what to do in chapter 4 research

• +44 7897 053596
• [email protected]

Get an experienced writer start working

Review our examples before placing an order, learn how to draft academic papers, how to write chapter 4 dissertation| a complete guide.

Chapter 3 Dissertation

How to Write Chapter 5 Dissertation?| A Beginner’s Guide

Writing a dissertation is a major undertaking. It requires countless hours of research, writing, and editing. One of the most important chapters in your dissertation is Chapter 4. This chapter should provide a detailed explanation of your methodology, results, and analysis.

Here, we'll provide an overview of the chapter 4 dissertation, how to structure it properly, and tips for writing it effectively. Read on to learn more!

Skimming through these dissertations, you can also check out how to craft Chapter 4 and what to discuss.

Example: 1   The Importance of Health and Safety in Construction Industry

Example:2   influence of different socio-physical attributes on individual’s weight.

Keep going through till the end to have a complete idea of how to compose a well-written and structured chapter 4 dissertation.

Very satisfied students

What is chapter 4.

In an academic dissertation, chapter 4 is the data analysis chapter—the heart of the research project. That is where you will present the results of your research and analyze them in light of existing literature. In other words, this is where you will explain why your findings are significant and what they mean for the field as a whole.

Structure of Chapter 4

The structure of your chapter 4 should depend on the type of data that you collected during your research process. However, several key elements should be included in chapter 4:

• An introduction that explains the aims and objectives of this chapter.
• A detailed description of the approaches utilized to collect and analyze data.
• Results from both qualitative and quantitative analyses.
• Discussion about the implications for future research; and
• Conclusions about your findings as well as potential limitations or challenges faced in completing this research project.

Keep in mind that these are just general guidelines—your specific dissertation may require additional sections based on its own individual requirements. It's always best to check with your professor before starting work on any section of your dissertation. 

Writing an Effective Chapter 4 Dissertation

i.  Outline Your Goals & Objectives

Before you begin writing this chapter, it's important to think about the goals and objectives you want to achieve with it.

• What are the main points you want to make?
• What do you expect your readers to understand after they've read this chapter?

Having clear goals and objectives before you start writing will help ensure that your chapter is focused and organized.

ii.  Explain Your Methodology

When it comes time to discuss your methodology in Chapter 4, include all relevant details about the methods you used during your research process.

It should include information about what kind of data or materials were collected, how they were analyzed, and why those particular methods were chosen for the study.

It's also important to explain any limitations or challenges encountered during data collection so that readers can fully understand the process.

iii.  Discuss Results & Analysis

In Chapter 4 dissertation, it's also essential to discuss the results of your research and any analysis conducted on those results.

It should include detailed descriptions of any patterns or trends in the data collected as well as a discussion on how those patterns or trends may relate to the existing literature in the field or could potentially lead to further research questions in the future.

Make sure that all data presented here is accurate and reliable; If any differences exist between what was anticipated and what was observed, note them here as well.

3-Step  Dissertation Process!

Get 3+ Topics

Dissertation Proposal

Get Final Dissertation

Tips for writing your chapter 4.

Here are some suggestions to make the writing process simpler if you have a clear grasp of what should be in your chapter 4;

• Take notes throughout your entire research process so that it's easier for you to compile all relevant information into one cohesive document later on.
• Utilize headings to make it easier for readers to follow along with your arguments.
• Ensure all references are correctly cited using an accepted academic style such as APA, MLA or Harvard.
• Use diagrams or graphs when necessary to visually demonstrate key points or trends among variables.
• Always proofread and edit carefully before submitting each section, so the content is free from errors or inconsistencies.

Writing a dissertation can seem overwhelming at first glance, but with some guidance, knowledge, and practice, it can become much more manageable. This guide provides an overview of everything you need to know about chapter 4 to write an effective dissertation.

Be sure not to forget to discuss both the methodology used during research and any results or analysis obtained from research; these are both integral components of this section that must not be overlooked if an effective Chapter 4 is desired.

To gain more information and academic assistance, check out the following resources:

• How To Write a Report Introduction: A Step-By-Step Guide
• How To Write a Conclusion Good Paragraph: Examples and strategies for an effective conclusion
• Mastering the Art of Academic Writing: Tips and Tricks on How to Write Academically?

How Does It Work ?

Fill the Form

Please fill the free topic form and share your requirements

Writer Starts Working

The writer starts to find a topic for you (based on your requirements)

3+ Topics Emailed!

The writer shared custom topics with you within 24 hours

Get an Immediate Response

Discuss your requirments with our writers

Get 3+ Free   Dissertation Topics within 24 hours?

Your Number

Academic Level Select Academic Level Undergraduate Masters PhD

Area of Research

admin farhan

Related posts.

What is Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle and How Can It Benefit You? | Applications and Example

How to be a Valedictorian | Easy Steps

230 Passion Project Ideas for Students

Comments are closed.

• U.S. Locations
• UMGC Europe
• Learn Online
• Find Answers
• 855-655-8682
• Current Students

Online Guide to Writing and Research

The research process, explore more of umgc.

• Online Guide to Writing

Structuring the Research Paper

Formal research structure.

These are the primary purposes for formal research:

enter the discourse, or conversation, of other writers and scholars in your field

learn how others in your field use primary and secondary resources

find and understand raw data and information

For the formal academic research assignment, consider an organizational pattern typically used for primary academic research.  The pattern includes the following: introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions/recommendations.

Usually, research papers flow from the general to the specific and back to the general in their organization. The introduction uses a general-to-specific movement in its organization, establishing the thesis and setting the context for the conversation. The methods and results sections are more detailed and specific, providing support for the generalizations made in the introduction. The discussion section moves toward an increasingly more general discussion of the subject, leading to the conclusions and recommendations, which then generalize the conversation again.

Sections of a Formal Structure

The introduction section.

Many students will find that writing a structured  introduction  gets them started and gives them the focus needed to significantly improve their entire paper. 

Introductions usually have three parts:

presentation of the problem statement, the topic, or the research inquiry

purpose and focus of your paper

summary or overview of the writer’s position or arguments

In the first part of the introduction—the presentation of the problem or the research inquiry—state the problem or express it so that the question is implied. Then, sketch the background on the problem and review the literature on it to give your readers a context that shows them how your research inquiry fits into the conversation currently ongoing in your subject area. 

In the second part of the introduction, state your purpose and focus. Here, you may even present your actual thesis. Sometimes your purpose statement can take the place of the thesis by letting your reader know your intentions. 

The third part of the introduction, the summary or overview of the paper, briefly leads readers through the discussion, forecasting the main ideas and giving readers a blueprint for the paper. 

The following example provides a blueprint for a well-organized introduction.

Example of an Introduction

Entrepreneurial Marketing: The Critical Difference

In an article in the Harvard Business Review, John A. Welsh and Jerry F. White remind us that “a small business is not a little big business.” An entrepreneur is not a multinational conglomerate but a profit-seeking individual. To survive, he must have a different outlook and must apply different principles to his endeavors than does the president of a large or even medium-sized corporation. Not only does the scale of small and big businesses differ, but small businesses also suffer from what the Harvard Business Review article calls “resource poverty.” This is a problem and opportunity that requires an entirely different approach to marketing. Where large ad budgets are not necessary or feasible, where expensive ad production squanders limited capital, where every marketing dollar must do the work of two dollars, if not five dollars or even ten, where a person’s company, capital, and material well-being are all on the line—that is, where guerrilla marketing can save the day and secure the bottom line (Levinson, 1984, p. 9).

By reviewing the introductions to research articles in the discipline in which you are writing your research paper, you can get an idea of what is considered the norm for that discipline. Study several of these before you begin your paper so that you know what may be expected. If you are unsure of the kind of introduction your paper needs, ask your professor for more information.  The introduction is normally written in present tense.

THE METHODS SECTION

The methods section of your research paper should describe in detail what methodology and special materials if any, you used to think through or perform your research. You should include any materials you used or designed for yourself, such as questionnaires or interview questions, to generate data or information for your research paper. You want to include any methodologies that are specific to your particular field of study, such as lab procedures for a lab experiment or data-gathering instruments for field research. The methods section is usually written in the past tense.

THE RESULTS SECTION

How you present the results of your research depends on what kind of research you did, your subject matter, and your readers’ expectations. 

Quantitative information —data that can be measured—can be presented systematically and economically in tables, charts, and graphs. Quantitative information includes quantities and comparisons of sets of data. 

Qualitative information , which includes brief descriptions, explanations, or instructions, can also be presented in prose tables. This kind of descriptive or explanatory information, however, is often presented in essay-like prose or even lists.

There are specific conventions for creating tables, charts, and graphs and organizing the information they contain. In general, you should use them only when you are sure they will enlighten your readers rather than confuse them. In the accompanying explanation and discussion, always refer to the graphic by number and explain specifically what you are referring to; you can also provide a caption for the graphic. The rule of thumb for presenting a graphic is first to introduce it by name, show it, and then interpret it. The results section is usually written in the past tense.

THE DISCUSSION SECTION

Your discussion section should generalize what you have learned from your research. One way to generalize is to explain the consequences or meaning of your results and then make your points that support and refer back to the statements you made in your introduction. Your discussion should be organized so that it relates directly to your thesis. You want to avoid introducing new ideas here or discussing tangential issues not directly related to the exploration and discovery of your thesis. The discussion section, along with the introduction, is usually written in the present tense.

THE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION

Your conclusion ties your research to your thesis, binding together all the main ideas in your thinking and writing. By presenting the logical outcome of your research and thinking, your conclusion answers your research inquiry for your reader. Your conclusions should relate directly to the ideas presented in your introduction section and should not present any new ideas.

You may be asked to present your recommendations separately in your research assignment. If so, you will want to add some elements to your conclusion section. For example, you may be asked to recommend a course of action, make a prediction, propose a solution to a problem, offer a judgment, or speculate on the implications and consequences of your ideas. The conclusions and recommendations section is usually written in the present tense.

Key Takeaways

• For the formal academic research assignment, consider an organizational pattern typically used for primary academic research. 
•  The pattern includes the following: introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions/recommendations.

Mailing Address: 3501 University Blvd. East, Adelphi, MD 20783 This work is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License . © 2022 UMGC. All links to external sites were verified at the time of publication. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity of information located at external sites.

Table of Contents: Online Guide to Writing

Chapter 1: College Writing

How Does College Writing Differ from Workplace Writing?

What Is College Writing?

Why So Much Emphasis on Writing?

Chapter 2: The Writing Process

Doing Exploratory Research

Getting from Notes to Your Draft

Introduction

Prewriting - Techniques to Get Started - Mining Your Intuition

Prewriting: Targeting Your Audience

Prewriting: Techniques to Get Started

Prewriting: Understanding Your Assignment

Rewriting: Being Your Own Critic

Rewriting: Creating a Revision Strategy

Rewriting: Getting Feedback

Rewriting: The Final Draft

Techniques to Get Started - Outlining

Techniques to Get Started - Using Systematic Techniques

Thesis Statement and Controlling Idea

Writing: Getting from Notes to Your Draft - Freewriting

Writing: Getting from Notes to Your Draft - Summarizing Your Ideas

Writing: Outlining What You Will Write

Chapter 3: Thinking Strategies

A Word About Style, Voice, and Tone

A Word About Style, Voice, and Tone: Style Through Vocabulary and Diction

Critical Strategies and Writing

Critical Strategies and Writing: Analysis

Critical Strategies and Writing: Evaluation

Critical Strategies and Writing: Persuasion

Critical Strategies and Writing: Synthesis

Developing a Paper Using Strategies

Kinds of Assignments You Will Write

Patterns for Presenting Information

Patterns for Presenting Information: Critiques

Patterns for Presenting Information: Discussing Raw Data

Patterns for Presenting Information: General-to-Specific Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Problem-Cause-Solution Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Specific-to-General Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Summaries and Abstracts

Supporting with Research and Examples

Writing Essay Examinations

Writing Essay Examinations: Make Your Answer Relevant and Complete

Writing Essay Examinations: Organize Thinking Before Writing

Writing Essay Examinations: Read and Understand the Question

Chapter 4: The Research Process

Planning and Writing a Research Paper

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Ask a Research Question

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Cite Sources

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Collect Evidence

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Decide Your Point of View, or Role, for Your Research

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Draw Conclusions

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Find a Topic and Get an Overview

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Manage Your Resources

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Outline

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Survey the Literature

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Work Your Sources into Your Research Writing

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Human Resources

Research Resources: What Are Research Resources?

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found?

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Electronic Resources

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Print Resources

Structuring the Research Paper: Formal Research Structure

Structuring the Research Paper: Informal Research Structure

The Nature of Research

The Research Assignment: How Should Research Sources Be Evaluated?

The Research Assignment: When Is Research Needed?

The Research Assignment: Why Perform Research?

Chapter 5: Academic Integrity

Academic Integrity

Giving Credit to Sources

Giving Credit to Sources: Copyright Laws

Giving Credit to Sources: Documentation

Giving Credit to Sources: Style Guides

Integrating Sources

Practicing Academic Integrity

Practicing Academic Integrity: Keeping Accurate Records

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Paraphrasing Your Source

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Quoting Your Source

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Summarizing Your Sources

Types of Documentation

Types of Documentation: Bibliographies and Source Lists

Types of Documentation: Citing World Wide Web Sources

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - APA Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - CSE/CBE Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - Chicago Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - MLA Style

Types of Documentation: Note Citations

Chapter 6: Using Library Resources

Finding Library Resources

Chapter 7: Assessing Your Writing

How Is Writing Graded?

