state of the art thesis example

How to write a good state of the art: should it be the first step of your thesis?

• UT - Université de Toulouse (41 Allée Jules Guesde, 31000 Toulouse - France) 443875
• CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique : UMR5505 (France) 441569
• Function : Author
• PersonId : 745230
• IdHAL : cassia-trojahn-dos-santos
• ORCID : 0000-0003-2840-005X
• IdRef : 20106474X

Florent Breuil  :  Connect in order to contact the contributor

https://hal.science/hal-02161403

Submitted on : Friday, October 14, 2022-5:49:15 PM

Last modification on : Monday, November 20, 2023-11:44:23 AM

Dates and versions

Identifiers

• HAL Id : hal-02161403 , version 1

Collections

An example of state-of-the-art using Open Innovation

How to achieve a state of the art?

How to realize a state-of-the-art? How can Open Innovation help? Some simple answers below.

State-of-the-art : definition

A state of the art is the identification of previous knowledge to avoid reinventing. Making a state-of-the-art makes it possible to verify or justify that one produces new knowledge, for a thesis of doctorate or the filing of a patent, for example. The state-of-the-art often also includes the identification of actors – academic or industrial – who are at the origin of knowledge : the “ecosystem”. Better, this ecosystem can be questioned to complete and strengthen the state-of-the-art. This is where Open Innovation comes in. Especially since the algorithms of data mining and classification of Open Innovation platforms allow an acceleration of the research tasks for publications and actors which are often tedious. Let’s have a deeper look to a state-of-the-art example.

State-of-the-art example: dead leaves

For this state-of-the-art example, let’s take a real case treated by an industrial company we know: the problem of fallen leaves on train tracks in autumn . The dead leaves cause a loss of adhesion between the rails and the wheels of the trains, in particular because of the transformation of the leaves at the passage of the trains. The transformed material causes a loss of adhesion between the wheel and the rail which requires lengthening braking distances, and hence disrupts the timing of the trains.

Start with scientific publications

The state-of-the-art will consist of multiple queries using a search engine. We recommend starting with an investigation of scientific publications (which are often richer and more explicit than patent sources). In our example, this exploration begins with a combination of keywords such as “wheel”, “rail”, “leaves”,”adhesion”, which will return publications on these topics.The interesting publications are saved.

• >>Read also: Better, Faster, Harder – SME Open Innovation

Identify keywords & draw a mindmap

Find interesting patents.

In a second step, the most interesting queries are exploited with patent data sources. In addition to identifying interesting patents in the field, they help better understand the ecosystem. In our case, a very rich university ecosystem (and, to a lesser extent, industrial) has appeared in Europe (Great Britain, Germany, Ukraine, Netherlands, Italy, …), in Asia (China, South Korea, Japan) and in North America (United States, Canada).

Contacting experts: a specific approach to Open Innovation

Finally, to complete the state-of-the-art, the industrial company decided to contact a number of university groups. This step, which is optional, is also specific to an Open Innovation approach. It has the advantage of giving the possibility to talk to specialists in the field who can update the state-of-the-art with the latest and even unpublished research data. Even through a conversation lasting less than an hour, it is possible to identify the important points or to project oneself in the future, which a purely bibliographic search allows only in a very limited way . It’s like going to an annual conference and interviewing the world’s most famous experts !

Contacting experts: asking the right questions

A final remark. In any case, before contacting an expert to refine a state-of-the-art, one must ask himself “why would he/she spend time on my subject ?”. In our case on dead leaves, a large corporation was at the origin of the question and many experts are interested in a dialogue that can lead to collaboration. But other options are possible : a simple exchange of information, the possibility of setting up a joint project, remuneration, etc.

A fair / balanced relationship is one of the keys to succeed in Open Innovation projects.

You may also like

Leave a reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

State-of-the-art literature review methodology: A six-step approach for knowledge synthesis

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 05 September 2022
• Volume 11 , pages 281–288, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Erin S. Barry   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0788-7153 1 , 2 ,
• Jerusalem Merkebu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3707-8920 3 &
• Lara Varpio   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1412-4341 3  

26k Accesses

8 Citations

18 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Introduction

Researchers and practitioners rely on literature reviews to synthesize large bodies of knowledge. Many types of literature reviews have been developed, each targeting a specific purpose. However, these syntheses are hampered if the review type’s paradigmatic roots, methods, and markers of rigor are only vaguely understood. One literature review type whose methodology has yet to be elucidated is the state-of-the-art (SotA) review. If medical educators are to harness SotA reviews to generate knowledge syntheses, we must understand and articulate the paradigmatic roots of, and methods for, conducting SotA reviews.

We reviewed 940 articles published between 2014–2021 labeled as SotA reviews. We (a) identified all SotA methods-related resources, (b) examined the foundational principles and techniques underpinning the reviews, and (c) combined our findings to inductively analyze and articulate the philosophical foundations, process steps, and markers of rigor.

In the 940 articles reviewed, nearly all manuscripts (98%) lacked citations for how to conduct a SotA review. The term “state of the art” was used in 4 different ways. Analysis revealed that SotA articles are grounded in relativism and subjectivism.

This article provides a 6-step approach for conducting SotA reviews. SotA reviews offer an interpretive synthesis that describes: This is where we are now. This is how we got here. This is where we could be going. This chronologically rooted narrative synthesis provides a methodology for reviewing large bodies of literature to explore why and how our current knowledge has developed and to offer new research directions.

Similar content being viewed by others

An analysis of current practices in undertaking literature reviews in nursing: findings from a focused mapping review and synthesis

Helen Aveyard & Caroline Bradbury-Jones

Reviewing the literature, how systematic is systematic?

Katie MacLure, Vibhu Paudyal & Derek Stewart

Reading and interpreting reviews for health professionals: a practical review

Michele Antonelli, Fabio Firenzuoli, … Davide Donelli

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Literature reviews play a foundational role in scientific research; they support knowledge advancement by collecting, describing, analyzing, and integrating large bodies of information and data [ 1 , 2 ]. Indeed, as Snyder [ 3 ] argues, all scientific disciplines require literature reviews grounded in a methodology that is accurate and clearly reported. Many types of literature reviews have been developed, each with a unique purpose, distinct methods, and distinguishing characteristics of quality and rigor [ 4 , 5 ].

Each review type offers valuable insights if rigorously conducted [ 3 , 6 ]. Problematically, this is not consistently the case, and the consequences can be dire. Medical education’s policy makers and institutional leaders rely on knowledge syntheses to inform decision making [ 7 ]. Medical education curricula are shaped by these syntheses. Our accreditation standards are informed by these integrations. Our patient care is guided by these knowledge consolidations [ 8 ]. Clearly, it is important for knowledge syntheses to be held to the highest standards of rigor. And yet, that standard is not always maintained. Sometimes scholars fail to meet the review’s specified standards of rigor; other times the markers of rigor have never been explicitly articulated. While we can do little about the former, we can address the latter. One popular literature review type whose methodology has yet to be fully described, vetted, and justified is the state-of-the-art (SotA) review.

While many types of literature reviews amalgamate bodies of literature, SotA reviews offer something unique. By looking across the historical development of a body of knowledge, SotA reviews delves into questions like: Why did our knowledge evolve in this way? What other directions might our investigations have taken? What turning points in our thinking should we revisit to gain new insights? A SotA review—a form of narrative knowledge synthesis [ 5 , 9 ]—acknowledges that history reflects a series of decisions and then asks what different decisions might have been made.

SotA reviews are frequently used in many fields including the biomedical sciences [ 10 , 11 ], medicine [ 12 , 13 , 14 ], and engineering [ 15 , 16 ]. However, SotA reviews are rarely seen in medical education; indeed, a bibliometrics analysis of literature reviews published in 14 core medical education journals between 1999 and 2019 reported only 5 SotA reviews out of the 963 knowledge syntheses identified [ 17 ]. This is not to say that SotA reviews are absent; we suggest that they are often unlabeled. For instance, Schuwirth and van der Vleuten’s article “A history of assessment in medical education” [ 14 ] offers a temporally organized overview of the field’s evolving thinking about assessment. Similarly, McGaghie et al. published a chronologically structured review of simulation-based medical education research that “reviews and critically evaluates historical and contemporary research on simulation-based medical education” [ 18 , p. 50]. SotA reviews certainly have a place in medical education, even if that place is not explicitly signaled.

This lack of labeling is problematic since it conceals the purpose of, and work involved in, the SotA review synthesis. In a SotA review, the author(s) collects and analyzes the historical development of a field’s knowledge about a phenomenon, deconstructs how that understanding evolved, questions why it unfolded in specific ways, and posits new directions for research. Senior medical education scholars use SotA reviews to share their insights based on decades of work on a topic [ 14 , 18 ]; their junior counterparts use them to critique that history and propose new directions [ 19 ]. And yet, SotA reviews are generally not explicitly signaled in medical education. We suggest that at least two factors contribute to this problem. First, it may be that medical education scholars have yet to fully grasp the unique contributions SotA reviews provide. Second, the methodology and methods of SotA reviews are poorly reported making this form of knowledge synthesis appear to lack rigor. Both factors are rooted in the same foundational problem: insufficient clarity about SotA reviews. In this study, we describe SotA review methodology so that medical educators can explicitly use this form of knowledge synthesis to further advance the field.

We developed a four-step research design to meet this goal, illustrated in Fig.  1 .

Four-step research design process used for developing a State-of-the-Art literature review methodology

Step 1: Collect SotA articles

To build our initial corpus of articles reporting SotA reviews, we searched PubMed using the strategy (″state of the art review″[ti] OR ″state of the art review*″) and limiting our search to English articles published between 2014 and 2021. We strategically focused on PubMed, which includes MEDLINE, and is considered the National Library of Medicine’s premier database of biomedical literature and indexes health professions education and practice literature [ 20 ]. We limited our search to 2014–2021 to capture modern use of SotA reviews. Of the 960 articles identified, nine were excluded because they were duplicates, erratum, or corrigendum records; full text copies were unavailable for 11 records. All articles identified ( n  = 940) constituted the corpus for analysis.

Step 2: Compile all methods-related resources

EB, JM, or LV independently reviewed the 940 full-text articles to identify all references to resources that explained, informed, described, or otherwise supported the methods used for conducting the SotA review. Articles that met our criteria were obtained for analysis.

To ensure comprehensive retrieval, we also searched Scopus and Web of Science. Additionally, to find resources not indexed by these academic databases, we searched Google (see Electronic Supplementary Material [ESM] for the search strategies used for each database). EB also reviewed the first 50 items retrieved from each search looking for additional relevant resources. None were identified. Via these strategies, nine articles were identified and added to the collection of methods-related resources for analysis.

Step 3: Extract data for analysis

In Step 3, we extracted three kinds of information from the 940 articles papers identified in Step 1. First, descriptive data on each article were compiled (i.e., year of publication and the academic domain targeted by the journal). Second, each article was examined and excerpts collected about how the term state-of-the-art review was used (i.e., as a label for a methodology in-and-of itself; as an adjective qualifying another type of literature review; as a term included in the paper’s title only; or in some other way). Finally, we extracted excerpts describing: the purposes and/or aims of the SotA review; the methodology informing and methods processes used to carry out the SotA review; outcomes of analyses; and markers of rigor for the SotA review.

Two researchers (EB and JM) coded 69 articles and an interrater reliability of 94.2% was achieved. Any discrepancies were discussed. Given the high interrater reliability, the two authors split the remaining articles and coded independently.

Step 4: Construct the SotA review methodology

The methods-related resources identified in Step 2 and the data extractions from Step 3 were inductively analyzed by LV and EB to identify statements and research processes that revealed the ontology (i.e., the nature of reality that was reflected) and the epistemology (i.e., the nature of knowledge) underpinning the descriptions of the reviews. These authors studied these data to determine if the synthesis adhered to an objectivist or a subjectivist orientation, and to synthesize the purposes realized in these papers.

To confirm these interpretations, LV and EB compared their ontology, epistemology, and purpose determinations against two expectations commonly required of objectivist synthesis methods (e.g., systematic reviews): an exhaustive search strategy and an appraisal of the quality of the research data. These expectations were considered indicators of a realist ontology and objectivist epistemology [ 21 ] (i.e., that a single correct understanding of the topic can be sought through objective data collection {e.g., systematic reviews [ 22 ]}). Conversely, the inverse of these expectations were considered indicators of a relativist ontology and subjectivist epistemology [ 21 ] (i.e., that no single correct understanding of the topic is available; there are multiple valid understandings that can be generated and so a subjective interpretation of the literature is sought {e.g., narrative reviews [ 9 ]}).

Once these interpretations were confirmed, LV and EB reviewed and consolidated the methods steps described in these data. Markers of rigor were then developed that aligned with the ontology, epistemology, and methods of SotA reviews.

Of the 940 articles identified in Step 1, 98% ( n  = 923) lacked citations or other references to resources that explained, informed, or otherwise supported the SotA review process. Of the 17 articles that included supporting information, 16 cited Grant and Booth’s description [ 4 ] consisting of five sentences describing the overall purpose of SotA reviews, three sentences noting perceived strengths, and four sentences articulating perceived weaknesses. This resource provides no guidance on how to conduct a SotA review methodology nor markers of rigor. The one article not referencing Grant and Booth used “an adapted comparative effectiveness research search strategy that was adapted by a health sciences librarian” [ 23 , p. 381]. One website citation was listed in support of this strategy; however, the page was no longer available in summer 2021. We determined that the corpus was uninformed by a cardinal resource or a publicly available methodology description.

In Step 2 we identified nine resources [ 4 , 5 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]; none described the methodology and/or processes of carrying out SotA reviews. Nor did they offer explicit descriptions of the ontology or epistemology underpinning SotA reviews. Instead, these resources provided short overview statements (none longer than one paragraph) about the review type [ 4 , 5 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. Thus, we determined that, to date, there are no available methodology papers describing how to conduct a SotA review.

Step 3 revealed that “state of the art” was used in 4 different ways across the 940 articles (see Fig.  2 for the frequency with which each was used). In 71% ( n  = 665 articles), the phrase was used only in the title, abstract, and/or purpose statement of the article; the phrase did not appear elsewhere in the paper and no SotA methodology was discussed. Nine percent ( n  = 84) used the phrase as an adjective to qualify another literature review type and so relied entirely on the methodology of a different knowledge synthesis approach (e.g., “a state of the art systematic review [ 29 ]”). In 5% ( n  = 52) of the articles, the phrase was not used anywhere within the article; instead, “state of the art” was the type of article within a journal. In the remaining 15% ( n  = 139), the phrase denoted a specific methodology (see ESM for all methodology articles). Via Step 4’s inductive analysis, the following foundational principles of SotA reviews were developed: (1) the ontology, (2) epistemology, and (3) purpose of SotA reviews.

Four ways the term “state of the art” is used in the corpus and how frequently each is used

Ontology of SotA reviews: Relativism

SotA reviews rest on four propositions:

The literature addressing a phenomenon offers multiple perspectives on that topic (i.e., different groups of researchers may hold differing opinions and/or interpretations of data about a phenomenon).

The reality of the phenomenon itself cannot be completely perceived or understood (i.e., due to limitations [e.g., the capabilities of current technologies, a research team’s disciplinary orientation] we can only perceive a limited part of the phenomenon).

The reality of the phenomenon is a subjective and inter-subjective construction (i.e., what we understand about a phenomenon is built by individuals and so their individual subjectivities shape that understanding).

The context in which the review was conducted informs the review (e.g., a SotA review of literature about gender identity and sexual function will be synthesized differently by researchers in the domain of gender studies than by scholars working in sex reassignment surgery).

As these propositions suggest, SotA scholars bring their experiences, expectations, research purposes, and social (including academic) orientations to bear on the synthesis work. In other words, a SotA review synthesizes the literature based on a specific orientation to the topic being addressed. For instance, a SotA review written by senior scholars who are experts in the field of medical education may reflect on the turning points that have shaped the way our field has evolved the modern practices of learner assessment, noting how the nature of the problem of assessment has moved: it was first a measurement problem, then a problem that embraced human judgment but needed assessment expertise, and now a whole system problem that is to be addressed from an integrated—not a reductionist—perspective [ 12 ]. However, if other scholars were to examine this same history from a technological orientation, learner assessment could be framed as historically constricted by the media available through which to conduct assessment, pointing to how artificial intelligence is laying the foundation for the next wave of assessment in medical education [ 30 ].

Given these foundational propositions, SotA reviews are steeped in a relativist ontology—i.e., reality is socially and experientially informed and constructed, and so no single objective truth exists. Researchers’ interpretations reflect their conceptualization of the literature—a conceptualization that could change over time and that could conflict with the understandings of others.

Epistemology of SotA reviews: Subjectivism

SotA reviews embrace subjectivism. The knowledge generated through the review is value-dependent, growing out of the subjective interpretations of the researcher(s) who conducted the synthesis. The SotA review generates an interpretation of the data that is informed by the expertise, experiences, and social contexts of the researcher(s). Furthermore, the knowledge developed through SotA reviews is shaped by the historical point in time when the review was conducted. SotA reviews are thus steeped in the perspective that knowledge is shaped by individuals and their community, and is a synthesis that will change over time.

Purpose of SotA reviews

SotA reviews create a subjectively informed summary of modern thinking about a topic. As a chronologically ordered synthesis, SotA reviews describe the history of turning points in researchers’ understanding of a phenomenon to contextualize a description of modern scientific thinking on the topic. The review presents an argument about how the literature could be interpreted; it is not a definitive statement about how the literature should or must be interpreted. A SotA review explores: the pivotal points shaping the historical development of a topic, the factors that informed those changes in understanding, and the ways of thinking about and studying the topic that could inform the generation of further insights. In other words, the purpose of SotA reviews is to create a three-part argument: This is where we are now in our understanding of this topic. This is how we got here. This is where we could go next.

The SotA methodology

Based on study findings and analyses, we constructed a six-stage SotA review methodology. This six-stage approach is summarized and guiding questions are offered in Tab.  1 .

Stage 1: Determine initial research question and field of inquiry

In Stage 1, the researcher(s) creates an initial description of the topic to be summarized and so must determine what field of knowledge (and/or practice) the search will address. Knowledge developed through the SotA review process is shaped by the context informing it; thus, knowing the domain in which the review will be conducted is part of the review’s foundational work.

Stage 2: Determine timeframe

This stage involves determining the period of time that will be defined as SotA for the topic being summarized. The researcher(s) should engage in a broad-scope overview of the literature, reading across the range of literature available to develop insights into the historical development of knowledge on the topic, including the turning points that shape the current ways of thinking about a topic. Understanding the full body of literature is required to decide the dates or events that demarcate the timeframe of now in the first of the SotA’s three-part argument: where we are now . Stage 2 is complete when the researcher(s) can explicitly justify why a specific year or event is the right moment to mark the beginning of state-of-the-art thinking about the topic being summarized.

Stage 3: Finalize research question(s) to reflect timeframe

Based on the insights developed in Stage 2, the researcher(s) will likely need to revise their initial description of the topic to be summarized. The formal research question(s) framing the SotA review are finalized in Stage 3. The revised description of the topic, the research question(s), and the justification for the timeline start year must be reported in the review article. These are markers of rigor and prerequisites for moving to Stage 4.

