be collected, operationalization of definitions used in the study, measurements used in the study, timeline for gathering/analyzing data, and other materials pertaining to the validity of the data collection. The methodology is the most important aspect of research design. Be thorough in explaining plans for data collection. Fail in the methodology and the research fails. (15-20 pages)
• A  plan of action  will outline the timetable for the dissertation, beginning with a proposal defense date and ending with a dissertation defense. Be specific with dates about data collection, writing the results and conclusions. (1-2 pages)
• References  of all materials used in the proposal (pages as needed)
• Dissertation proposal total: About 60-80 pages (+ references)

NOTE : The dissertation proposal generally will be presented and defended following successful completion of the comprehensive exams. The proposal and comprehensive exams may be defended at the same time.

Dissertation

The dissertation generally consists of five chapters: the introduction, literature review, and methods, each revised in accordance with committee recommendations; and the results and discussion/conclusion chapters. Other organizational schemes may be more appropriate for some topics. The complete dissertation must be presented to the student’s academic committee and formally defended in front of that committee. The dissertation includes:

• A revised  introduction . (12-15 pages)
• A revised  literature review . (30-40 pages)
• A revised  methodology . (15-20 pages)
• Results  of the research that answers the research questions or addressed the hypotheses. Analysis of data should be explained. A clear understanding and summation of the results are to be included. Charts, tables and graphs are to be included in the results section. (15-20 pages)
• A  discussion  provides context to the results and explains why the results are what they are. The discussion can also introduce additional results that are not addressed by the RQs or Hs. The discussion should circle back to the literature review and explain how and why this study added to the theory and the practical implications. The discussion should incorporate the results of the current study into the results from previous work. The author should be able to contextualize what it all means to the larger research. The discussion should include the study’s limitations and questions for future research. (15-20 pages)
• Conclusions  summarize the key points of the research and its implications. (5-10 pages)
• References  of all materials used in the proposal. (pages as needed)
• Dissertation total: about 100-125 pages (+ references)

NOTE : Page numbers are rough estimates. Actual length of each dissertation chapter will vary depending on each student’s research questions and research approach. KU Thesis and Dissertation Formatting Guidelines.

• School of Health Professions
• School of Medicine
• School of Nursing
• University of Kansas
• The University of Kansas Health System
• The University of Kansas Cancer Center
• Academic and Student Affairs
• Graduate Studies
• For Students
• Formatting Resources
• Fellowships & Awards
• Graduation Information
• GTA and GRA
• Our Campuses
• Make a Gift
• Current Students
• Prospective Students
• Prospective Employees
• Faculty & Staff
• Residents & Fellows
• Researchers

Office of Graduate Studies

Electronic thesis and dissertation (etd).

At the University of Kansas Medical Center, Ph.D. students are required to submit a dissertation and some MS students are required to submit a thesis as part of their degree requirements.  Theses and dissertations will be submitted to ProQuest, where the papers will be published. 

For help formatting your thesis or dissertation, visit the Formatting Resources page. Utilizing these resources prior to defense and submission of your thesis or dissertation will ensure a smooth journey to final approval.

The Completion page provides step-by-step information to help students navigate the process through the thesis or dissertation defense and to graduation.

University of Kansas Medical Center Office of Graduate Studies 3901 Rainbow Boulevard Mail Stop 1040 Kansas City, KS 66160 P: 913-588-1238 Email:  [email protected]

We use cookies to analyze our traffic & provide social media features. Visit the KU Medical Center Privacy Statement for more information. By closing this window & browsing this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

PhD School in the Humanities

• PhD thesis, assessment and defence
• Formats and content-re...

Formats and content-related guidelines for the thesis

The PhD thesis is the final output after a three-year PhD research programme. The thesis is the result of extensive, original research and presents the findings of the PhD student’s research project.  

A PhD thesis must clearly demonstrate the author’s ability to generate new knowledge and understanding in relation to the international state of the art of the relevant research field(s). The thesis must engage with the academic theories and concepts and apply relevant methods of the field and present a research effort corresponding to the international standards for PhD theses.

