Quick question,
I know when I did my masters project I had to write everything as if I were talking to a layman, basic principles pulled together to explain why I was doing what I was doing. I felt it made the whole write up rather simplistic but in fact it won an award based on its accessibility so i did something right.

Is it the same at PhD level? DO I have to explain every single concept or can I draw the conclusion that the people reading it will know what an ecosystem service is for example or a riparian corridor?

Many thanks :)

Hi Hiccup,

that is a good question. Personally I really like it if people write clearly and down to earth. I hate the use of unnecessary "difficult terms" just to make it look more impressive. However, you also not want to write in an infantile way. Therefore I think it is best to compare with others in your field (for example in academic journals, theses etc.) regarding how things are written down.

I do not know anything about your field and would not know what a riparian corridor is, as such I would like to read a definition. I think that is nearly always useful, unless the term is so extremely obvious to your peers that I would be really silly to explain. Something like explaining what a "tree" or a "shop" is. However, regarding technical terms do not underestimate the various views that may exist, aand therefore the usefulness of providing a definition. Does that make sense?