Stage 4: Develop search strategy to find relevant articles

In Stage 4, the researcher(s) develops a search strategy to identify the literature that will be included in the SotA review. The researcher(s) needs to determine which literature databases contain articles from the domain of interest. Because the review describes how we got here , the review must include literature that predates the state-of-the-art timeframe, determined in Stage 2, to offer this historical perspective.

Developing the search strategy will be an iterative process of testing and revising the search strategy to enable the researcher(s) to capture the breadth of literature required to meet the SotA review purposes. A librarian should be consulted since their expertise can expedite the search processes and ensure that relevant resources are identified. The search strategy must be reported (e.g., in the manuscript itself or in a supplemental file) so that others may replicate the process if they so choose (e.g., to construct a different SotA review [and possible different interpretations] of the same literature). This too is a marker of rigor for SotA reviews: the search strategies informing the identification of literature must be reported.

Stage 5: Analyses

The literature analysis undertaken will reflect the subjective insights of the researcher(s); however, the foundational premises of inductive research should inform the analysis process. Therefore, the researcher(s) should begin by reading the articles in the corpus to become familiar with the literature. This familiarization work includes: noting similarities across articles, observing ways-of-thinking that have shaped current understandings of the topic, remarking on assumptions underpinning changes in understandings, identifying important decision points in the evolution of understanding, and taking notice of gaps and assumptions in current knowledge.

The researcher(s) can then generate premises for the state-of-the-art understanding of the history that gave rise to modern thinking, of the current body of knowledge, and of potential future directions for research. In this stage of the analysis, the researcher(s) should document the articles that support or contradict their premises, noting any collections of authors or schools of thinking that have dominated the literature, searching for marginalized points of view, and studying the factors that contributed to the dominance of particular ways of thinking. The researcher(s) should also observe historical decision points that could be revisited. Theory can be incorporated at this stage to help shape insights and understandings. It should be highlighted that not all corpus articles will be used in the SotA review; instead, the researcher(s) will sample across the corpus to construct a timeline that represents the seminal moments of the historical development of knowledge.

Next, the researcher(s) should verify the thoroughness and strength of their interpretations. To do this, the researcher(s) can select different articles included in the corpus and examine if those articles reflect the premises the researcher(s) set out. The researcher(s) may also seek out contradictory interpretations in the literature to be sure their summary refutes these positions. The goal of this verification work is not to engage in a triangulation process to ensure objectivity; instead, this process helps the researcher(s) ensure the interpretations made in the SotA review represent the articles being synthesized and respond to the interpretations offered by others. This is another marker of rigor for SotA reviews: the authors should engage in and report how they considered and accounted for differing interpretations of the literature, and how they verified the thoroughness of their interpretations.

Stage 6: Reflexivity

Given the relativist subjectivism of a SotA review, it is important that the manuscript offer insights into the subjectivity of the researcher(s). This reflexivity description should articulate how the subjectivity of the researcher(s) informed interpretations of the data. These reflections will also influence the suggested directions offered in the last part of the SotA three-part argument: where we could go next. This is the last marker of rigor for SotA reviews: researcher reflexivity must be considered and reported.

SotA reviews have much to offer our field since they provide information on the historical progression of medical education’s understanding of a topic, the turning points that guided that understanding, and the potential next directions for future research. Those future directions may question the soundness of turning points and prior decisions, and thereby offer new paths of investigation. Since we were unable to find a description of the SotA review methodology, we inductively developed a description of the methodology—including its paradigmatic roots, the processes to be followed, and the markers of rigor—so that scholars can harness the unique affordances of this type of knowledge synthesis.

Given their chronology- and turning point-based orientation, SotA reviews are inherently different from other types of knowledge synthesis. For example, systematic reviews focus on specific research questions that are narrow in scope [ 32 , 33 ]; in contrast, SotA reviews present a broader historical overview of knowledge development and the decisions that gave rise to our modern understandings. Scoping reviews focus on mapping the present state of knowledge about a phenomenon including, for example, the data that are currently available, the nature of that data, and the gaps in knowledge [ 34 , 35 ]; conversely, SotA reviews offer interpretations of the historical progression of knowledge relating to a phenomenon centered on significant shifts that occurred during that history. SotA reviews focus on the turning points in the history of knowledge development to suggest how different decisions could give rise to new insights. Critical reviews draw on literature outside of the domain of focus to see if external literature can offer new ways of thinking about the phenomenon of interest (e.g., drawing on insights from insects’ swarm intelligence to better understand healthcare team adaptation [ 36 ]). SotA reviews focus on one domain’s body of literature to construct a timeline of knowledge development, demarcating where we are now, demonstrating how this understanding came to be via different turning points, and offering new research directions. Certainly, SotA reviews offer a unique kind of knowledge synthesis.

Our six-stage process for conducting these reviews reflects the subjectivist relativism that underpins the methodology. It aligns with the requirements proposed by others [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ], what has been written about SotA reviews [ 4 , 5 ], and the current body of published SotA reviews. In contrast to existing guidance [ 4 , 5 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ], our description offers a detailed reporting of the ontology, epistemology, and methodology processes for conducting the SotA review.

This explicit methodology description is essential since many academic journals list SotA reviews as an accepted type of literature review. For instance, Educational Research Review [ 24 ], the American Academy of Pediatrics [ 25 ], and Thorax all lists SotA reviews as one of the types of knowledge syntheses they accept [ 27 ]. However, while SotA reviews are valued by academia, guidelines or specific methodology descriptions for researchers to follow when conducting this type of knowledge synthesis are conspicuously absent. If academics in general, and medical education more specifically, are to take advantage of the insights that SotA reviews can offer, we need to rigorously engage in this synthesis work; to do that, we need clear descriptions of the methodology underpinning this review. This article offers such a description. We hope that more medical educators will conduct SotA reviews to generate insights that will contribute to further advancing our field’s research and scholarship.

Cooper HM. Organizing knowledge syntheses: a taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowl Soc. 1988;1:104.

Google Scholar  

Badger D, Nursten J, Williams P, Woodward M. Should all literature reviews be systematic? Eval Res Educ. 2000;14:220–30.

Article   Google Scholar  

Snyder H. Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res. 2019;104:333–9.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26:91–108.

Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J. 2019;36:202–22.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Prisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.

Tricco AC, Langlois E, Straus SE, World Health Organization, Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.

Jackson R, Feder G. Guidelines for clinical guidelines: a simple, pragmatic strategy for guideline development. Br Med J. 1998;317:427–8.

Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Eur J Clin Invest. 2018;48:e12931.

Bach QV, Chen WH. Pyrolysis characteristics and kinetics of microalgae via thermogravimetric analysis (TGA): a state-of-the-art review. Bioresour Technol. 2017;246:88–100.

Garofalo C, Milanović V, Cardinali F, Aquilanti L, Clementi F, Osimani A. Current knowledge on the microbiota of edible insects intended for human consumption: a state-of-the-art review. Food Res Int. 2019;125:108527.

Carbone S, Dixon DL, Buckley LF, Abbate A. Glucose-lowering therapies for cardiovascular risk reduction in type 2 diabetes mellitus: state-of-the-art review. Mayo Clin Proc. 2018;93:1629–47.

Hofkens PJ, Verrijcken A, Merveille K, et al. Common pitfalls and tips and tricks to get the most out of your transpulmonary thermodilution device: results of a survey and state-of-the-art review. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2015;47:89–116.

Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CP. A history of assessment in medical education. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2020;25:1045–56.

Arena A, Prete F, Rambaldi E, et al. Nanostructured zirconia-based ceramics and composites in dentistry: a state-of-the-art review. Nanomaterials. 2019;9:1393.

Bahraminasab M, Farahmand F. State of the art review on design and manufacture of hybrid biomedical materials: hip and knee prostheses. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2017;231:785–813.

Maggio LA, Costello JA, Norton C, Driessen EW, Artino AR Jr. Knowledge syntheses in medical education: a bibliometric analysis. Perspect Med Educ. 2021;10:79–87.

McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ. A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003–2009. Med Educ. 2010;44:50–63.

Krishnan DG, Keloth AV, Ubedulla S. Pros and cons of simulation in medical education: a review. Education. 2017;3:84–7.

National Library of Medicine. MEDLINE: overview. 2021. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline/medline_overview.html . Accessed 17 Dec 2021.

Bergman E, de Feijter J, Frambach J, et al. AM last page: a guide to research paradigms relevant to medical education. Acad Med. 2012;87:545.

Maggio LA, Samuel A, Stellrecht E. Systematic reviews in medical education. J Grad Med Educ. 2022;14:171–5.

Bandari J, Wessel CB, Jacobs BL. Comparative effectiveness in urology: a state of the art review utilizing a systematic approach. Curr Opin Urol. 2017;27:380–94.

Elsevier. A guide for writing scholarly articles or reviews for the educational research review. 2010. https://www.elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/edurevReviewPaperWriting.pdf . Accessed 3 Mar 2020.

American Academy of Pediatrics. Pediatrics author guidelines. 2020. https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/page/author-guidelines . Accessed 3 Mar 2020.

Journal of the American College of Cardiology. JACC instructions for authors. 2020. https://www.jacc.org/pb-assets/documents/author-instructions-jacc-1598995793940.pdf . Accessed 3 Mar 2020.

Thorax. Authors. 2020. https://thorax.bmj.com/pages/authors/ . Accessed 3 Mar 2020.

Berven S, Carl A. State of the art review. Spine Deform. 2019;7:381.

Ilardi CR, Chieffi S, Iachini T, Iavarone A. Neuropsychology of posteromedial parietal cortex and conversion factors from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease: systematic search and state-of-the-art review. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2022;34:289–307.

Chan KS, Zary N. Applications and challenges of implementing artificial intelligence in medical education: integrative review. JMIR Med Educ. 2019;5:e13930.

World Health Organization. Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. 2010. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/framework-for-action-on-interprofessional-education-collaborative-practice . Accessed July 1 2021.

Hammersley M. On ‘systematic’ reviews of research literatures: a ‘narrative’ response to Evans & Benefield. Br Educ Res J. 2001;27:543–54.

Chen F, Lui AM, Martinelli SM. A systematic review of the effectiveness of flipped classrooms in medical education. Med Educ. 2017;51:585–97.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32.

Matsas B, Goralnick E, Bass M, Barnett E, Nagle B, Sullivan E. Leadership development in US undergraduate medical education: a scoping review of curricular content and competency frameworks. Acad Med. 2022;97:899–908.

Cristancho SM. On collective self-healing and traces: How can swarm intelligence help us think differently about team adaptation? Med Educ. 2021;55:441–7.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Rhonda Allard for her help with the literature review and compiling all available articles. We also want to thank the PME editors who offered excellent development and refinement suggestions that greatly improved this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Anesthesiology, F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD, USA

Erin S. Barry

School of Health Professions Education (SHE), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Department of Medicine, F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD, USA

Jerusalem Merkebu & Lara Varpio

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erin S. Barry .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

E.S. Barry, J. Merkebu and L. Varpio declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

The opinions and assertions contained in this article are solely those of the authors and are not to be construed as reflecting the views of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the Department of Defense, or the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine.

Supplementary Information

40037_2022_725_moesm1_esm.docx.

For information regarding the search strategy to develop the corpus and search strategy for confirming capture of any available State of the Art review methodology descriptions. Additionally, a list of the methodology articles found through the search strategy/corpus is included

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Barry, E.S., Merkebu, J. & Varpio, L. State-of-the-art literature review methodology: A six-step approach for knowledge synthesis. Perspect Med Educ 11 , 281–288 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-022-00725-9

Download citation

Received : 03 December 2021

Revised : 25 July 2022

Accepted : 27 July 2022

Published : 05 September 2022

Issue Date : October 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-022-00725-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• State-of-the-art literature review
• Literature review
• Literature review methodology
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Why and how to write the state-of-the-art.

State-of-the-art (SoTA) is a step to demonstrate the novelty of your research results. The importance of being the first to demonstrate research results is a cornerstone of the research business. You cannot get a Nobel prize (anymore) by learning Einstein ‘s law of photoelectric effect by heart and presenting it as your own. Einstein did it before you, and everyone knows it because he published it. When Einstein published his theory the theory had novelty. Einstein could demonstrate his theory’s novelty by presenting a SoTA and showing that no other researcher had ever presented such results. That’s why he got a Nobel prize and you will not.

Besides demonstrating the novelty of your research results, a SoTA has other important properties:

• It teaches you a lot about your research problem. By reading literature related to your research problem you will learn from other researchers and it will be easier for you to understand and analyze your problem.
• It proves that your research problem has relevance. If many people are trying to solve the same research problem as you, and if you can demonstrate this in your SoTA, then no one can tell you the problem you are trying to solve is not important.
• It shows different approaches to a solution. By seeing many different approaches taken by other researchers, you can evaluate your own approach and realize its novelty (or lack of it) easily. You can also see which approaches are the most popular and which are dead ends.
• It shows what you can reuse from what others have done. Especially when doing research on new software, it is amazing how many people have made the exact software you are planning to make. Just do a search on sourceforge and github .

So how to write a good SoTA? Writing a good SoTA is 110% dependent on having a clear problem definition . If you have failed in defining your problem clearly, you will fail in writing a good SoTA. The reason is that you will not know what related research you should investigate. So if you have problems with your SoTA, please go back and work on your problem definition! Here are some steps/hints on starting to write:

• SoTA is not a one-way road. You will not sit down one evening and write your SoTA. You will do it all the time while writing your paper/report. Knowing what other researchers are doing should be a part of your life for all the duration of your research. So an important step is to create a system of registering and summarizing what you read. Use some bibliography software such as Mendeley , BibTeX or EndNode or Zotero , register everything you read, and register your understanding of what you read, in your own words.
• Be critical when choosing your literature. Don’t read everything. There is a LOT of garbage out there on the web, and you don’t want to waste your time on garbage. One important criteria for choosing your literature is to make sure that it is peer-reviewed and is already presented/published in well-known conferences/journals. In case of technical IT-related stuff, ACM and IEEE are good places to start (do searches in Engineering Village ). It is also a good idea to set up an initial SoTA literature list together with your supervisor.
• Stop reading! Make an initial selection of literature (10-20 papers, depending on research problem) and stick to these for a while. Don’t go on finding new papers all the time, or you will never finish your thesis!
• Spend time on analysis and not on making summaries! A mere summary of 10-20 papers is not a SoTA. There is software out there that can summarize any paper for you, automatically and much faster than you ever will be able to. Your summaries become a SoTA only when you relate the SoTA papers to your own problem analysis.
• Always give credit! Not giving credit for others’ research is also called plagiarism .
• For more advanced writers: It is always a good practice to document your methodology for doing state-of-the-art survey. This means you should document how you searched for literature, what literature you included and what you excluded, how you did your analysis and so forth. This is called systematic review, and a de facto guide for doing systematic reviews in the field of software engineering is available here . You can also find many useful links on wikipedia .

Post navigation

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Grad Med Educ
• v.14(6); 2022 Dec

How to Conduct a State-of-the-Art Literature Review

Erin s. barry.

Erin S. Barry, MS, is Assistant Professor, Department of Military & Emergency Medicine and Department of Anesthesiology, F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and Doctoral Candidate, School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands

Jerusalem Merkebu

Jerusalem Merkebu, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences

Lara Varpio

Lara Varpio, PhD, is Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences

This article provides a brief introduction to critical steps needed for conducting a high-quality State-of-the-Art (SotA) literature review , one that will add to our understanding of the phenomenon under study. This introduction complements another article in this issue, which discusses the purposes, underlying foundations, strengths, and weakness of SotA reviews in more detail. 1

The fundamental purpose of SotA literature reviews is to create a 3-part argument about the state of knowledge for a specific phenomenon: This is where we are now. This is how we got here. This is where we could go next ( Table 1 ). Below is a 6-stage process for conducting a SotA literature review. 2 To support this process, questions for guiding each of the 6 stages are provided in Table 2 .

Example of a Medical Education State-of-the-Art (SotA) Literature Review

Six-Stage Approach to Conducting a State-of-the-Art Review With Guiding Questions

Before Starting: Build Your Team

It is important to identify individuals who will be a part of the research team. While a SotA review can be conducted by a single author, most SotA reviews harness the perspectives of an interdisciplinary team to generate rich interpretations of the literature. The team should also include a medical librarian to help with developing the search strategy.

Stage 1: Determine Initial Research Question and Field of Inquiry

In Stage 1, the research team determines the initial research question that incorporates the phenomenon to be addressed in the SotA literature review. It is important to clearly define the field of knowledge and/or practice that will be targeted.

Stage 2: Determine Time Frame

Stage 2 determines the time frame that will define “state-of-the-art” for the research question defined in Stage 1. In Stage 2, the research team should engage in a broad overview of the literature to develop an understanding of the phenomenon's historical development (ie, seminal articles). This process will shape the research team's focus vis-à-vis the pivotal moments in history when the thinking about the phenomenon changed and the time frame for contemporary thinking (ie, the date marking the beginning of this is where we are now thinking). At the end of Stage 2, the research team should be able to justify why a specific year (ie, turning point in history) is chosen to mark the beginning of state-of-the-art thinking around the phenomenon.

Stage 3: Finalize Research Question(s) to Reflect Time Frame

Based on the developments from Stages 1 and 2, the research team will revise and finalize the research question(s) to determine what needs to be included in the search strategy and analyses. The revised research question(s) and justification for the timeline must be reported in the article.

Stage 4: Develop Search Strategy to Find Relevant Articles

Next, a search strategy is developed, enabling the research team to construct the corpus of literature to be included in the SotA review. This involves determining which database(s) to search and when to set the start date for the review. Since the review needs to describe this is how we got here , it must include literature that predates the this is where we are now time frame determined in Stage 2. Stage 4 is an iterative process of testing and revising the search strategy to capture pertinent literature required to meet the purpose of the SotA review. It is important to note that the search goal is not to review all pertinent literature in the SotA review; instead, the goal is to include relevant literature to describe a historical evolution in the field's thinking about a topic. The final search strategy must be included in the manuscript. If possible, a librarian should be consulted when developing the search strategy. A software program such as Covidence may be useful to help organize and share all articles with the research team.

Stage 5: Analyses

Analysis of the included literature is an inductive process where the research team reads and reflects on the articles and constructs an interpretation of the historical development of how the specific phenomenon is understood in the field. The research team should begin by reading each included article to become familiar with this literature and be able to identify similarities among the articles, ways of thinking that have shaped current understandings, assumptions underpinning changes in understandings over time, and gaps and assumptions in the current knowledge.

Next, the research team can generate the premises that fit the purpose of a SotA review (ie, creating an understanding of the topic, constructing a history of knowledge development that gave rise to this modern thinking, and developing suggestions for future research). In this stage, the research team should highlight specific articles that either support or contradict its premises.

The final step in Stage 5 is to verify the thoroughness and strength of the research team's interpretations. This can be done by selecting different articles and examining if they are congruent with the team's interpretations. The research team may also seek out additional literature that offers alternative interpretations to convey that their summary successfully refutes conflicting interpretations. The goal of this verification work is not to engage in a triangulation process for objectivity or for external confirmation; instead, this process is to help the research team ensure that they have successfully explained their interpretations in a way that supports or refutes the interpretations offered by others.