How Is Writing Graded?: A General Assessment Tool

The Draft Stage

The Draft Stage: The First Draft

The Draft Stage: The Revision Process and the Final Draft

The Draft Stage: Using Feedback

The Research Stage

Using Assessment to Improve Your Writing

Chapter 8: Other Frequently Assigned Papers

Reviews and Reaction Papers: Article and Book Reviews

Reviews and Reaction Papers: Reaction Papers

Writing Arguments

Writing Arguments: Adapting the Argument Structure

Writing Arguments: Purposes of Argument

Writing Arguments: References to Consult for Writing Arguments

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Anticipate Active Opposition

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Determine Your Organization

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Develop Your Argument

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Introduce Your Argument

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - State Your Thesis or Proposition

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Write Your Conclusion

Writing Arguments: Types of Argument

Appendix A: Books to Help Improve Your Writing

Dictionaries

General Style Manuals

Researching on the Internet

Special Style Manuals

Writing Handbooks

Appendix B: Collaborative Writing and Peer Reviewing

Collaborative Writing: Assignments to Accompany the Group Project

Collaborative Writing: Informal Progress Report

Collaborative Writing: Issues to Resolve

Collaborative Writing: Methodology

Collaborative Writing: Peer Evaluation

Collaborative Writing: Tasks of Collaborative Writing Group Members

Collaborative Writing: Writing Plan

General Introduction

Peer Reviewing

Appendix C: Developing an Improvement Plan

Working with Your Instructor’s Comments and Grades

Appendix D: Writing Plan and Project Schedule

Devising a Writing Project Plan and Schedule

Reviewing Your Plan with Others

By using our website you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about how we use cookies by reading our  Privacy Policy .

Research Guide

Chapter 4 research writing, 4.1 structure.

In this section, I focus on the main stages of the research writing process. Most of these concepts have been beautifully explained by Varanya Chaubey (2018) .We will be focusing on the book, but in this section, I compile some of the most interesting ideas and link them to other important aspects to consider when structuring an argument. Some of this material is structured with more detail on Laura Belcher’s book Writing your Journal Article in Twelve Weeks .

4.2 The Three Layer Method

Once we have found our research question and we obtained and processed the data we need to conduct our analysis, we need to write our results.

This method asks us to work from the general ideas to the details, using a descending structure , or a Three layer method .

This method is a 3-step process in which we start working by laying a foundation of the main project and build upon it. The concept is simple: we need to understand what we are doing, why and how before even immersing in the writing process. Otherwise, we will lose sight of the main objective. The process is straightforward and quite intuitive. I introduce the three stages of the process here and explain each of them below.

• Step 1: What are you saying?: This is the main argument that you are making. It is important to figure out if you actually have an argument. But I’ll come back to this point.
• Step 2: Express with an outline. You need to include additional information surrounding your argument, so the readers can answer follow-up questions and have additional details linked to your research question.
• Step 3: Develop your ideas in a draft. Once you have identified your main argument and have an outline, you need to structure the paragraphs in each section.

4.2.1 The Argument

Belcher (2019) defines an argument as: “your article’s most important idea sated in one or two sentences early and clearly in your article […], emerging from a theory and supported with evidence to convince the reader of its validity.”

This may sound trivial, but it is harder than it seems. Many times, we believe we already have an argument, but we really do not. Instead, we have sentences that are tautological or we are simply rephrasing a fact that is accepted by everyone. Therefore, Belcher proposes a set of tests to ensure that you actually have an argument (I am adapting the list for the purposes of this Guide):

Agree/disagree : Do we need evidence to agree or disagree with a particular statement? For instance, we do not need further evidence to the statement ‘The Earth is round’. But we may need evidence on the statement “Prep school is fundamental to children’s cognitive development.”

Dispute test : When a given statement can be the source of disagreement, then it seems that you may indeed have an argument. For instance, “Poorer people are less supportive of redistribution” (AEP, 2021)

Puzzle answer test : If your statement is providing a response to a question that people have about the world or their environment, you may have an argument.

Another important element is to differentiate your argument from your topic. The topic is the major issue you are interested in, whereas your argument explains the main finding (or initially, the hypothesis) of your paper.

Following the research question, an argument needs to be puzzling. It needs to provide relevant information that help us understand the world a little bit more. This is why your argument (as well as your research question) needs to go beyond the basic facts. It needs to provide enough detail as to make it interesting for a larger audience. This also entails that you need to provide more information than naming the main variables in your analysis (x causes Y). You need to specify the conditions and context that make this statement to hold.

Some other elements to consider when structuring your argument is to avoid including normative statements and speculations, More specifically, for quantitative papers:

Avoid including causal claims when the evidence does not allow you to do that . Causal analysis is key in our field, but correlations are important as well and they provide a value to understand our context a little bit more.

4.2.1.1 Finding your RAP

R : Have different versions of your research question to see what is the clearest way to introduce it to your readers.

P : This represents how you position the paper in the literature. This is constructed based on your literature review and the theory behind your question.

These three elements are interconnected. You need to find the best way to bring them all together and work with them to convey your argument.

4.2.2 Express your Ideas using an Outline

An empirical, quantitative, paper in economics (and political science) usually contains the following sections:

• Introduction
• Context (Literature Review) 4a. Theoretical papers contain mathematical models (we will not use those) 4b. Empirical Strategy
• Robustness checks and potential mechanisms (we will not focus on those)
• Final discussion (Conclusion)

We will talk more about each of these sections, but here, the main point to consider is that you need to create an outline that conveys the most important points of each section.

This is, after you have a clear argument, now you need to provide an answer to different questions that the readers may have. This is done by creating the headings and subheadings of each section. For instance, in a paper on mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), readers may be interested in learning why is mining important in the country and what types of mining take place in the country. This means that I need a general section on the context of mining in the DRC and then include subheadings explaining the different types of mining that I analyze.

You will do that for each section. In your outline, include the headings and subheadings, and a short paragraph indicating the main message of the section. This will then be enriched by secondary paragraphs.

Having this structure will allow you to include those sections that add value to your final paper and remove any additional information that is not key to support your main argument.

4.2.2.1 Drafting

Once you have your headings and subheadings, as well as the most important takeaways, it is time for you to start populating your paper. In the next section, I mention some of the elements that you need to include in the research paper. Here again, it is important that you plan the information that you will include and that each paragraph has a purpose, answering a question that is relevant to further your argument. Go for the general to the particular details.

The main thing to consider is that readers have very limited time and span of attention. You need to convey the main message at the beginning of the paper. Then, for each section, the main idea needs to be included in the first paragraph(s). Develop just one idea per paragraph and ensure that the main message is contained at the beginning.

Writing is an iterative process and you probably will spend more time rewriting a section than what you spent writing it for the first time. Don’t despair! We all go through the same process and you will get there. Just ensure that you structure and organize your process.

blog @ precision

Presenting your qualitative analysis findings: tables to include in chapter 4.

The earliest stages of developing a doctoral dissertation—most specifically the topic development  and literature review  stages—require that you immerse yourself in a ton of existing research related to your potential topic. If you have begun writing your dissertation proposal, you have undoubtedly reviewed countless results and findings sections of studies in order to help gain an understanding of what is currently known about your topic. 

In this process, we’re guessing that you observed a distinct pattern: Results sections are full of tables. Indeed, the results chapter for your own dissertation will need to be similarly packed with tables. So, if you’re preparing to write up the results of your statistical analysis or qualitative analysis, it will probably help to review your APA editing  manual to brush up on your table formatting skills. But, aside from formatting, how should you develop the tables in your results chapter?

In quantitative studies, tables are a handy way of presenting the variety of statistical analysis results in a form that readers can easily process. You’ve probably noticed that quantitative studies present descriptive results like mean, mode, range, standard deviation, etc., as well the inferential results that indicate whether significant relationships or differences were found through the statistical analysis . These are pretty standard tables that you probably learned about in your pre-dissertation statistics courses.

But, what if you are conducting qualitative analysis? What tables are appropriate for this type of study? This is a question we hear often from our dissertation assistance  clients, and with good reason. University guidelines for results chapters often contain vague instructions that guide you to include “appropriate tables” without specifying what exactly those are. To help clarify on this point, we asked our qualitative analysis experts to share their recommendations for tables to include in your Chapter 4.

Demographics Tables

As with studies using quantitative methods , presenting an overview of your sample demographics is useful in studies that use qualitative research methods. The standard demographics table in a quantitative study provides aggregate information for what are often large samples. In other words, such tables present totals and percentages for demographic categories within the sample that are relevant to the study (e.g., age, gender, job title). 

If conducting qualitative research  for your dissertation, however, you will use a smaller sample and obtain richer data from each participant than in quantitative studies. To enhance thick description—a dimension of trustworthiness—it will help to present sample demographics in a table that includes information on each participant. Remember that ethical standards of research require that all participant information be deidentified, so use participant identification numbers or pseudonyms for each participant, and do not present any personal information that would allow others to identify the participant (Blignault & Ritchie, 2009). Table 1 provides participant demographics for a hypothetical qualitative research study exploring the perspectives of persons who were formerly homeless regarding their experiences of transitioning into stable housing and obtaining employment.

Participant Demographics

Tables to Illustrate Initial Codes

Most of our dissertation consulting clients who are conducting qualitative research choose a form of thematic analysis . Qualitative analysis to identify themes in the data typically involves a progression from (a) identifying surface-level codes to (b) developing themes by combining codes based on shared similarities. As this process is inherently subjective, it is important that readers be able to evaluate the correspondence between the data and your findings (Anfara et al., 2002). This supports confirmability, another dimension of trustworthiness .

A great way to illustrate the trustworthiness of your qualitative analysis is to create a table that displays quotes from the data that exemplify each of your initial codes. Providing a sample quote for each of your codes can help the reader to assess whether your coding was faithful to the meanings in the data, and it can also help to create clarity about each code’s meaning and bring the voices of your participants into your work (Blignault & Ritchie, 2009).

Table 2 is an example of how you might present information regarding initial codes. Depending on your preference or your dissertation committee’s preference, you might also present percentages of the sample that expressed each code. Another common piece of information to include is which actual participants expressed each code. Note that if your qualitative analysis yields a high volume of codes, it may be appropriate to present the table as an appendix.

Initial Codes

Tables to Present the Groups of Codes That Form Each Theme

As noted previously, most of our dissertation assistance clients use a thematic analysis approach, which involves multiple phases of qualitative analysis  that eventually result in themes that answer the dissertation’s research questions. After initial coding is completed, the analysis process involves (a) examining what different codes have in common and then (b) grouping similar codes together in ways that are meaningful given your research questions. In other words, the common threads that you identify across multiple codes become the theme that holds them all together—and that theme answers one of your research questions.

As with initial coding, grouping codes together into themes involves your own subjective interpretations, even when aided by qualitative analysis software such as NVivo  or MAXQDA. In fact, our dissertation assistance clients are often surprised to learn that qualitative analysis software does not complete the analysis in the same ways that statistical analysis software such as SPSS does. While statistical analysis software completes the computations for you, qualitative analysis software does not have such analysis capabilities. Software such as NVivo provides a set of organizational tools that make the qualitative analysis far more convenient, but the analysis itself is still a very human process (Burnard et al., 2008).

Because of the subjective nature of qualitative analysis, it is important to show the underlying logic behind your thematic analysis in tables—such tables help readers to assess the trustworthiness of your analysis. Table 3 provides an example of how to present the codes that were grouped together to create themes, and you can modify the specifics of the table based on your preferences or your dissertation committee’s requirements. For example, this type of table might be presented to illustrate the codes associated with themes that answer each research question. 

Grouping of Initial Codes to Form Themes

Tables to Illustrate the Themes That Answer Each Research Question

Creating alignment throughout your dissertation is an important objective, and to maintain alignment in your results chapter, the themes you present must clearly answer your research questions. Conducting qualitative analysis is an in-depth process of immersion in the data, and many of our dissertation consulting  clients have shared that it’s easy to lose your direction during the process. So, it is important to stay focused on your research questions during the qualitative analysis and also to show the reader exactly which themes—and subthemes, as applicable—answered each of the research questions.

Below, Table 4 provides an example of how to display the thematic findings of your study in table form. Depending on your dissertation committee’s preference or your own, you might present all research questions and all themes and subthemes in a single table. Or, you might provide separate tables to introduce the themes for each research question as you progress through your presentation of the findings in the chapter.

Emergent Themes and Research Questions

Bonus Tip! Figures to Spice Up Your Results

Although dissertation committees most often wish to see tables such as the above in qualitative results chapters, some also like to see figures that illustrate the data. Qualitative software packages such as NVivo offer many options for visualizing your data, such as mind maps, concept maps, charts, and cluster diagrams. A common choice for this type of figure among our dissertation assistance clients is a tree diagram, which shows the connections between specified words and the words or phrases that participants shared most often in the same context. Another common choice of figure is the word cloud, as depicted in Figure 1. The word cloud simply reflects frequencies of words in the data, which may provide an indication of the importance of related concepts for the participants.

As you move forward with your qualitative analysis and development of your results chapter, we hope that this brief overview of useful tables and figures helps you to decide on an ideal presentation to showcase the trustworthiness your findings. Completing a rigorous qualitative analysis for your dissertation requires many hours of careful interpretation of your data, and your end product should be a rich and detailed results presentation that you can be proud of. Reach out if we can help  in any way, as our dissertation coaches would be thrilled to assist as you move through this exciting stage of your dissertation journey!

