Reseach Notes

Module 1
Choose your topics
What to write in thesis?

Some methods:
1. Problem or recent development in a field
2. Apply existing ideas or models to a new or different context
3. Investigate an existing belief or assumption
4. Combine complementary fields of study
5. It is important to assess your ideas by asking questions about feasibility, access to data etc. and
getting feedback from a supervisor or other academics
6. Your best idea can be refined into a research question, which is the question your research is
designed to answer.
FINDING CURRENT PROBLEMS OR DEVELOPMENT
 interventions to improve sleep

 poor student behaviour in schools
 longer-lasting battery power
 workforce retention of nurses and doctors
 invasive animal species
 mental health issues from isolation
All of these are problems in different fields of study. It may not
necessarily be the case that your thesis is going to solve that problem,
but it may help us to better understand the problem, or help to
determine which actions or interventions may be effective
Current developments as thesis ideas
In addition to problems, it is also worth considering current

developments that influence what is important in the field.
Current developments in any field occur for a variety of reasons, but could be
caused by sociological changes, new political environments, technological
advancements or public shifts in attitudes. Other examples of current
developments include:
o the effect of digital devices on student learning

o mental health issues from COVID-related lockdowns
o the use of artificial intelligence in text and image production
o economic stability in countries affected by war or natural disaster
o the transition from petrol to electric cars
These developments are events and transformations that are
happening now, sometimes for the first time in history. As a result, these
developments often have unique characteristics or create new territories
that have not been explored by researchers before
Ways to find problems or current developments
There are plenty of ways to identify problems current issues for your
discipline. These might include:
1. Reading a meta-analysis or detailed review of a research area
This is probably the best way to get ideas for a thesis. Due to advances in the
way we can collect research findings across multiple studies, meta-analyses,
systematic reviews or bibliometric reviews are becoming increasingly popular
in many disciplines. These studies aggregate research trends and topics
within a discipline to find the most popular or researched topics in a field,
summarise their main findings, and often point to future areas of research that
need more attention. Consider this systematic review and meta-analysis
on COVID-19, or this bibliometric analysis of the use of personal
protective equipment in COVID-19 related research.
2. Checking calls for papers for journals or conferences in your discipline area
Conferences are places where researchers come together to share research

on a particular topic. Often, when asking for participants, conferences will list
the themes of interest on their website, and you could use any of these for
inspiration. Check out this example from a conference in applied linguistics,
which lists potential topics researchers can tackle.
3. Asking a prospective supervisor what they are working on
Often, students only see their supervisors as teachers, and not necessarily as
researchers. However, checking the latest five publications of your supervisor
is a good way to see what they are working on and find interesting. You can
then build your idea around that topic.
4. Considering your own career intentions for after you complete your thesis
We know that many students enrol into research degree programs without
knowing what they will end up doing after graduation. However, by being
proactive in thinking about your future plans, you can then shape your
research ideas to match. This will help you both in your studies (as it will
provide a greater sense of meaning and purpose to your research) and in your
future career.
5. Going outside academia
There is sometimes a gap between what university academics think is

important, and what those actually working in a discipline feel are important.
For example, if your plan is to write a thesis in high school education, perhaps
ask teachers who you know what issues they consider to be important.
Likewise, if you intend to work in the engineering sector, consider e-mailing
other engineers to see what they might want to do. This could lead to fruitful
industry partnerships or job opportunities later on.
EXPLORING NEW CONTEXTS
Limitations of existing models
When considering which idea or model to apply to a new context, it's important to keep
in mind that a lot of existing research has only been conducted in a single setting. It's
not always clear whether the ideas or models that researchers develop in one context
will hold up in other cultures, conditions or environments. This presents an opportunity
for you to address a research gap and contribute to the field.
One of the benefits of applying a current model to a new context is that the existing
literature will immediately provide you with a large bank of research on which to draw for
your literature review. But be careful! If the model is a widely-cited or popular one, you
will want to search the existing literature thoroughly to ensure that your particular idea
has not already been explored.
1. What type of review should I write?
Unlike the earlier parts of the introduction that we have just considered, there
is no fixed structure for a literature review. The way in which you write your
review will depend heavily on your topic and the current state of research in
the field, as well as on your personal view about how the review should be
constructed.
To deal with this ambiguity, you ask three key questions of yourself. The first
is, "What type of literature review should I write?"
TYPES OF LITERATURE REVIEW
Option 1: Traditional literature review
A traditional (or narrative) literature review is an overview of the significant