Stage 6: Reflexivity

The SotA manuscript should offer insights into the subjectivity of the research team by describing members who comprise the team, applications of their expertise, and how these informed their interpretations of the data. This reflexivity description will help readers understand the perspectives that informed the interpretation offered by the research team.

Disclaimer: The opinions and assertions contained herein are those of the authors and are not to be construed as reflecting the views of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences or the US Department of Defense.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples

How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples

Published on January 11, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on August 15, 2023 by Eoghan Ryan.

A thesis statement is a sentence that sums up the central point of your paper or essay . It usually comes near the end of your introduction .

Your thesis will look a bit different depending on the type of essay you’re writing. But the thesis statement should always clearly state the main idea you want to get across. Everything else in your essay should relate back to this idea.

You can write your thesis statement by following four simple steps:

• Start with a question
• Write your initial answer
• Develop your answer
• Refine your thesis statement

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What is a thesis statement, placement of the thesis statement, step 1: start with a question, step 2: write your initial answer, step 3: develop your answer, step 4: refine your thesis statement, types of thesis statements, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about thesis statements.

A thesis statement summarizes the central points of your essay. It is a signpost telling the reader what the essay will argue and why.

The best thesis statements are:

• Concise: A good thesis statement is short and sweet—don’t use more words than necessary. State your point clearly and directly in one or two sentences.
• Contentious: Your thesis shouldn’t be a simple statement of fact that everyone already knows. A good thesis statement is a claim that requires further evidence or analysis to back it up.
• Coherent: Everything mentioned in your thesis statement must be supported and explained in the rest of your paper.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

The thesis statement generally appears at the end of your essay introduction or research paper introduction .

The spread of the internet has had a world-changing effect, not least on the world of education. The use of the internet in academic contexts and among young people more generally is hotly debated. For many who did not grow up with this technology, its effects seem alarming and potentially harmful. This concern, while understandable, is misguided. The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its many benefits for education: the internet facilitates easier access to information, exposure to different perspectives, and a flexible learning environment for both students and teachers.

You should come up with an initial thesis, sometimes called a working thesis , early in the writing process . As soon as you’ve decided on your essay topic , you need to work out what you want to say about it—a clear thesis will give your essay direction and structure.

You might already have a question in your assignment, but if not, try to come up with your own. What would you like to find out or decide about your topic?

For example, you might ask:

After some initial research, you can formulate a tentative answer to this question. At this stage it can be simple, and it should guide the research process and writing process .

Now you need to consider why this is your answer and how you will convince your reader to agree with you. As you read more about your topic and begin writing, your answer should get more detailed.

In your essay about the internet and education, the thesis states your position and sketches out the key arguments you’ll use to support it.

The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its many benefits for education because it facilitates easier access to information.

In your essay about braille, the thesis statement summarizes the key historical development that you’ll explain.

The invention of braille in the 19th century transformed the lives of blind people, allowing them to participate more actively in public life.

A strong thesis statement should tell the reader:

• Why you hold this position
• What they’ll learn from your essay
• The key points of your argument or narrative

The final thesis statement doesn’t just state your position, but summarizes your overall argument or the entire topic you’re going to explain. To strengthen a weak thesis statement, it can help to consider the broader context of your topic.

These examples are more specific and show that you’ll explore your topic in depth.

Your thesis statement should match the goals of your essay, which vary depending on the type of essay you’re writing:

• In an argumentative essay , your thesis statement should take a strong position. Your aim in the essay is to convince your reader of this thesis based on evidence and logical reasoning.
• In an expository essay , you’ll aim to explain the facts of a topic or process. Your thesis statement doesn’t have to include a strong opinion in this case, but it should clearly state the central point you want to make, and mention the key elements you’ll explain.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

• Choosing Essay Topic
• Write a College Essay
• Write a Diversity Essay
• College Essay Format & Structure
• Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

A thesis statement is a sentence that sums up the central point of your paper or essay . Everything else you write should relate to this key idea.

The thesis statement is essential in any academic essay or research paper for two main reasons:

• It gives your writing direction and focus.
• It gives the reader a concise summary of your main point.

Without a clear thesis statement, an essay can end up rambling and unfocused, leaving your reader unsure of exactly what you want to say.

Follow these four steps to come up with a thesis statement :

• Ask a question about your topic .
• Write your initial answer.
• Develop your answer by including reasons.
• Refine your answer, adding more detail and nuance.

The thesis statement should be placed at the end of your essay introduction .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, August 15). How to Write a Thesis Statement | 4 Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/thesis-statement/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write an essay introduction | 4 steps & examples, how to write topic sentences | 4 steps, examples & purpose, academic paragraph structure | step-by-step guide & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

State of the Art (SoTA)

by Bastis Consultores | May 13, 2021 | Thesis Development | 0 comments

The State of the Art (SoTA) is a step to demonstrate the novelty of your research results. The importance of being the first to demonstrate research results is a cornerstone of the research business. You cannot get a Nobel prize (ever again) by learning einstein’s law of the photoelectric effect by heart and presenting it as your own. Einstein did it before you, and everyone knows it because he published it. When Einstein published his theory the theory was new. Einstein was able to prove the novelty of his theory by presenting a SoTA and showing that no other researcher had ever presented such results.

What is the State of the Art?

A state of the art is the identification of prior knowledge to avoid reinventing. Performing a state of the art allows to verify or justify that a new knowledge is produced, for a doctoral thesis or the filing of a patent, for example. The state of the art usually also includes the identification of the actors – academic or industrial – that are at the origin of knowledge: the “ecosystem”.

Better, this ecosystem can be questioned to complete and reinforce the state of the art. This is where open innovation comes in. Especially since the data mining and classification algorithms of the Open Innovation platforms allow to accelerate the research tasks of publications and actors that are often tedious. Let’s dig into an example of state-of-the-art.

Important Properties of SoTA

In addition to demonstrating the novelty of your research results, a SoTA, according to Páramo (2013), has other important properties:

It teaches you a lot about your research problem. By reading the literature related to your research problem, you will learn from other researchers and find it easier to understand and analyze your problem.

Show that your research problem is relevant. If many people are trying to solve the same research problem as you, and if you can prove it in your SoTA, then no one will be able to tell you that the problem you are trying to solve is not important.

It shows different approaches to a solution. By seeing the different approaches adopted by other researchers, you can easily evaluate your own approach and realize its novelty (or lack thereof). You can also see which approaches are the most popular and which are dead ends.

It shows what you can reuse from what others have done. Especially when you do research on a new software, it’s amazing how many people have made exactly the software you’re planning to make. Just do a search on sourceforge and github.

How to write a good SoTA?

Writing a good SoTA depends 110% on having a clear definition of the problem. Létourneau and Amaya (2007), explain that if you have not defined your problem clearly, you will not be able to write a good SoTA. The reason is that you won’t know what related research you need to investigate. Therefore, if you have problems with your working document, rework on defining your problem. Here are some steps/tips to get started writing:

The SoTA is not a one-way road. You won’t sit down one afternoon to write your SoTA. You’ll do it all the time while you’re writing your document/report. Knowing what other researchers are doing should be part of your life throughout the research. So an important step is to create a system of recording and summarizing what you read. Use some bibliography software like Mendeley, BibTeX or EndNode or Zotero, record everything you read and record your understanding of what you read, in your own words.

Be critical when choosing your bibliography. Don’t read everything. There’s a lot of junk on the net, and you won’t want to waste your time on it. An important criterion in choosing the bibliography is to ensure that it is peer-reviewed and has already been presented/published in renowned conferences/journals. When it comes to IT-related technical material, ACM and IEEE are good places to start (search Engineering Village). It’s also a good idea to establish an initial list of SoTA literature together with your thesis supervisor.

SoTA Examples

Here’s an example of state of the art using Open Innovation. We can ask ourselves the following questions: How to get a state of the art How to perform a state of the art? and How can Open Innovation help? Some simple answers below.

For this state-of-the-art example, let’s take a real case dealt with by an industrial company: the problem of fallen leaves on train tracks in the fall. Dead leaves cause a loss of adhesion between the rails and wheels of trains, in particular due to the transformation of the leaves as trains pass. The transformed material causes a loss of adhesion between the wheel and the rail that forces the braking distances to be lengthened and, therefore, disturbs the rhythm of the trains.

In this case study, discover how Alstom™ was able to apply open innovation in the rail sector to solve a century-old problem using the ideXlab platform.

In fact, the dead leaves cause a loss of adhesion between the rails and the wheels of the trains, mainly due to the transformation of the leaves as the trains pass. The transformed material causes a loss of adhesion between the wheel and the rail that lengthens the braking distances. This phenomenon, which alters the timetable of trains, causes delays and other inconvenience to passengers and economic losses to operators.

Get started with scientific publications

The prior art will consist of multiple queries using a search engine. We recommend starting with an investigation of scientific publications (which are usually richer and more explicit than patent sources). In our example, this scan begins with a combination of keywords such as “wheel,” “rail,” “leaves,” “adhesion,” which will return posts on these topics. Interesting publications are saved.

Identify keywords and draw a mind map

The first results of these consultations will also allow to identify other useful keywords to deepen the topic: “friction”, “adhesion enhancer”, “adhesion coefficient”, and will gradually raise research topics that we will have to structure (we recommend using a mental map): ways to restore adhesion, study of the “black layer” that is formed when the wheels crush the fallen leaves , cleaning techniques of the layers of leaves (by laser heating, by projection of substances, by air jet, etc.). ) As consultations progress, knowledge is deepened, structured, new publications are saved and added in the right place on the mind map.

Finding interesting patents

In a second step, the most interesting queries are exploited with patent data sources. Also, in addition to identifying interesting patents in the field, they help to better understand the ecosystem. In our case, a very rich university (and, to a lesser extent, industrial) ecosystem has appeared in Europe (Great Britain, Germany, Ukraine, the Netherlands, Italy, …), in Asia (China, South Korea, Japan) and in North America (United States, Canada).

Contact with experts: a specific approach

Finally, to complete the state of the art, the industrial company decided to contact a number of university groups. It has the advantage of offering the possibility of talking to specialists in the field who can update the state of the art with the most recent and even unpublished data from the research. Even through a conversation of less than an hour, it is possible to identify important points or project into the future, which a purely bibliographic search allows only in a very limited way. It’s like going to an annual conference and interviewing the world’s most famous experts!

Contacting experts: asking the right questions

One final point. In any case, before contacting an expert to perfect a state of the art, you have to ask yourself “why would I spend time on my subject?”. In our case on dead leaves, a large company was at the origin of the question and many experts are interested in a dialogue that can lead to collaboration. But there are other possible options: a simple exchange of information, the possibility of launching a joint project, remuneration, etc.

General recommendations

Masías (2008), presents below the following general recommendations.

Stop reading. Make an initial selection of bibliography (10-20 articles, depending on the research problem) and limit yourself to it for a while. Don’t keep looking for new articles all the time, or you’ll never finish your thesis.

Spend time analyzing and not summarizing. A mere summary of 10-20 articles is not a SoTA. There are computer programs that can summarize any article for you, automatically and much faster than you can. Your summaries become a SoTA only when you relate the SoTA documents to your own analysis of the problem.

You always have to give credit! Not giving credence to the research of others is also called plagiarism.

For the most advanced writers: It is always a good practice to document your methodology for making the study of the state of the art. This means that you must document how you searched for literature, which literature you included and which you excluded, how you did your analysis, etc.

Our specialists wait for you to contact them through the quote form or direct chat. We also have confidential communication channels such as WhatsApp and Messenger. And if you want to be aware of our innovative services and the different advantages of hiring us, follow us on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter.

If this article was to your liking, do not forget to share it on your social networks.

You may also be interested in: Justification of the Investigation

Bibliographic References

Masías Núñez, R. (2008). Grave words, rebellious words: lexicon of social science research. Bogotá: Universidad de Los Andes, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Departamento de Ciencia Política, CESO, Ediciones Uniandes.

Létourneau, J., & Amaya, J. A. (2007). The toolbox of the young researcher: a guide to intellectual work. Medellín: La Carreta Editores.

Páramo Bernal, P. F. (2013). Research in social sciences: epistemological discussions. Bogotá: Universidad Piloto de Colombia.

State of the Art (SoTA). Photo: Unsplash. Credits: Stephanie Hau @stephiime

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Please enter an answer in digits: 2 × three =

Categories:

The most seen.

Copy short link

How to Write Your MFA Thesis in Fine Art (And Beyond)

Ryan Seslow

Public Paper Draft

I enjoy writing and I find the process to be fun. Do you? I know that writing takes regular practice and it’s an essential part of my learning process. Writing helps me “see” and organize my thoughts. This allows me to edit and become clear about what it is I am expressing. Practicing my writing helps me identify mistakes (the endless typos..) as well as further emphasize what I really want to explore and write about. When a topic of interest strikes me the process is effortless. I notice how I feel about the topic and this is a key factor as to how quickly I will get working on as essay, blog post or tutorial. This is something I have identified in myself over time and through repetition. Writing induces and activates new awareness. In my experiences as a college art and design professor, I have taken notice of a few consistent patterns when it comes to more formal writing, especially a final thesis deadline. For some, the thought of generating a final graduate thesis can be a daunting thought in and of itself. Associated with that thought may be an outdated feeling that your body still remembers. This outdated association can be especially frustrating to the point of extreme procrastination. If you are unaware that you are the cause of this feeling then you will continue to perpetuate it. Sound familiar? If you choose to enroll into an MFA program you will be required to write a final thesis. This will be an in depth description of your concepts, process, references, discoveries, reflections and final analysis. The best part of writing a final thesis is that the writer gets to create, format, define and structure the entirety of it. Throw away any pre-conceived and or outdated perceptions of what you think you should do. You must take responsibility for your writing the same way that you discipline yourself in the creation and production of your art work.

Where do you begin?

Your final thesis is an official archival record of what you have completed, explored and accomplished throughout the duration of your MFA program. Not only will your thesis be written for yourself, it will prove and back up your convictions, theories, assessments and statements for other people. It should be known that the content in this tutorial could also be applied to other writing needs that may be similar to the MFA thesis structure. An MA thesis or undergraduate BFA thesis can also easily follow this format. By all means, you can share it and remix it.

A regular writing practice must be established. This means, you will need to create a plan for how and when practice will take place. The calendar on your mobile device or the computer that you use will work just fine to remind you of these appointments. Thirty minutes of practice twice a week can work wonders in the installation of a new habit. Are you up for that? Perhaps there is a way to make this decision seem effortless, keep reading.

You can get started right away. Technology in this area is very accessible and helpful. With the use of a blogging platform such as WordPress one can privately or publicly begin their writing practice and archiving process. Even setting up a basic default blog will do just fine. You can always customize and personalize it later. If a blog does not interest you (but I do hope it does) a word processing document will also do just fine. Either way, choosing to wait until your final semester to get started is a really bad idea and poor planning. Are there exceptions to this statement? Of course, and perhaps you will redefine my outlook, and prove me wrong, but until I experience this from someone, let’s make some longer-term plans.

I taught an MFA and MA thesis course between 2012 – 2019 at LIU Post  in NY (but this format transcends into my CUNY courses as well) that put an emphasis on content and exposure to help students generate their final thesis. The course revolved around several exercises that contributed to the process as a whole. They were broken down into individual isolated parts for deeper focus. Much like your thesis itself, this process is modular, meaning, many parts will come and work together to make up the whole. One of the first exercises that we do with the class is identify a thesis template format. This is the basic structure that I have students brainstorm via a series of questions that I ask them. Keep in mind; you most likely already have a default version of this template. This could be the writing format that you learned in high school and had redefined by a professor in college. You may have been forced to use it or suffer the consequences of a poor grade solely on that formatting restriction. This feeling and program may still be running inside you. So how do we deal with this? Together as a class we discuss and record the answers directly onto a dry erase board (or word document will also do just fine) I ask one of the students to act as the scribe to record the list manually while notes are also individually taken. I later put the information into a re-capped blog post for our class blog. Are you surprised that I use a blog for my class?

The Format-

The format for an MFA thesis in Fine Art (applied arts & digital) will in almost all cases coincide with a final thesis exhibition of completed works.   This formats fits accordingly with the thesis exhibition in mind.   This is a criteria break down of the structure of the paper. It is a simplified guide. Add or remove what you may for your personal needs.

• Description/Abstract:  Introduction. A detailed description of the concept and body of work that you will be discussing. Be clear and objective, you need not tell your whole life story here. Fragments of your current artist statement may fit in nicely.
• Process, Materials and Methods:  Here you will discuss the descriptions of your working processes, techniques learned and applied, and the materials used to generate the art that you create. Why have you selected these specific materials and techniques to communicate your ideas? How do these choices effect how the viewer will receive your work? Have you personalized a technique in a new way? How so? Were their limitations and new discoveries?
• Resources and References:  Historical and cultural referencing, artists, art movements, databases, and any other form of related influence. How has your research influenced your work, ideas, and decision-making process? What contrasts and contradictions have you discovered about your work and ideas? How has regular research and exposure during your program inspired you? Have you made direct and specific connections to an art movement or a series of artists? Explain your discoveries and how you came to those conclusions.
• Exhibition Simulation:  You will be mounting a final thesis exhibition of your work. How will you be mounting your exhibition? Why have you selected this particular composition? How did the space itself dictate your choices for installation? How will your installation effect or alter the physical space itself? Will you generate a floor plan sketch to accompany the proposed composition? If so, please explain, if not, also explain why? What kind of help will you need to realize the installation? What materials will you be using to install? Do you have special requirements for ladders, technologies and additional help? Explain in detail.
• Reflection:  What have you learned over the course of your graduate program? How has the program influenced your work and how you communicate as an artist? What were your greatest successes? What areas do you need to work on? What skills will you apply directly into your continued professional practice? Do you plan to teach after you graduate? If so, what philosophies and theories will you apply into your teaching practice? Where do you see your self professionally as an artist in 3-5 years?

Individual Exercises to Practice-

The following exercises below were created to help practice and expand thinking about the thesis format criteria above. It is my intention to help my students actively contribute to their thesis over the course of the semester. The exercises can be personalized and expanded upon for your individual needs. I feel that weekly exercises performed with a class or one on one with a partner will work well. The weekly meetings in person are effective. Why? Having a classroom or person-to-person(s) platform for discussion allows for the energy of the body to expose itself. You (and most likely your audience) will take notice as to how you feel when you are discussing the ideas, feelings and concepts that you have written. Are you upbeat and positively charged? Or are you just “matter of fact” and lifeless in your verbal assertions? Writing and speaking should be engaging. Especially if it is about your work! The goal is to entice your reader and audience to feel your convictions and transcend those feelings directly. Awareness of this is huge. It will help you make not only edits in your writing but also make changes in your speaking and how you feel about what you have written.