Anfara Jr., V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public.  Educational Researcher ,  31 (7), 28-38. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007028

Blignault, I., & Ritchie, J. (2009). Revealing the wood and the trees: Reporting qualitative research.  Health Promotion Journal of Australia ,  20 (2), 140-145. https://doi.org/10.1071/HE09140

Burnard, P., Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Analysing and presenting qualitative data.  British Dental Journal ,  204 (8), 429-432. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.292

• 83,976 Views

How To Write Chapter Four Of Your Final Year Project (Data Analysis And Presentation) | ResearchWap Blog

• Posted: Monday, 06 July 2020
• By: ResearchWap Admin

Easiest steps to write chapter four of your final year project effectively and perfectly with ease.

In writing the final year project, Students at times find it difficult to document their findings properly. In every research project, chapter four is the heart of the research work and sometimes, supervisors do not even start the reading of the research work from chapter one, but they jump to chapter four because that is the chapter that tells the reader all that was done, the instrument you used, how you analyzed your data and finally your findings.

The purpose of this chapter four in your final year project is to summarize the collected data and the statistical treatment, and or mechanics of analysis. The first paragraph should briefly restate the problem, taken from Chapter one, and explain the object of each experiment, question, or objective, point out salient results, and present those results by the table, figure, or other forms of summarized data. Select tables and figures carefully. Some studies are easier to defend if all the raw data is in this chapter; some are better if the bulk of the raw data is in an appendix.

Also, read this article - Step By Step Guide To Write A Good Research Proposal

Chapter four of a Qualitative Research work carries different titles such as ‘Analysis of Data’, ‘Results of Study’, ‘Analysis and Results’ and so forth but the keywords are ‘analysis’ and ‘results’ which implies that you have ‘analyzed’ the raw data and presenting the ‘results’ or what you discovered in the fieldwork carried out, in this Chapter.

Studies have shown that a greater number of students always find it difficult to document their findings correctly. You may have done a good job writing Chapter one (Introduction), Chapter two (Literature Review), and Chapter three (Methodology) with such clarity and end up making a mess of Chapter four (Findings and Data Analysis).

Since chapter four is the heart of your research work and if your supervisor does not start the reading of your work from chapter one, but jump to chapter four which you have spent so much time collecting and analyzing data but do a poor job of reporting the results of the findings.

Also, read this article - Step By Step Instructions To Design And Develop A Questionnaire For A Final Year Project

Alternatively, after collecting all the data and your presentation of your results lack organization and clarity, your reader would struggle by trying to figure out what you have written, and by this, you’ve just wasted your precious time and possibly the cost of compiling the chapter.

Chapter four should ‘stand-alone:

 what does this mean?

This means that you could ask a friend to read it and he or she would understand what you discovered in your study without having to read Chapters one to three.

For you to achieve this, your chapter four should be aligned to the purpose of the study, the research questions, why the study was important, how it connects to the underlying theories, literature review, and reflective of the conceptual framework. Chapter four is the culmination of your study and represents your best thinking and how you answered the research question you had formulated and stated in chapter one of the research project.

Also, Read This Article – How To Write Effective Research Project Abstract

A good researcher should begin this chapter with two or three introductory paragraphs. A transition from chapter three is very important too. The researcher should also provide a very brief review of the overall research design. It is not necessary to list all of the secondary questions and hypotheses at the beginning of the chapter, but the introductory section of the chapter should focus the reader’s attention on the primary research question and hypothesis.

Don’t border detailing everything, the bulk of the chapter will consist of the presentation of findings for the secondary questions and hypotheses set forth in Chapter three.

In quantitative research, the results usually begin with a description of the sample, For example, the sample size, description of participants who were excluded, and why the handling of missing data.

Also, the descriptive statistics.  For example, frequencies and percentages for categorical variables, means, standard deviations, and ranges for continuously measured variables are presented, and the normality of continuously measured variables is usually presented.

Address each hypothesis in turn, presenting a description of the analysis that was computed to address each hypothesis and the results of that analysis. State whether the null hypothesis was rejected.

Also, Read This Article - Trending Project Topics For Final Year Students At A Glance

Do not repeat in tedious prose that it is obvious for a knowledgeable peer to see at a glance.  The dissertation advisor usually has an opinion about the level of detail needed in this chapter.  Table titles and figure captions should be understandable without reading the chapter text.

Note all relevant results, even those that were contrary to the alternative hypotheses, or those that tend to distract from clear determinations.

Chapter Four Table Of Content

• Introduction to the Chapter.
• A transition from chapter three. (Very important)
• Provide a brief overview of the research project: as I stated earlier, chapter four should be able to stand alone, this means it should be presented in such a way that one can read it and understand everything about your study, this means that a BRIEF overview of the research project is very important in this chapter.
• Describe the purpose of the chapter.
• Explain the organization of the chapter.
• Data Analyses and Presentation of the Findings: this is the heart of this chapter, the presentation of the findings should be very concise and clear, make sure that you present it in such a way that even a layman can understand it.
•  State null hypothesis.
• Present the statistical results in a table.
• Draw statistical conclusions for accepted and rejected hypotheses.
• Draw a preliminary research conclusion
• Conclusion and Transition to Chapter Five

Also, Read This Article - How To Develop Effective And Unique Project Topics

Tags: chapter four, data analysis and presentation, research analysis, data analysis,

Project Categories

• AFRICAN LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTIC
• ACCOUNTING EDUCATION
• ACTUARIAL SCIENCE
• ADULT EDUCATION
• AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
• AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
• ANIMAL SCIENCE
• ARCHITECTURE
• BANKING AND FINANCE
• BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGY
• BIOCHEMISTRY
• BREWING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
• BUILDING TECHNOLOGY
• BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
• BUSINESS EDUCATION

SEE MORE PROJECT CATEGORIES

Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved researchwap.com - Free Project Topics, Research Materials, and Educational Resources

• Welcome to Chapter 4

Quick Guides

Irb data collection closure, data collection and analysis software, chapter 4 webinars.

• Qualtrics Survey Tool
• Statistics Help This link opens in a new window
• Statistics and APA Format This link opens in a new window
• Analysis and Coding Example- Qualitative Data
• Trustworthiness of Qualitative Data
• Hypothesis Testing This link opens in a new window

Jump to DSE Guide

Need help ask us.

• Qualitative Data Analysis Tips and Strategies Students can use this short guide to get started in analyzing qualitative data.
• Quantitative Data Analysis Tips and Strategies Students can use this short guide to get started in analyzing quantitative data.
• Data Collection Verification Form The IRB Study Closure will be submitted in the Doctoral Record after approval from the student’s doctoral committee.
• Data Collection Verification Form Example The sample Data Collection Verification Form can help guide students on how to complete the form before submitting.
• Example Instruments and Tools for Data Collection Students can use this quick list of instruments and tools when considering how to collect and analyze data.
• NVivo Access Instructions for NCUOne Users Students and faculty in NCUOne - Use this job aid to guide you in accessing your free copy of NVivo for qualitative data analysis.
• NVivo FAQs Refer to the NVivo FAQs while installing the software
• SPSS Access Instructions NCUOne students - Use this job aid to guide you in accessing your free copy of SPSS for quantitative data analysis.
• SPSS License Renewal Step-by-step instructions for NCUOne students to renew their license for SPSS.
• SPSS Version Upgrade Instructions Step-by-step instructions for NCUOne students to update to Version 29, the latest version that is now available.

Note: Doctoral students taking courses in NU Brightspace can find directions on how to download NVivo and SPSS in the NU Library Connection . Find the NU Library Connection in your course list and then navigate to the Data Analysis Software for Doctoral Students sub-module within the Research Help module.

• Next: Qualtrics Survey Tool >>
• Last Updated: Apr 19, 2024 3:09 PM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/c.php?g=1007180

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Research paper
• How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples

How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples

Published on August 21, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on July 18, 2023.

The discussion section is where you delve into the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results .

It should focus on explaining and evaluating what you found, showing how it relates to your literature review and paper or dissertation topic , and making an argument in support of your overall conclusion. It should not be a second results section.

There are different ways to write this section, but you can focus your writing around these key elements:

• Summary : A brief recap of your key results
• Interpretations: What do your results mean?
• Implications: Why do your results matter?
• Limitations: What can’t your results tell us?
• Recommendations: Avenues for further studies or analyses

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What not to include in your discussion section, step 1: summarize your key findings, step 2: give your interpretations, step 3: discuss the implications, step 4: acknowledge the limitations, step 5: share your recommendations, discussion section example, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about discussion sections.

There are a few common mistakes to avoid when writing the discussion section of your paper.

• Don’t introduce new results: You should only discuss the data that you have already reported in your results section .
• Don’t make inflated claims: Avoid overinterpretation and speculation that isn’t directly supported by your data.
• Don’t undermine your research: The discussion of limitations should aim to strengthen your credibility, not emphasize weaknesses or failures.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

Start this section by reiterating your research problem and concisely summarizing your major findings. To speed up the process you can use a summarizer to quickly get an overview of all important findings. Don’t just repeat all the data you have already reported—aim for a clear statement of the overall result that directly answers your main research question . This should be no more than one paragraph.

Many students struggle with the differences between a discussion section and a results section . The crux of the matter is that your results sections should present your results, and your discussion section should subjectively evaluate them. Try not to blend elements of these two sections, in order to keep your paper sharp.

• The results indicate that…
• The study demonstrates a correlation between…
• This analysis supports the theory that…
• The data suggest that…

The meaning of your results may seem obvious to you, but it’s important to spell out their significance for your reader, showing exactly how they answer your research question.

The form of your interpretations will depend on the type of research, but some typical approaches to interpreting the data include:

• Identifying correlations , patterns, and relationships among the data
• Discussing whether the results met your expectations or supported your hypotheses
• Contextualizing your findings within previous research and theory
• Explaining unexpected results and evaluating their significance
• Considering possible alternative explanations and making an argument for your position

You can organize your discussion around key themes, hypotheses, or research questions, following the same structure as your results section. Alternatively, you can also begin by highlighting the most significant or unexpected results.

• In line with the hypothesis…
• Contrary to the hypothesized association…
• The results contradict the claims of Smith (2022) that…
• The results might suggest that x . However, based on the findings of similar studies, a more plausible explanation is y .

As well as giving your own interpretations, make sure to relate your results back to the scholarly work that you surveyed in the literature review . The discussion should show how your findings fit with existing knowledge, what new insights they contribute, and what consequences they have for theory or practice.

Ask yourself these questions:

• Do your results support or challenge existing theories? If they support existing theories, what new information do they contribute? If they challenge existing theories, why do you think that is?
• Are there any practical implications?

Your overall aim is to show the reader exactly what your research has contributed, and why they should care.

• These results build on existing evidence of…
• The results do not fit with the theory that…
• The experiment provides a new insight into the relationship between…
• These results should be taken into account when considering how to…
• The data contribute a clearer understanding of…
• While previous research has focused on  x , these results demonstrate that y .

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

Even the best research has its limitations. Acknowledging these is important to demonstrate your credibility. Limitations aren’t about listing your errors, but about providing an accurate picture of what can and cannot be concluded from your study.

Limitations might be due to your overall research design, specific methodological choices , or unanticipated obstacles that emerged during your research process.

Here are a few common possibilities:

• If your sample size was small or limited to a specific group of people, explain how generalizability is limited.
• If you encountered problems when gathering or analyzing data, explain how these influenced the results.
• If there are potential confounding variables that you were unable to control, acknowledge the effect these may have had.

After noting the limitations, you can reiterate why the results are nonetheless valid for the purpose of answering your research question.

• The generalizability of the results is limited by…
• The reliability of these data is impacted by…
• Due to the lack of data on x , the results cannot confirm…
• The methodological choices were constrained by…
• It is beyond the scope of this study to…

Based on the discussion of your results, you can make recommendations for practical implementation or further research. Sometimes, the recommendations are saved for the conclusion .

Suggestions for further research can lead directly from the limitations. Don’t just state that more studies should be done—give concrete ideas for how future work can build on areas that your own research was unable to address.

• Further research is needed to establish…
• Future studies should take into account…
• Avenues for future research include…

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

• Anchoring bias
• Halo effect
• The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon
• The placebo effect
• Nonresponse bias
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

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

In the discussion , you explore the meaning and relevance of your research results , explaining how they fit with existing research and theory. Discuss:

• Your  interpretations : what do the results tell us?
• The  implications : why do the results matter?
• The  limitation s : what can’t the results tell us?

The results chapter or section simply and objectively reports what you found, without speculating on why you found these results. The discussion interprets the meaning of the results, puts them in context, and explains why they matter.

In qualitative research , results and discussion are sometimes combined. But in quantitative research , it’s considered important to separate the objective results from your interpretation of them.

In a thesis or dissertation, the discussion is an in-depth exploration of the results, going into detail about the meaning of your findings and citing relevant sources to put them in context.

The conclusion is more shorter and more general: it concisely answers your main research question and makes recommendations based on your overall findings.

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, July 18). How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 21, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/discussion/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a results section | tips & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• Chapter Four: Quantitative Methods (Part 3 - Making Sense of Your Study)

After you have designed your study, collected your data, and analyzed it, you have to figure out what it means and communicate that to potential interested audiences. This section of the chapter is about how to make sense of your study, in terms of data interpretation, data write-up, and data presentation, as seen in the above diagram.