literature on a topic. It demonstrates the writer's knowledge of the topic, and
typically includes a critical analysis of the sources that are included. Most
reviews that you will have seen or read in journal articles are of this kind.
One of the key distinguishing features of a traditional review is that you use
your own personal judgment to decide which literature is included or
excluded from the review. As a result, two writers writing about the same
research question could come up with reviews that cover slightly different
literature. What is included depends on what you believe to be important and
relevant.
Traditional literature reviews are highly flexible, and therefore are suited to
most topics and fields of study.
The short paragraphs below illustrate a traditional style literature review.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize education by
personalizing learning, improving instructional design, and increasing
efficiency. Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of AI in
enhancing student performance, particularly in subjects such as math and
language arts. For example, one study (Smith, 2022) found that students who
used a personalized AI tutoring system showed significant improvement in
their math scores compared to those who received traditional instruction.
Additionally, AI can be used to automate time-consuming tasks such as

grading and providing feedback, allowing teachers to spend more time on
individualized instruction. Some researchers have also explored the use of AI
to design personalized curricula based on individual student needs and
learning styles (e.g. Jones, 2021, Brown, 2022).
While there are many potential benefits of AI in education, there are also
concerns about its potential negative impact. For example, there is the risk of
AI systems reinforcing existing biases and unequal educational opportunities
(see Emmet, 2019). Additionally, there are ethical considerations surrounding
the use of AI in education, such as the need for transparency and
accountability in the development and deployment of AI systems (Johnson,
2020).
Option 2: Systematic literature review
In contrast, a systematic literature review is a comprehensive, detailed

analysis of all research studies on a particular research question. This type of
review is becoming increasingly popular in published research, which may
have flow-on effects to the production of theses.
A systematic review has explicit criteria for deciding which studies are
included and excluded. The means by which the writer located, filtered and
selected the relevant studies for inclusion are clearly stated for the reader. It is
common in this type of study to list which databases were used, how big the
initial "pool" of studies was, and how this was progressively narrowed down to
the included studies. It is also common to include tables that provide a brief
synthesis of the findings of the included studies.
Systematic reviews are generally used in situations where there is a large

amount of existing research on a topic, and an objective process is needed
to summarise current state of knowledge and select the best and most
relevant studies for inclusion.
The example below illustrates the systematic style of review.
A systematic review of the existing literature on AI in education was

conducted to assess the effectiveness of AI in improving student performance
and instructional efficiency. A comprehensive search of electronic databases
was conducted, and strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to
ensure the relevance and quality of the studies included in the review.
The review included a total of 10 studies, which were conducted across

various educational settings and disciplines. The results of the review
indicated that AI has the potential to greatly enhance student performance,
particularly in subjects such as math and language arts (see for example,
Jones, 2019). AI-powered personalized learning systems were found to be
particularly effective in improving student outcomes, and AI-powered grading
and feedback systems were found to significantly increase instructional
efficiency (e.g. Smith, 2020, Brown, 2022).
However, the review also highlighted several concerns surrounding the use of
AI in education, such as the potential for AI systems to reinforce existing
biases and unequal educational opportunities (Kasey, 2019). Additionally,
ethical considerations, such as the need for transparency and accountability in
the development and deployment of AI systems, were also discussed (e.g.
Metcalfe, 2022).
Comparison
The table below shows a summary of the key differences between the two
types of literature review.
Characteristic Narrative Systematic
Scope Presents the significant Presents a comprehensive,

literature, or a sample of systematic search for all the
the literature relevant literature
Search strategy to find Not included Documented

sources
Inclusion/exclusion Not included Documented and defined in

criteria advance
Source quality and May not affect writer's Assessed against criteria to decide
methodology decision to include on inclusion
How included Summary or key points Detailed synthesis of each study

literature is presented only (sometimes in table form)
Interpretation of Influenced by writer's Writer attempts to be unbiased

previous studies beliefs or opinion and objective
How do I choose?
The decision of which type of review to conduct depends on the goal of your
thesis.
In general, if the objective of your literature review is to provide a broad

overview of the existing research on a topic, a traditional review would be
appropriate. On the other hand, if your objective is to answer a very specific
question or to evaluate the strength of evidence on a particular topic in a
field where there have been a large number of studies, a systematic
review may be more suitable.
If your research question is complex, involving many interconnected parts, a

systematic review may not be suitable, as different criteria would be needed
for each of the component parts that you wish to examine. A systematic
review is also not advisable if research on the topic is limited or inconsistent,
as applying stringent criteria may reduce the number of sources you analyse a
figure that is too small for a robust review.
If you are still unsure, consult with your thesis supervisor, or read sources on
your thesis topic to see what style is typically used in the field. If in doubt, a
traditional review is the safest option.
POLL
Which style of literature review do you think will work best for your thesis?
(This is not a commitment!)
Narrative/traditional
Systematic
A mix of both
DECIDING WHAT TO INCLUDE
The second question to ask yourself when planning your literature review
is, "Which literature should I include?"
The problem
One revelation that many people have as they undertake research is