• The Artist Interview – Reach out to a classmate or an artist that you admire. This could also be a professor, faculty member, or fellow classmate. It should be one that you feel also admires or has interest in your work if possible. Make appointments to visit each other in their studios or where ever you are creating current work. This can even be done via video chat if in person visits cannot be made. In advance prepare for each other a series of 15-20 questions that you would like to ask each other. Questions can be about the artist’s concepts, materials, process, resources and references about their works. Questions may be about how they choose to show or sell their work. Personal questions about the artist’s outlook on life, business, and wellbeing may come to mind and may also be considered. Record and exchange each other’s responses in a written format. You will make a copy for yourself to retain. Re-read and study your responses to the questions that the artist asked you. This will be helpful for you to read your spoken words coming from another format of communication. Do you find that you speak the same way that you write? Where do these words fit into the thesis criteria format above?
• The Artist Statement & Manifesto – Of course this will change and evolve over time but it is a necessary document that you will update each year as you evolve and grow. In one single page generate your artist statement or manifesto. Who are you? What is your work about? What are you communicating with your current work, projects and why? Who is your audience? How is your work affecting your audience, community and culture? Manifestos are usually published and placed into the public so that its creator can live up to its statements. Are you living up to yours? Keeping this public is a good reminder to walk your talk. Where do these words fit into the thesis criteria format above?
• Reactive Writing – Create a regular online space, document or journal to generate a chronological folio of reactive writing. Visit museums, galleries, lectures and screenings regularly. If you live outside of a city this may require a bit of research, but if you are in NYC this is all too easy. Bring a sketchbook and take notes! For each experience share your impressions, thoughts, feelings and reactions. Describe what you witness. Be objective down to the smallest details that have stayed with you. Reflect and find similarities and contrasts to what you are working on. Use this exercise as a free writing opportunity. Write with out editing or with out any formatting restrains, just express yourself in the immediacy that you feel about your experiences. At the end of each month (or designate a class for this aspect of the exercise) sit down and re-read your passages. Select the reaction(s) that you resonate with the most. Edit and format this selection into a more formal essay paying proper attention to a formatting style, grammar, punctuation and spelling. Where do these words fit into the thesis criteria format above?
• Tutorials  & How To Guides – Writing tutorials and how-to guides are great ways to practice getting really clear about what you are doing. It helps you cultivate your vocabulary and describe the actions that you are performing with specific detail. It puts you in a position to list your steps, process, materials, and references and explain what the contributing contextual aspects are. Try this with a specific project or with the art that you are currently creating. Are you painter? Explain how you create a painting from start to finish. This includes the very first spark that inspires the idea for the painting, as well as how it will be installed, packaged, transported and exhibited. Details matter. Are you sculptor working in woodcarving? Explain the process from start to finish. Ask a fellow artist if you can sit in on his or her process and record what you experience. This is a really fantastic and fun exercise. It also contributes greatly to creating lesson plans for teaching. (I’m actually obsessed with this exercise a little bit.) Where do these words fit into the thesis criteria format above?
• Reviews & Critiques – Much like the reactive writing exercise above, generating reviews and critiques will foster great ways to find insight into your own work. With regular practice you will find common threads of thought and subject matter. You will discover similar referencing and contrasts. This can easily be done in two ways. You can visit specific museums, galleries, lectures and screenings to write about that excites you. This already puts a positive charge on the act of writing itself. I also suggest that you contrast this with subject matter and content that also does not agree with you. We want to be able to fully express what we do not like as well. Understanding why helps us become clear in our choices. Understanding this helps strengthen our position on what we do want to write about and what we want our audience to understand. It allows us to explore dichotomies. The second way to further exercises in writing reviews and critiques is to speak about them. Speaking about art in person is a great way to further the clarification of your writing. Where do these words fit into the thesis criteria format above?

Further Experimentation-

The spoken word versus the act of writing? I have come across many students and colleagues who find that they write much differently than they speak. I feel that writing needs to have a consistent flow and feel fluid to keep its reader engaged. Speaking well and articulating oneself clearly is also something that takes practice. I have found that sometimes recording my words and thoughts via a voice transcribing application is helpful to get ideas out and into a more accessible form. A lot of transcribing software is free for most mobile devices. Much like voice recording the powerful enhancement is to see your words take form after you have said them. You can simply copy and paste the text and edit what is valuable.

This essay is also a work in progress. It’s an ongoing draft in a published format that I will continue updating with new content and fresh ways to simplify the exercises.

I appreciate your feedback!

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Pamm [missing word] 1. Artist Interview- Do you find that (you) speak the same way that you write? July 15, 2018 at 1:38 pm Reply
• Ryan Seslow Hi Marilyn! I see you! So weird, this is the first comment that has appeared on the paper. I have gotten several e-mails about past comments but still cant see where those are, lol! :)) September 18, 2018 at 1:05 pm Reply

Need help with the Commons?

Email us at [email protected] so we can respond to your questions and requests. Please email from your CUNY email address if possible. Or visit our help site for more information:

Welcome to Social Paper (beta) !

• About Social Paper
• Social Paper (beta)

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Preparing and writing a State of The Art review

Presentation giving guidelines and suggesting resources to elaborate the literature review specially focused for students in the UPF Master in Sound and Music Computing

Related Papers

CITAR Journal of Science and Technology of The Arts

Vitor Joaquim , Ricardo Guerreiro

Journal of New Music Research

Nicola Bernardini

Gerhard Widmer

Roberto Bresin

Paul Doornbusch

Editor Paul Doornbusch (above proceedings are a 7.2MB file)

Anais do XVIII Simpósio Brasileiro de Computação Musical (SBCM 2021)

Gabriel Francisco Lemos

This paper presents a concise report on the research developed at the Laboratory of Audio and Music Technology at the EACH-USP. The laboratory was founded in 2011 targeting the areas of music technology, musical acoustics and bioacoustics, strengthening its scope in 2019 to the areas of sound and music computing and audio engineering. Six projects are presented herein, describing their application areas, goals, achievements and perspectives.

Dancecult, Journal of Electronic Dance Music Culture. Volume 9 (1)

Martin K Koszolko

Dan Hosken explores the myriad of ways in which technology can be implemented in the practices of composers, performers and teachers. is introductory text spans a large group of topics covered in a comprehensive and accessible way. e volume is divided into four sections: Sound, Audio, MIDI and So ware Instruments and Computer Notation and Computer-Assisted Instruction. Included are also two appendices, covering Computer Hardware and Computer So ware. Each of the main sections is preceded by an overview text summarising the key issues discussed.

Xavier Serra

ABSTRACT In this article I give a personal view on what could be a roadmap for the research in Music Technology. I will describe the context of this research, the current state of the art, the challenges that lie ahead and I will conclude with some strategies to face those challenges. Given that to write a roadmap for a given discipline is a very challenging task that can only be the result of wide discussion within its research community with this article my only goal is to help start that discussion.

In this paper we analyze the proceedings of all the past six editions of the Sound & Music Computing Confer-ence. The proceedings are analyzed using knowledge based "keywords to text" mapping to discover the overall conference trends. The analysis is done on the basis of number of papers, distinct authors, participation ratio for each relevant topic, interdependence of topics in terms of shared keywords and the overall popularity of keywords. The analysis was done for each conference year as well as for the overall collection of proceedings till date. The objective of the discussed work is to provide an insight over the past six years in the SMC community that was envisioned in the roadmap.

Luca Andrea Ludovico

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Neil Hammerschlag

Concetta Nostro

Revue Générale de Thermique

Olivier Bertrand

Journal of arthropod-borne diseases

Teimour Hazratian

Topological Methods in Nonlinear Analysis

Lech Górniewicz

Gilles Badet

Thijl Sunier

andres cortez

Economic Analysis of Law Review

Rafael P Silvestre

ETD - Educação Temática Digital

Edna Martins

The International Journal of Business & Management

abubakar umar

Anisa Maulinaaa

ISRN Bioinformatics

Highland Hyacinth

Della Novita

della novita

DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada

Mark Amsler

JURNAL PEMULIAAN TANAMAN HUTAN

aris sudomo

Public Health Nutrition

Maria Stougaard

Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing

Journal of thoracic disease

Luca Ampollini

Grosir Sembako Terdekat Yang Murah

vira tugapattu

Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility

Muhammad Azmat

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

Gisela Skopp

Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences

Samruddhi Kandharkar

Gene, cell and tissue

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations, Volume 1: Research Overview (2016)

Chapter: chapter 2 - state of the art and state of the practice: literature review and questionnaire.

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

6C H A P T E R 2 2.1 Introduction This chapter describes key findings from a literature review and questionnaire conducted to determine the state of the art and the state of the practice related to the assessing, coding, and marking of highway structures during emergency situations. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to research common hazards, critical high- way structures, inspection technologies, emergency management and response, assessment pro- cedures, and coding and marking practices. Specific hazards considered include earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, hurricanes, storm surge, high winds, flooding, scour, and fire. Highway structures considered include bridges, tunnels, culverts, walls, embankments, and overhead signs. While the focus was on practices related to highway structures, the research team also considered practices for non-highway structures such as buildings that were relevant. Only cit- able, publicly accessible material was included. A questionnaire was distributed from February 24 to April 3, 2014, to the membership of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures, Subcommittee on Maintenance, and Spe- cial Committee on Transportation Security and Emergency Management. In addition, state TRB representatives were contacted to distribute the questionnaire to appropriate personnel. This questionnaire enabled the team to obtain current DOT procedural manuals that are difficult to find via conventional means. A total of 59 complete responses representing all 50 state DOTs were obtained. Additional partial responses were obtained but not used in the analysis. The respondents consisted of per- sonnel from maintenance, operations, bridge, and structures divisions. Of these, the respondents contained a mix of inspection/maintenance engineers, bridge engineers, and managers. Hence, the questionnaire response group contains input from the various divisions and personnel responsible for conducting structural assessments and maintaining those structures. 2.2 Assessment Procedures Assessment is the process of evaluating a structure’s condition through inspection and/or analysis. This evaluation can be completed manually (i.e., visually) or through technological means. There are numerous documents in the literature describing the assessment of structures during both emergency and non-emergency situations that are relevant to the aims of this proj- ect. This section organizes these documents based on their scope. In general, guidelines and pro- cedures tend to take a broad view of the assessment process, while inspection techniques tend to be limited to a specific structure type/component, material, or hazard. Because relatively limited procedures are available for assessment of highway structures in emergency situations, relevant State of the Art and State of the Practice: Literature Review and Questionnaire

State of the Art and State of the Practice: Literature Review and Questionnaire 7 procedures for buildings were reviewed first as an introduction to some practices that were useful for understanding the operations involved in assessment of structures. Finally, hazard- specific guidelines and assessment procedures manuals currently employed by several DOTs were reviewed. Related coding and marking practices are discussed in Section 2.3. 2.2.1 Guidelines and Procedures for Emergency Situations 2.2.1.1 Buildings The Applied Technology Council’s ATC-20 series of documents are the most used and referenced set of documents regarding the assessment of buildings in emergency situations. Although developed for buildings, most highway structure evaluation procedures are rooted in this approach. This series was developed for post-earthquake assessment of buildings and includes the following: • ATC-20 Procedures for the Post-earthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings (ATC 1989) • ATC-20-1 Field Manual: Procedures for the Post-earthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings (ATC 2005) • ATC-20-2 Addendum to the ATC-20 Post-earthquake Building Safety Evaluation Procedures (ATC 1995). ATC-20 and ATC-20-1 synthesized the best practices identified from across the globe and were based upon evaluation and assessment approaches from Japan, the International Conference of Building Officials, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, the Structural Engineering Association of Northern California, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES), and earlier Applied Technology Council (ATC) documents. ATC-20 describes general procedures for building safety evaluation that includes a three-level evaluation process: Rapid; Detailed; and Engineering (see Table 2-1). The objective of each evaluation is a posting classification that clearly communicates the status of the building to the general public and other emergency professionals. ATC-20 utilizes three placard postings: INSPECTED, LIMITED ENTRY, and UNSAFE. The Rapid Evaluation is normally the first level of evaluation and is designed to quickly (i.e., in 10 to 20 minutes) designate the apparently safe and the obviously unsafe structures. Structures Technique Required Personnel Goal Example Time per Building Rapid Evaluation Qualified building inspectors Civil/structural engineers Architects Other individuals deemed qualified by local jurisdiction Rapid assessment of safety. Used to quickly post obviously unsafe and apparently safe structures, and to identify buildings requiring Detailed Evaluation. 10–20 minutes Detailed Evaluation Structural engineers* Careful visual evaluation of damaged buildings and questionable situations. Used to identify buildings requiring an Engineering Evaluation. 1–4 hours Engineering Evaluation Structural engineering consultant* Detailed engineering investigation of damaged buildings, involving use of construction drawings, damage data, and new structural calculations. 1–7 days or more *Geotechnical specialists required for assessment of geotechnical hazards Source: ATC (1989) Table 2-1. ATC-20 building evaluation techniques.

8 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview that show some signs of damage but are not apparently safe or obviously unsafe are designated for a more detailed visual examination. Basic Rapid Evaluation criteria and inspection proce- dures are discussed in detail in ATC-20. The Detailed Evaluation is the second evaluation level and requires a more thorough structural inspection (i.e., 1 to 4 hours). The result of this evalua- tion is either a green INSPECTED placard, a red UNSAFE placard, or a yellow LIMITED ENTRY placard. The posting of a LIMITED ENTRY placard after a Detailed Evaluation means that the building requires the third level of evaluation, the Engineering Evaluation. Engineering Evalua- tions are performed by consultants requested by the owner of the building. Figure 2-1 describes the evaluation process. ATC-20 includes detailed discussions of the inspection of various structure types including wood frame, masonry, tilt-up, concrete, and steel frame. These discussions describe typi- cal damage and their likely location and guide the inspector toward an appropriate rating. Furthermore ATC-20 discusses the inspection of geotechnical hazards, non-structural haz- ards, special issues for essential facilities, human behavior following earthquakes, and field safety. ATC-20 was published 1 month before the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and was used exten- sively during the recovery efforts. Based on lessons learned during this event as well as the 1994 Northridge and 1995 Kobe earthquakes, an addendum, ATC-20-2, was developed. Source: CalOES (2013) Figure 2-1. ATC-20 building evaluation flowchart.

State of the Art and State of the Practice: Literature Review and Questionnaire 9 The primary revisions in ATC-20-2 were to the posting placards and the evaluation forms. Most noticeably is that the yellow LIMITED ENTRY placard was changed to RESTRICTED USE. In addition, ATC-20-2 discusses safety assessment management, which includes records man- agement, reconnaissance survey procedures, the removal of goods from buildings with safety restrictions, and demolition considerations. ATC-20-2 also includes information regarding loss value estimations (see Table 2-2) that can be used to help determine the total damage the com- munity actually suffered during the earthquake. ATC-45 Field Manual: Safety Evaluation of Buildings After Wind Storms and Floods builds upon the evaluation procedures developed in the ATC-20 series of documents and applies them to wind and flood hazards. ATC-45 uses the same three-level evaluation approach (i.e., Rapid, Detailed, and Engineering) and the same posting placards (i.e., green INSPECTED, yellow RESTRICTED USE, and red UNSAFE) as ATC-20-2. Furthermore ATC-45 includes guidance on typical damage types and levels as well as an appropriate posting. 2.2.1.2 Highway Structures Several DOTs have developed hazard-specific guidelines and procedures manuals. The proce- dures tend to define from two to four response levels that are initiated by the magnitude of the emergency situation. In addition, they describe a two- to four-step evaluation process (e.g., Rapid, Detailed, Engineering as described in ATC-20). Each evaluation step has specific objectives and is initiated by the response levels. The guidelines often include inspection procedures, inspection forms, typical damage photos, training information, and common repair and retrofit options. Table 2-3 provides a list of assessment and/or coding and marking procedures currently in place by state DOTs obtained via the questionnaire. It is possible that state DOTs not listed may have procedures in place of which the respondents were not aware. Several states (e.g., California and Oregon) are currently developing, updating, or expanding procedures at this time; however, they have not yet publicly released them. The procedures are typically organized into emergency response plans. In Table 2-3, the plans listed under specific hazards are plans that address only that hazard, while general plans may in some cases refer to many hazards [e.g., Oregon DOT has an emergency operations plan (EOP) that covers major events in general such as earthquake, tsunami, fire, flood, hurricane, or tor- nado; Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) has a damage inspection section in its Bridge Safety Inspec- tion Manual that covers extreme events; and Utah DOT has an EOP that covers events such as earthquake, fire, flooding, etc.]. This table reflects that, in general, many DOTs lack assessing, coding, and marking procedures for hazards other than earthquakes. Furthermore, this table highlights the fact that assessment procedures have been developed mainly for bridge structures. Damage State Damage Factor Range Central Damage Factor 1—None 0% 0.0% 2—Slight 0–1% 0.5% 3—Light 1–10% 5.0% 4—Moderate 10–30% 20.0% 5—Heavy 30–60% 45.0% 6—Major 60–100% 80.0% 7—Destroyed 100% 100.0% Source: ATC (1995) Table 2-2. ATC-20-2 building loss estimation classifications.

Procedures Bridges Tunnels Walls Culverts Embankments Overhead Signs Coding and/or Marking ConnecticutA Maryland New York B OhioC Oregon D Maryland New YorkB OhioC Maryland New YorkB Maryland New YorkB OhioC OregonD New YorkB Colorado ConnecticutA General FHWAE ConnecticutA IllinoisF Maryland MinnesotaG MississippiH New YorkB OhioI OregonD PennsylvaniaJ UtahK WashingtonL WisconsinM OregonD PennsylvaniaJ Virginia WisconsinM ConnecticutA PennsylvaniaJ UtahK WisconsinM ConnecticutA IllinoisF Maryland North Dakota OregonD PennsylvaniaJ UtahK Virginia WisconsinM OregonD PennsylvaniaJ UtahK WisconsinM ConnecticutA Florida Hawaii North Dakota PennsylvaniaJ UtahK WisconsinM Earthquake Arkansas California IllinoisN IndianaO Iowa KentuckyP MississippiQ New YorkR WashingtonS Oregon None None IndianaO KentuckyP MississippiQ IndianaO KentuckyP MississippiQ Iowa Tsunami None None None None None None Tornado None None None None None None High Winds None None None None None None Hurricane and Storm Surge None None None None None None Flooding California Maryland OhioI None None None None None Fire California None None None None None A Connecticut DOT—Bridge Inspection Manual: http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpublications/Inspection_Manual_061905.pdf B New York State DOT (NYSDOT)—Bridge Inventory Manual: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/structures/manuals/bridge- inventory-manual C Ohio DOT—Bridge Inventory Coding Guide: https://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/Structures/BridgeManagementSection/ StructureInventory/Documents/Bridge_Inventory_Coding_Guide_Revised_2012-01.pdf D Oregon DOT—Bridge Inspection Program Manual: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BRIDGE/docs/brinspecman2013.pdf E Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbis.cfm F Illinois DOT—Bridge Element Inspection Manual: http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Doing-Business/Manuals-Guides-&- Handbooks/Highways/Bridges/Inspection/Bridge%20Element%20Inspection%20Manual%20REV%2002.2014.pdf G Minnesota DOT—Bridge Inspection: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/bridge/inspection.html H Mississippi DOT—Bridge Safety Inspection Policy and Procedure Manual: http://mdot.ms.gov/documents/Bridge/Manuals/Bridge%20 Safety%20Inspection%20Policy%20and%20Procedures.pdf I Ohio DOT—Bridge Inspection and Maintenance: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Engineering/Structures/bridge%20operations%20 and%20maintenance/Pages/default.aspx J Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT)—Bridge Safety Inspection Manual: ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB 238.pdf K Utah DOT—Bridge Management Manual, Chapter 5: Emergency Response Plan: http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T, V:4321 L Washington State DOT (WSDOT)—Bridge Inspection Manual: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M36-64.htm M Wisconsin DOT—Structures Inspection Manual: http://on.dot.wi.gov/dtid_bos/extranet/structures/maintenance/index.htm N Illinois DOT—Earthquake Preparedness, Response and Recovery Plan: http://www.operationsacademy.org/PDF/ListServer/2011/Seismic %20Activity%20in%20New%20Jersey/Attachments/pdfNew%20April%202010%20Earthquake%20Preparedness%20Response%20and %20Recovery%20Plan.pdf O Indiana DOT—Handbook for the Post-Earthquake Safety Evaluation of Bridges and Roads: http://www.cusec.org/capstone14/documents/ ttf/INDOT-HANDBOOK.PDF P Kentucky Transportation Cabinet—Post-Earthquake Investigation Field Manual for the State of Kentucky: http://www.ktc.uky.edu/ projects/post-earthquake-investigation-field-manual-for-the-state-of-kentucky/ Q Mississippi DOT—Annex E – Earthquake Response Plan: http://mdot.ms.gov/documents/enforcement/emergency_services/CETRP/ Annex%20E%20-%20Earthquake%20Response%20Plan.pdf R NYSDOT—Post-Earthquake Bridge Inspection Guidelines: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/trans-r-and- d-repository/C-06-14_Post-Eq%20Final%20Report_October%202010.pdf S WSDOT—An Emergency Response Plan for Bridge Management: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/289.1.pdf Table 2-3. Assessing, coding, and marking procedures currently in place or being developed by state DOTs.