A PhD thesis is usually written in Danish or English. Theses written in other languages than Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, or English must be approved by the PhD committee following application. The thesis should include an abstract in both Danish and English, with each abstract limited to one page.

A PhD thesis can take various forms, such as a monograph or an article-based thesis, each offering their own advantages. It is advisable to discuss the thesis format with the supervisor and determine the structure early in the process.

Monograph PhD thesis​

A monograph is usually 200-250 pages long and does not usually exceed approx. 100,000 words, including footnotes, endnotes, and captions. The word count does not include bibliography, table of content, abstracts, indexes, image inventory, appendices, etc. However, PhD projects, dissertations and fields of research vary, and these word counts should be taken as a rule of thumb rather than a hard limit. In addition to the research and analysis in each chapter, the monograph should include:

• An introduction detailing the objectives and research questions of the thesis.
• A comprehensive review of the international state of the art.
• An account and explanation of key theories, concepts and methods used in the thesis.
• A description of the empirical material and criteria for its selection (if applicable).
• A conclusion summarizing the thesis and a discussion of its contribution to the advancement of the research field(s).

It is perfectly acceptable for parts of the monograph (e.g. a chapter, or parts of a chapter) to be published in the same form or in a different form as an article or a contribution to an anthology before handing in the thesis. The publication status of chapters in question should be clearly stated in the thesis, and the reprinted or edited/rewritten parts clearly marked.

See further guidelines on research integrity (UCPH intranet)

Article-based PhD thesis

An article-based thesis consists of a number of substantial articles related in content, tied together and framed by an introductory chapter (a ‘cape’). The articles must cohere in terms of subject matter, theory or methodology and may be single- or co-authored. An article-based thesis is usually shorter than a monograph but should be guided by the same rule of thumb of a maximum of 100,000 words.

Articles included in a PhD thesis adhere to general academic standards for articles published with peer review. However, it is not necessary for the articles to have been published, undergone peer review, or submitted for publication before the thesis submission. The publication status of the articles will not impact the assessment of the thesis.

The introductory chapter, for which the PhD student must be the sole author, serves as an introductory and summarizing text approximating a major review article (approx. 30–50 pages). In addition to presenting the objectives and overall research questions of the thesis, the chapter should include the following:

• A description of the empirical material and criteria used for its selection (if applicable).
• A synopsis for each of the articles, outlining their results and elucidating their interrelationships and cohesion.

In cases where the PhD thesis includes co-authored articles, the introductory chapter should also provide a detailed account of the PhD student's role in and independent contributions to each article for which they are not the sole author.

If one or more of the above subjects is adequately met in the individual articles (e.g. international state-of-the-art, definition of central concepts etc.) it does not need to be repeated in the introductory chapter, which may be shortened accordingly.

For published articles or articles accepted for publication, the name and date of the publication must be listed.

See guidelines for article-based PhD theses (pdf)

What we learned from Emma Hayes’ victorious USWNT at the Paris Olympics

For the first time since 2012, the United States are the gold medalists in women’s Olympic soccer. A well-played ball from Korbin Albert to Mallory Swanson made all the difference, with Emma Hayes’ side overcoming an inspired Brazil 1-0 in the final.

Making the gold medal match is an achievement in its own right. Nobody knew what to expect from the USWNT at this tournament. The logistics of Hayes’ Chelsea departure meant she had just 360 friendly minutes to get her new team ready for the Games. That truncated ramp-up could have left the team ill-prepared to contend.

Advertisement

Instead, the players rallied behind their new boss. They reminded the world they’re able to score in bunches, to the dismay of Zambia and Germany. They showed impressive tactical nous amidst the crash-course implementation of Hayes’ ideology, neutralizing a previously terrific Japan and again using in-game adjustments to best Brazil. And, as any great team must in a major tournament, they found ways to win ugly: first against Australia, then in the semifinal against a more composed version of Germany.

There was no single method for success this summer, which is very much in line with Hayes’ whole vibe. Rather than coaching from a strict structure that forces opponents to adjust to her team’s tried-and-true approach like many modern coaches, Hayes studies an opponent to modify her approach — guided by principles and areas of emphasis rather than a team shape carved in stone — and use her team’s strengths in unique ways.