about how much knowledge is out there. (There's a lot!)
As you collect sources for your thesis, perhaps using the reference lists of
those sources to find more sources, the size of your collection can get out of
hand very quickly. This can leave you feeling overwhelmed as you realise
that:
1. You will not have enough time to read all of the literature that is relevant to
your field;
2. The field is not neatly organised like a textbook, but instead messy, uncertain
and sometimes ambiguous;
3. There is no one best way to review the literature for your topic; many different
approaches are possible.
These factors can make it difficult to decide exactly when and where to
stop when collecting sources for your review. The length of your thesis and
the time that you have available are both limited, so it is important to draw the
line somewhere that allows you to finish in time and explore the literature
related to your topic in a focused manner.
Remember your objective
As you prepare to write your review, remember your the goal of a literature
review: To introduce the reader to your research. You are not trying to show
off your knowledge by demonstrating how broad a knowledge base you can
cover; nor are you attempting to teach concepts to your reader. Rather, you
are entering into a professional conversation that is happening within that
field, showing what is known and not known already, and how you can
contribute to this. Thus, your review should stick to what is relevant to your
research.
Filtering your sources
In order to stick to what is relevant, ask yourself the same question

for every source that you come across:
Is this [paper, article, source] directly relevant to my research question?
If the answer is "no", it does not belong in your paper, and therefore it is
probably not worth devoting time to reading it. Set it aside, and move to the
next paper.
This can be hard to do! As a postgraduate researcher, you are likely to be a

curious person who has a desire to know more about things in your field.
But don't lose focus. You have research to produce, and it is important to not
get side-tracked to the point where you lose a sense of direction.
If a source is really interesting, consider dropping it into a folder labelled
"Interesting" for reading at a more convenient time. This will help you to
maintain focus by distinguishing between what is interesting and what
is relevant to your paper.
Question 1
1 point possible (ungraded)
What risks are involved in including sources that are not directly related to
your research question?
the reader may lose interest as the text wanders and has no clear purpose
you may waste time by writing material that is not relevant and that later
needs to be deleted
it may convey to the reader that you are unable to distinguish between
important and unimportant literature
you may feel overwhelmed by trying to cover everything
all of the above
unanswered
Submit
Some problems have options such as save, reset, hints, or show answer. These options follow
the Submit button.
Question 2
In general, when is the best time to assess which literature should be
included in your review?
before writing
during writing
after writing
whenever you feel like it
unanswered
Submit
the Submit button.
3. How should I organise my review?

The third and final important question to ask when planning your
review is, "How will I organise the literature that I am reviewing?"
OPTIONS FOR ORGANISING YOUR REVIEW
When organising your literature review, try to take the perspective of your
reader and consider how they could most easily follow your thoughts as you
guide them through the existing research towards your research question(s).
The two most commonly used options are chronologically and thematically.
1.
Chronological order
A chronological literature review is organised around a sequential
progression of discoveries or events. Such a structure tends to emphasise
how our understanding of a topic or question has changed over time.
A chronological literature review tends to suit situations in which:
(a) you want to provide a historical overview of a particular topic, such as the
way in which particular ideas or models have overtaken others; and/or
(b) the literature that you are reviewing follows a clear timeline, such as the
way that technological advancements in a given field have occured over time.
Thematic order
A thematic literature review is organised around a series of topics or ideas,

rather than the progression of time. In this method, sources (which may be
whole papers, or parts of a paper) tend to be grouped together around themes
that have logical connections to one another.
Thematic reviews tend to suit situations where:
(a) you want to highlight particular models, ideas or findings within a topic,
such as discussing a model and then critques of that model; and/or
(b) the literature that you are reviewing covers a wide range of connected
topics, such as when talking about the interaction between two or more
different disciplines.
Multi-layered structure
It is also possible to present your review as a combination of these two,

nesting one inside the other. For example, you could separate your review
into sections that each cover a different theme, but then look chronologically
within each theme.
When deciding on a large-scale organisational structure for your review,

consider what your objective is, and which option will provide the most logical,
easy-to-follow format for your reader.
POLL
Which type of organisational structure do you think will suit your research
question(s)?
Chronological
Thematic
Using a reference manager (optional)
Before we progress any further, it is first worth considering how you will manage the
many references that are likely to be involved in the production of your literature review.
Writing a thesis is not like writing an undergraduate essay. Although the number of
sources required varies depending on the topic and type of thesis being produced, the
number tends to be quite large. If this is likely to be the case for you, consider
using referencing management software to make the process of writing quicker and
easier.
SETTING UP REFERENCE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE
What does a reference manager do?
A reference management program or app:

1.
1. Keeps track of your references in a central database. This is usually done by importing a
reference file from an article's webpage or a university library webpage for a particular book or
other source, although you can often also do searches from within the program itself. Each
reference can have a PDF or link attached that contains the full text of the article or page. The
program will collect all the necessary details required for in-text citations and for the reference
list at the end of your thesis.
2. Allows you to organise, annotate and search through your references. You can tag your
references and/or put them into folders (such as by topic), add your own notes and annotations,
and perform searches to find key words or terms within your reference collection.
3. Produces citations and a reference list for you. This is perhaps the most time-saving feature.
Most reference managers plug in to Microsoft Word, meaning that your reference database can
be integrated with your thesis document/s. So, when you insert a citation into your thesis, a
corresponding reference will be added to the reference list at the end of your thesis. If you later
decide to remove the citation or find a better one, the program or app will automatically update
the reference list to reflect the sources actually used.
It is a good idea to have the referencing manager installed on the same device as you
will be using to write your thesis, so that the two can "talk" to one another.
How is it better than referencing by hand?
In the long run, it saves time. While it takes an investment of time to learn the program
and import any references you already have, it will save many hours of incredibly
tedious work in the production of the reference list.
It is also more accurate than producing a reference list by hand, as it avoids the need
for you to create a reference list manually. It also reduces the chance of accidentally
missing references (or unintentionally including references whose citations have been
removed during editing).
In addition, you may also wish to consider the benefit of having an extensive database
of sources for future use, after you have finished your thesis. If you are considering
an academic career, or publishing your work, or doing more research in a similar field in
the future, the ability to draw on these resources quickly and easily may be beneficial.
Some academics even share their databases with others to help other researchers save
time.
How much do they cost?
Most universities pay for licenses of reference management software to support their
academic researchers and research students. There should be no cost to you.
However, if your university does not have such licenses, you can use a free program
such as Zotero, EndNote Basic or Mendeley.
Where can I download the software?
If you are using EndNote or another paid program, try searching on your university's
library website in order to get it for free under your university's licensing arrangement.
Training for use of any given program is generally available from the program's website,
or on YouTube, or through your university library. Just ensure that the training you are
watching is using the same version of the program, as some of them update frequently!
Review a reference manager
If you have used a reference management program before and found it helpful (or
didn't), let other learners know what the experience was like for you in the discussion
board below!
Discussion
Topic: Referencing management software / Referencing management software
Hide Discussion
Add a Post
Filter: Sort:
discussion
Reference management tool
This is the first time for me to know about this tool and I'm amazed such thing exist to make our life easier!
1comments
Video: Writing your review
Once you have made the key decisions about: (1) what type of review to write,
(2) which literature to include, and (3) how you will organise the literature that
you are reviewing, it is time to write your literature review.
In the video below and the next few pages, we look at how to go about this
process.
VideO S U M M A R Y – K E Y P O I N T S
For each section (i.e., theme or time period) of your review, do the following
(remember: OCCCC).
o Provide an overview, explaining where the research that follows sits in the
bigger picture and why it is worth discussing
o Categorise your sources into groups, such as for-against, to show that you
understand patterns in the literature and to make things easier to discuss
o Compare and contrast, highlighting similarities and (particularly) differences
between papers or groups of papers; differences help to highlight things that
are not well-understood
o Critically evaluate papers, or the literature as a whole, adding your own
voice and considering the strengths and shortcomings in the current state of
knowledge
o Conclude by bringing together key points discussed in that section.
Use the 5-step guideline for writing

Whether you adopt a chronological, thematic, or mixed structure for your
literature review, your thesis needs to be clearly developed within that
organisational structure. If it is not, your reader may not understand the
points you are trying to make, or may feel that you do not have an adequate
grasp on the relevant literature.
The guidelines below can help you ensure that you are including all of the
relevant information.
WRITING EACH SECTION
1.
In each section, you should do the following five things to help your reader
follow your train of thought.
1. Provide an overview
After reading the opening paragraphs of your introduction, your reader should
have a clear idea of what the purpose of your research is (i.e., to fill a
particular gap). Therefore, when they start reading your literature review (or a
sub-section of it), they want to know how this section is relevant to the
purpose of the research you have outlined in your introduction. In your
overview, you are answering the question, "Why am I reading about
this?". Answering this question allows your reader to understand things like:
o how this particular piece of the literature is connected to other parts of the
literature;
o how long this particular part of the literature has been developing, and how
well-established it is; and
o why it is important to discuss findings from this area for your research
purpose.
2. Categorise sources into groups
Whether you are using an overall chronological or thematic structure for your
review, each section will probably contain many sources. To talk about them
in a way that makes sense, break the sources inside each theme or historical
period into two or more smaller groups that have a key characteristic in
common. For example, sources could be categorised according to:
o whether the authors are for or against a particular idea

o the type of statistical relationship found between variables (positive, negative,
strong, weak, none)
o the environment or setting in which they are conducted
o how influential the sources are in the field
o the methodology or research approach that is employed
o the theoretical framework or perspective taken by the author
o the specific time period in which the sources were produced
o the quality or size of the study conducted
...and so on.
It is important to demonstrate that you can "zoom out" and discuss the larger
trends and patterns in the research, rather than simply repeating the contents
of each paper individually. Broad categorisation makes it easier for your
reader to follow and process what you are saying.
Think of yourself as an experienced mountain walking guide: you have walked