State of the Art and State of the Practice: Literature Review and Questionnaire 11 Five of the aforementioned guidelines [those developed by the New York State DOT (NYSDOT), Indiana DOT, Washington State DOT (WSDOT), Michigan State Police (MSP), and CalOES] are reviewed in the following paragraphs. NYSDOT recently developed Post-earthquake Bridge Inspection Guidelines (O’Connor 2010). These guidelines include a computer program to help prioritize the inspections based on the distance of the bridge from the epicenter of the earthquake and define four response levels depending on the earthquake magnitude and the distance from the epicenter (see Figure 2-2). In addition, the guidelines utilize four types of evaluation techniques: Aerial Reconnaissance, Source: O’Connor (2010). Figure 2-2. Process flowchart for NYSDOT earthquake response plan.

12 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview Preliminary Bridge Damage Assessment, Special Post-Earthquake Bridge Inspection, and Fur- ther Investigation (see Table 2-4). The guidelines recommend that all personnel subscribe to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Notification Service, because this is the trigger for the Emergency Response Plan to be activated in New York State. Indiana DOT and WSDOT have similar reference documents to NYSDOT for dealing with seismic events (Ramirez et al. 2000, Reed and Wang 1993). The main difference is that the Indiana DOT includes only two evaluation techniques (essentially these are Rapid and Detailed as described in ATC-20) in its document, while the WSDOT uses four (i.e., Levels I, II, and III and Forensic). Furthermore, the WSDOT uses four damage classifications. Three are the same as outlined by ATC-20 and NYSDOT, but WSDOT adds a fourth classification (i.e., UNSAFE- LOW CONFIDENCE) to highlight the evaluators’ confidence in the evaluation and structures that require a more detailed evaluation. The procedures in Michigan are noteworthy because they utilize a web-based incident manage- ment system that can provide a color-coded regional status display with damage maps showing both private and public infrastructure (MSP 2013). Section 2.2.3 discusses these visualizations in Aerial Reconnaissance (Response Level IV) Preliminary Bridge Damage Assessment (PBDA) Special Post- Earthquake Bridge Inspection (SPEBI) Further Investigation Objective Global perspective Route reconnaissance Detailed inspection Special study to address a particular concern Scope All structures in affected area All structures in affected area, starting with priority routes Site specific Site specific, as needed Inspection Method Helicopter or small fixed-wing aircraft or other “fast” methods Drive-through with quick stop at each structure Inspection and special access equipment as needed Any special equipment that is needed Personnel 1 or 2 DOT managers in aircraft and technicians as needed; the public Trained emergency responders Structural inspection teams Specialists, e.g., structural, geotechnical, metallurgical Time Frame Immediate (within 24 hours) Immediate (within hours) Start ASAP (usually within 8 hours) and continue as necessary Subsequent to SPEBI Outcome Determine the geographic extent of damage Identify impassible routes and traffic bottlenecks Locate structures that have major damage or are obviously unsafe Suggest priority for ground assessments Determine the extent and type of damage Identify/confirm impassible routes and traffic bottlenecks Close unsafe structures Code and mark Recommend SPEBI for damaged or suspect structures Preliminary damage level estimate Code and mark as necessary Close unsafe structures Recommendations for restriction, repair, or further investigation Reopen structures deemed safe that were closed as a precautionary measure during PBDA survey Damage level estimate Code and mark as necessary Detailed damage analysis Provide specific recommenda- tions on necessary restrictions and/or repair Approximate cost estimate for remedial work Deliverable Reconnaissance report with maps, photos, and/or video that defines the affected region PBDA form (one line per structure) SPEBI Report for each structure and Daily Summary Report Special engineering report Source: Based on O’Connor (2010). Table 2-4. NYSDOT post-earthquake damage evaluation techniques.

State of the Art and State of the Practice: Literature Review and Questionnaire 13 more detail. Michigan’s emergency response process includes four-color-coded damage classifi- cations and damage assessment forms for both public and private use. The forms are intended to be filled out via the web but can be printed out and filled in by hand if web access is unavailable. CalOES recognizes that the safety evaluation of buildings and bridges following a significant seismic event will likely overwhelm the capabilities of local and state officials. Thus CalOES developed the Safety Assessment Program (SAP) to build a large network of trained volunteers that can be called upon to assist local government and state employees in the evaluation of struc- tures. SAP has its origins in the response to the 1971 San Fernando earthquake and the current version of the training manual is largely based on ATC-20. In addition to buildings, the SAP evaluator training manual includes guidelines on the assessment of lifeline systems and facilities, which includes bridges, roads, and highways (CalOES 2013). The CalOES SAP evaluator training manual states that lifeline systems and facilities are considered “critical components of a com- munity’s infrastructure,” thus “only Detailed Evaluations will be performed.” The CalOES document includes forms for the evaluation of bridges. The SAP bridge assess- ment form was used during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and after the 2008 hurricane season in Haiti. The CalOES SAP manual states that these forms will be revised and improved upon further use. The objective of these forms is to provide sufficient information to classify a system as either safe to return to service (i.e., green INSPECTED), can be returned to service with some restrictions (i.e., yellow RESTRICTED USE), or must be taken out of service until repaired (i.e., red UNSAFE). Despite using classifications similar to the placards in ATC-20, the manual states that infrastructure is not physically posted, rather the jurisdiction is alerted for immediate action. 2.2.2 Inspection Manuals This section will describe inspection manuals utilized by DOTs. The first subsection will describe manuals for inspections that are meant for non-emergency situations, such as routine inspections. The second subsection will describe generalized manuals for emergency situations. The third subsection will describe methods in place that are specific to a hazard, material, or structure. 2.2.2.1 Non-Emergency Situations There are many documents related to the inspection of bridges and highway structures avail- able in the literature that are primarily for non-emergency situations. These documents will not be discussed in depth, but rather their importance as potential references for future projects is acknowledged. Note that the intent of this project was not to replace the current routine inspec- tion procedures in place. The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) establish requirements for inspection pro- cedures, frequency of inspection, a bridge inspection organization, qualifications of personnel, inspection reports, and preparation and maintenance of bridge inventory records. The NBIS apply to all structures defined as highway bridges located on or over all public roads and set minimum requirements. States may develop more restrictive requirements if they choose. The NBIS describe seven different types of bridge inspections. The most relevant to this project is the Damage Inspection, which is defined as an unscheduled inspection to assess structural damage resulting from environmental factors or human actions. Based on the questionnaire results, 80% of DOTs indicated they use the NBIS for highway bridge inspections, while 20% indicated that they use another system. Of the latter 20%, about half of those indicated they used a combination of NBIS and a state system, while nearly the other half indicated their own state system was used.

14 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview The Bridge Inspector’s Reference Manual is a comprehensive manual on programs, procedures, and techniques for inspecting and evaluating a variety of in-service highway bridges (Ryan et al. 2012). Several FHWA training courses have been developed based on the Bridge Inspector’s Ref- erence Manual. The manual includes an extensive bibliography as well as a chapter on Advanced Inspection methods. The AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE) was developed to assist bridge owners by establishing inspection procedures and evaluation practices that meet the NBIS (AASHTO 2011). The MBE includes a section on damage inspection and also describes bridge posting requirements. This manual includes many useful bridge evaluation references (Browne et al. 2010, Shanafelt and Horn 1984, Imbsen et al. 1987, Richardson and Davis 2001). Many states have their own inspection/evaluation manuals (Illinois DOT 2014; Mississippi DOT 2012a), but they often refer to the AASHTO MBE. In response to the questionnaire, many DOTs indicated that, for other highway structures (tunnels, walls, embankments, culverts, or overhead signs), they have written assessment procedures in place, including a manual or train- ing material (44%), or informal methods in place (22%), as shown in Figure 2-3(a). Two percent indicated that they had pictorial guides/references. 2.2.2.2 Emergency Situations In contrast to the availability of inspection materials for non-emergency situations, 40% of DOTs responding to the questionnaire indicated that there were no methods in place for emergency situ- ations, as shown in Figure 2-3(b). Only 22% of the respondents indicated that a manual or training material was in place, and 30% of the respondents indicated that informal methods were in place. The structure type is generally considered in these procedures (although to a larger extent in routine inspections); about 83% of respondents consider it for routine inspections compared No method in place 40% Informal methods in place 30% Manual or training material in place 22% Other 8% Q 8 - Does your agency have written assessment procedures for special inspections of highway structures specific to emergency situations? No method in place 6% Informal methods in place 22% Manual or training material in place 44% Other 26% Pictorial guides/ references 2% Q 7 - Does your agency have written assessment procedures for routine inspection of highway structures? Number of responses = 50 DOTs (a) (b) Figure 2-3. Questionnaire result—assessment procedures in place for other structures in both (a) routine and (b) emergency situations.

State of the Art and State of the Practice: Literature Review and Questionnaire 15 to about 65% for emergency conditions (Table 2-5). Approximately 52% of respondents indi- cated that the emergency inspection procedures consider the different hazard types. However, in general, traffic levels are generally not considered in routine or emergency inspections, with only about 21% of the respondents indicating that they were considered in routine inspections and about 33% in emergency inspections. Respondents were asked about procedures in place for prioritization of inspections for responding to emergency situations. Field personnel reports (70%), predetermined lists or lifeline routes (58%), and preliminary geospatial analyses (42%) are all commonly used. Respondents also indicated that technologies such as ShakeCast [California DOT (Caltrans), WSDOT], aerial surveys (Tennessee DOT), and vulnerability assessments (Nevada DOT) are used for earthquake priority response. Florida and Utah DOTs indicated they use a combination of a predetermined list of critical structures and field personnel reports. Virginia DOT determines priority by a pre- determined list: major structures for earthquakes and areas most affected for flooding. Michigan DOT determines the priority for inspections as required by state emergency operations centers. Respondents generally indicated (90%) that the inspection procedures for emergency conditions consider the skill level/training of inspectors. An inspector has authority to close a bridge in 94% of respondents’ jurisdictions. The other respondents indicated that an engineer had the authority. Respondents identified primary challenges (Table 2-6) for inspections by ranking a list (1 most important, 10 least important). The top three challenges identified are travel to the structure, access to the structure, and insufficient number of qualified inspectors. Routine Emergency Difference Yes No Yes No Q 7a/8a - Is the inspection different based on structure type? 82.6% 17.4% 64.5% 35.5% 18.1% Q 7b/8b - Is the inspection different based on hazard type? 37.0% 63.0% 51.6% 48.4% −14.7% Q 7c/8c - Is the inspection different based on traffic levels? 21.3% 78.7% 33.3% 66.7% −12.1% Number of responses = 46 DOTs for 7a/b/c, 31 DOTs for 8a/b/c. Table 2-5. Inspection routines based on structure, hazard, and traffic type. Q 11 – What are the most significant challenges your agency faces to properly assessing structures in emergency conditions? Rank Response Average Rank Max. Rank Min. Rank Median Rank Standard Deviation 1 Travel to the structure 2.81 1 9 2 2.07 2 Access to the structure 3.25 1 8 2 2.14 3 Insufficient number of qualified/trained inspectors 3.79 1 9 4 2.29 4 Communications 4.67 1 9 4 2.63 5 Limitations on technology for assessment 5.79 2 9 6 1.97 6 Coordination with other agencies 5.81 1 9 6 2.28 7 Lack of published procedures 5.94 1 10 6 2.45 8 Insufficient resources 6.35 1 10 7 2.56 9 Insufficient training 6.73 2 9 7 1.61 10 Other 9.85 4 10 10 0.87 Number of responses = 48 DOTs. Table 2-6. Ranked order of challenges to inspectors identified by respondents.

16 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview 2.2.2.3 Hazards/Material/Bridge Element Specific There are many documents that provide focused evaluation procedures for specific hazards and/or structure types. These include The Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings (ATC 1998a, ATC 1998b), “Post-earthquake Inspection Manual for RC Bridge Columns” (Veletzos et al. 2008), and A Guide to F-scale Damage Assessment [of Wood Frame Houses] (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service 2003). Some documents are very comprehensive and focused on non-emergency situations but are relevant to this project’s objectives such as the Underwater Inspection of Bridges (Collins et al. 1989) and the inspection guide in Effects of Fire Damage on the Structural Properties of Steel Bridge Elements (Brandt et al. 2011). PennDOT funded a series of projects that studied the corrosion and repair of pre-stressed girders, which included a study of various assessment techniques that included six different non-destructive testing (NDT) techniques (Harries et al. 2009, Jones et al. 2010, Naito and Warncke 2010, Naito et al. 2010). Some documents may be relevant for pre-event planning and offer risk-based algorithms to prioritize assessment and inspection (Heintz 2012, Laman and Guyer 2010). A few documents aim to standardize assessment practices (Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance 2011, Massarra 2012). Other documents describe the perfor- mance of specific structure types during past events (Youd and Beckman 1996). Optical technologies (e.g., lidar and satellite imagery) can provide regional damage assess- ment. Remotely sensed data are important to hazard investigation and damage assessment because these data can be remotely collected safely during disaster conditions (Olsen et al. 2013). Even in cases in which no previous data are available, optical remote sensing techniques provide high-resolution data, enabling more rapid damage assessment at a regional scale than many alternative methods. Collection of remotely sensed data prior to disasters can serve as baselines for future damage assessment, in addition to being useful for evaluating existing and future hazards. Finally, remotely sensed data, when processed, provide geographic information system (GIS) products for engineers, scientists, and planners to explore and study, without having to travel physically to the site. Caltrans developed an inspection and assessment procedure for earthquake damage to rein- forced concrete bridge elements (Veletzos et al. 2008). This approach is unique because it assesses the remaining displacement capacity. This is achieved by using five damage levels and classifying the expected response using three performance curves: ductile, strength degrading, and brittle (see Figure 2-4). The procedure includes a flowchart to identify the appropriate performance curve and a visual catalog of damage to determine the appropriate damage level. The damage Source: Veletzos et al. (2008). Figure 2-4. Performance curves of reinforced concrete bridge column.

State of the Art and State of the Practice: Literature Review and Questionnaire 17 on all columns of the bridge can be plotted on the appropriate damage curves to visualize the remaining capacity of the full structure (see Figure 2-4). 2.2.3 Collection, Reporting, and Visualizing Assessment Information There are numerous documents that describe methods for collecting, reporting, and visualizing assessment information. The majority use paper assessment forms (ATC 1989, CalOES 2013), while some utilize digital forms (McLane and Porter 2008, MSP 2013) which allow for rapid integration into an incident management system for regional visualizations (see Figures 2-5, 2-6, and 2-7). The inspection/assessment forms can be hazard specific and can vary by state and by the evaluation technique (i.e., Rapid or Detailed in ATC-20). 2.2.4 Critiques and Suggested Improvements to Current Assessment Methods Several recent studies attempt to improve upon current assessment methods considering recent disaster events. New Zealand researchers modeled their post-earthquake assessment pro- cedures after ATC-20 (Department of Building and Housing 2012). Thus, the recent earthquakes in New Zealand provide an opportunity to improve upon the existing ATC-20 documents. Several papers in the literature discuss lessons learned from the Canterbury, New Zealand, events and suggest improvements to current assessment procedures and the ATC-20 documents Source: MSP (2013). Figure 2-5. Michigan’s damage survey worksheet for public infrastructure (MSP 2013).

18 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview Source: MSP (2013). Figure 2-6. Screenshot of Michigan’s emergency management program showing the status view. Source: MSP (2013). Figure 2-7. Example of Michigan’s damage assessment map.

