Debunking to-do list myths: How to make lists work for you

As I watched yet another brilliant PhD student stare hopelessly at their overwhelming to-do list during our supervision meeting last week, I was reminded of academia's curious relationship with task management. Despite our rigorous training in research methodologies and critical thinking, many of us struggle with the seemingly simple act of organising our daily tasks.

Does this sound familiar? It's Monday morning, and you've crafted what appears to be the perfect to-do list for your research project. By Wednesday, that same list has morphed into a discouraging monument to your perceived inadequacies, with more items added than crossed off. By Friday, you've abandoned it entirely, convinced that to-do lists simply don't work for "people like you" or for "complex academic work."

But here's what I've observed after supervising more than 35 postgraduate students and managing multiple concurrent research projects: the problem isn't to-do lists themselves—it's how we conceptualise and implement them.

To-do lists remain among the most powerful productivity tools when properly structured and thoughtfully implemented. The evidence suggests that externalising our cognitive load by writing tasks down significantly enhances our ability to focus on deep work, a crucial element for meaningful research output.

Highly successful individuals often outline their goals and tasks in advance. Research shows that creating a written action plan boosts productivity. The connection between listing tasks and improved performance dates back to the 1920s, when Eastern European psychologist Bluma Zeigarnik identified what became known as the 'Zeigarnik Effect.' This principle suggests that writing down tasks in a to-do list eases mental strain by eliminating the brain's preoccupation with unfinished work. Later studies reinforced this idea, revealing that interrupting a warm-up task led to poorer performance in a follow-up brainstorming session. The takeaway is clear: people perform better when they can complete and check off tasks from their list.

In this blog post, I'll debunk seven persistent myths about to-do lists that may be hampering your research productivity and provide evidence-based alternatives that accommodate the unique demands of academic work.

Myth 1: To-do lists are unhelpful because they contain large, vague tasks

Many researchers create lists with items like "write literature review" or "analyse data," then wonder why they feel paralysed when approaching their work. Vague goals significantly reduce our likelihood of action.

The solution: Task decomposition and specificity

Break down complex research tasks into discrete, actionable steps with clear completion criteria. Specific, challenging goals lead to higher performance than vague "do your best" objectives.

Academic example: Instead of listing "Write methodology section," decompose it into:

• Review three methodologically similar papers for structure (30 min)
• Draft outline of methodology with key subheadings (45 min)
• Write participant selection subsection (60 min)
• Create procedural diagram for data collection (45 min)

This approach aligns with what psychologists call "proximal goals"—achievable, near-term objectives that build momentum toward larger aims.

Myth 2: To-do lists become overwhelming when they contain too many items

The cognitive load theory, developed by Sweller (2011), explains why lengthy lists can impair decision-making. Our working memory has limited capacity, and when confronted with too many choices, we experience cognitive overload - a particular challenge in research contexts where tasks already demand significant mental resources.

The solution: Constraint and prioritisation frameworks

Limit your daily task list to 3-5 significant items and use evidence-based prioritisation frameworks.

Use the Eisenhower Matrix, the MoSCoW Method and the Pareto Principle to prioritise. 

Academic example: A PhD student I supervise uses a "focus triad" approach after she prioritised using the above frameworks. She will then identify just three key research tasks daily, typically including one challenging analytical task, one writing task, and one preparatory task for upcoming work.

Myth 3: To-do lists are rigid and inflexible

The unpredictable nature of research - unexpected findings, equipment failures, or promising tangential questions - can make rigid to-do lists feel constraining rather than helpful.

The solution: Adaptive scheduling with buffer blocks

Time management research suggests that building flexibility into planning improves both productivity and wellbeing.

Academic example: I recommend researchers implement the "30% buffer rule"—scheduling only 70% of available time and leaving 30% for adapting to unexpected developments. For example, in an 8-hour research day, plan approximately 5.5 hours of specific tasks and reserve 2.5 hours for contingencies, follow-up work, or pursuing unexpected insights.