• Chapter One: Introduction
• Chapter Two: Understanding the distinctions among research methods
• Chapter Three: Ethical research, writing, and creative work
• Chapter Four: Quantitative Methods (Part 1)
• Chapter Four: Quantitative Methods (Part 2 - Doing Your Study)
• Chapter Five: Qualitative Methods (Part 1)
• Chapter Five: Qualitative Data (Part 2)
• Chapter Six: Critical / Rhetorical Methods (Part 1)
• Chapter Six: Critical / Rhetorical Methods (Part 2)
• Chapter Seven: Presenting Your Results

Data Interpretation

Once you have run your statistics, you have to figure out what your findings mean or interpret your data. To do this, you need to tie back your findings to your research questions and/or hypotheses, think about how your findings relate to what you discovered beforehand about the already existing literature, and determine how your findings take the literature or current theory in the field further. Your interpretation of the data you collected will be found in the last section of your paper, what is commonly called the "discussion" section.

Remember Your RQs/Hs

Your research questions and hypotheses, once developed, should guide your study throughout the research process. As you are choosing your research design, choosing how to operationalize your variables, and choosing/conducting your statistical tests, you should always keep your RQs and Hs in mind.

What were you wanting to discover by your study? What were you wanting to test? Make sure you answer these questions clearly for the reader of your study in both the results and discussion section of the paper. (Specific guidelines for these sections will be covered later in this chapter, including the common practice of placing the data as you present it with each research question in the results section.)

Tie Findings to Your Literature Review

As you have seen in chapter 3 and the Appendix, and will see in chapter 7, the literature review is what you use to set up your quantitative study and to show why there is a need for your study. It should start out broad, with the context for your study, and lead into showing what still needs to be known and studied about your topic area, justifying your focus in the study. It will be brought in again in the last section of the paper you write, i.e., the discussion section.

Your paper is like an hourglass – starting out broad and narrowing down in the middle with your actual study and findings, and then moving to broad implications for the larger context of your study near the end.

Think about Relationship of Findings to Theory

One of the things you will write about in your discussion or last section of your paper is the implications of what you found. These implications are both practical and theoretical. Practical implications are how the research can provide practical applications to real-world people and issues. Theoretical implications are how the research takes the current academic literature further, specifically, in relationship to theory-building.

Did any of the research you reviewed for your literature review mention a theory your findings could expand upon? If so, you should think about how your findings related to this theory. If not, then think about the theories you have already studied in your communication classes. Would any of them provide a possible explanation of what you found? Would your findings help expand that theory to a different context, the context you studied? Does a theory need to be developed in the area of your research? If so, then what aspects of that theory could your findings help explain?

Data Write-Up

All quantitative studies, when written, have four parts. The first part is the introduction and literature review, the second part is the methods section, the third section is the results or findings, and the fourth section is the discussion section. This portion of this chapter will explain what elements you will need to include in each of these sections.

Literature Review

The beginning of your paper and first few pages sets the tone for your study. It tells the reader what the context of your study is and what other people who are also interested in your topic have studied about your topic.

There are many ways to organize a literature review, as can be seen in the following website. Literature Reviews — The Writing Center at UNC-Chapel Hill

After you have done a thorough literature search on your topic, then you have to organize your literature into topics of some kind. Your main goal is to show what has been done and what still needs to be done, to show the need for your study, so at the end of each section of your literature review, you should identify what still needs to be known about that particular area.

For quantitative research, you should do your literature review before coming up with your research questions/hypotheses. Your questions and hypotheses should flow from the literature. This is different from the other two research methods discussed in this book, which do not rely so heavily on a literature review to situation the study before conducting it.

In the methods section, you should tell your reader how you conducted your study, from start to finish, explaining why you made the choices you did along the way. A reader should be able to replicate your study from the descriptions you provide in this section of your write-up. Common headings in the methods section include a description of the participants, procedures, and analysis.

Participants

For the participants' subheading of the methods section, you should minimally report the demographics of your sample in terms of biological sex (frequencies/percentages), age (range of ages and mean), and ethnicity (frequencies/percentages). If you collected data on other demographics, such as socioeconomic status, religious affiliation, type of occupation, etc., then you can report data for that also in the participants' sub-section.

For the procedures sub-section, you report everything you did to collect your data: how you recruited your participants, including what type of sampling you used (probability or non-probability) and informed consent procedures; how you operationalized your variables (including your survey questions, which often are explained in the methods section briefly while the whole survey can be found in an appendix of your paper); the validity and reliability of your survey instrument or methods you used; and what type of study design you had (experimental, quasi-experimental, or non-experimental). For each one of these design issues, in this sub-section of the methods part, you need to explain why you made the decisions you did in order to answer your research questions or test your hypotheses.

In this section, you explain how you converted your data for analysis and how you analyzed your data. You need to explain what statistics you chose to run for each of your research questions/hypotheses and why.

In this section of your paper, you organize the results by your research questions/hypotheses. For each research question/hypothesis, you should present any descriptive statistic results first and then your inferential statistics results. You do not make any interpretation of what your results mean or why you think you got the results you did. You merely report your results.

Reporting Significant Results

For each of the inferential statistics, there is a typical template you can follow when reporting significant results: reporting the test statistic value, the degrees of freedom  3 , and the probability level. Examples follow for each of the statistics we have talked about in this text.

T-test results

"T-tests results show there was a significant difference found between men and women on their levels of self-esteem,  t  (df) = t value,  p  < .05, with men's self-esteem being higher (or lower) (men's mean & standard deviation) than women's self-esteem (women's mean & standard deviation)."

ANOVA results

"ANOVA results indicate there was a significant difference found between [levels of independent variable] on [dependent variable],  F  (df) = F value,  p  < .05."

If doing a factorial ANOVA, you would report the above sentence for all of your independent variables (main effects), as well as for the interaction (interaction effect), with language something like: "ANOVA results indicate a significant main effect for [independent variable] on [dependent variable],  F  (df) = F value,  p  < .05. .... ANOVA results indicate a significant interaction effect between [independent variables] on [dependent variable],  F  (df) = F value,  p  < .05."

See example YouTube tutorial for writing up a two-way ANOVA at the following website.

Factorial Design (Part C): Writing Up Results

Chi-square results

For goodness of fit results, your write-up would look something like: "Using a chi-square goodness of fit test, there was a significant difference found between observed and expected values of [variable], χ2 (df) = chi-square value,  p  < .05." For test of independence results, it would like like: "Using a chi-square test of independence, there was a significant interaction between [your two variables], χ2 (df) = chi-square value,  p  < .05."

Correlation results

"Using Pearson's [or Spearman's] correlation coefficient, there was a significant relationship found between [two variables],  r  (df) = r value,  p  < .05." If there are a lot of significant correlation results, these results are often presented in a table form.

For more information on these types of tables, see the following website:  Correlation Tables .

Regression results

Reporting regression results is more complicated, but generally, you want to inform the reader about how much variance is accounted by the regression model, the significance level of the model, and the significance of the predictor variable. For example:

A regression analysis, predicting GPA scores from GRE scores, was statistically significant,  F (1,8) = 10.34,  p  < .05.

Coefficientsa

The regression equation is: Ŷ = .411 * .005X. For every one unit increase in GRE score, there is a corresponding increase in GPA of .005 (Walen-Frederick, n.d., p. 4).

For more write-up help on regression and other statistics, see the following website location:

Multiple Regression  (pp. 217-220)

Reporting Non-Significant Results

You can follow a similar template when reporting non-significant results for all of the above inferential statistics. It is the same as provided in the above examples, except the word "non-significant" replaces the word "significant," and the  p  values are adjusted to indicate  p > .05.

Many times readers of articles do not read the whole article, especially if they are afraid of the statistical sections. When this happens, they often read the discussion section, which makes this a very important section in your writing. You should include the following elements in your discussion section: (a) a summary of your findings, (b) implications, (c) limitations, and (d) future research ideas.

Summary of Findings

You should summarize the answers to your research questions or what you found when testing your hypotheses in this sub-section of the discussion section. You should not report any statistical data here, but just put your results into narrative form. What did you find out that you did not know before doing your study? Answer that question in this sub- section.

Implications

You need to indicate why your study was important, both theoretically and practically. For the theoretical implications, you should relate what you found to the already existing literature, as discussed earlier when the "hourglass" format was mentioned as a way of conceptualizing your whole paper. If your study added anything to the existing theory on a particular topic, you talk about this here as well.

For practical implications, you need to identify for the reader how this study can help people in their real-world experiences related to your topic. You do not want your study to just be important to academic researchers, but also to other professionals and persons interested in your topic.

Limitations

As you get through conducting your study, you are going to realize there are things you wish you had done differently. Rather than hide these things from the reader, it is better to forthrightly state these for the reader. Explain why your study is limited and what you wish you had done in this sub-section.

Future Research

The limitations sub-section usually is tied directly to the future research sub-section, as your limitations mean that future research should be done to deal with these limitations. There may also be other things that could be studied, however, as a result of what you have found. What would other people say are the "gaps" your study left unstudied on your topic? These should be identified, with some suggestions on how they might be studied.

Other Aspects of the Paper

There are other parts of the academic paper you should include in your final write-up. We have provided useful resources for you to consider when including these aspects as part of your paper. For an example paper that uses the required APA format for a research paper write-up, see the following source:  Varying Definitions of Online Communication .

Abstract & Titles.

Research Abstracts General Format

Tables, References, & Other Materials.

APA Tables and Figures 1 Reference List: Basic Rules

Data Presentation

You will probably be called upon to present your data in other venues besides in writing. Two of the most common venues are oral presentations such as in class or at conferences, and poster presentations, such as what you might find at conferences. You might also be called upon to not write an academic write-up of your study, but rather to provide an executive summary of the results of your study to the "powers that be," who do not have time to read more than 5 pages or so of a summary. There are good resources for doing all of these online, so we have provided these here.

Oral Presentations

Oral Presentations Delivering Presentations

Poster Presentations

Executive Summary

Executive Summaries Complete the Report Good & Poor Examples of Executive Summaries with the following link: http://unilearning.uow.edu.au/report/4bi1.html

Congratulations! You have learned a great deal about how to go about using quantitative methods for your future research projects. You have learned how to design a quantitative study, conduct a quantitative study, and write about a quantitative study. You have some good resources you can take with you when you leave this class. Now, you just have to apply what you have learned to projects that will come your way in the future.

Remember, just because you may not like one method the best does not mean you should not use it. Your research questions/hypotheses should ALWAYS drive your choice of which method you use. And remember also that you can do quantitative methods!

[NOTE: References are not provided for the websites cited in the text, even though if this was an actual research article, they would need to be cited.]

Baker, E., Baker, W., & Tedesco, J. C. (2007). Organizations respond to phishing: Exploring the public relations tackle box.  Communication Research Reports, 24  (4), 327-339.

Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2004). Presidential debate watching, issue knowledge, character evaluation, and vote choice.  Human Communication Research, 30  (1), 121-144.

Chatham, A. (1991).  Home vs. public schooling: What about relationships in adolescence? Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma.

Cousineau, T. M., Rancourt, D., and Green, T. C. (2006). Web chatter before and after the women's health initiative results: A content analysis of on-line menopause message boards.  Journal of Health Communication, 11 (2), 133-147.

Derlega, V., Winstead, B. A., Mathews, A., and Braitman, A. L. (2008). Why does someone reveal highly personal information?: Attributions for and against self-disclosure in close relationships.  Communication Research Reports, 25 , 115-130.

Fischer, J., & Corcoran, K. (2007).  Measures for clinical practice and research: A sourcebook (volumes 1 & 2) . New York: Oxford University Press.

Guay, S., Boisvert, J.-M., & Freeston, M. H. (2003). Validity of three measures of communication for predicting relationship adjustment and stability among a sample of young couples.  Psychological Assessment , 15(3), 392-398.

Holbert, R. L., Tschida, D. A., Dixon, M., Cherry, K., Steuber, K., & Airne, D. (2005). The  West Wing  and depictions of the American Presidency: Expanding the domains of framing in political communication.  Communication Quarterly, 53  (4), 505-522.

Jensen, J. D. (2008). Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists' and journalists' credibility.  Human Communication Research, 34 , 347- 369.

Keyton, J. (2011).  Communicating research: Asking questions, finding answers . New York: McGraw Hill.

Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010, Apr. 10).  Teens and mobile phones . Report from the Pew Internet and American Life Project, retrieved from  http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Teens-and-Mobile-Phones.aspx .

Maddy, T. (2008).  Tests: A comprehensive reference for assessments in psychology, education, and business . Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

McCollum Jr., J. F., & Bryant, J. (2003). Pacing in children's television programming.  Mass Communication and Society, 6  (2), 115-136.

Medved, C. E., Brogan, S. M., McClanahan, A. M., Morris, J. F., & Shepherd, G. J. (2006). Family and work socializing communication: Messages, gender, and ideological implications.  Journal of Family Communication, 6 (3), 161-180.

Moyer-Gusé, E., & Nabi, R. L. (2010). Explaining the effects of narrative in an entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion.  Human Communication Research, 36 , 26-52.

Nabi, R. L. (2009). Cosmetic surgery makeover programs and intentions to undergo cosmetic enhancements: A consideration of three models of media effects.  Human Communication Research, 35 , 1-27.