State of the Art and State of the Practice: Literature Review and Questionnaire 19 (Galloway et al. 2012, Lizundia et al. 2012, Wood et al. 2012). Although many of these are mainly applicable to building structures, they are important considerations for prioritizing inspection routes of highway structures or can be adapted to a highway structure assessment process. The following subsections summarize key findings of the papers. 2.2.4.1 Assessment Process The following recommendations were made for the New Zealand assessment process: • The objective of a Level One Rapid Assessment (roughly equivalent to the Rapid Evalu- ation in ATC-20) should be to determine whether a building is immediately considered dangerous or needs a Level Two Rapid Assessment (roughly equivalent to the Detailed Evaluation in ATC-20). • A new Interim Use Evaluation should be defined, which would be carried out by the owner’s engineer to establish suitability for re-occupation. It is recommended that this would be essen- tially the same as a Level Two Rapid Assessment, unless the primary vertical or lateral load resist- ing systems cannot be identified. In this case, further research would be required to identify the primary structural systems in order to establish the extent and significance of damage observed. Guidance on this process has been developed and published for the Greater Christchurch region by the Department of Building and Housing (Department of Building and Housing 2012). • Triage should be used to gain an overview of the damage, identify collapse-vulnerable build- ings, ensure people are not trapped in any of the buildings, and inform urban search and rescue teams. • Indicator structures should be identified. Following a large earthquake, many buildings become damaged and are susceptible to additional damage from aftershocks. Some aftershocks may be strong enough to damage previously undamaged buildings. An important decision officials must make is when to require the re-inspection of previously inspected buildings. If an indicator build- ing showed new damage after an aftershock, similar buildings nearby that likely experienced the shaking could then be re-examined for safety. This can also be combined with strong motion instrumentation reports to assist decision makers. 2.2.4.2 Technology Utilization The following recommendations were made regarding New Zealand utilization of technology to support assessing, coding, and marking: • Development of a Structure Database: The primary objective of the approach is to gather data on the expected earthquake performance of existing buildings. Summary information for each building could then be provided to assessment teams to inform the rapid building safety evalua- tions being carried out. In particular, identification of the expected vulnerabilities is considered to be of great benefit when carrying out a rapid visual assessment of damage as these vulnerabilities may not be identifiable without reference to building plans and details. • Targeted Safety and Evaluation Operations: These are specialized task forces or operations to address sections of the city or issues of the community, rather than the block-by-block method that has often been used in other cities. • Use of Internet and Social Media for Information Updates: The Christchurch City Coun- cil made relatively extensive use of the Internet and social media to provide near-real-time updates to the public on the response and recovery process of the region. This included maps showing the specific zones within the cordoned areas and planned dates for these area cordons to be lifted, and maps that showed areas of higher risk from buildings that could potentially collapse in a strong aftershock. The use of Internet and social media (crowdsourcing) in disaster response as recommended by New Zealand researchers is one example of how, for present and future disaster response,

20 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview modern information technologies should be incorporated to assist in the assessing, coding, and marking of damaged structures. Several of these approaches that utilize IT are discussed in the following paragraphs. ATC-67 developed a smartphone app [ROVER (Rapid Observation of Vulnerability and Estimation of Risk)] that uses Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-154 proce- dures for rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards and ATC-20 for post-earthquake tagging of buildings (McLane and Porter 2008). This app is integrated with USGS real-time earthquake monitoring software (ShakeCast) and FEMA multi-hazard dam- age and loss estimation software (Hazus-MH) (FEMA 2006). ROVER has been successfully tested by the Los Angeles Unified School District, the Utah Seismic Safety Commission, and others. Peña-Mora et al. (2008) reviewed the role of civil engineers in disaster response with a focus on existing building assessment and marking systems and highlighted various limitations of existing approaches (Table 2-7). They discussed a mobile IT-based collaborative framework to facilitate a coordinated disaster response and recovery operation. This framework enables engineers to assess building damage better and to make this information available to personnel more quickly and easily within the disaster area and thereby improve disaster response. The deployed architecture is composed of various components including various sensing, scanning, and tagging devices for structural assessment, a field engineer’s mobility and information sup- port platform, and GIS-based resource optimization (see Figure 2-8). As mobile- and cloud- computing technologies continue to advance, the command post concept as shown in Figure 2-8 may become outdated; sophisticated data processing and analytics can be realized through collaborative distributed mobile-computing systems rather than a centralized command post (Chen et al. 2013). 2.3 Coding and Marking Procedures During emergency events, it is important for first responders, safety personnel, inspectors, and the traveling public to have and be able to rely on a common method to code and mark highway structures. For this report, the following definitions are intended: • Coding—The process of using a shortened notation or series of code to indicate the status of a structure, its components and elements, and other parameters associated with it. Identified Requirement Brief Description of Obstacle Communication and collaboration support Difficulties in knowledge sharing. Inability to access information and the lack of standardization, collaboration, coordination, and communication. Provision of real-time data to field personnel First responders’ needs for information access and sharing are not well supported and are often disconnected from both the information systems and databases central to effective homeland security. Visual data capture Although different types of disasters call for different types of response, most situations can be improved by having visual images and other remotely sensed data available. On-site building assessment marking Building marks are not visible because of re-marking/smoke/debris on site and are updated at Incident Command Center after 8 to 12 hours through its established work cycles. Multiple connectivity options Existing terrestrial links can easily saturate and collapse at the time of disasters. For instance, after the 9/11 attacks, cellular phones did not work because of the destruction of antennae systems. Source: Peña-Mora et al. (2008). Table 2-7. Key obstacles in effective disaster response.

State of the Art and State of the Practice: Literature Review and Questionnaire 21 • Marking—The process of applying an identifiable mark to the structure to inform others of its condition. This can be done physically or digitally. The physical marking of a structure is sometimes referred to as “posting.” Today, a consistent, well-established methodology for accomplishing these critical tasks for highway structures in emergency situations does not exist. A review of the literature reveals, in general, very little published information on coding and marking systems at either the federal, state, or local level for highway structures both here in the United States or internationally. One of the practical reasons for this is the challenge inherent in the need for any coding and marking system intended for the general public to be visible and of value to someone driving at highway speeds. 2.3.1 Coding and Marking of Highway Structures Notably, the FHWA provides courses in bridge inspection under non-emergency condi- tions. Part of that training involves the use of a detailed coding system (FHWA 1995) that in effect provides the data elements for the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database. Since all of the trained bridge inspectors in the United States are required to use this system, there may be an opportunity to use part of it, particularly for the more detailed inspections after an emergency event. Pennsylvania (Laning and Bankert 2008), Ohio (Ohio DOT 2012), and New York (NYSDOT 2006) have published similar manuals for their inspector training and reference. New York uses an electronic reporting system to populate its bridge inventory database. There are more than 20 codes including bridge identification, structural details, safety and utility, Source: Peña-Mora et al. (2008). Figure 2-8. The deployed system architecture.

22 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview inspection responsibility, and load rating, for example. Within each major category, the detail codes are defined. For example, under safety and utility there are approximately 10 codes to characterize the type of guard rail terminus. WSDOT has a reference document for dealing with seismic events entitled An Emergency Response Plan for Bridge Management (Reed and Wang 1993). Inspection forms were developed to support a three-stage inspection process and office procedures were developed for emergency response. A computer database that makes use of the WSDOT’s seismic database was used to develop the plan. Workshops involving the WSDOT, the Division of Emergency Management, and the Department of Community Development were recommended. Research (Ranf et al. 2007) was also conducted at the University of Washington to improve the prioritization of bridge inspections by including not only the distance from the epicenter, but also the age of the bridge. The Indiana DOT in its Handbook for the Post-earthquake Safety Evaluation of Bridges and Roads (Ramirez et al. 2000) describes the use of ribbons by inspectors to communicate the con- dition of the bridge post inspection. These appear to be for internal use only. The system speci- fies the use of a red ribbon to indicate the bridge should be closed; yellow if it requires a more detailed inspection; and green if it is safe to use. The ribbons with the initials of the inspector are to be attached to the bridge sign post. If the bridge is unsafe to use, a request for barricades should be made to the proper group. NCHRP Report 525: Surface Transportation Security, Volume 16: A Guide to Emergency Response Planning at State Transportation Agencies (Wallace et al. 2010) is designed to help executive man- agement and emergency response planners at state transportation agencies as they and their local and regional counterparts assess their respective emergency response plans and identify areas needing improvement so as to be in synchronization with the all-hazards context of the National Incident Management System (NIMS). The report does not specifically address the issues of cod- ing and marking, but it is clear that any system will have to be compatible with the emergency transportation operations for each state. To reduce the impact from traffic incidents, the FHWA has developed a traffic incident man- agement process and training program for first responders (FHWA 2012). This training pro- gram could be a source of valuable information for handling emergency events. A team of U.S. tunnel professionals performed a scan of best practices in Europe in 2005 and presented key findings in a report entitled, Underground Transportation Systems in Europe: Safety, Operations, and Emergency Response (Ernst et al. 2006). The U.S. tunnel engineering community relies on National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards 130 and 502. The AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures has formed T-20, the Technical Commit- tee on Tunnels to take the lead on tunnel safety during emergency situations. They found that members of the general public are in effect their own first responders when they find themselves in an emergency. To aid the general public with a safe response, software is being used in Europe in conjunction with video to automate emergency procedures. A one-step procedure is recom- mended to reduce the chance for human error during an emergency. Only 30% of respondents to the questionnaire indicated that they have a manual or training material on guidelines for coding and marking of highway structures during emergency situa- tions, as shown in Figure 2-9. While 24% indicated that informal procedures are in place within their DOT, 34% indicated that no method is in place and 12% indicated that they were not aware of any within their agency. With respect to marking of structures during emergency inspections, 32% of respondents always mark, 10% often mark, 16% sometimes mark, 12% rarely mark, and 22% never mark; 8% were not sure (Figure 2-10). Those that do mark the structure indicated that the marking is typically done in a report (58%) or entered into a database (36%), rather than physically on the

State of the Art and State of the Practice: Literature Review and Questionnaire 23 Number of responses = 50 DOTs Not aware 12% No method in place 34% Informal methods in place 24% Manual or training material in place 30% Q 13 - Does your agency have guidelines for coding and marking of highway structures during an emergency situation? Figure 2-9. Availability of guidelines for coding and marking during emergency situations. Always 32% Often 10% Sometimes 16% Rarely 12% Never 22% Not sure 8% Q 14 - Does your agency mark structures once an emergency or special inspection is completed? Number of responses = 50 DOTs Figure 2-10. Frequency of marking following emergency or special inspections. structure. Other methods of marking included spray paint (18%), posting via the web or other digital media (18%), and yellow caution tape (85%). Thirty-four percent of respondents use some other technique for coding and marking of structures, including the following: • Colored lumber crayon in an obvious location • Colored tape or ribbon (red, yellow, and green) • Structures tagging sticker

24 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview • Mississippi DOT’s procedure from Annex E of its Comprehensive Emergency Transportation Response Plan (page E-22) based on earthquakes • Barricades, detour signs, and traffic control devices for bridges required to be closed 2.3.2 Relevant Coding and Marking Practices for Buildings Most of the remaining literature comes from other emergency management scenarios such as the coding and marking of buildings post-earthquake disasters or, in the case of fire events, from NFPA standards. The latter includes NFPA 130, Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Pas- senger Rail Systems, and NFPA 502, Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges and Other Limited Access Highways (NFPA 2014a, 2014b). “Building Assessment During Disaster Response and Recovery” (Peña-Mora et al. 2008) reviews the role of civil engineers in disaster response with a focus on building assessment and marking. It presents a mobile IT-based collaborative framework to facilitate a coordinated disas- ter response and recovery operation that includes the use of radio-frequency identification tags and GIS database support. Peña-Mora et al. developed a scoring system to determine which structures will receive operational priority based on the highest probability of success in find- ing and rescuing live victims. Buildings with the highest scores receive attention first. A similar approach could be applied to highway structures based on their importance to the transportation network and their likely resilience to damage. The paper discusses the importance of having a standard building assessment and marking system to communicate the building’s stability and suitability for use to all concerned person- nel. The paper identifies three systems: the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System, which utilizes fluorescent orange spray paint to apply the markings; the International Search and Rescue Response System; and the ATC system, which is for recovery only. The ATC-20 protocol became the de facto standard after being used in response to the attacks of 9/11. The ATC system has three levels—Rapid, Detailed, and Engineering—for the assessments. Green, yellow, and red placards indicate INSPECTED (no restrictions on use), LIMITED USE, and UNSAFE, respec- tively. Peña-Mora et al. note that, unfortunately, different systems can be used by agencies that are part of the same disaster response, creating significant problems for the teams. CalOES recently published Version 12 of the Safety Assessment Program Evaluator Student Manual (CalOES 2013). This document provides a detailed overview of the Safety Assessment Program as part of the training for SAP evaluators. This program is based on the use of ATC-20-2. It discusses earthquakes, windstorms, floods, fires, and explosions. The program provides for the use of placards to communicate the condition of structures, excluding highways and bridges. The program includes buildings as well as what it refers to as lifeline systems and facilities, which includes airports, bridges, roads and highways, and more. Duly authorized representatives of a jurisdiction are the only persons who can officially post the placards. Formally adopted placards will have the jurisdictional seal on them and will have a reference to the adoption ordinance. In California there is liability protection for the inspec- tors and a local jurisdiction would not be liable for workman’s compensation if they deputize an inspector. The current placard system in use in California is ATC-20-2 (ATC 1995). Green, yellow, and red indicate INSPECTED, RESTRICTED, and UNSAFE, respectively. Standard forms are provided to support each level of inspection and marking. California also uses ATC-20-2 for lifeline structures such as bridges and roads/highways. The forms use a ranking of 0 to 6 to code the observed damage. Placards are not used to mark bridges or roads/highways as they are too small for motorists to see. Barricades are the recommended method for restricting access to unsafe structures.

State of the Art and State of the Practice: Literature Review and Questionnaire 25 2.3.3 Critiques and Suggested Improvements to Current Coding and Marking Methods As described earlier, several recent studies attempt to improve upon current coding and mark- ing methods considering recent disaster events. Much of the previously cited literature provides recommendations for coding and marking (termed “placard placement”) from lessons learned from the Canterbury, New Zealand, events and suggests improvements to current assessment procedures and the ATC-20 documents (Galloway et al. 2012, Lizundia et al. 2012, Wood et al. 2012). Although many of these are mainly applicable to building structures, they are important considerations for prioritizing inspection routes of highway structures or can be adapted to a highway structure assessment process. The following recommendations were made for placard placement: • Only suitably experienced structural engineers should be permitted to issue placards (although they may be teamed up with building control officials, etc.). • There should be a roaming auditor to ensure consistency between assessments carried out by different teams and to identify teams that may not display the required engineering judgment. • Should an engineer be unable to determine the lateral load resisting system, the building should receive a yellow placard, regardless of the absence of apparent structural damage. • A minor change to the placard colors is proposed to ensure the public reads the detail of the placards. Using red, yellow, and white would remove the visual correlation between green and go/safe. • The placards should include a clear distinction as to whether they are based on a Level One or Two assessment. • The only possible outcome of a Level One Rapid Assessment should be either a red (UNSAFE) placard or a new (perhaps white) placard noting that the building has been visited, but that it requires a further Level Two assessment. Yellow or green placards should not be outcomes of a Level One Rapid Assessment. • Usability categories should be introduced. Usability categories were used for some assessments in Christchurch as part of the Level Two Rapid Assessment to provide an additional level of information to building occupants, managers, and owners. For the INSPECTED (green) post- ing, the usability categories were G1 (occupiable, no immediate further action required) and G2 (occupiable, repairs required). For the RESTRICTED USE (yellow) posting, the categories were Y1 (short-term entry) and Y2 (no entry to parts until repaired or demolished). For the UNSAFE (red) posting, the categories were R1 (significant damage, repairs or strengthening possible); R2 (severe damage, demolition likely), and R3 (at risk from adjacent premises or from ground failure). 2.3.4 Coding and Marking Conclusions There is very little published information on the topics of coding and marking of highway structures during emergency events. There is a well-established system of codes for routine bridge inspections, but those were designed for a different purpose and their required level of detail is not suitable for the majority of emergency responders. There may be an opportunity to make use of some of the procedures developed by the NFPA and/or ATC although they were not intended for the specific purpose of this project. The use of a three-level system to communicate with the general public that the condition is safe, restricted, or unsafe using green, yellow, and red, respectively, would seem to be the most valuable methodology to consider in the development of the proposed guidelines. However, if there is a need to communicate with the public at highway speed, this approach may not be practical.

26 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview For emergency responders, a more technical methodology could be implemented that makes use of the well-established bridge inspection coding system, at least for the more detailed inspec- tions. If the communication system could be relied upon to support access to the Internet, then a number of new strategies would become available for communicating with the general public and among the emergency responders. 2.4 Emergency Response and Communication 2.4.1 Emergency Management Overview Emergency management involves preparing for, responding to, and recovering from an emer- gency or disaster. It is a continuous process by which all levels of government manage hazards in an effort to lessen or avoid the impact of disasters resulting from hazards (FHWA 2014). In general, a government agency can discharge their emergency management responsibilities by taking five interrelated actions: prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery (DHS 2011, FEMA 2010). For the purposes of this project, this section will focus primarily on response and aspects that are important for communicating results of structural inspections. 2.4.1.1 National Incident Management System The NIMS was produced to standardize the management of emergencies in the United States as well as to implement a system to allow all agencies, departments, and jurisdictions to work together to manage emergencies when necessary (DHS 2008). The NIMS is made up of the following five components: (1) preparedness, (2) communication and information manage- ment, (3) resource management, (4) command and management, and (5) ongoing management and maintenance. Figure 2-11 defines the emergency response process based on the NIMS and National Response Framework (NRF). Source: Based on McCormick Taylor, Inc. (2006). Figure 2-11. National Response Framework and National Incident Management System.

State of the Art and State of the Practice: Literature Review and Questionnaire 27 2.4.1.2 National Response Framework The NRF is a guide for how our nation conducts national all-hazards incident response that builds upon the NIMS (DHS 2013). It describes structures for achieving nationwide response policy and operational coordination for all types of domestic incidents. Federal assistance avail- able to augment state and local response efforts is formulated under NRF’s 15 Emergency Sup- port Functions (ESFs). The most pertinent to this project is ESF #1, Transportation. ESF #1 provides support by assisting local, state, tribal, territorial, insular area, and federal government entities, voluntary organizations, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector in the management of transportation systems and infrastructure during incidents (DHS 2013). The primary and coordinating agency of ESF #1 is the transportation agency. ESF #1 includes the following functions: • Monitoring and reporting status of and damage to the transportation system and infrastruc- ture as a result of the incident • Identifying temporary alternative transportation solutions that can be implemented when systems or infrastructure are damaged, unavailable, or overwhelmed • Coordinating the restoration and recovery of the transportation systems and infrastructure 2.4.1.3 Emergency Plans EOPs define the scope of preparedness and emergency management activities necessary. DOTs will either have a stand-alone EOP or the DOT plan will be an annex, appendix, or supple- ment to the state’s EOP. All levels of government—local, tribal, state, and federal—including their division offices—prepare formal EOPs to establish authorities, responsibilities, and proce- dures on how the organization will operate in response to a disaster or emergency. The federal government has provided many tools to aid state and local agencies in developing EOPs, most notably, the Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101. The CPG 101 provides guidelines that help planners at all levels of government in their efforts to develop and maintain viable all-hazards, all-threats EOPs (FEMA 2010). FEMA recommends that teams responsible for developing EOPs use CPG 101 to guide their efforts. Along with EOPs, several state and local agencies will also develop emergency response plans (ERPs) or emergency preparedness plans (EPPs). Based on the questionnaire, 80% of state trans- portation agencies have an ERP or an EPP on file that is either comprehensive for most hazards (60% of DOTs) or different for each hazard (20% of DOTs), as shown in Figure 2-12(a). To determine the relative maturity of these plans, respondents were asked how long these plans have been in place [Figure 2-12(b)]. Responses were more than 10 years (40%), within 10 years (20%), within the last 5 years (23%), and within the last year (2%). Of the respondents, 15% were not sure of the relative age of these procedures. These responses indicate that many DOTs are taking steps to prepare for potential emergency events and are developing plans. However, given the frequency of occurrence for many events, it is likely that many of these procedures have not been fully tested during actual events. In addition, the relative age of these plans implies that the latest advances in potential assessing, coding, and marking techniques are not incorporated. Hence, future refinements are very likely to be necessary. Thirty-six respondents (77%) indicated that they were part of the EPP or ERP team. These respondents indicated that there is a strong level of interaction with federal agencies (100%). Of those EPP or ERP respondents, 97% also indicated that they assess structures as part of the EPP/ ERP. However, at the local level, 59% of the respondents indicated that the local government does not follow their EPP/ERP. There appears to be minimal coordination with data sharing, which consists predominately of inspection data. Other types indicated by the respondents were emergency needs and information and scour monitoring plan of action.