the trail before; you are very familiar with it; and you are able to point out the
key features along the way without getting distracted by minor details. You
also have a clear destination in mind, and the people following you can see
how you are guiding them towards this goal.
3. Compare and contrast sources
In most areas of study, there are few instances where all papers will be in
complete agreement with one another. If they are, you can use this to show
that an idea is well-established and probably does not need further
investigation in the same context.
It is more likely, however, that there will be areas of disagreement, and

instances in which different researchers have approached the same
problem in different ways. This often points to an area of research that is
not well understood, or that is still developing, or where a degree of
uncertainty is still present. This uncertainty provides an opportunity for
additional research (yours!) to improve our understanding of a particular
phenomenon.
4. Critically evaluate the literature

It is important to remember that as a postgraduate researcher, you are
contributing your voice to the existing literature (especially if your thesis result
in a published paper). To do this, and to show why your research is important,
you need to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the literature. This
can be for individual papers, or for the literature as a whole. Strengths will
indicate areas that probably do not need to be researched, while weaknesses
indicate an opportunity for developing the field.
o When discussing strengths, highlight those sources that are best considered
in their arguments, or have the largest or most well-chosen samples, most
convincing in their opinions, or make the greatest impact in their subject
areas.
o When discussing weaknesses, indicate where or how the research that is
relevant to your research question has shortcomings, and point towards how
your research will address this.
Note that it is not necessary (or even desirable) to point out every weakness
in every paper. All research is imperfect in some way, and you would be
writing forever to address all of these imperfections. Instead, focus on any
shortcomings that you intend to address. Doing so makes it much clearer how
you are contributing to the field of study, rather than just criticising it.
5. Conclude by bringing key points together
When you have finished examining a section, you can summarise by:
 reiterate any important points that you have made, preferably with different
phrasing;
 painting an overall picture of the current state of knowledge for that theme or
time period
 explaining how the points raised in your review combine to create a unified
"case" for your research.
Using phrases like "Overall...", "In short...", or "Research in this area has..."
can be useful flags to indicate to the reader that you are making closing
remarks for that section and are ready to transition to the next part of your
review, or the next part of your thesis.
Do I need to include all of the above for every

section?
Not necessarily. Note that this is a general guide only, and will need to be
adjusted for different subject areas and research questions. As you go
through, use your best judgment: If something doesn't fit properly, or causes
you to digress from your objective, don't feel that you must include it.
For example, you may be reviewing a well-established part of the literature

that is directly related to your research question, but you won't be addressing
any weaknesses in your own research. In this case, your evaluation may be
more general and favourable, without giving much (or any) attention to the
weaknesses, since you will not be addressing them.
Or, you may find that a conclusion in a particular section causes an

interruption to the flow of the writing, when you would really prefer to go on
directly and continue building an idea further. In this case, you may wish to
finish with your evaluation, then skip directly to the next part.
In general, be flexible in your approach, while remembering to demonstrate
key skills like categorisation and critical evaluation across your literature
review as a whole.
Question 1
How can you demonstrate to your reader that you understand the
larger patterns that are present in your chosen body of literature?
categorising sources into groups or clusters
comparing and contrasting sources
highlighting strengths and limitations
all of these
unanswered
Submit
the Submit button.
Question 2
Why would it be important to highlight the strengths and limitations of

individual papers, or groups of literature?
it demonstrates the type of critical analysis that is expected of a postgraduate

researcher
it allows gaps in the research to be highlighted more clearly
not all evidence in the literature is equally well-conducted, so some pieces of

