In the preface of his book "How to write a thesis", Umberto Eco sets out two fundamental premises:
1) It is possible to write a worthy thesis, even if one is in a difficult situation, caused by recent or remote discriminations;
2) One can take advantage of the occasion of the thesis (even if the rest of the university period has been disappointing or frustrating) to recover the positive and progressive sense of study, not understood as a harvest of notions but as a critical elaboration of an experience, as the acquisition of an ability (good for future life) to locate the problems, face them with method and expose them following certain techniques of communication (being able to suggest possible solutions or alternative solutions).
Eco's work is not aimed at explaining "how scientific research is done", nor does it propose a theoretical-critical discussion about the value of the study. It is simply a series of considerations on how to prepare a thesis and present it -and defend it- before a jury without the thesis writer falling into a state of anguish or stupefaction. It should be remembered that at the time this book was written, personal computers and the Internet had not yet been invented, with all the advantages that these instruments provide to the thesis writer and researcher today. In fact, the possibilities of accessing sources and bibliography were much more limited, but this did not prevent solid and excellent works from being done, as long as the guidelines proposed by Eco were followed.
The type of theses targeted in his book correspond to those produced in humanities faculties. Since his experience -and that of most of the editors of Sobretesis- is associated with the faculties of philosophy and literature, it is natural that most of his examples refer to topics studied in those faculties. Likewise, its considerations apply to normal theses in political science, teaching and jurisprudence. If they are historical or general theory theses, and not experimental and practical ones, his model also works in architecture, economics and commerce and some scientific faculties.
In any case, as Eco states, "there are many students who are forced to do a thesis in order to get their degree in a hurry and achieve the promotion, for which they have enrolled in the university". Some of these students are even in their forties. These are the ones who ask for instructions on how to do a thesis in a month, with a view to getting any grade and getting out of the university. To such an extent they assume it as an obligation. We must say that Eco's book is not for them. If such are their demands, if they are victims of a paradoxical socioeconomic structure that forces them to graduate in order to solve painful economic problems, they will have two alternatives: (1) to invest a reasonable sum to order the thesis from someone else (in which case we recommend the reading public to hire the services of Sobretesis); (2) to copy a thesis already done a few years earlier at another university, running the risk of being failed and sanctioned for plagiarism.
At this point, it is worth mentioning the words that Eco dedicates to this eventuality, in an era where anti-plagiarism programs increase the level of demands on thesis writers, who are forced to form a coherent system of bibliographic and documentary citations, duly referencing the material they may have extracted from the web. Eco says: "it is not advisable to copy a work already printed, even if it is in a foreign language, because even if the professor is not very well informed, he should be aware of its existence; but copying in Milan a thesis written in Catania offers reasonable chances of success; naturally, it is necessary to find out whether the author of the thesis has taught in Catania before practicing in Milan; and furthermore, copying a thesis involves intelligent research work". As can be seen, the best option is to delegate the work to the Sobretesis team.
Thus, Eco's book is aimed at those who (without being millionaires or having ten years to obtain a doctorate after having traveled all over the world), with concrete possibilities of dedicating a few hours a day to study, want to prepare a thesis that will give them some intellectual satisfaction and that will also be useful for their professional career. And to those who, once they have set the limits, however modest, of their efforts, intend to do a serious work. Even a collection of figurines can be made seriously: it is enough to establish the subject of the collection, the cataloguing criteria and the historical limits of the collection. In this respect, we assure our clients of the utmost seriousness in the preparation of their theses. This implies a persistent avoidance of plagiarism and a continuous renewal of the theoretical and methodological frameworks we elaborate.
Eco postulates that writing a thesis means: (1) locating a specific topic; (2) collecting documents on that topic; (3) putting those documents in order; (4) re-examining the topic from scratch in the light of the documents collected; (5) giving an organic form to all the preceding reflections; (6) doing it in such a way that whoever reads it understands what was meant and can, if he wishes, go back to the same documents to reconsider the topic on his own.
As for choosing a topic, if one works well, it is possible to draw useful conclusions even from apparently remote or peripheral subjects. Eco tells us that Marx did not do his thesis on political economy, but on Epicurus and Democritus, two Greek philosophers. And this is no coincidence. Perhaps Marx was able to reflect on the problems of history and economics with the theoretical energy and clarity of thought he is known for, precisely because he learned to think with the Greek philosophers. In the face of so many students who intend to do an ambitious thesis on Marx to end up in the personnel department of large transnational corporations, it is necessary to reconsider existing concepts about the usefulness, timeliness and scope of thesis topics, especially in the areas of Humanities and Economics.
Eco asks: How long does it take to write a thesis? And he answers: no more than three years and no less than six months. No more than three years, because if in three years of work one has not managed to narrow down the topic and find the necessary documentation, this can mean three things:
1) He has chosen the wrong thesis, beyond his personal possibilities.
2) He belongs to the type of eternal malcontents who would like to say everything and continues to work on the thesis for twenty years, when in reality a skilled scholar must be able to set himself some limits, however modest, and produce something
definitive within these limits.
3) He has been declared to have thesis neurosis; he puts it aside, picks it up again, does not feel fulfilled, reaches a state of great dispersion, uses the thesis as an excuse for various basenesses; he will never get a doctorate.
Eco concludes his book with two observations: writing a thesis means having fun, and the thesis is like the pig, in it everything has a profit. Anyone who, lacking research practice and frightened by not knowing how to write a thesis, has read his book, will surely be paralyzed. So many rules, so many instructions, it is impossible to come out of it unscathed, at least physically and mentally? Well, according to Eco this is not true, and we agree with the great Italian linguist. In a way, he is an accomplice of his readers, and he knows that the effort worth it: “Due to the demands of completeness, I have had to invent a reader totally lacking in everything, while you, who read this book, will have already made many of the techniques I have talked about your own. My book has rather served to remember them all, to bring to consciousness what many of you had already absorbed without realizing it.”
In short, we recommend the reading of How to write a thesis to anyone who wants to know it, guided by an authentic teacher, intellectual and artist like Eco.
Web in Spanish