28 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview 2.4.2 Emergency Preparedness and Response To identify the relative frequency of hazards facing state DOTs, questionnaire respondents were asked to identify hazards they have faced in the past (Figure 2-13). Flooding (100%), col- lision (100%), scour (92%), and high winds (90%) were identified as the hazards experienced by most state DOTs. The next most frequently experienced hazards are fire (80%), tornados (66%), and earthquakes (50%). It is interesting to note that the majority of available literature Number of respondents = (a) 50 DOTs, (b) 40 DOTs Yes, a comprehensive plan in place for most potential hazards 60% Yes, a different plan for each type of hazard 20% No, nothing in place 12% Unsure 8% Q 5 - Does your agency have an emergency preparedness plan (EPP) or emergency response plan (ERP) that deals with potential hazards? Not sure 15% Within thelast year 2% Within the last 5 years 23% Within the last 10 years 20% More than 10 years 40% Q 5a - How long has at least one plan been in place? (a) (b) Figure 2-12. Emergency preparedness plans or emergency response plans (a) in place with state DOTs and (b) general length of time that such policies have been in place. Respondents = 50 DOTs 50% 6% 42% 90% 46% 100% 92% 66% 80% 100% 6% 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% D O Ts Q 4 - Hazards Experienced Ea rth qu ake Ts un am i Hu rric ane Hi gh W ind s Sto rm Su rge Flo od ing Sc ou r To rna do Fir e Co llis ion -R ela ted Tr aff ic A cci den t Te chn olo gic al Ex plo sio n Ot her Figure 2-13. Hazards experienced by state DOTs.

State of the Art and State of the Practice: Literature Review and Questionnaire 29 and established procedures are related to earthquakes rather than these more common hazards. This is likely because of the widespread nature and higher level of damage expected during an earthquake. Emergency response begins at the local level and expands to the state and federal level during large disasters where the local government cannot handle the emergency response. The Incident Command System (ICS) is the foundation of emergency management throughout the United States since the inception of the NRF and NIMS (CalOES 2013). Figure 2-14 describes the emergency/disaster declaration process of Michigan. Under ICS, the lowest level of government closest to the disaster is responsible for the management of the emergency response within its jurisdiction. Higher levels of government will then assist in supplying personnel and equipment to aid in the response. Figure 2-15 highlights the relationship between complexity of emergen- cies and response. Effective emergency response requires collaboration between multi-jurisdictional agencies. Col- laboration is a necessary foundation for dealing with both natural and technological hazards and disasters (Waugh and Streib 2006). Among the possible modes of cooperation, multi-stakeholder cooperation is favored for the management of complex emergency management situations (Smith 2014). Incident communications are facilitated through the development and use of common communications plans and interoperable communications equipment, standards, and Source: MSP (2013). Figure 2-14. Michigan’s emergency/disaster declaration process.

30 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview processes. The concepts and principles for effective communication are defined by NIMS as having a common operating picture; interoperability; reliability, scalability, and portability; and resiliency and redundancy. These concepts and principles reinforce the use of a flexible com- munications and information system in which emergency response personnel can maintain a constant flow of information during an incident (DHS 2008). From the questionnaire, respondents were asked what agencies they coordinate with dur- ing emergency situations (Figure 2-16). State emergency agencies (84%), FEMA (82%), and Source: Wallace et al. (2010). Figure 2-15. The complexity of emergencies and response. Number of respondents = 49 DOTs. 36% 82% 44% 84% 26% 54% 24% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% OEM FEMA DHS State Emergency Agency Red Cross National Guard Other D O Ts th at R es po nd ed Q 26 - Which agencies does your agency coordinate with during an emergency situation? Figure 2-16. Coordination with other emergency agencies.

State of the Art and State of the Practice: Literature Review and Questionnaire 31 the National Guard (54%) were the primary agencies identified. Many respondents indicated a high level of coordination with other outside agencies (Figure 2-17). Other agencies identified by respondents include the FHWA; U.S. DOT; state police/highway patrol; state health agencies; regional bridge managers; other state DOTs; U.S. Coast Guard; and various other state, county, or local agencies. Respondents indicated that coordination could be most improved by single points of contact, secure websites, or annual in-person meetings (Table 2-8). While some DOTs (33%) have integrated their asset management and pavement informa- tion with emergency response information, most have not done this. However, the majority (60%) indicated that they coordinate with those divisions during emergency events to obtain the necessary data. 2.4.3 Transportation Infrastructure Emergency Response Rapid assessment of transportation structures is critical following a disaster since they may exist along evacuation routes and can impede evacuation or the movement of emergency person- nel and supplies into the disaster zone. States that generally are not affected by natural disasters may have very little preparation for natural disasters and are likely to concentrate on accidental vehicle impacts. Although a vehicle impact creates a similar need for assessment, it is more likely Number of respondents = 45 DOTs. 12% 2% 0% 6% 2% 16% 6% 12% 22% 10% 12% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 D O Ts th at R es po nd ed Coordination (0 = Not sure, 1 = No coordination…. 10 = Complete integration) Q 27 - What is the current level of coordination between your agency and outside agencies? Figure 2-17. Level of coordination with other emergency agencies. Q 28 – What would improve emergency coordination for your agency? Rank Response Average Rank Max. Rank Min. Rank Median Rank Standard Deviation 1 Identify a single point of contact within the DOT 2.75 1 6 2 1.74 2 Create a secure website to manage coordination 2.77 1 5 3 1.31 3 Have an annual face-to-face meeting 2.84 1 5 3 1.16 4 Arrange a regularly scheduled conference call 3.34 1 5 3 1.29 5 Have more mock training events 3.64 1 6 4 1.53 6 Other 5.66 1 6 6 1.20 Number of respondents = 44 DOTs. Table 2-8. Rankings of potential improvements to coordination.

32 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview to be localized, usually affecting only one structure. Under ESF #1, state DOTs are the primary and coordinating agency for transportation structure assessment. 2.4.3.1 State DOT Response Within an all-hazards framework, state DOTs have certain transportation-oriented responsi- bilities. During the response of an emergency, DOTs will activate appropriate plans, procedures, and protocols and mobilize available personnel, equipment, facilities, devices, and information to support emergency response (Wallace et al. 2010). It is also in this stage that state DOTs will begin performing damage assessment responsibilities for affected transportation system ele- ments. This process involves clear lines of communication between numerous teams and agen- cies as shown in Figure 2-18. Decisions will be made regarding closures, contraflow operations, Source: Reed and Wang (1993). Figure 2-18. WSDOT emergency response communication for bridge management.

State of the Art and State of the Practice: Literature Review and Questionnaire 33 restrictions, and priority repairs. Damage assessments will continue during the recovery phase (Wallace et al. 2010). 2.4.3.2 Training Volunteer Response Very-large-extent emergencies are likely to overwhelm the capabilities of local and state offi- cials. In these situations, there is a need for properly trained volunteers to assist with the assess- ment of structures. Several agencies and associations across the United States have been working to fill this need. These include the CalOES SAP (CalOES 2013) and the Structural Engineering Emergency Response Program (National Council of Structural Engineers Associations 2011). These programs coordinate training and organize volunteers to be called up by local or state emergency management agencies to assist in the safety evaluation of structures during an emer- gency response when necessary. These volunteer groups currently exist or are being developed in some states (Rhode Island, Massachusetts, California to name a few) but likely do not exist in all states. 2.4.4 Concluding Remarks Homeland Security Presidential Directives helped shape the foundation of emergency response and communication by establishing national frameworks such as NIMS, NRF, and ICS. These frameworks serve key roles in the development of state EOPs, ERPs, and EPPs. Ulti- mately, all incident response begins at the local level and progresses toward the state and federal level depending on the complexity of emergency, as shown in Figure 2-15. ESF #1 specifies state DOTs as the primary and coordinating agency for transportation structure assessment. Many states have developed emergency response procedures specific to the assessment of highway structures following an emergency; however, these procedures are likely to differ between states. It is crucial following an emergency for state DOTs to properly and quickly assess, code, and mark the integrity of the transportation system and this process begins with a well-established EOP, ERP, and EPP. CPG 101 is currently the most useful guide in helping planners develop and maintain viable all-hazards and all-threats EOPs. Some good examples of plans set in place by DOTs are Ohio’s EOP (Ohio DOT 2013), Mississippi’s ERP (Mississippi DOT 2012b), and Wyoming’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (Wyoming DOT 2011). 2.5 Training In the questionnaire, respondents were asked about the level of training available for various types of emergency events (Figure 2-19). Training is most common for scour, flooding, collision, and earthquakes. However, in general, minimal training is completed for other types of hazards, where training is typically not performed frequently, if at all. When asked how effective various training material was, periodic refresher courses and flip- books and pocket manuals were given the highest overall rankings (Table 2-9). 2.6 Technology/Data Similar results are observed in the usage of current technology in routine conditions com- pared to the priority of technology usage in emergency situations (Figure 2-20). The two primary findings are (1) the order in which digital technologies are currently most often used is largely consistent with the order of priority given to digital technologies during emergency response and (2) smartphones and tablets are given higher priority in emergency events. This implies that the community is keen to use smart mobile technologies for rapid emergency response.

34 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview Number of respondents = 44 DOTs. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Earthquake Tsunami Hurricane High Winds Storm Surge Flooding Scour Tornado Fire Collision Technological Explosion Volcanoes Terrorist attacks Snow/ice/avalanche Other Average Frequency (0 = None, 2 = Once every 5 years, 4 = Once every 2 years) Q 16 - What level of training does your agency provide for assessing, coding, and/or marking of structures during the following emergency events? Figure 2-19. Level of training by state DOTs for hazards. The bars show the standard deviation of the responses for each category. Q 17 – Please order the following list based on your agency’s needs to train individuals in the proper emergency response and assessment procedures. Rank Response Average Rank Max. Rank Min. Rank Median Rank Standard Deviation 1 Periodic refresher course 1.98 1 4 2 0.99 2 Flip-books and pocket manuals 2.17 1 4 2 0.99 3 Simulations 2.94 1 5 3 1.15 4 E-learning training courses 3.02 1 4 3 1.07 5 Other 4.89 1 5 5 0.60 Number of respondents = 47 DOTs. Table 2-9. Rankings of training material effectiveness. 2.6.1 Data Management In the questionnaire, respondents were asked how structural assessment data are currently managed within their organization. Eighty percent of respondents indicated data are centrally managed, 14% indicated regionally managed, and 6% indicated individually by department. Most respondents also indicated that they have well-developed and functioning systems in place for asset management and inventory (Figure 2-21). Ninety-six percent of respondents indicated that information regarding structure type and traffic levels was available. Sixty-seven percent of respondents indicated data are tied to geospatial coordinates and 23% indicated that they are tied to another system such as a linear referencing system [Figure 2-22(a)]. Ninety-two percent of respondents indicated that these data are stored in digital databases [Figure 2-22(b)]. Analyzed together, these responses indicate that DOTs are comfortable with digital, geospatial database management and sharing for structural assessment data. 2.6.2 Adoption of New Technologies Respondents were asked about their agency’s experiences with adopting new technologies (Figure 2-23). Thirty percent indicated that their agency tries to stay in the forefront; 38%

State of the Art and State of the Practice: Literature Review and Questionnaire 35 Number of respondents = 48 DOTs. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Hand-held GPS Digital photo and video cameras Tablets/smartphones Laser range finders Lidar/3D laser scanning Advanced technologies such as GPR, seismic surveys, thermal imaging UAVS Low-tech assessment aids Other Q 18 - How often does your organization use the following digital technologies for highway structure assessment under ordinary circumstances? Q 19 - What priority would your agency place on the following digital technologies in recommended emergency response procedures? Not sure Rarely Sometimes Often Routinely Low Medium High Figure 2-20. Current technology usage in routine conditions and anticipated technology usage in emergency response. Number of respondents = 49 DOTs. 4% 0% 12% 6% 0% 10% 10% 14% 16% 14% 14% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 D O Ts th at R es po nd ed Type of System (0 = Not sure, 1 = No system in place, 10 = Detailed system that covers most needs) Q 21 - What type of system is in place for your agency's highway structures inventory and/or asset management to assist in managing critical structures? Figure 2-21. Inventory and assessment management systems in place for managing critical structures.

36 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview Number of respondents = (a) 49 DOTs, (b) 50 DOTs. LRS = linear referencing system Yes, data are tied to geospatial coordinates 67% Data are tied to another system such as LRS 23% No spatial referencing is used 10% Q 24 - Is your agency’s structural assessment data linked to geospatial/spatial coordinates? Yes 92% No 8% Q 25 - Is your agency’s structural assessment data stored in a digital database accessible during an emergency situation? (a) (b) Figure 2-22. Structural assessment data (a) tied to geospatial information and (b) stored in digital databases. Number of respondents = 50 DOTs. Hesitant to adopt until technology is stabilized 14% Adopt once the majority of other DOTs have adopted 12% Adopt once a few DOTs have adopted 38% Agency tries to stay on the forefront of technology 30% Not sure 6% Q 23 - What is your agency’s overall level of experience with the adoption of new technologies? Figure 2-23. Level of technology adoption by state DOTs. indicated that they adopt new technologies once a few other DOTs have adopted; 12% adopt when the majority of other DOTs have adopted; and 14% are hesitant to adopt new technolo- gies. Six percent were not sure. This implies that most agencies (80%) are willing to adopt new technologies when the technology becomes technologically or institutionally mature. 2.7 Guidelines Respondents indicated that several of the items listed would be of benefit in guidelines (Fig- ure 2-24). In particular, communication and coordination within an agency was given highest priority.

State of the Art and State of the Practice: Literature Review and Questionnaire 37 Respondents also indicated that additional training and increased number of inspectors were the most important needs identified by their agencies to improve structural assessment, coding, and marking procedures in emergency situations (Table 2-10). 2.8 Background Summary This phase of the project resulted in the documentation of detailed background information and a solid foundation for recommending assessment, coding, and marking techniques and methodologies. Key considerations include the following: • Structural assessment procedures were fairly well-established for routine conditions, espe- cially for bridges; however, for emergency situations, there were relatively few documented procedures available. Further, the few that were available are generally focused on bridges and earthquakes. • These processes do not provide a uniform means for conducting these assessments or a com- mon form of coding and marking. They typically do not consider traffic levels. • Many agencies are currently preparing for emergency events and developing response plans; however, the focus has primarily been on bridges following an earthquake. Number of Respondents = 48 DOTs. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Coding system Marking system Methods of assessment NDT techniques Use of technology Communication and coordination within your agency Communication and coordination with other agencies Training Pre-planning Priority Q 31 - What priority would your agency place on the guidelines addressing the following? Low Medium High Figure 2-24. Priorities of guidelines. The bars show the standard deviation of the responses for each category. Q 32 – What needs have been identified by your agency to improve structural assessment, coding, and marking procedures in emergency situations? Rank Response Average Rank Max. Rank Min. Rank Median Rank Standard Deviation 1 Additional training 2.29 1 5 2 1.13 2 Increased number of inspectors 2.65 1 6 3 1.54 3 Access to more technologies 3.52 1 6 4 1.41 4 Published guidelines available to all agencies 3.85 1 6 4 1.69 5 Improved coordination between agencies 4.35 1 6 5 1.53 6 Additional resources such as vehicles and equipment 4.56 1 6 5 1.67 7 Other 6.81 1 7 7 0.91 Table 2-10. Identified needs to improve structural assessment, coding, and marking procedures in emergency situations.

38 Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations: Research Overview • Similar levels of technology usage for inspections are anticipated during emergency response as currently used during routine inspections. However, smartphones and tablets were given higher priority for use in emergency events. • Minimal literature is available describing coding and marking practices. Most available prac- tices were included as a very small part of the assessment manual. For coding, many proce- dures use forms that are only sometimes compiled in a digital format. Marking processes are often based on a green (safe) to red (unsafe) system for the structure’s status; although there is significant variability in how the marking is done as well as the number of colors used (typi- cally three to five). • Training is most frequently provided for scour, flooding, collision, and earthquakes. How- ever, in general, minimal training is completed for other types of hazards. Periodic refresher courses and flip-books and pocket manuals were given the highest rankings with respect to desired training and other educational materials. Overall, DOTs have several systems in place for routine inspections (e.g., using NBIS-based procedures); however, there were no comprehensive guidelines to address the wide ranges of emergency situations and their impacts on the various types of structures that DOTs are respon- sible for maintaining. The responses to the questionnaire also highlighted the importance of training materials and resources, including rapid methodologies for assessing, coding, and mark- ing highway structures, to aid with the inspection process. Hence, the materials developed for this project fill a critical gap and provide valuable resources to transportation agencies.

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Research Report 833: Assessing, Coding, and Marking of Highway Structures in Emergency Situations, Volume 1: Research Overview provides background information and an overview of the process, supporting manuals, and training materials used to help agencies assess highway structures in emergency situations.

NCHRP Research Report 833, Volume 1, Volume 2 , and Volume 3 ; along with NCHRP Web-Only Document 223 : Guidelines for Development of Smart Apps for Assessing, Coding, and Marking Highway Structures in Emergency Situations provides guidelines for related coding and marking that can be recognized by highway agencies and other organizations that respond to emergencies resulting from natural or man-made disasters.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• Skip to main content
• assistive.skiplink.to.breadcrumbs
• assistive.skiplink.to.header.menu
• assistive.skiplink.to.action.menu
• assistive.skiplink.to.quick.search

• A t tachments (1)
• Page History
• Page Information
• Resolved comments
• View in Hierarchy
• View Source
• Export to PDF
• Export to Word

Undergraduate Program - Writing a Thesis

• Created by Marcus Mayo , last modified on Jan 31, 2024

Pursuing a Thesis

Senior Concentrators wishing to graduate with honors in the Department must produce a senior thesis and carry academic standing of Group II or better, with a minimum GPA of 3.00 in concentration grades. In deciding whether one wishes to fulfill the honors requirements, students should consider their academic interests, commitment to independent research, and other deadlines and obligations during the thesis year. Many students find the task of producing a substantial piece of critical scholarship interesting and rewarding, but others find the senior thesis can become a frustrating and unwieldy burden. Some students prefer the freedom to take elective courses or savor extra-curricular pursuits during their last year at the College unhampered by the encroaching demands of thesis preparation. In general, it may be remarked that students are unlikely to do well in the honors program who are not already proven practiced writers committed to the process of scholarship; the senior thesis is not the place to acquire basic skills in writing, design, and/or research. In considering the Department's honors requirements, it should be remembered that students with honors grades overall may graduate with University Honors (Cum Laude) even if they do not receive Honors in History of Art and Architecture.

Department Timeline of Thesis Preparation 

A schedule of departmental dates and deadlines relative to the thesis will be available by the beginning of each Fall Term. The thesis writer and faculty thesis adviser should agree on a working schedule which will adequately conform to these deadlines.

Concentrators undertaking a thesis are required to enroll in HAA 99A (fall) and B (spring) for course credit. Students in the architecture track pursuing a design thesis should enroll in HAA 92r (fall) and 99B (spring). Joint concentrators will enroll in the 99 course of their primary concentration.

Overseen by the Senior Thesis Adviser, HAA 99A –“The Senior Thesis Seminar” – will meet several times during the fall semester for two-hour sessions devoted to facilitating the preparation and writing of a thesis. These sessions will cover such topics as compiling a bibliography, using archives, the use of key technology and software, and constructing and presenting an effective argument. All concentrators pursuing a written thesis project are required to enroll in this seminar. Joint concentrators enrolled in another department’s thesis seminar, and HAA design thesis students enrolled in HAA 92r, are welcome and encouraged to attend some or all sessions of 99A in addition to their primary thesis preparation course.

Late in the fall semester, each concentrator pursuing a thesis will deliver a twenty-minute presentation on the thesis topic, illustrated with digitally projected images, at the Senior Thesis Presentations. All departmental faculty and students will be invited to these presentations. By the end of winter break, each student will submit a complete first draft of the thesis, complete with illustrations.