Myth 4: Uncompleted to-do lists lead to feelings of unaccomplishment

The Zeigarnik effect -our tendency to remember uncompleted tasks more vividly than completed ones - explains why unfinished to-do lists linger uncomfortably in our minds. This effect can be particularly demoralising for academics whose work involves significant uncertainty and long project timelines.

The solution: Process-oriented accomplishment tracking

Shift from a purely outcome-based approach to one that acknowledges effort and process.

Academic example: I encourage my research teams to use a "progress not perfection" documentation approach:

• Record both completed tasks and meaningful progress on ongoing tasks
• Maintain a "progress log" alongside your to-do list
• Celebrate "productive struggles" where difficult problems were thoughtfully addressed, even if not resolved

A systematic review I supervised last year took longer than anticipated, but the principal investigator maintained momentum by tracking "insight milestones" rather than just completion percentages.

Myth 5: To-do lists don't reflect the importance and urgency of tasks

Standard to-do lists typically fail to distinguish between tasks that advance core research objectives and those that merely feel urgent but contribute little to meaningful outcomes.

The solution: Impact-weighted task evaluation

Adapt prioritisation frameworks specifically for research contexts by weighting tasks according to their contribution to research goals.

Academic implementation: The Eisenhower Matrix is perfect for highlighting important and urgent tasks. You can also keep it simple by trying this approach:

• Assign each task a value from 1-5 based on its direct contribution to your research questions
  
• Assign another value from 1-5 for its urgency/deadline pressure
  
• Multiply these numbers to get a score
  
• Address higher-scoring items first

Academic example: When juggling multiple projects, one of my doctoral students colour-codes tasks using a modified Eisenhower Matrix specifically designed for research work:

• Red: Critical research path tasks (directly advance primary findings)
  
• Orange: Time-sensitive but not core research tasks
  
• Green: Important for research quality but not time-sensitive
  
• Blue: Administrative or procedural necessities

Myth 6: To-do lists encourage completing easy tasks first for a quick dopamine rush

The satisfaction of ticking off simple tasks can distract researchers from deeper, more impactful work—also called "the path of least resistance." This is particularly problematic in academia, where our most valuable contributions typically emerge from sustained engagement with complex problems.

The solution: Cognitive alignment scheduling

Structure your to-do list to align with your cognitive resources throughout the day.

Academic implementation: Research suggests that most people experience their peak analytical capabilities within 2-4 hours of waking, yet many researchers squander this prime cognitive window on emails and administrative tasks.

Try cognitive-aligned scheduling:

1. Identify your peak cognitive hours through self-observation
2. Reserve these hours exclusively for complex analytical or creative research tasks
3. Schedule administrative or routine tasks during cognitive "valley" periods
4. Build transitions between task types to reduce context-switching costs. For example, instead of jumping straight from a creative task (like designing) to an analytical task (like budgeting), you might:
• Take a 5-minute break to clear your mind.
• Spend 2 minutes jotting down key points for the budget.
• Then fully engage in the numbers.
This reduces the mental "whiplash" of switching and helps you maintain focus.

Academic example: A research team led by a colleague implemented "deep work mornings," where all members were protected from 9 to 11 am for their most challenging analytical tasks, with no meetings or administrative work permitted. This simple intervention increased manuscript production by approximately 27% over the following quarter.

Myth 7: To-do lists hinder intrinsic motivation

Some argue that externalised task management reduces self-determination and intrinsic motivation, qualities essential for sustained research excellence.

The solution: Purpose-connected task framing

Research on self-determination theory by Ryan and Deci (2000) suggests that activities supporting autonomy, competence, and relatedness enhance intrinsic motivation rather than diminishing it. 

Academic implementation: Transform your to-do list from a mechanical checklist into a meaningful roadmap by explicitly connecting tasks to larger research purposes:

1. Link each task to your research questions or research vision
2. Include a brief "purpose statement" beside major tasks
3. Group tasks by the research value they create rather than by project or deadline

Academic example: One particularly effective approach is the "contribution-focused task framing" method. Rather than simply listing "Run statistical analysis on dataset," they reframe it as "Identify patterns in participant responses that could explain the anomaly in previous findings."