Pearson, J. C., DeWitt, L., Child, J. T., Kahl Jr., D. H., and Dandamudi, V. (2007). Facing the fear: An analysis of speech-anxiety content in public-speaking textbooks.  Communication Research Reports, 24 (2), 159-168.

Rubin. R. B., Rubin, A. M., Graham, E., Perse, E. M., & Seibold, D. (2009).  Communication research measures II: A sourcebook . New York: Routledge.

Serota, K. B., Levine, T. R., and Boster, F. J. (2010). The prevalence of lying in America: Three studies of reported deception.  Human Communication Research, 36 , 1-24.

Sheldon, P. (2008). The relationship between unwillingness-to-communicate and students' facebook use.  Journal of Media Psychology, 20 (2), 67–75.

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Reliability and validity.  Research methods data base , retrieved from  http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/relandval.php .

Walen-Frederick, H. (n.d.).  Help sheet for reading SPSS printouts . Retrieved from  http://www.scribd.com/doc/51982223/help-sheet-for-reading-spss-printouts .

Weaver, A. J., & Wilson, B. J. (2009). The role of graphic and sanitized violence in the enjoyment of television dramas.  Human Communication Research, 35 (3), 442-463.

Weber, K., Corrigan, M., Fornash, B., & Neupauer, N. C. (2003). The effect of interest on recall: An experiment.  Communication Research Reports, 20 (2), 116-123.

Witt, P. L., & Schrodt, P. (2006). The influence of instructional technology use and teacher immediacy on student affect for teacher and course.  Communication Reports, 19 (1), 1-15.

3 Degrees of freedom (df) relate to your sample size and to the number of groups being compared. SPSS always computes the df for your statistics. For more information on degrees of freedom, see the following web-based resources:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsvfasNpU2s  and  http://www.creative-wisdom.com/pub/df/index.htm .

Back to Previous Spot

Chapter 4 Research Papers: Discussion, Conclusions, Review Papers

• First Online: 17 July 2020

Cite this chapter

• Adrian Wallwork 3 &
• Anna Southern 3  

Part of the book series: English for Academic Research ((EAR))

3337 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

English for Academics SAS, Pisa, Italy

Adrian Wallwork & Anna Southern

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Wallwork, A., Southern, A. (2020). Chapter 4 Research Papers: Discussion, Conclusions, Review Papers. In: 100 Tips to Avoid Mistakes in Academic Writing and Presenting. English for Academic Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44214-9_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44214-9_4

Published : 17 July 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-44213-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-44214-9

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

How To Write The Results/Findings Chapter

For qualitative studies (dissertations & theses).

By: Jenna Crossley (PhD). Expert Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | August 2021

So, you’ve collected and analysed your qualitative data, and it’s time to write up your results chapter. But where do you start? In this post, we’ll guide you through the qualitative results chapter (also called the findings chapter), step by step. 

Overview: Qualitative Results Chapter

• What (exactly) the qualitative results chapter is
• What to include in your results chapter
• How to write up your results chapter
• A few tips and tricks to help you along the way
• Free results chapter template

What exactly is the results chapter?

The results chapter in a dissertation or thesis (or any formal academic research piece) is where you objectively and neutrally present the findings of your qualitative analysis (or analyses if you used multiple qualitative analysis methods ). This chapter can sometimes be combined with the discussion chapter (where you interpret the data and discuss its meaning), depending on your university’s preference.  We’ll treat the two chapters as separate, as that’s the most common approach.

In contrast to a quantitative results chapter that presents numbers and statistics, a qualitative results chapter presents data primarily in the form of words . But this doesn’t mean that a qualitative study can’t have quantitative elements – you could, for example, present the number of times a theme or topic pops up in your data, depending on the analysis method(s) you adopt.

Adding a quantitative element to your study can add some rigour, which strengthens your results by providing more evidence for your claims. This is particularly common when using qualitative content analysis. Keep in mind though that qualitative research aims to achieve depth, richness and identify nuances , so don’t get tunnel vision by focusing on the numbers. They’re just cream on top in a qualitative analysis.

So, to recap, the results chapter is where you objectively present the findings of your analysis, without interpreting them (you’ll save that for the discussion chapter). With that out the way, let’s take a look at what you should include in your results chapter.

What should you include in the results chapter?

As we’ve mentioned, your qualitative results chapter should purely present and describe your results , not interpret them in relation to the existing literature or your research questions . Any speculations or discussion about the implications of your findings should be reserved for your discussion chapter.

In your results chapter, you’ll want to talk about your analysis findings and whether or not they support your hypotheses (if you have any). Naturally, the exact contents of your results chapter will depend on which qualitative analysis method (or methods) you use. For example, if you were to use thematic analysis, you’d detail the themes identified in your analysis, using extracts from the transcripts or text to support your claims.

While you do need to present your analysis findings in some detail, you should avoid dumping large amounts of raw data in this chapter. Instead, focus on presenting the key findings and using a handful of select quotes or text extracts to support each finding . The reams of data and analysis can be relegated to your appendices.

While it’s tempting to include every last detail you found in your qualitative analysis, it is important to make sure that you report only that which is relevant to your research aims, objectives and research questions .  Always keep these three components, as well as your hypotheses (if you have any) front of mind when writing the chapter and use them as a filter to decide what’s relevant and what’s not.

Need a helping hand?

How do I write the results chapter?

Now that we’ve covered the basics, it’s time to look at how to structure your chapter. Broadly speaking, the results chapter needs to contain three core components – the introduction, the body and the concluding summary. Let’s take a look at each of these.

Section 1: Introduction

The first step is to craft a brief introduction to the chapter. This intro is vital as it provides some context for your findings. In your introduction, you should begin by reiterating your problem statement and research questions and highlight the purpose of your research . Make sure that you spell this out for the reader so that the rest of your chapter is well contextualised.

The next step is to briefly outline the structure of your results chapter. In other words, explain what’s included in the chapter and what the reader can expect. In the results chapter, you want to tell a story that is coherent, flows logically, and is easy to follow , so make sure that you plan your structure out well and convey that structure (at a high level), so that your reader is well oriented.

The introduction section shouldn’t be lengthy. Two or three short paragraphs should be more than adequate. It is merely an introduction and overview, not a summary of the chapter.

Pro Tip – To help you structure your chapter, it can be useful to set up an initial draft with (sub)section headings so that you’re able to easily (re)arrange parts of your chapter. This will also help your reader to follow your results and give your chapter some coherence.  Be sure to use level-based heading styles (e.g. Heading 1, 2, 3 styles) to help the reader differentiate between levels visually. You can find these options in Word (example below).

Section 2: Body

Before we get started on what to include in the body of your chapter, it’s vital to remember that a results section should be completely objective and descriptive, not interpretive . So, be careful not to use words such as, “suggests” or “implies”, as these usually accompany some form of interpretation – that’s reserved for your discussion chapter.

The structure of your body section is very important , so make sure that you plan it out well. When planning out your qualitative results chapter, create sections and subsections so that you can maintain the flow of the story you’re trying to tell. Be sure to systematically and consistently describe each portion of results. Try to adopt a standardised structure for each portion so that you achieve a high level of consistency throughout the chapter.

For qualitative studies, results chapters tend to be structured according to themes , which makes it easier for readers to follow. However, keep in mind that not all results chapters have to be structured in this manner. For example, if you’re conducting a longitudinal study, you may want to structure your chapter chronologically. Similarly, you might structure this chapter based on your theoretical framework . The exact structure of your chapter will depend on the nature of your study , especially your research questions.

As you work through the body of your chapter, make sure that you use quotes to substantiate every one of your claims . You can present these quotes in italics to differentiate them from your own words. A general rule of thumb is to use at least two pieces of evidence per claim, and these should be linked directly to your data. Also, remember that you need to include all relevant results , not just the ones that support your assumptions or initial leanings.

In addition to including quotes, you can also link your claims to the data by using appendices , which you should reference throughout your text. When you reference, make sure that you include both the name/number of the appendix , as well as the line(s) from which you drew your data.

As referencing styles can vary greatly, be sure to look up the appendix referencing conventions of your university’s prescribed style (e.g. APA , Harvard, etc) and keep this consistent throughout your chapter.

Section 3: Concluding summary

The concluding summary is very important because it summarises your key findings and lays the foundation for the discussion chapter . Keep in mind that some readers may skip directly to this section (from the introduction section), so make sure that it can be read and understood well in isolation.

In this section, you need to remind the reader of the key findings. That is, the results that directly relate to your research questions and that you will build upon in your discussion chapter. Remember, your reader has digested a lot of information in this chapter, so you need to use this section to remind them of the most important takeaways.

Importantly, the concluding summary should not present any new information and should only describe what you’ve already presented in your chapter. Keep it concise – you’re not summarising the whole chapter, just the essentials.

Tips for writing an A-grade results chapter

Now that you’ve got a clear picture of what the qualitative results chapter is all about, here are some quick tips and reminders to help you craft a high-quality chapter:

• Your results chapter should be written in the past tense . You’ve done the work already, so you want to tell the reader what you found , not what you are currently finding .
• Make sure that you review your work multiple times and check that every claim is adequately backed up by evidence . Aim for at least two examples per claim, and make use of an appendix to reference these.
• When writing up your results, make sure that you stick to only what is relevant . Don’t waste time on data that are not relevant to your research objectives and research questions.
• Use headings and subheadings to create an intuitive, easy to follow piece of writing. Make use of Microsoft Word’s “heading styles” and be sure to use them consistently.
• When referring to numerical data, tables and figures can provide a useful visual aid. When using these, make sure that they can be read and understood independent of your body text (i.e. that they can stand-alone). To this end, use clear, concise labels for each of your tables or figures and make use of colours to code indicate differences or hierarchy.
• Similarly, when you’re writing up your chapter, it can be useful to highlight topics and themes in different colours . This can help you to differentiate between your data if you get a bit overwhelmed and will also help you to ensure that your results flow logically and coherently.

If you have any questions, leave a comment below and we’ll do our best to help. If you’d like 1-on-1 help with your results chapter (or any chapter of your dissertation or thesis), check out our private dissertation coaching service here or book a free initial consultation to discuss how we can help you.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

21 Comments

This was extremely helpful. Thanks a lot guys

Hi, thanks for the great research support platform created by the gradcoach team!

I wanted to ask- While “suggests” or “implies” are interpretive terms, what terms could we use for the results chapter? Could you share some examples of descriptive terms?

I think that instead of saying, ‘The data suggested, or The data implied,’ you can say, ‘The Data showed or revealed, or illustrated or outlined’…If interview data, you may say Jane Doe illuminated or elaborated, or Jane Doe described… or Jane Doe expressed or stated.

I found this article very useful. Thank you very much for the outstanding work you are doing.

What if i have 3 different interviewees answering the same interview questions? Should i then present the results in form of the table with the division on the 3 perspectives or rather give a results in form of the text and highlight who said what?

I think this tabular representation of results is a great idea. I am doing it too along with the text. Thanks

That was helpful was struggling to separate the discussion from the findings

this was very useful, Thank you.

Very helpful, I am confident to write my results chapter now.

It is so helpful! It is a good job. Thank you very much!

Very useful, well explained. Many thanks.

Hello, I appreciate the way you provided a supportive comments about qualitative results presenting tips

I loved this! It explains everything needed, and it has helped me better organize my thoughts. What words should I not use while writing my results section, other than subjective ones.

Thanks a lot, it is really helpful

Thank you so much dear, i really appropriate your nice explanations about this.

Thank you so much for this! I was wondering if anyone could help with how to prproperly integrate quotations (Excerpts) from interviews in the finding chapter in a qualitative research. Please GradCoach, address this issue and provide examples.

what if I’m not doing any interviews myself and all the information is coming from case studies that have already done the research.

Very helpful thank you.

This was very helpful as I was wondering how to structure this part of my dissertation, to include the quotes… Thanks for this explanation

This is very helpful, thanks! I am required to write up my results chapters with the discussion in each of them – any tips and tricks for this strategy?

For qualitative studies, can the findings be structured according to the Research questions? Thank you.

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.

• Print Friendly

Chapter 4. Finding a Research Question and Approaches to Qualitative Research

We’ve discussed the research design process in general and ways of knowing favored by qualitative researchers.  In chapter 2, I asked you to think about what interests you in terms of a focus of study, including your motivations and research purpose.  It might be helpful to start this chapter with those short paragraphs you wrote about motivations and purpose in front of you.  We are now going to try to develop those interests into actual research questions (first part of this chapter) and then choose among various “traditions of inquiry” that will be best suited to answering those questions.  You’ve already been introduced to some of this (in chapter 1), but we will go further here.

Developing a Research Question

Research questions are different from general questions people have about the social world.  They are narrowly tailored to fit a very specific issue, complete with context and time boundaries.  Because we are engaged in empirical science and thus use “data” to answer our questions, the questions we ask must be answerable by data.  A question is not the same as stating a problem.  The point of the entire research project is to answer a particular question or set of questions.  The question(s) should be interesting, relevant, practical, and ethical.  Let’s say I am generally interested in the problem of student loan debt.  That’s a good place to start, but we can’t simply ask,

General question: Is student loan debt really a problem today?

How could we possibly answer that question? What data could we use? Isn’t this really an axiological (values-based) question? There are no clues in the question as to what data would be appropriate here to help us get started. Students often begin with these large unanswerable questions. They are not research questions. Instead, we could ask,

Poor research question: How many people have debt?