Overview of Key Dates for Thesis Preparation

These dates apply to all HAA students wishing to pursue an honors thesis. For further criteria specific to students preparing a design thesis in the Architecture Track, see Academic Requirements: Design Thesis in the Architecture Track

Please consult the Senior Thesis Seminar Canvas site, or reach out to the Undergraduate Program Coordinator, for specific dates.

Spring Semester, Junior Year

• February: Initial Meeting. Junior concentrators are invited to meet with the Senior Thesis Adviser for an introduction to the senior thesis writing process.
• Early April: Short Proposals Due. Students submit a basic proposal outlining preliminary ideas, along with a list of potential faculty advisers. Faculty advisers are assigned to thesis projects in late April or early May.
• Late April: Applications due for Pulitzer and Abramson Travel Grants. See Undergraduate Prizes, Grants and Opportunities for details on grants and applications. Information on how to apply will be provided by the Undergraduate Program Coordinator. Grant recipients will be notified by email.

Fall Semester, Senior Year

• During the semester, students enroll in HAA 99A or 92r and follow course deadlines (Please consult the HAA 99A and 92r Canvas sites for additional details).
• Students meet regularly with their faculty advisers.
• Early December: Senior Thesis Presentations. All students pursuing a thesis will give a twenty-minute presentation to department students and faculty followed by discussion.

Spring Semester, Senior Year

• Late January: First Draft . Before the spring semester begins, students submit a full draft of the thesis, with illustrations, to the faculty adviser for comments.
• Late February/Early March: Second Draft. Students are encouraged to submit the near-final draft to their faculty adviser for a final review before formal submission to the Department.
• Week before Spring Break: Final Submission Deadline. Late submissions will not be accepted. On the afternoon of submission, all students are invited to attend the Thesis Reception.
• Late March: Gallery-Style public reception and presentation of Design Thesis projects. All architecture track students that have prepared a design thesis will present their work informally at this event. All HAA thesis writers, as well as faculty and graduate students, are encouraged to attend.
• April: Thesis Review and Honors Recommendation . Senior Honors Theses are read and critiqued by Members of the Faculty in HAA (and the GSD and the Harvard Art Museums, where relevant) at the request of the Senior Thesis Adviser. Department Faculty meet to vote on final honors recommendations, after which thesis writers will receive an email from the Senior Thesis Adviser notifying them of their thesis grade and recommendation for honors. Students should speak with their Allston Burr Senior Tutor for the anticipated final honors decision of the College.
• Mid-April: Senior Thesis Poster. All senior thesis writers are expected to prepare a digital file for a 24 x 36” poster summarizing the thesis to be exhibited in the HAA Department for the following academic year. A suggested template will be provided and a workshop will be held in late March for assistance with poster preparation. The printing and associated costs are taken care of by the Department. Examples of previous posters can be found here (AY21-22) and here (AY22-23) .

Senior Thesis Adviser 

The process of taking honors and producing the thesis in the Department is overseen for all concentrators by the Senior Thesis Adviser, Professor Carrie Lambert-Beatty. The Senior Thesis Adviser leads the Fall Term thesis-writing seminar (HAA 99A) and directs the meetings for departmental approval once theses have been submitted. 

Faculty Thesis Adviser 

When submitting their initial proposal in the spring of the junior year, students should include a list of three possible faculty advisers. The Department will then match students with advisers according to student preference and faculty availability. Faculty thesis advisers should generally be full faculty members of the History of Art and Architecture Department, although Harvard museum curators with relevant expertise may also serve as advisers at the discretion of the Senior Thesis Adviser. Students in the architecture track pursuing a design thesis must also secure a second adviser from the faculty of the Graduate School of Design. Joint concentrators will generally select one faculty adviser from each department.

The adviser ought to serve as a critic of synthesized ideas and writings/designs, rather than as a director of the project. The adviser should be chosen with consideration more to compatibility in overseeing the process of the work than to being an expert in the field. If you have trouble identifying an appropriate adviser, please consult with the Senior Thesis Adviser or Undergraduate Program Coordinator before the spring deadline for the Thesis Proposal.

Graduate students in the Department of History of Art and Architecture do not advise Senior Theses.

Program Director, Harvard Undergraduate Architecture Studies Track

Megan Panzano, Program Director of the Harvard Undergraduate Architecture Studies Track, oversees the execution of the two studio courses “HAA 96A – Architecture Studio I: Transformations” and “HAA 96B – Architecture Studio II: Connections”, as well as the senior design-thesis seminar “HAA 92R – Design Speculations.” She is available to consult for general advice on the design-thesis process and in finding a suitable advisor from the GSD. She coordinates the assignment of readers to senior design-thesis projects in consultation with the Senior Thesis Adviser and Undergraduate Program Coordinator.

Undergraduate Program Coordinator

The Undergraduate Program Coordinator, Marcus Mayo, is available to consult at any point regarding general questions about the senior thesis writing process. In conjunction with the Senior Thesis Adviser, they will coordinate the initial meeting of concentrators interested in writing a thesis in the spring term of their junior year. The Undergraduate Program Coordinator collects and distributes thesis proposals, summer funding proposals, advisor assignments, as well as completed theses, grades and reader comments. They hold examples of the written requirements (thesis proposal and prospectus) and of the Pulitzer and Abramson Grant applications which students might wish to consult as paradigms.

Academic Requirements – Written Thesis

The writing and evaluation of the thesis is a year-long process, during which the writer enrolls in a senior thesis preparation seminar (HAA 99A) and meets at scheduled intervals with their faculty adviser to formulate, develop, and ultimately refine their thesis work.

The Department encourages seniors to think broadly and explore a problem of interest. The thesis topic does not necessarily have to be within the writer's declared major field, except when required for a joint concentration, in which case, the topic must address an issue shared by both concentrations. The thesis should demonstrate an ability to pose a meaningful question, present a well-reasoned and structured argument, and marshal appropriate evidence. The student should apply a clear methodology and be aware of the assumptions behind the argument, the possible deficiencies of the sources and data used, and the implications of the conclusions. The various parts of the thesis should cohere in an integrated argument; the thesis should not be a series of loosely connected short essays. A primary expectation of the thesis is that it is a work of independent scholarship, directed and crafted by the student, with the thesis adviser serving in a capacity of "indirect overseeing of the project."

There is no set pattern for an acceptable thesis. The writer should demonstrate familiarity with scholarly methods in the use of sources, but this should not be the sole criterion for evaluation. Of equal if not greater importance is the development of the central argument and the significance of the interpretation. A thesis may be research on a little-studied problem or a perceptive reassessment of a familiar question. A well-pondered and well-presented interpretive essay may be as good a thesis as a miniature doctoral dissertation.

Skill in exposition is a primary objective, and pristine editing is expected. The Department encourages writers to keep to a short page count, so as to craft a clear, concise paper, and further edit it to an exemplary presentation. In general, a History of Art and Architecture thesis will have a text ranging from 20,000 to 25,000 words. Students are encouraged to explore the resources available to thesis writers at the Harvard College Writing Center .

The writer must indicate the source of material drawn from others' work, whether quoted, paraphrased, or summarized. Students who, for whatever reason, submit work either not their own or without clear attribution to its sources will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including requirement to withdraw from the College.

Academic Requirements: Design Thesis in the Architecture Track

The HAA Architecture Track asks students to select an Area of Emphasis for fulfillment of their degree -- either Design Studies or History and Theory. Students wishing to pursue an honors thesis in the History and Theory Area of Emphasis will usually complete a written senior thesis paper and presentation on the same model as the thesis for general concentrators (see Academic Requirements: Written Thesis ).

Students in the Design Studies Area of Emphasis who wish to pursue a thesis project may choose either a traditional thesis or a design thesis project. Design theses are creative thesis projects featuring a combination of written analysis and visual and physical design materials, as described below.

Course Requirements for Honors Consideration with a Design Thesis

Senior year – fall term.

• HAA 92r Design Speculations Seminar – required
• Course prerequisite: Completion of either HAA 96A (“Transformations”) or HAA 96B (“Connections”) studios.
• This course requires that students secure a pair of faculty advisers – one from Harvard History of Art and Architecture (HAA) Faculty and one from the Harvard GSD to support their research work within the course; course faculty advisers then serve as the faculty thesis advisers for the design thesis.
• Megan Panzano, GSD Architecture Studies Director, and Jennifer Roberts, HAA DUS, can both help make faculty adviser connections for students pursuing this path.
• (optional) HAA 99A Senior Thesis Tutorial – attendance in this seminar is encouraged but not required in parallel with HAA 92r.
• Presentation of design work to HAA and select GSD Faculty as part of HAA Thesis Colloquium in December) – required

Senior Year – Spring Term

• Throughout the semester: Advising meetings with individual faculty advisers to guide production and iterative refinement of design work (architectural analytical drawings and/or physical models), and edits to digital presentation made in fall term HAA Thesis Thesis Presentations.
• March 08, 2024, 12:00 pm EST: Submission of final senior thesis design project including digital images and written text as a single PDF file (see “ Submission Requirements for Honors Consideration ”).
• March 29, 2024 (date subject to change and TBC): Participation in a gallery-style final presentation with faculty and peers after submission of thesis . The design presentations for the gallery-style event should include an updated digital presentation comprised of the project title, author’s name, the most current versions of all elements listed below in the Final Project Requirements (with the exception of the Written Manifesto which should be consolidated to a single slide containing 3-4 sentences of a thesis statement capturing the topic of study, a position on this topic, your claim about design agency to address this topic, and specifically, what design elements you’ve explored in your thesis in this address).  Students may elect to also print or plot selected original design drawings they produced (analytical or projective) from their digital presentation to pin up in the space.  Likewise, students are encouraged to bring any sketch and/or final models they have created to display as well.
• April 8, 2024 : Preparation of a digital file for a 24 x 36” poster summarizing the thesis to be exhibited in the HAA department for the academic year to follow. A suggested template will be provided and a workshop will be held on March 26 (2024, date subject to change and TBC) for assistance with poster preparation. Examples of previous posters can be found here (AY21-22) and here (AY22-23) .

Submission Requirements for the Design Thesis Project (due March 08, 2024, 12:00 pm EST)

A single multi-page PDF file labeled with student’s full last name and first initial should be submitted. It should contain the following elements and should incorporate thesis research and design work from both fall and spring terms.

• Assemble a visual bibliography of references for your research project. The references included should be sorted into categories of your own authoring in relation to the research. Each reference should be appropriately cited using the Chicago Manual of Style, and each reference should also include an affiliated image. The bibliography should include a brief (approx. 200-word) annotation, describing the rationale behind the sorted categories.
• A written design manifesto of a minimum of 2,000 words that concisely articulates the issues, problems, and questions embedded in and engaged by your research project. The manifesto should address:
• Discourse : the role and significance of architecture relative to the project topic of interest, and;
• Context : the relationship of the project topic to broader surroundings which include but are not limited to the discipline of architecture, cultural contexts, technical developments, and/or typologies.
• The final statement should reflect deeply upon the character of the design process for the project, and discuss how the design process reinforced, inflected, or complicated the initial research questions. For most students, this final statement will be an elaboration upon the presentation text prepared for the fall senior thesis colloquium. The final text should capture and discuss the design elements that were further explored in the spring term as means to address initial research questions (i.e. include written descriptions of the drawings and/or physical models produced in relation to the thesis topic).  
• A visual drawing or info-graphic that describes the process of design research undertaken for your topic. This should include the initial criteria developed for evaluating the project, the steps taken in examining the topic, the points in the process where it became necessary to stop and assess outputs and findings, and final adjustments to the methodology as the project neared completion.
• High resolution drawings, animations, and/or diagrams and photographs of physical models  (if applicable)  that were produced through research. These should be assembled in single-page layouts of slides to follow preceding elements listed here.

Grading of the Senior Thesis

Theses are read and critiqued by faculty members applying a higher standard than expected for work written in courses or tutorials. Faculty do make use of the full range of grades, and students should consider that any honors grade is a distinction of merit. If you have any questions, please contact the Senior Thesis Adviser, the Director of Undergraduate Studies, or the Undergraduate Program Coordinator.

SUMMA CUM LAUDE: A summa thesis is a work of "highest honor." It is a contribution to knowledge, though it need not be an important contribution. It reveals a promise of high intellectual attainments both in selection of problems and facts for consideration and in the manner in which conclusions are drawn from these facts. A summa thesis includes, potentially at least, the makings of a publishable article. The writer's use of sources and data is judicious. The thesis is well written and proofread. The arguments are concise and logically organized, and the allocation of space appropriate. A summa is not equivalent to just any A, but the sort given by instructors who reserve them for exceptional merit. A summa minus is a near miss at a summa and is also equivalent to an A of unusual quality.

MAGNA CUM LAUDE: A magna level thesis is a work worthy of "great honor." It clearly demonstrates the capacity for a high level of achievement, is carried through carefully, and represents substantial industry. A magna plus thesis achieves a similar level of quality to a summa in some respects, though it falls short in others; it is equivalent to the usual type of A. A magna thesis is equivalent to an A-. For a magna minus, the results achieved may not be quite a successful due to an unhappy choice of topic or approach; it is also equivalent to an A-.

CUM LAUDE: As is appropriate for a grade "with honors," a cum level thesis shows serious thought and effort in its general approach, if not in every detail. A cum plus is equivalent to a B+, a cum to a B, and a cum minus to a B-. The cum thesis does not merely represent the satisfactory completion of a task. It is, however, to be differentiated from the magna in the difficulty of the subject handled, the substantial nature of the project, and the success with which the subject is digested. Recall that, as students putting extraordinary effort into a thesis most frequently receive a magna, theses of a solid but not exceptional quality deserve a grade in the cum range. When expressed in numerical equivalents, the interval between a magna minus and a cum minus is double that between the other intervals on the grading scale.

NO DISTINCTION: Not all theses automatically deserve honors. Nevertheless, a grade of no distinction (C, D, or E) should be reserved only for those circumstances when the thesis is hastily constructed, a mere summary of existing material, or is poorly thought through. The high standards which are applied in critique of theses must clearly be violated for a thesis to merit a grade of no distinction.

Thesis Readers 

Each thesis will have two readers chosen by the Department. All readers will be asked to submit written comments and grades, which will be factored equally to produce the final grade of the thesis. Individual grades are not released. When grades and comments are distributed, the readers no longer remain anonymous. There exists a procedure by which a writer may request, via the Senior Thesis Adviser, to speak with a reader provided that they are willing to discuss the work in further detail or expound on the written critique.

For joint concentrators, the department will defer the reading process to their primary concentration. Students should reach out to their adviser in their primary concentration for further information.

Grade Report and Honors Recommendation 

At the end of each term, Fall and Spring, the student's progress in the Senior Tutorial (HAA 99) will be graded SAT or UNSAT. At the end of the Department's Honors Review process, the Senior Thesis Adviser calculates a recommendation for Honors based on the factored grades of the thesis and the student's grades in concentration coursework. This recommendation is presented to the Faculty at their meeting in April for review. A faculty vote is taken and this decision is passed as an honors recommendation to the Registrar of the College. For joint concentrators, the faculty will make recommendations to a student’s primary concentration but will defer the final grading process to them. The decision of Final Honors to be granted on the degree is made by the Registrar based on departmental recommendation and the student’s College-GPA. Students should consult with their Allston Burr Senior Tutor to determine what final honors might be anticipated at Commencement.

The needs of the Department for fair deliberation dictate that there may be no report of decisions regarding the thesis until after the Faculty has considered and voted upon each recommendation for honors. After honors recommendations have been voted by the Faculty, students will be notified of the Department's recommendation to the College and will receive an ungraded copy of each evaluation of their thesis. The comments in these evaluations should provide the student with a clear explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of the thesis, bearing in mind the difficulties of the field and the type of thesis submitted, and evaluating what was accomplished in terms of what was undertaken, given the student's limitation of time and experience.

Discontinuance of a Thesis 

The process of writing the thesis is a serious commitment of time and energy for both the writer and the adviser. In some cases, however, it might be agreed that the thesis should be discontinued at mid-year. The Senior Tutorial year may be divided with credit through a procedure in which the student must submit a written paper presenting the project and research to that point.

Examples of Past Theses 

Senior Honors Theses which are written by students who graduate Summa or Magna are deposited in the University Archives in Pusey Library . Copies of theses which are awarded the Hoopes Prize are held in Lamont Library . Students are urged to consult past theses as much can be gained in exploring precedent or seeking inspiration.

• Copyright © 2023 The President and Fellows of Harvard College
• Accessibility
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Atlassian Confluence 7.19.17

State of the Art vs. State-of-the-Art – What’s the Difference?

Home » State of the Art vs. State-of-the-Art – What’s the Difference?

Many college students buy expensive, state-of-the-art laptops when a cheaper machine would fill the same function and be much more practical. People seem to be drawn to the latest-and-greatest models of everything from computers to cell phones to vehicles.

If you are a careful reader, you might notice that sometimes the phrase state-of-the-art is spelled with hyphens (as I did just now), and sometimes without hyphens, as state of the art .

Are these phrases identical? After all, they contain exactly the same words in exactly the same order. How much difference can there be?

In truth, adding hyphens in between the words changes the same phrase into a different part of speech. This adds some versatility to a clunky phrase, but it also sows confusion among unfamiliar readers.

What is the Difference Between State of the Art and State-of-the-Art?

In this post, I will compare state-of-the-art vs. state of the art . I will use each of these words in at least one example sentence, so you can see how they appear in context.

I will also show you how to use a helpful memory tool that makes choosing state-of-the-art or state of the art much easier.

When to Use State of the Art

Here are a few examples,

• Electronics salespeople have an unhealthy obsession with the state of the art.
• The architecture of the new buildings in the city were the state of the art in 1955.

When to Use State-of-the-Art

• I bought a state-of-the-art coffeemaker, but it broke a week later and I returned it.
• Kerri spent $600 on state-of-the-art bicycle tires, and she only rides her bike in strictly controlled racing environments.
• It offers a state-of-the-art museum experience, full of multimedia displays, spectacularly overscaled objects, and lots of photography, film and recorded sound. – The Washington Post

Something that is state-of-the-art is modern, new, and usually very expensive. A professional basketball team might have a state-of-the-art practice facility, or a hospital might have a piece of state-of-the-art monitoring equipment.

Another connotation to saying that something is ­ state-of-the-art is the same as saying new and expensive .

Trick to Remember the Difference

State of the art is a noun phrase. In English, nouns can become adjectives through the process of hyphenation. Thus, the hyphenated state-of-the-art is an adjective phrase.

• State of the art is a noun phrase.
• State-of-the-art is an adjective phrase.

It can be difficult to remember the difference between these phrases, since they contain the same words.

State of the Art vs. State-of-the-Art Check: Since state-of-the-art is a hyphenated adjective phrase, like run-of-the-mill and over-the-top , you can remember these similar phrases as a reminder that state-of-the-art , too, is a hyphenated adjective phrase.

Is it state of the art or state-of-the-art? You should only use the hyphenated version of this phrase as an adjective; the two spellings are not interchangeable.

• State of the art is a noun phrase that refers to something on the cutting edge of technology.
• State-of-the-art is the same phrase transformed into an adjective through hyphenation.