evidence are stronger than others
all of these
unanswered
Avoiding common pitfalls
There are some common mistakes that writers make when writing their
literature review. Be sure to look out for these as you write!
MISTAKES TO AVOID
Some mistakes have the potential to make a more detrimental impact on your
thesis than others. Let us consider the more significant types of errors first.
Critical mistakes
These problems in the literature review can result in a poor outcome for your
thesis:
o Not linking the literature review to the objectives of your paper. Your
thesis will have a stated purpose in the introduction (to fill a particular
research gap). If the literature review that follows does not address this
purpose, or it reviews literature that is not related to your stated objective, this
can cause your paper to lose a sense of direction. A reader will quickly see
when things are irrelevant and ask, "Where is this going? Why am I reading
about this? How is this relevant?". As mentioned in the previous section, make
sure that all the sources that you include are directly related to your research
question.
o Failing to organise the review logically and coherently. A disorganised or
difficult-to-follow review gives your reader the impression that you do not have
a good understanding of the literature. It is difficult to show how your research
is going to make a contribution to the existing field of knowledge if that
knowledge has not been presented in an organised way that makes the gap
obvious. Use one of the organisational structures discussed in the previous
part of this module to ensure your writing flows logically and makes your key
points clearly.
o Focusing too much on description instead of analysis. It does not take a
great deal of skill to simply repeat what someone else has said, or even to
paraphrase it; these things can be done by a computer. The skill of writing a
literature review is in being able to synthesise and analyse the literature by
highlighting common arguments or findings, recognising the progression of
ideas, noting similarities and differences, evaluating strengths and
weaknesses, and so on. A review that only describes what others have done
will be superficial and uncritical.
o Inconsistent or incorrect use of citation and referencing. As the literature
review is largely about referring to the work of others, it is important to ensure
that this is done correctly. This includes using a consistent referencing style
for in-text citations and reference lists. (Reference management software can
help with this.) It also means ensuring that your statements are an accurate
representation of the work of others. When you say that, for instance, "Singh
(2019) found x", you should check the original paper (not a secondary source)
to ensure that Singh did in fact say this. Failing to do so risks misrepresenting
the work of others in your paper.
Other common mistakes
In addition to those listed above, there are some other mistakes to avoid:
o Failing to define or explain key terms, especially in cases where definitions

vary within the literature
o Uncritically accepting published findings and the authors' interpretations as
valid, rather than critically examining all aspects of the research design and
analysis conducted
o Not including relevant and up-to-date literature
o Ignoring or neglecting to include important sources that make an important
contribution to the field
o Relying too heavily on a small number of sources
o Failing to consider contrary findings, opposing viewpoints and alternative
interpretations
o Not providing enough context to ensure that the literature can be understood
by the reader
Mistakes like these will be very obvious to experienced reviewers. While it is

possible to recover from a poor literature review, it is not a good idea to start
your thesis in a way that give the marker a poor impression of your paper!
Remember to get feedback
As you plan and write your literature review, you will probably make mistakes
that escape your notice.
Ensure you get feedback from your supervisor (and others, if you can!)
during both the planning and writing process. Ask them to point out any flaws,
weak points, omissions, or problems that they see in your review or your
review plan. Take the feedback on board and use it to improve your writing.
Don't wait until you think that your review is perfect before asking for
feedback; get input and advice along the way. This will save redrafting and
revising later if you are on the wrong track. Two heads are often better than
one!
Utilize lists of useful phrases
Throughout your literature review, you will frequently wish to refer to other
studies, both individually and collectively. On this page, we will consider some
useful phrases and tools that can be used to refer to the work of others.
(Tip: You may want to bookmark this page for sentence starters when you are
writing!)
KEY PHRASES FOR REFERRING TO LITERATURE
When referring to the literature in general
If referring to a group of studies, or to the research that has been conducted in

a field in general terms, present perfect tense (have/has + verb participle) is
recommended. For example:
o The literature on X has highlighted several…

o A large and growing body of literature has investigated…
o Previous research findings into X have been inconsistent and
contradictory (Smith, 2020; …).
o The academic literature on X has revealed the emergence of several
contrasting themes.
Simple present tense can also be used. For instance:

o Different theories exist in the literature regarding…
o Much of the current literature on X pays particular attention to…
o There is a large volume of published studies describing the role of…
o The existing literature on X is extensive and focuses particularly on…
When referring to a specific study
When mentioning an individual paper or publication, one option is to

use simple past tense. For example:
o One longitudinal study found that…

o A study by Smith (2014) examined the trend in…
o A recent study by Smith and Jones (2012) involved…
o A qualitative study by Smith (2013) described how…
Alternatively, the past perfect tense can also be used. For instance:
o Preliminary work on X was undertaken by Jones (2001).

o The first systematic study of X was reported by Smith et al. in 1999.
o Analysis of the genes involved in X was first carried out by Smith et
al. (1998).
o A significant analysis and discussion on the subject was presented by Smith
(2007).
Sometimes, simple present tense may also be used. Examples include:
o A seminal study in this area is the work of…

o A key study comparing X and Y is that of Smith (2010), in which…
o The study by Jones (2020) offers probably the most comprehensive empirical
analysis of…
When referring to a writer's idea or position
When referring to the specific words and ideas of other authors (even if they
are no longer alive), we often use present tense if the ideas are still relevant
today. For instance:
o Smith (2013) offers an explanatory theory for...