This is still not a very good research question. Why not? It is answerable, although we would probably want to clarify the context. We could add some context to improve it so that the question now reads,

Mediocre research question: How many people in the US have debt today? And does this amount vary by age and location?

Now we have added some context, so we have a better idea of where to look and who to look at. But this is still a pretty poor or mediocre research question. Why is that? Let’s say we did answer it. What would we really know? Maybe we would find out that student loan debt has increased over time and that young people today have more of it. We probably already know this. We don’t really want to go through a lot of trouble answering a question whose answer we already have. In fact, part of the reason we are even asking this question is that we know (or think) it is a problem. Instead of asking what you already know, ask a question to which you really do not know the answer. I can’t stress this enough, so I will say it again: Ask a question to which you do not already know the answer . The point of research is not to prove or make a point but to find out something unknown. What about student loan debt is still a mystery to you? Reviewing the literature could help (see chapter 9). By reviewing the literature, you can get a good sense of what is still mysterious or unknown about student loan debt, and you won’t be reinventing the wheel when you conduct your research. Let’s say you review the literature, and you are struck by the fact that we still don’t understand the true impact of debt on how people are living their lives. A possible research question might be,

Fair research question: What impact does student debt have on the lives of debtors?

Good start, but we still need some context to help guide the project. It is not nearly specific enough.

Better research question: What impact does student debt have on young adults (ages twenty-five to thirty-five) living in the US today?

Now we’ve added context, but we can still do a little bit better in narrowing our research question so that it is both clear and doable; in other words, we want to frame it in a way that provides a very clear research program:

Optimal research question: How do young adults (ages twenty-five to thirty-five) living in the US today who have taken on $30,000 or more in student debt describe the impact of their debt on their lives in terms of finding/choosing a job, buying a house, getting married, and other major life events?

Now you have a research question that can be answered and a clear plan of how to answer it. You will talk to young adults living in the US today who have high debt loads and ask them to describe the impacts of debt on their lives. That is all now in the research question. Note how different this very specific question is from where we started with the “problem” of student debt.

Take some time practicing turning the following general questions into research questions:

• What can be done about the excessive use of force by police officers?
• Why haven’t societies taken firmer steps to address climate change?
• How do communities react to / deal with the opioid epidemic?
• Who has been the most adversely affected by COVID?
• When did political polarization get so bad?

Hint: Step back from each of the questions and try to articulate a possible underlying motivation, then formulate a research question that is specific and answerable.

It is important to take the time to come up with a research question, even if this research question changes a bit as you conduct your research (yes, research questions can change!). If you don’t have a clear question to start your research, you are likely to get very confused when designing your study because you will not be able to make coherent decisions about things like samples, sites, methods of data collection, and so on. Your research question is your anchor: “If we don’t have a question, we risk the possibility of going out into the field thinking we know what we’ll find and looking only for proof of what we expect to be there. That’s not empirical research (it’s not systematic)” ( Rubin 2021:37 ).

Researcher Note

How do you come up with ideas for what to study?

I study what surprises me. Usually, I come across a statistic that suggests something is common that I thought was rare. I tend to think it’s rare because the theories I read suggest it should be, and there’s not a lot of work in that area that helps me understand how the statistic came to be. So, for example, I learned that it’s common for Americans to marry partners who grew up in a different class than them and that about half of White kids born into the upper-middle class are downwardly mobile. I was so shocked by these facts that they naturally led to research questions. How do people come to marry someone who grew up in a different class? How do White kids born near the top of the class structure fall?

—Jessi Streib, author of The Power of the Past and Privilege Lost

What if you have literally no idea what the research question should be? How do you find a research question? Even if you have an interest in a topic before you get started, you see the problem now: topics and issues are not research questions! A research question doesn’t easily emerge; it takes a lot of time to hone one, as the practice above should demonstrate. In some research designs, the research question doesn’t even get clearly articulated until the end of data collection . More on that later. But you must start somewhere, of course. Start with your chosen discipline. This might seem obvious, but it is often overlooked. There is a reason it is called a discipline. We tend to think of “sociology,” “public health,” and “physics” as so many clusters of courses that are linked together by subject matter, but they are also disciplines in the sense that the study of each focuses the mind in a particular way and for particular ends. For example, in my own field, sociology, there is a loosely shared commitment to social justice and a general “sociological imagination” that enables its practitioners to connect personal experiences to society at large and to historical forces. It is helpful to think of issues and questions that are germane to your discipline. Within that overall field, there may be a particular course or unit of study you found most interesting. Within that course or unit of study, there may be an issue that intrigued you. And finally, within that issue, there may be an aspect or topic that you want to know more about.

When I was pursuing my dissertation research, I was asked often, “Why did you choose to study intimate partner violence among Native American women?” This question is necessary, and each time I answered, it helped shape me into a better researcher. I was interested in intimate partner violence because I am a survivor. I didn’t have intentions to work with a particular population or demographic—that came from my own deep introspection on my role as a researcher. I always questioned my positionality: What privileges do I hold as an academic? How has public health extracted information from institutionally marginalized populations? How can I build bridges between communities using my position, knowledge, and power? Public health as a field would not exist without the contributions of Indigenous people. So I started hanging out with them at community events, making friends, and engaging in self-education. Through these organic relationships built with Native women in the community, I saw that intimate partner violence was a huge issue. This led me to partner with Indigenous organizations to pursue a better understanding of how Native survivors of intimate partner violence seek support.

—Susanna Y. Park, PhD, mixed-methods researcher in public health and author of “How Native Women Seek Support as Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence: A Mixed-Methods Study”

One of the most exciting and satisfying things about doing academic research is that whatever you end up researching can become part of the body of knowledge that we have collectively created. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that you are doing this all on your own from scratch. Without even being aware of it, no matter if you are a first-year undergraduate student or a fourth-year graduate student, you have been trained to think certain questions are interesting. The very fact that you are majoring in a particular field or have signed up for years of graduate study in a program testifies to some level of commitment to a discipline. What we are looking for, ideally, is that your research builds on in some way (as extension, as critique, as lateral move) previous research and so adds to what we, collectively, understand about the social world. It is helpful to keep this in mind, as it may inspire you and also help guide you through the process. The point is, you are not meant to be doing something no one has ever thought of before, even if you are trying to find something that does not exactly duplicate previous research: “You may be trying to be too clever—aiming to come up with a topic unique in the history of the universe, something that will have people swooning with admiration at your originality and intellectual precociousness. Don’t do it. It’s safer…to settle on an ordinary, middle-of-the-road topic that will lend itself to a nicely organized process of project management. That’s the clever way of proceeding.… You can always let your cleverness shine through during the stages of design, analysis, and write-up. Don’t make things more difficult for yourself than you need to do” ( Davies 2007:20 ).

Rubin ( 2021 ) suggests four possible ways to develop a research question (there are many more, of course, but this can get you started). One way is to start with a theory that interests you and then select a topic where you can apply that theory. For example, you took a class on gender and society and learned about the “glass ceiling.” You could develop a study that tests that theory in a setting that has not yet been explored—maybe leadership at the Oregon Country Fair. The second way is to start with a topic that interests you and then go back to the books to find a theory that might explain it. This is arguably more difficult but often much more satisfying. Ask your professors for help—they might have ideas of theories or concepts that could be relevant or at least give you an idea of what books to read. The third way is to be very clever and select a question that already combines the topic and the theory. Rubin gives as one example sentencing disparities in criminology—this is both a topic and a theory or set of theories. You then just have to figure out particulars like setting and sample. I don’t know if I find this third way terribly helpful, but it might help you think through the possibilities. The fourth way involves identifying a puzzle or a problem, which can be either theoretical (something in the literature just doesn’t seem to make sense and you want to tackle addressing it) or empirical (something happened or is happening, and no one really understands why—think, for example, of mass school shootings).

Once you think you have an issue or topic that is worth exploring, you will need to (eventually) turn that into a good research question. A good research question is specific, clear, and feasible .

Specific . How specific a research question needs to be is somewhat related to the disciplinary conventions and whether the study is conceived inductively or deductively. In deductive research, one begins with a specific research question developed from the literature. You then collect data to test the theory or hypotheses accompanying your research question. In inductive research, however, one begins with data collection and analysis and builds theory from there. So naturally, the research question is a bit vaguer. In general, the more closely aligned to the natural sciences (and thus the deductive approach), the more a very tight and specific research question (along with specific, focused hypotheses) is required. This includes disciplines like psychology, geography, public health, environmental science, and marine resources management. The more one moves toward the humanities pole (and the inductive approach), the more looseness is permitted, as there is a general belief that we go into the field to find what is there, not necessarily what we imagine we are looking for (see figure 4.2). Disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, and gender and sexuality studies and some subdisciplines of public policy/public administration are closer to the humanities pole in this sense.

Regardless of discipline and approach, however, it is a good idea for beginning researchers to create a research question as specific as possible, as this will serve as your guide throughout the process. You can tweak it later if needed, but start with something specific enough that you know what it is you are doing and why. It is more difficult to deal with ambiguity when you are starting out than later in your career, when you have a better handle on what you are doing. Being under a time constraint means the more specific the question, the better. Questions should always specify contexts, geographical locations, and time frames. Go back to your practice research questions and make sure that these are included.

Clear . A clear research question doesn’t only need to be intelligible to any reader (which, of course, it should); it needs to clarify any meanings of particular words or concepts (e.g., What is excessive force?). Check all your concepts to see if there are ways you can clarify them further—for example, note that we shifted from impact of debt to impact of high debt load and specified this as beginning at $30,000. Ideally, we would use the literature to help us clarify what a high debt load is or how to define “excessive” force.

Feasible . In order to know if your question is feasible, you are going to have to think a little bit about your entire research design. For example, a question that asks about the real-time impact of COVID restrictions on learning outcomes would require a time machine. You could tweak the question to ask instead about the long-term impacts of COVID restrictions, as measured two years after their end. Or let’s say you are interested in assessing the damage of opioid abuse on small-town communities across the United States. Is it feasible to cover the entire US? You might need a team of researchers to do this if you are planning on on-the-ground observations. Perhaps a case study of one particular community might be best. Then your research question needs to be changed accordingly.

Here are some things to consider in terms of feasibility:

• Is the question too general for what you actually intend to do or examine? (Are you specifying the world when you only have time to explore a sliver of that world?)
• Is the question suitable for the time you have available? (You will need different research questions for a study that can be completed in a term than one where you have one to two years, as in a master’s program, or even three to eight years, as in a doctoral program.)
• Is the focus specific enough that you know where and how to begin?
• What are the costs involved in doing this study, including time? Will you need to travel somewhere, and if so, how will you pay for it?
• Will there be problems with “access”? (More on this in later chapters, but for now, consider how you might actually find people to interview or places to observe and whether gatekeepers exist who might keep you out.)
• Will you need to submit an application proposal for your university’s IRB (institutional review board)? If you are doing any research with live human subjects, you probably need to factor in the time and potential hassle of an IRB review (see chapter 8). If you are under severe time constraints, you might need to consider developing a research question that can be addressed with secondary sources, online content, or historical archives (see chapters 16 and 17).

In addition to these practicalities, you will also want to consider the research question in terms of what is best for you now. Are you engaged in research because you are required to be—jumping a hurdle for a course or for your degree? If so, you really do want to think about your project as training and develop a question that will allow you to practice whatever data collection and analysis techniques you want to develop. For example, if you are a grad student in a public health program who is interested in eventually doing work that requires conducting interviews with patients, develop a research question and research design that is interview based. Focus on the practicality (and practice) of the study more than the theoretical impact or academic contribution, in other words. On the other hand, if you are a PhD candidate who is seeking an academic position in the future, your research question should be pitched in a way to build theoretical knowledge as well (the phrasing is typically “original contribution to scholarship”).

The more time you have to devote to the study and the larger the project, the more important it is to reflect on your own motivations and goals when crafting a research question (remember chapter 2?). By “your own motivations and goals,” I mean what interests you about the social world and what impact you want your research to have, both academically and practically speaking. Many students have secret (or not-so-secret) plans to make the world a better place by helping address climate change, pointing out pressure points to fight inequities, or bringing awareness to an overlooked area of concern. My own work in graduate school was motivated by the last of these three—the not-so-secret goal of my research was to raise awareness about obstacles to success for first-generation and working-class college students. This underlying goal motivated me to complete my dissertation in a timely manner and then to further continue work in this area and see my research get published. I cared enough about the topic that I was not ready to put it away. I am still not ready to put it away. I encourage you to find topics that you can’t put away, ever. That will keep you going whenever things get difficult in the research process, as they inevitably will.

On the other hand, if you are an undergraduate and you really have very little time, some of the best advice I have heard is to find a study you really like and adapt it to a new context. Perhaps you read a study about how students select majors and how this differs by class ( Hurst 2019 ). You can try to replicate the study on a small scale among your classmates. Use the same research question, but revise for your context. You can probably even find the exact questions I  used and ask them in the new sample. Then when you get to the analysis and write-up, you have a comparison study to guide you, and you can say interesting things about the new context and whether the original findings were confirmed (similar) or not. You can even propose reasons why you might have found differences between one and the other.