For those reasons and the small sample size of one tournament, any attempt to compile the definitive dossier of Hayes’ tactical ideology is a fool’s errand. That said, Hayes has undeniably passed her first test. One would expect her to only improve on this performance as she spends more than two months on the job and further builds the team around her principles. World, be warned.

Prominent principles

A few clear tenets of Hayes’ vision emerged across the entire tournament and seem likely to stick around based on these six performances. Let’s dig into those before looking at a few areas we might expect to see evolution in the months and years to come.

The USWNT in possession

Although this tournament was marked by changes and reinventions, eight of Hayes’ first-choice lineup — all but Tierna Davidson , Sam Coffey and Mallory Swanson —  were regularly involved in last summer’s World Cup. Under Vlatko Andonovski, the United States held a narrow advantage with a possession rate of 52.9 per cent but often didn’t seem to know what to do with the ball. It led to some sloppy forced passes and frustrating turnovers at the edge of the final third, giving opponents plenty of time to set up sequences of their own as play changed hands.

Confident in her players’ collective abilities on the ball, Hayes’ version doubles down on controlling play. Their 65 per cent possession rate trailed only hypnotic defending World Cup champion Spain this summer, with rates ranging from 42.9 per cent in the final against Brazil to 78.1 per cent in the opening blowout against Zambia.

Alyssa Naeher ’s utilization in build-up has been more radical than any other player’s. In the World Cup, exactly 50 per cent of her passes traveled 35 yards or further. This summer, that clip dropped to 29.5 per cent through the semifinal — the second-lowest rate of any goalkeeper in these Olympics , behind France’s Pauline Peyraud-Magnin. That change alone goes a long way toward ensuring your team keeps the ball, relying less on winning aerial duels or lobs that can fail to find a friendly target.

The reverse played out in the final: the one time the United States failed to win the possession battle, Naeher’s launch rate skyrocketed to 100 per cent (yes —each of her 27 passes went over 35 yards) and the United States held just under 43 per cent of the ball.

The gold medalists were patient in build-up, directing 34 per cent of all passes forward — down from last summer’s rate of 37.6 per cent. Rather than overly relying upon risk/reward passes, the USWNT was far more comfortable with recirculation. Critically, Hayes has quickly remedied the attacking struggles that held the United States back last summer.

We’re not done talking about Triple Espresso yet

It’s hard to overstate the importance of Swanson’s return. Her interplay with Sophia Smith is the smoothest of any left-sided option, as both players (and, often, in tandem with Trinity Rodman ) weave in and out of open lanes to unsettle a defense before they even see the ball. Swanson has also provided a far greater threat while shooting and creating than Alex Morgan managed last year, while Smith looks far more at home as a striker than shunted to the wing (as she was last summer).

Meanwhile, Rodman was perhaps the attack’s heartbeat. No player came close to matching her industry in terms of entering the box.

“Put your best players in their best spots and let them cook” isn’t exactly worthy of a master’s thesis, but it works wonders in a major tournament. No team at these Olympics exceeded the USWNT’s rate of four big chances per game, nearly double the field’s average of 2.4. The United States’ shots came from an average of 15.1 yards out — third-nearest of any team, evidence of well-worked sequences setting up golden opportunities.

Unsurprisingly, that big-chance generation helped the United States rack up expected goals, an advanced metric that measures the likelihood of a chance leading to a goal based on historical data. In total, their 12.8 chances created per game trailed only Spain (16.7; they were still very good this summer) and considerably ahead of the tournament’s average of 10.5. The USWNT averaged 2.2 expected goals per game, also well above the Olympic average of 1.6.

Having great attackers is a good start toward consistently scoring, but talent only gets you so far. The forward line looked rejuvenated after years of relatively lean output by the program’s lofty standard, especially in 2023, and helped actualize the at-times frustrating potential from Hayes’ first four friendlies.

A modified defense that still gets results

For all the faults that emerged during the USWNT’s brief stay at the 2023 Women’s World Cup, few could be found in terms of defending.