This subtle shift transforms the task from an obligation into an intellectual investigation connected to the researcher's core purpose.

Practical to-do list techniques for researchers

Beyond addressing these myths, here are three immediately applicable techniques explicitly tailored for academic contexts:

1. The "Next Session Startup" technique

At the end of each research session, take two minutes to create a detailed entry plan for your next session. List the exact files, references, or analyses you'll begin with, eliminating the friction and decision fatigue that often leads to procrastination.

Implementation tip: Create a standard template with prompts such as:

• First file to open:
• Key question to address:
• Expected challenges:
• Resources needed:

This technique has dramatically improved continuity and momentum for researchers in my supervision groups, particularly those working in fragmented time blocks.

2. The 45-15 deep work protocol

Rather than scheduling full-hour blocks, work in focused 45-minute sessions followed by 15-minute reflection and recalibration periods. During the 15-minute intervals:

• Document key insights
• Update your to-do list based on new information
• Identify the next critical question or challenge

This rhythm maintains focus while creating natural integration points for new information to influence your task priorities.

3. Make each item worth its while

To-do lists need to be the ultimate product of and a natural output based on your:

• Research vision statement
• Goal-setting and action-planning

And what ends up on your to-do list should be based on:

• Prioritisation

This prevents your to-do list from becoming disconnected from your research purpose and provides crucial continuity when projects extend over months or years.

Frequently asked questions

How do I handle collaborative research tasks on my to-do list?

For tasks that require input or action from colleagues, create a separate "Collaboration Tracking" section on your list. Include specific waiting-for items with follow-up dates to ensure progress doesn't stall on dependencies. Use a simple notation system: [W] for waiting, [F] for follow-up needed, [D] for delegated items.

How should I manage long-term research projects on daily to-do lists?

Use a "project stepping stones" approach—identify the next meaningful increment for each major project and include only that increment on your daily list. Maintain a separate project roadmap document with the full sequence of milestones for reference.

Should I use digital or paper-based to-do lists for research work?

Evidence suggests the medium matters less than consistency and accessibility. Digital tools offer better integration with other software systems, while paper provides fewer distractions and better support for spatial thinking. Many successful researchers employ a hybrid approach, utilising digital tools for project management and paper-based tools for daily focus lists. Up to you.

How do I prevent constant task migration (moving uncompleted items forward)?

Implement a "three strikes" rule—if a task migrates forward three times, it requires intervention: either break it down further, schedule dedicated time, delegate it, or acknowledge it's not actually a priority and remove it entirely.

How can I use to-do lists to maintain momentum during research setbacks?

Create a "resilience protocol" section in your task management system with pre-planned alternative pathways for common research obstacles. When facing setbacks, this gives you immediate, productive actions rather than losing momentum to discouragement.

Conclusion

Effective to-do list strategies aren't merely about productivity but about creating the conditions for intellectual freedom and research breakthroughs. By externalising the administrative cognitive load of remembering tasks, we liberate mental resources for the creative and analytical thinking that advances knowledge.

I hope you'll take from this discussion the key insight that to-do lists should serve your research process, not constrain it. When properly implemented using the evidence-based approaches outlined above, they become less about checking boxes and more about creating a structure that enables intellectual exploration and discovery.

I encourage you to experiment with these techniques and adapt them to your unique research context. Remember that the ultimate measure of a task management system isn't how many items you complete, but whether it facilitates your most meaningful research contributions.

Looking for ongoing support throughout your research journey? The Research Masterminds Success Academy offers live workshops, helpful resources, and a supportive community of fellow PhD students. It's a space designed to help you develop academic skills, maintain motivation, and complete your research while still enjoying life beyond your studies. 

Check it out

Thank you for the cover photo by Tara Winstead