Another way of thinking about research questions is to explicitly tie them to the type of purpose of your study. Of course, this means being very clear about what your ultimate purpose is! Marshall and Rossman ( 2016 ) break down the purpose of a study into four categories: exploratory, explanatory, descriptive, and emancipatory ( 78 ). Exploratory purpose types include wanting to investigate little-understood phenomena, or identifying or discovering important new categories of meaning, or generating hypotheses for further research. For these, research questions might be fairly loose: What is going on here? How are people interacting on this site? What do people talk about when you ask them about the state of the world? You are almost (but never entirely) starting from scratch. Be careful though—just because a topic is new to you does not mean it is really new. Someone else (or many other someones) may already have done this exploratory research. Part of your job is to find this out (more on this in “What Is a ‘Literature Review’?” in chapter 9). Descriptive purposes (documenting and describing a phenomenon) are similar to exploratory purposes but with a much clearer goal (description). A good research question for a descriptive study would specify the actions, events, beliefs, attitudes, structures, and/or processes that will be described.

Most researchers find that their topic has already been explored and described, so they move to trying to explain a relationship or phenomenon. For these, you will want research questions that capture the relationships of interest. For example, how does gender influence one’s understanding of police brutality (because we already know from the literature that it does, so now we are interested in understanding how and why)? Or what is the relationship between education and climate change denialism? If you find that prior research has already provided a lot of evidence about those relationships as well as explanations for how they work, and you want to move the needle past explanation into action, you might find yourself trying to conduct an emancipatory study. You want to be even more clear in acknowledging past research if you find yourself here. Then create a research question that will allow you to “create opportunities and the will to engage in social action” ( Marshall and Rossman 2016:78 ). Research questions might ask, “How do participants problematize their circumstances and take positive social action?” If we know that some students have come together to fight against student debt, how are they doing this, and with what success? Your purpose would be to help evaluate possibilities for social change and to use your research to make recommendations for more successful emancipatory actions.

Recap: Be specific. Be clear. Be practical. And do what you love.

Choosing an Approach or Tradition

Qualitative researchers may be defined as those who are working with data that is not in numerical form, but there are actually multiple traditions or approaches that fall under this broad category. I find it useful to know a little bit about the history and development of qualitative research to better understand the differences in these approaches. The following chart provides an overview of the six phases of development identified by Denzin and Lincoln ( 2005 ):

Table 4.1. Six Phases of Development

There are other ways one could present the history as well. Feminist theory and methodologies came to the fore in the 1970s and 1980s and had a lot to do with the internal critique of more positivist approaches. Feminists were quite aware that standpoint matters—that the identity of the researcher plays a role in the research, and they were ardent supporters of dismantling unjust power systems and using qualitative methods to help advance this mission. You might note, too, that many of the internal disputes were basically epistemological disputes about how we know what we know and whether one’s social location/position delimits that knowledge. Today, we are in a bountiful world of qualitative research, one that embraces multiple forms of knowing and knowledge. This is good, but it means that you, the student, have more choice when it comes to situating your study and framing your research question, and some will expect you to signal the choices you have made in any research protocols you write or publications and presentations.

Creswell’s ( 1998 ) definition of qualitative research includes the notion of distinct traditions of inquiry: “Qualitative research is an inquiry process of understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that explore a social or human problem. The research builds complex,   holistic pictures, analyzes words, reports detailed views of informants , and conducted the study in a natural setting” (15; emphases added). I usually caution my students against taking shelter under one of these approaches, as, practically speaking, there is a lot of mixing of traditions among researchers. And yet it is useful to know something about the various histories and approaches, particularly as you are first starting out. Each tradition tends to favor a particular epistemological perspective (see chapter 3), a way of reasoning (see “ Advanced: Inductive versus Deductive Reasoning ”), and a data-collection technique.

There are anywhere from ten to twenty “traditions of inquiry,” depending on how one draws the boundaries. In my accounting, there are twelve, but three approaches tend to dominate the field.

Ethnography

Ethnography was developed from the discipline of anthropology, as the study of (other) culture(s). From a relatively positivist/objective approach to writing down the “truth” of what is observed during the colonial era (where this “truth” was then often used to help colonial administrators maintain order and exploit people and extract resources more effectively), ethnography was adopted by all kinds of social science researchers to get a better understanding of how groups of people (various subcultures and cultures) live their lives. Today, ethnographers are more likely to be seeking to dismantle power relations than to support them. They often study groups of people that are overlooked and marginalized, and sometimes they do the obverse by demonstrating how truly strange the familiar practices of the dominant group are. Ethnography is also central to organizational studies (e.g., How does this institution actually work?) and studies of education (e.g., What is it like to be a student during the COVID era?).

Ethnographers use methods of participant observation and intensive fieldwork in their studies, often living or working among the group under study for months at a time (and, in some cases, years). I’ve called this “deep ethnography,” and it is the subject of chapter 14. The data ethnographers analyze are copious “field notes” written while in the field, often supplemented by in-depth interviews and many more casual conversations. The final product of ethnographers is a “thick” description of the culture. This makes reading ethnographies enjoyable, as the goal is to write in such a way that the reader feels immersed in the culture.

There are variations on the ethnography, such as the autoethnography , where the researcher uses a systematic and rigorous study of themselves to better understand the culture in which they find themselves. Autoethnography is a relatively new approach, even though it is derived from one of the oldest approaches. One can say that it takes to heart the feminist directive to “make the personal political,” to underscore the connections between personal experiences and larger social and political structures. Introspection becomes the primary data source.

Grounded Theory

Grounded Theory holds a special place in qualitative research for a few reasons, not least of which is that nonqualitative researchers often mistakenly believe that Grounded Theory is the only qualitative research methodology . Sometimes, it is easier for students to explain what they are doing as “Grounded Theory” because it sounds “more scientific” than the alternative descriptions of qualitative research. This is definitely part of its appeal. Grounded Theory is the name given to the systematic inductive approach first developed by Glaser and Strauss in 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research . Too few people actually read Glaser and Strauss’s book. It is both groundbreaking and fairly unremarkable at the same time. As a historical intervention into research methods generally, it is both a sharp critique of positivist methods in the social sciences (theory testing) and a rejection of purely descriptive accounts-building qualitative research. Glaser and Strauss argued for an approach whose goal was to construct (middle-level) theories from recursive data analysis of nonnumerical data (interviews and observations). They advocated a “constant comparative method” in which coding and analysis take place simultaneously and recursively. The demands are fairly strenuous. If done correctly, the result is the development of a new theory about the social world.

So why do I call this “fairly unremarkable”? To some extent, all qualitative research already does what Glaser and Strauss ( 1967 ) recommend, albeit without denoting the processes quite so specifically. As will be seen throughout the rest of this textbook, all qualitative research employs some “constant comparisons” through recursive data analyses. Where Grounded Theory sets itself apart from a significant number of qualitative research projects, however, is in its dedication to inductively building theory. Personally, I think it is important to understand that Glaser and Strauss were rejecting deductive theory testing in sociology when they first wrote their book. They were part of a rising cohort who rejected the positivist mathematical approaches that were taking over sociology journals in the 1950s and 1960s. Here are some of the comments and points they make against this kind of work:

Accurate description and verification are not so crucial when one’s purpose is to generate theory. ( 28 ; further arguing that sampling strategies are different when one is not trying to test a theory or generalize results)

Illuminating perspectives are too often suppressed when the main emphasis is verifying theory. ( 40 )

Testing for statistical significance can obscure from theoretical relevance. ( 201 )

Instead, they argued, sociologists should be building theories about the social world. They are not physicists who spend time testing and refining theories. And they are not journalists who report descriptions. What makes sociologists better than journalists and other professionals is that they develop theory from their work “In their driving efforts to get the facts [research sociologists] tend to forget that the distinctive offering of sociology to our society is sociological theory, not research description” ( 30–31 ).

Grounded Theory’s inductive approach can be off-putting to students who have a general research question in mind and a working hypothesis. The true Grounded Theory approach is often used in exploratory studies where there are no extant theories. After all, the promise of this approach is theory generation, not theory testing. Flying totally free at the start can be terrifying. It can also be a little disingenuous, as there are very few things under the sun that have not been considered before. Barbour ( 2008:197 ) laments that this approach is sometimes used because the researcher is too lazy to read the relevant literature.

To summarize, Glaser and Strauss justified the qualitative research project in a way that gave it standing among the social sciences, especially vis-à-vis quantitative researchers. By distinguishing the constant comparative method from journalism, Glaser and Strauss enabled qualitative research to gain legitimacy.

So what is it exactly, and how does one do it? The following stages provide a succinct and basic overview, differentiating the portions that are similar to/in accordance with qualitative research methods generally and those that are distinct from the Grounded Theory approach:

Step 1. Select a case, sample, and setting (similar—unless you begin with a theory to test!).

Step 2. Begin data collection (similar).

Step 3. Engage data analysis (similar in general but specificity of details somewhat unique to Grounded Theory): (1) emergent coding (initial followed by focused), (2) axial (a priori) coding , (3) theoretical coding , (4) creation of theoretical categories; analysis ends when “theoretical saturation ” has been achieved.

Grounded Theory’s prescriptive (i.e., it has a set of rules) framework can appeal to beginning students, but it is unnecessary to adopt the entire approach in order to make use of some of its suggestions. And if one does not exactly follow the Grounded Theory rulebook, it can mislead others if you tend to call what you are doing Grounded Theory when you are not:

Grounded theory continues to be a misunderstood method, although many researchers purport to use it. Qualitative researchers often claim to conduct grounded theory studies without fully understanding or adopting its distinctive guidelines. They may employ one or two of the strategies or mistake qualitative analysis for grounded theory. Conversely, other researchers employ grounded theory methods in reductionist, mechanistic ways. Neither approach embodies the flexible yet systematic mode of inquiry, directed but open-ended analysis, and imaginative theorizing from empirical data that grounded theory methods can foster. Subsequently, the potential of grounded theory methods for generating middle-range theory has not been fully realized ( Charmaz 2014 ).

Phenomenology

Where Grounded Theory sets itself apart for its inductive systematic approach to data analysis, phenomenologies are distinct for their focus on what is studied—in this case, the meanings of “lived experiences” of a group of persons sharing a particular event or circumstance. There are phenomenologies of being working class ( Charlesworth 2000 ), of the tourist experience ( Cohen 1979 ), of Whiteness ( Ahmed 2007 ). The phenomenon of interest may also be an emotion or circumstance. One can study the phenomenon of “White rage,” for example, or the phenomenon of arranged marriage.

The roots of phenomenology lie in philosophy (Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre) but have been adapted by sociologists in particular. Phenomenologists explore “how human beings make sense of experience and transform experience into consciousness, both individually and as shared meaning” ( Patton 2002:104 ).

One of the most important aspects of conducting a good phenomenological study is getting the sample exactly right so that each person can speak to the phenomenon in question. Because the researcher is interested in the meanings of an experience, in-depth interviews are the preferred method of data collection. Observations are not nearly as helpful here because people may do a great number of things without meaning to or without being conscious of their implications. This is important to note because phenomenologists are studying not “the reality” of what happens at all but an articulated understanding of a lived experience. When reading a phenomenological study, it is important to keep this straight—too often I have heard students critique a study because the interviewer didn’t actually see how people’s behavior might conflict with what they say (which is, at heart, an epistemological issue!).

In addition to the “big three,” there are many other approaches; some are variations, and some are distinct approaches in their own right. Case studies focus explicitly on context and dynamic interactions over time and can be accomplished with quantitative or qualitative methods or a mixture of both (for this reason, I am not considering it as one of the big three qualitative methods, even though it is a very common approach). Whatever methods are used, a contextualized deep understanding of the case (or cases) is central.

Critical inquiry is a loose collection of techniques held together by a core argument that understanding issues of power should be the focus of much social science research or, to put this another way, that it is impossible to understand society (its people and institutions) without paying attention to the ways that power relations and power dynamics inform and deform those people and institutions. This attention to power dynamics includes how research is conducted too. All research fundamentally involves issues of power. For this reason, many critical inquiry traditions include a place for collaboration between researcher and researched. Examples include (1) critical narrative analysis, which seeks to describe the meaning of experience for marginalized or oppressed persons or groups through storytelling; (2) participatory action research, which requires collaboration between the researcher and the research subjects or community of interest; and (3) critical race analysis, a methodological application of Critical Race Theory (CRT), which posits that racial oppression is endemic (if not always throughout time and place, at least now and here).

Do you follow a particular tradition of inquiry? Why?

Shawn Wilson’s book, Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods , is my holy grail. It really flipped my understanding of research and relationships. Rather than thinking linearly and approaching research in a more canonical sense, Wilson shook my world view by drawing me into a pattern of inquiry that emphasized transparency and relational accountability. The Indigenous research paradigm is applicable in all research settings, and I follow it because it pushes me to constantly evaluate my position as a knowledge seeker and knowledge sharer.

Autoethnography takes the researcher as the subject. This is one approach that is difficult to explain to more quantitatively minded researchers, as it seems to violate many of the norms of “scientific research” as understood by them. First, the sample size is quite small—the n is 1, the researcher. Two, the researcher is not a neutral observer—indeed, the subjectivity of the researcher is the main strength of this approach. Autoethnographies can be extremely powerful for their depth of understanding and reflexivity, but they need to be conducted in their own version of rigor to stand up to scrutiny by skeptics. If you are skeptical, read one of the excellent published examples out there—I bet you will be impressed with what you take away. As they say, the proof is in the pudding on this approach.