Andonovski’s defense was one of the tournament’s best. Only the Netherlands and Brazil exceeded the United States’ average of 7.4 high turnovers per 90 minutes last summer, giving ample opportunities to start short-field counters (albeit, ones upon which they failed to capitalize). Their pressing was incredibly proactive, with their 7.1 PPDA (that is, passes allowed per defensive action made) registering well below the tournament average of 9.97.

Once again, it’s worth reiterating two crucial differences between a World Cup and the Olympics . Rather than carrying 23 players on the roster, Hayes has only had 18 (save for four alternates to bring in whenever players have gotten hurt). Olympic matches take place every three days, whereas the USWNT played every five days last summer.

Either as a result of that format or in line with her vision for the team, the USWNT has relaxed a bit against the ball. Their 4.0 high turnovers per 90 are well below last year’s rate, fifth among the 12 competitors. Their PPDA of 11.5 also looks far more languid, yet it’s in line with the tournament average of 12.05.

Only time will tell if this approach follows them home from France. However, the end result was still a staunch defense, allowing just 11.3 shots per 90 (tournament average was 14.4) with an average xG of 0.08 per shot faced (average was 0.11). Having world-class defenders like Naomi Girma will help no matter a coach’s approach, but the focus on energy conservation and retaining defensive shape hasn’t made the United States more vulnerable.

Areas to refine

Fouls and dead balls.

Although there’s no specific term for a fear of a whistle’s blow, it nestles into general phonophobia — a fear of loud sounds. Throughout the tournament, the United States was less effective after the referee stopped play.

Heading into Saturday’s final, the United States ranked third by averaging 8.5 set plays per 90 minutes, 20 per cent more than the tournament average. However, it took them an average of 25.5 set pieces to yield a goal. 16.7 per cent of their goals came from set pieces — the lowest rate of any team that converted at least one dead-ball situation this summer.

Corner kicks also proved difficult to convert. Only 9.7 per cent of their corners were converted into shots, far below the average of 20.5 per cent. Considering the United States averaged the second-most corners of any team (5.5), it added up to a lot of wasted opportunities that could have given some breathing room in their closer contests — roughly one shot per every two games.

Out of possession, the United States played to keep the ball rolling. On average, a team fouled an opponent shortly after committing a turnover 4.6 per cent of the time. The United States checked in at a 1.3 per cent rate of these tactical fouls, making them the only team to register a rate below 3.3 per cent. Their 5.2 fouls committed per game was well below the average of 9.2. While that does keep players from risking seeing a card and limits conceded set pieces, it also allows opponents to sustain momentum on the ball.

There’s no one best practice to win a game using the referee’s whistle as an asset, but it’s a bit of gamesmanship that’ll likely evolve in the coming years.

A miasmic midfield

In the ‘pros’ category, we touched on the team’s patience and willingness to embrace recirculation sequences. A typical sequence of build-up often looked something like this: Naeher prodded the ball to one of her center backs, who then shunted it wide to their nearest full back. That full back would check their corresponding winger’s run and either launch it beyond the defender — either lobbed to wide areas, or on the ground in the half-space — or pass it back to the center back to switch play to the other side.

Ideally, that full back could also consider the central channel and get the ball to a midfielder to operate in the middle of the field. Too often, that option is not presenting itself if Coffey is not in the right spot every time. Why? For all of the players who are seeing improvement in Hayes’ early days, the same can’t be said for Lindsey Horan, the team’s captain and a rare remaining holdover of the 2019 world champions.

Horan has been a mainstay of United States lineups since injuries so cruelly curtailed Sam Mewis’ career. Converted from being a striker to a midfielder during Jill Ellis’ tenure, Horan played as a box-to-box midfielder under Andonovski. Her reading of a game allowed her to operate as the team’s main possessive hub last summer, trusting her to judge whether the team should progress into the final third or hold onto the ball by sending it backwards.

This summer, Horan’s role has changed slightly. When the team is out of possession, she plays level with Coffey at the midfield’s base. In possession, she scurries to play on the same line as Rose Lavelle , serving as an auxiliary striker to complement Lavelle’s playmaking. In theory, Horan should be able to crash the box later than Smith to offer an aerial threat for late crosses and an edge-of-box shooting alternative. Instead, Horan has been stationed by the center circle, struggling to make as much of an impact in all phases as she previously had.