o Smith and Jones (2016) propose that...
o Smith and colleagues (2019) argue for...
o Jones (2020) points out that...
Phrases like these often use an "evalutative-that" structure (e.g., argues-

that, claims-that). This makes examples easy to find using the tools described
below.
What if I need help with phrasing?
One way to check your language for accuracy and to find other useful
examples with more context is to use a corpus (plural: corpora). Corpora are
large databases of texts (including theses) that are now commonly used by
academic writers to learn more about the way in which language is used in
practice.
There are some helpful, free corpus tools available online that are useful for
academic writers. Examples include CorpusMate, the British Academic
Written English Corpus (click on Concordance), and Linggle. In general,
these websites can be used by typing the sentence that you want to complete,
using an asterisk (*) where you are having trouble finding the right word. For
example, you might type "researchers have * that" into Linggle and get the
following summary of the words typically used in that place in academic
writing:
You can also consider using a generative AI tool such as ChatGPT to
brainstorm a missing word, or to rephrase something that you are having
difficulty articulating into language that are suitable for a thesis. Using prompts
like "Rephrase the following text into a more academic tone..." or "Give me a
list of academic phrases that can be to indicate..." can be helpful for
generating ideas.
But use caution! A thesis needs to be your own work, and many universities
will not accept text that is generated using these sorts of tools. Generative AI
also has the tendency to "hallucinate" facts, so you should not rely on them to
generate accurate content or find sources about your thesis topic. It is best to
use these tools for brainstorming phrases only.
Present your research question
When you have finished writing your literature review (or a particular section
of it), it's time to present your research question(s). As discussed in Module
1, this is the question (or questions) that your paper is designed to answer.
WHAT IT'S ALL BEEN BUILDING TO...
Present your research question(s)
As the main purpose of your literature review is to drive constantly towards

your research question(s), it is often logical to present your research
question after examining the relevant literature. The location will depend on
how many research questions you have:
o If you have one research question, present the research question at or near
the end of your literature review.
o If you have more than one research question, present each research
question at the end of its own line of argument during the literature review.
This is often the easiest to do at the end of a section, so that the reader can
clearly link the research question being asked to the discussion that has built
to it.
Your research question(s) can be prefaced simply and explicitly, with phrases
like:
o This leads to the following research question...,

o Therefore, the present study aims to address the following questions...
o In this research, I aim to explore the following question...
o The research question that this study seeks to answer is...
o The main focus of this research is to examine the following questions...
o In this paper, I will address this research question...
Be sure to present your research question in an obvious way, such as placing

it centred and on its own line. If you have more than one research question,
you may also wish to number them (e.g., RQ1, RQ2) for ease of reference as
you address them later in your thesis.
► See the end of Module 1 for further guidance on phrasing a research

question.
What if my research question doesn't match the

data I have collected?
It is not unusual to find that sometimes the data you collect doesn't exactly
match your original intentions, or that the data unexpectedly doesn't help to
answer the research question, or something goes wrong during data
collection, or that other, more interesting data presented itself during the data
collection process that caused a shift in direction.
In all cases, remember that a dead end or a change in direction is not the
end of your thesis. The reality is, that is the nature of discovery! It is how you
as a researcher adapt to a dead end or the need for a change in direction that
will determine the outcome of your thesis.
You have some options:
1. Consider revising your research question. Is the scope still realistic, now
that I know what the data collection looks like? Can the question be adjusted
slightly to more closely match the data that was collected? If so, how does this
adjustment affect the literature review that came before it?
2. Consider revising your method. Can changes be made to the method that
will allow you to collect data that is more accurate, or more reliable? Can the
dead end be used as a finding that can be discussed, which then leads to a
revised method that is better?
3. Analyse the data in a different way. Is it possible that your research
question could be answered by using a different statistical test, or
approaching the data from a different perspective? Are there other patterns or
relationships in the data that were not noticed the first time?
4. Consult with your supervisor. Supervisors often have extensive experience
in research, and will have come across dead ends or mismatches between
research question and data before. They may be able to suggest a suitable
course of action.
5. Develop a new research question. If your data answers a question that you
have not asked, consider whether it is possible to introduce a new research
question that more closely aligns to the data that you have.
Remember that research is a dynamic process, and unexpected events