Advanced: Inductive versus Deductive Reasoning

There has been a great deal of ink shed in the discussion of inductive versus deductive approaches, not all of it very instructive. Although there is a huge conceptual difference between them, in practical terms, most researchers cycle between the two, even within the same research project. The simplest way to explain the difference between the two is that we are using deductive reasoning when we test an existing theory (move from general to particular), and we are using inductive reasoning when we are generating theory (move from particular to general). Figure 4.2 provides a schematic of the deductive approach. From the literature, we select a theory about the impact of student loan debt: student loan debt will delay homeownership among young adults. We then formulate a hypothesis based on this theory: adults in their thirties with high debt loads will be less likely to own homes than their peers who do not have high debt loads. We then collect data to test the hypothesis and analyze the results. We find that homeownership is substantially lower among persons of color and those who were the first in their families to graduate from college. Notably, high debt loads did not affect homeownership among White adults whose parents held college degrees. We thus refine the theory to match the new findings: student debt loads delay homeownership among some young adults, thereby increasing inequalities in this generation. We have now contributed new knowledge to our collective corpus.

The inductive approach is contrasted in figure 4.3. Here, we did not begin with a preexisting theory or previous literature but instead began with an observation. Perhaps we were conducting interviews with young adults who held high amounts of debt and stumbled across this observation, struck by how many were renting apartments or small houses. We then noted a pattern—not all the young adults we were talking to were renting; race and class seemed to play a role here. We would then probably expand our study in a way to be able to further test this developing theory, ensuring that we were not seeing anomalous patterns. Once we were confident about our observations and analyses, we would then develop a theory, coming to the same place as our deductive approach, but in reverse.

A third form of reasoning, abductive (sometimes referred to as probabilistic reasoning) was developed in the late nineteenth century by American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce. I have included some articles for further reading for those interested.

Among social scientists, the deductive approach is often relaxed so that a research question is set based on the existing literature rather than creating a hypothesis or set of hypotheses to test. Some journals still require researchers to articulate hypotheses, however. If you have in mind a publication, it is probably a good idea to take a look at how most articles are organized and whether specific hypotheses statements are included.

Table 4.2. Twelve Approaches. Adapted from Patton 2002:132-133.

Further Readings

The following readings have been examples of various approaches or traditions of inquiry:

Ahmed, Sara. 2007. “A Phenomenology of Whiteness.” Feminist Theory 8(2):149–168.

Charlesworth, Simon. 2000. A Phenomenology of Working-Class Experience . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.*

Clandinin, D. Jean, and F. Michael Connelly. 2000. Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, E. 1979. “A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences.” Sociology 13(2):179–201.

Cooke, Bill, and Uma Kothari, eds. 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed Books. A critique of participatory action.

Corbin, Juliet, and Anselm Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory . 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Crabtree, B. F., and W. L. Miller, eds. 1999. Doing Qualitative Research: Multiple Strategies . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Creswell, John W. 1997. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research . New York: Aldine.

Gobo, Giampetro, and Andrea Molle. 2008. Doing Ethnography . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Hancock, Dawson B., and Bob Algozzine. 2016. Doing Case Study Research: A Practical Guide for Beginning Research . 3rd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

Harding, Sandra. 1987. Feminism and Methodology . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Husserl, Edmund. (1913) 2017. Ideas: Introduction to Pure Phenomenology . Eastford, CT: Martino Fine Books.

Rose, Gillian. 2012. Visual Methodologies . 3rd ed. London: SAGE.

Van der Riet, M. 2009. “Participatory Research and the Philosophy of Social Science: Beyond the Moral Imperative.” Qualitative Inquiry 14(4):546–565.

Van Manen, Max. 1990. Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy . Albany: State University of New York.

Wortham, Stanton. 2001. Narratives in Action: A Strategy for Research and Analysis . New York: Teachers College Press.

Inductive, Deductive, and Abductive Reasoning and Nomothetic Science in General

Aliseda, Atocha. 2003. “Mathematical Reasoning vs. Abductive Reasoning: A Structural Approach.” Synthese 134(1/2):25–44.

Bonk, Thomas. 1997. “Newtonian Gravity, Quantum Discontinuity and the Determination of Theory by Evidence.” Synthese 112(1):53–73. A (natural) scientific discussion of inductive reasoning.

Bonnell, Victoria E. 1980. “The Uses of Theory, Concepts and Comparison in Historical Sociology.” C omparative Studies in Society and History 22(2):156–173.

Crane, Mark, and Michael C. Newman. 1996. “Scientific Method in Environmental Toxicology.” Environmental Reviews 4(2):112–122.

Huang, Philip C. C., and Yuan Gao. 2015. “Should Social Science and Jurisprudence Imitate Natural Science?” Modern China 41(2):131–167.

Mingers, J. 2012. “Abduction: The Missing Link between Deduction and Induction. A Comment on Ormerod’s ‘Rational Inference: Deductive, Inductive and Probabilistic Thinking.’” Journal of the Operational Research Society 63(6):860–861.

Ormerod, Richard J. 2010. “Rational Inference: Deductive, Inductive and Probabilistic Thinking.” Journal of the Operational Research Society 61(8):1207–1223.

Perry, Charner P. 1927. “Inductive vs. Deductive Method in Social Science Research.” Southwestern Political and Social Science Quarterly 8(1):66–74.

Plutynski, Anya. 2011. “Four Problems of Abduction: A Brief History.” HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 1(2):227–248.

Thompson, Bruce, and Gloria M. Borrello. 1992. “Different Views of Love: Deductive and Inductive Lines of Inquiry.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 1(5):154–156.

Tracy, Sarah J. 2012. “The Toxic and Mythical Combination of a Deductive Writing Logic for Inductive Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Communication Research 1(1):109–141.

A place or collection containing records, documents, or other materials of historical interest; most universities have an archive of material related to the university’s history, as well as other “special collections” that may be of interest to members of the community.

A person who introduces the researcher to a field site’s culture and population.  Also referred to as guides.  Used in ethnography .

A form of research and a methodological tradition of inquiry in which the researcher uses self-reflection and writing to explore personal experiences and connect this autobiographical story to wider cultural, political, and social meanings and understandings.  “Autoethnography is a research method that uses a researcher's personal experience to describe and critique cultural beliefs, practices, and experiences” ( Adams, Jones, and Ellis 2015 ).

The philosophical framework in which research is conducted; the approach to “research” (what practices this entails, etc.).  Inevitably, one’s epistemological perspective will also guide one’s methodological choices, as in the case of a constructivist who employs a Grounded Theory approach to observations and interviews, or an objectivist who surveys key figures in an organization to find out how that organization is run.  One of the key methodological distinctions in social science research is that between quantitative and qualitative research.

The process of labeling and organizing qualitative data to identify different themes and the relationships between them; a way of simplifying data to allow better management and retrieval of key themes and illustrative passages.  See coding frame and  codebook.

A later stage coding process used in Grounded Theory in which data is reassembled around a category, or axis.

A later stage-coding process used in Grounded Theory in which key words or key phrases capture the emergent theory.

The point at which you can conclude data collection because every person you are interviewing, the interaction you are observing, or content you are analyzing merely confirms what you have already noted.  Achieving saturation is often used as the justification for the final sample size.

A methodological tradition of inquiry that focuses on the meanings held by individuals and/or groups about a particular phenomenon (e.g., a “phenomenology of whiteness” or a “phenomenology of first-generation college students”).  Sometimes this is referred to as understanding “the lived experience” of a particular group or culture.  Interviews form the primary tool of data collection for phenomenological studies.  Derived from the German philosophy of phenomenology (Husserl 1913; 2017).

The number of individuals (or units) included in your sample

A form of reasoning which employs a “top-down” approach to drawing conclusions: it begins with a premise or hypothesis and seeks to verify it (or disconfirm it) with newly collected data.  Inferences are made based on widely accepted facts or premises.  Deduction is idea-first, followed by observations and a conclusion.  This form of reasoning is often used in quantitative research and less often in qualitative research.  Compare to inductive reasoning .  See also abductive reasoning .

A form of reasoning that employs a “bottom-up” approach to drawing conclusions: it begins with the collection of data relevant to a particular question and then seeks to build an argument or theory based on an analysis of that data.  Induction is observation first, followed by an idea that could explain what has been observed.  This form of reasoning is often used in qualitative research and seldom used in qualitative research.  Compare to deductive reasoning .  See also abductive reasoning .

An “interpretivist” form of reasoning in which “most likely” conclusions are drawn, based on inference.  This approach is often used by qualitative researchers who stress the recursive nature of qualitative data analysis.  Compare with deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning .

A form of social science research that generally follows the scientific method as established in the natural sciences.  In contrast to idiographic research , the nomothetic researcher looks for general patterns and “laws” of human behavior and social relationships.  Once discovered, these patterns and laws will be expected to be widely applicable.  Quantitative social science research is nomothetic because it seeks to generalize findings from samples to larger populations.  Most qualitative social science research is also nomothetic, although generalizability is here understood to be theoretical in nature rather than statistical .  Some qualitative researchers, however, espouse the idiographic research paradigm instead.

Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods Copyright © 2023 by Allison Hurst is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• 66 Ogoja Road, Abakaliki, Ebonyi State 23480 NG.
• Sun - Fri 24Hours Saturday CLOSED
• support [@] writersking.com
• +23480-6075-5653 Hot Line

• Data Collection/Analysis
• Hire Proposal Writers
• Hire Essay Writers
• Hire Paper Writers
• Proofreading Services
• Thesis/Dissertation Writers
• Virtual Supervisor
• Turnitin Checker
• Book Chapter Writer
• Hire Business Writing Services
• Hire Blog Writers
• Writers King TV
• Proposal Sample
• Chapter 1-3 Sample
• Term Paper Sample
• Report Assignment Sample
• Course work Sample
• Payment Options
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service/Use

• Business Guide
• Academic Writing Guide
• General Writing Guide
• Research News
• Writing Paper Samples

How to write chapter 4 Research findings

• April 20, 2022
• Posted by: IGBAJI UGABI
• Category: Academic Writing Guide

Chapter 4 for Qualitative Research carries different titles such as ‘Analysis of Data’, ‘Results of Study’, ‘Analysis and Results’ and so forth. The keywords are ‘analysis’ and ‘results’ which implies that you have ‘analyzed’ the raw data and are presenting the ‘results’ or what you discovered in the fieldwork carried out, in this Chapter.

Content Outline

Students always find it difficult to document their findings. Chapter four is the heart of your work. Sometimes,  supervisors don’t start the reading of your work from chapter one, they jump to chapter four because that is the chapter that tells your reader all that you did, the instrument you used, how you analyzed your data and finally your findings.

Read Also: How to write Research Methodology – chapter three (3) of a research project

Hence, a well written/organized chapter four is all you need to present a convincing result.

Think about these common errors

You have spent so much time collecting and analyzing data but do a poor job of reporting the results. You may under-report despite having collected large amounts of data.

Alternatively, after collecting all the data, your presentation of the results lack organization and clarity.

Your reader struggles to try to figure out what you have written in this Chapter.

You may have done a good job writing Chapter 1, Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 with such clarity and make a mess of Chapter 4.

You’ve just wasted your precious time and possibly the cost of compiling the chapter.

Your Chapter 4 should ‘stand-alone’ what does this mean?

This means that you could ask a friend to read it and s/he would understand what you discovered in your study without having to read Chapters 1 to 3.

Recommended: Guidelines for writing a literature review

For you to achieve this, your chapter four should be aligned to the purpose of the study, the research questions, why the study was important, how it connects to the underlying theories, literature review and reflective of the conceptual framework. Chapter 4 is the culmination of your study and represents your best thinking and how you answered the research question you had formulated/stated in chapter one of the research project.

The researcher should begin this chapter with two or three introductory paragraphs. A transition from chapter three is very important too. The researcher should also provide a very brief review of the overall research design.

It is not necessary to list all of the secondary questions and hypotheses at the beginning of the chapter, but the introductory section of the chapter should focus the reader’s attention on the primary research question and hypothesis.

Don’t border detailing everything, the bulk of the chapter will consist of the presentation of findings for the secondary questions and hypotheses set forth in Chapter 3.

How to write chapter 4 Research findings – Outline for Chapter Four

• Introduction to the Chapter.
• A transition from chapter three. (Very important)
• Provide a brief overview of the research project: like I stated earlier, chapter four should be able to stand alone, this means it should be presented in such a way that one can read it and understand everything about your study, this means that a BRIEF overview of the research project is very important in this chapter.
• Describe the purpose of the chapter.
• Explain the organization of the chapter.
• Data Analyses and Presentation of the Findings: this is the heart of this chapter, the presentation of the findings should be very concise and clear, make sure that you present it in such a way that even a layman can understand it.
•  State null hypothesis.
• Present the statistical results in a table.
• Draw statistical conclusions for accepted and rejected hypotheses.
• Draw a preliminary research conclusion
• Conclusion and Transition to Chapter Five

Do not forget to chat us or call/WhatsApp us on 08060755653

Dissertation Components – Meaning, forms/types, and 12 components of a Dissertation

Catchy Book Introduction -3 important steps to Writing a Catchy Introduction for your Book

Writing chapter 4 on comparative literary analysis of 20th and 21st century feminist literature scope. A study of Mariam BA’s so long a letter and Mona eltahawy ‘s seven necessary sins for women and girls.

Leave a Reply

Find Us Today

Writers King LTD,  Akachukwu Plaza, 

66 Ogoja Road Abakaliki,  Ebonyi State, 

480101 Nigeria

Phone: 0806-075-5653

• Website: https://writersking.com/
• Email: support {@} writersking.com
• +2348060755653

Quick Links

Writing guide.