Entering the final, Horan completed 69.8 per cent of her passes in the attacking third. In theory, that suggests she played higher-risk balls to find a shooter. However, it’s the lowest of the four USWNT midfielders who logged 200 minutes in the Games, trailing Korbin Albert (81 per cent), Coffey (77.8 per cent) and even Lavelle (72.5 per cent).

It ended up being a moot point in the final, as Lavelle’s injury concerns brought Albert into the lineup and pushed Horan closer to the forward line. Still, one would assume that Hayes will want to incorporate both Horan and Lavelle in her lineups moving forward. We’ll see how that ends up being working — or if it’s possible — in the coming months.

Subs (or the lack of)

Along with questions about Horan’s performances, one criticism of the team’s run has been Hayes’ unwillingness to rotate and relatively lax substitution patterns. Only three teams averaged fewer substitutions before the 75th minute than Hayes’ 2.0 per game, while her average time of making a change (74.1 minutes into a game) was tardier than the tournament average of 68.6. If that seems insignificant to you, ask a player how difficult another five minutes of high-stakes play can be when you’re already gassed.

It’s one thing to trust your starters when you’re swapping out starters to ensure as many players are at full fitness as possible. However, Hayes’ insistence on playing with a set preferred lineup that only changed after injuries or suspension often left the team lagging in the second half. Whereas the United States averaged 1.2 goals in the first half of games, that rate plummeted to 0.5 in the second half. Some of this can be attributed to opponents making adjustments, but such a staggering drop-off is also cause for concern.

That said, Hayes’ final season with Chelsea shows that she may be quicker to make in-game changes as she gets more familiar with a greater number of players in her pool. In the WSL last season, Chelsea averaged 3.1 subs before the 75th minute, with her changes coming with an average game clock time of 67.9 minutes.

The good news now is that, with the tournament concluded, her regular starters can finally enjoy some rest. They’ve certainly earned it, with hardware to show for their perseverance.

It’s all a work in progress, even as the United States has returned to a more prominent place on the Olympic podium. The early signs under Hayes could hardly be more encouraging — and she’s only just getting started.

(Top photo: Getty Images)

Get all-access to exclusive stories.

Subscribe to The Athletic for in-depth coverage of your favorite players, teams, leagues and clubs. Try a week on us.

Jeff Rueter is a staff writer for The Athletic who covers soccer in North America, Europe, and beyond. No matter how often he hears the Number 10 role is "dying," he'll always leave a light on for the next great playmaker. Follow Jeff on Twitter @ jeffrueter

• KU Libraries
• Subject & Course Guides
• Dissertations and Theses at KU and more

Dissertations and Theses at KU and more: Home

• Format status of KU dissertations and theses
• Locating dissertations and theses

Dissertations and Theses at KU

The first thesis/dissertation in the Libraries' collection is dated 1883.   KU Libraries maintained two physical copies, retaining one for archival purposes and another in the circulating collection until theses and dissertations became available electronically.  Beginning in December, 2005, theses and dissertations were accepted only in an electronic format.  The Libraries have been initiating projects to digitize older documents to expand access.  A project to digitize theses and dissertations submitted from 1883 to 1922 has been completed.  This guide follows the status of digitizing and also indicates how to identify the links and locations of the theses and dissertations, whether in print or electronic.

When necessary, graduate students can request an embargo of six months, one year, or two years to delay public release of a work.  See the embargo policy for theses and dissertations .

At the author's request, staff at the KU Libraries are happy to digitize and make available in KU ScholarWorks any thesis or dissertation.  Please contact Marianne Reed at [email protected] for more information.

Related guides

• BIOL 420: Becoming Wikipedians by Paul Thomas Last Updated Jul 18, 2024 23 views this year
• KU Thesis and Dissertation Formatting by Paul Thomas Last Updated May 9, 2024 7548 views this year

Ask a Librarian

We can help with your research questions -- contact us by chat, phone, email, text or at a Research Help desk.

• Next: Format status of KU dissertations and theses >>
• Last Updated: Jan 20, 2023 5:44 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.ku.edu/dissertations_theses