happen. Make sure that you get advice from experienced people on what
steps you can take to ensure that there is a clear alignment between your
research question and the data that you collect.
Video: Advice from experienced academics
To help you see your thesis from the point of view of the person reading or
marking it, we interviewed experienced academics from different discipline
areas and asked them: "What advice would you give to a person who is
writing their literature review"?
VIDEO SUMMARY – KEY POINTS
Question: What general advice would you give to a person who is writing their
literature review?
o Prof. Kate O'Brien (Chemical Engineering): Write long, then edit shorter.
Extract a list of the first sentences from every paragraph and read them
independently to ensure that they form a logical, coherent flow. Or, go in the
other direction and write opening sentences for each paragraph, then use
these to structure your review.
o Assoc. Prof. Jack Wang (Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences): Show
that you understand the different components of consideration that
researchers are looking at in your area of study by breaking your review down
into smaller sections and sequencing them in a logical way.
o Prof. Tamara Davis (Mathematics and Physics): Synthesise the different
sources of knowledge about the topic; don't just give dot points listing what
others have done. Explain how the individual threads fit together, and show
how this context connects to your own work.
o Dr Norman Ng (Health and Exercise Science): The review should be
organised in a coherent way; use things like subheadings and signposts to
guide the reader. The review should not only summarise existing knowledge,
but also critically analyse the literature.
o Prof. Blake McKimmie (Psychology): The literature review needs to have
a motivated, purposeful line of argument; it's not just a survey of the literature.
Clearly signpost for the reader what your argument is; bring them along so it is
not a surprise when they get to the research question at the end.
o Dr Amy Hubbell (Languages and Cultures): Make sure you cover all of
the major players in the field. Also make sure that the whole review contains
only relevant sources that pertain to your research, even if that means going
back and editing it later if you have written your review early.
o Dr Russell Manfield (Business): The litearture review allows you to
embed or position your research within the existing literature by "standing" on
the work of others. A well written review gives confidence to the reader that
you have touched on everything that is relevant to your argument.
o Prof. Emer. David Mee (Mechanical and Mining Engineering): A
literature review should tell a story that develops logically to a consequence
that shows the context of your work in the rest of the field. Don't just write a
paragraph about each paper; tell a story to show the development of ideas.
o Assoc. Prof. Kelly Matthews (Education): A good literature review is the
right balance between discussing existing scholarship and what you are
thinking. You are having a conversation with fellow scholars. Show that you
know the literature, and that your work is going to make a difference in that
field.
SUMMARY OF MODULE 2
Opening your introduction
An introduction can be opened using an adaptation of Swales' (1984, 2011) model:
o Establish the territory of your research by claiming importance, making generalisations about
the current state of knowledge, and synthesising prior research
o Identify a niche that your research could fill by presenting counter-claims and indicating a gap
o Occupy the niche with your own research by stating the purpose of your study and outlining
the structure of your paper as needed
Planning your literature review

Effectively planning your literature review involves asking the following questions:
o What type of review should I write? (A traditional review, which uses personal judgment for
what should be included, or a systematic review that uses criteria for this purpose?)
o Which literature should I include? (Ask whether a potential source is directly relevant to your
research question/s)
o How should my review by organised? (Chronologically or thematically?)
Writing your literature review
For each section of your literature review:
o Provide an overview of the section, showing why it is worth discussing or how it relates to the
research purpose
o Categorise sources into groups, such as for and against, to show that you understand broader
patterns in the literature
o Compare and contrast sources, showing similarities and differences between papers or
groups of papers
o Critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the literature, inserting your own voice
o Conclude by bringing key points together and pointing towards your research question
After this, present your research question(s) to the reader.
► Next up: Writing your method!
Still need help?
If you have watched the videos and read through text in this module and are still having
trouble with your introduction or literature review, post a comment in the discussion
board below. A staff member or peer might be able to suggest some steps that you
could take to move forward with your thesis.
Remember never to post your actual work in the discussion forums; just describe the
problem you are having in general terms. Questions that are specific to your topic area
are better directed towards your thesis supervisor.
Conducting research involves both selecting a methodological approach

and writing about it. As the focus of this course is on writing, we will focus
mostly on how to write a method section.
While we will also provide an overview of the major decisions involved

in selecting your method on the next few pages, we will leave a more detailed
discussion of research methods to the research training component of your
course.
Take a look at the video below to hear what to include in your method
section.
A method section should include the following components, where relevant:
o Describe the sample, stating who or where your data came from (e.g. people,
specimens, collections of text); include summary statistics or contextual
elements to help the reader understand the characteristics of the sample
o Describe the instruments or materials that you used to collect your data
(e.g. surveys, questionnaires, scientific equipment); include information about
their design and the type of data they create
o Describe your procedures – the steps you followed to carry out your research
– in enough detail that the reader could reproduce your study if needed
o Explain your data analysis methods (qualitative or quantitative) to show how
you went about processing and analysing your data; note that this is
sometimes placed at the start of the results section
o Justify and explain your decisions for each of the above components,
stating why you used the methodological approach that you did.
Select a general approach

Skip to main content
Before carrying out your research method (and writing about it!), it is important
to decide on the best approach for obtaining data to answer your research
question. On this page, we consider the decision at the broadest level:
whether your research approach is inductive or deductive.
RESEARCH APPROACHES
In general, your research will take one of the following two forms. Your
general approach will have a broad influence on the way in which your
method section is written and the types of information you provide to your
reader about how your data was collected and analysed.
Inductive research
An inductive approach to research involves drawing general
conclusions from specific data. This often involves making inferences about a
large group from a smaller one.
For example, suppose that a business researcher collects interview data from
40 managers about their approaches to organisational change. The
researcher might then look for patterns and common ideas in the resulting
data to generate a model of about how managers approach organisational
change in general.
Alternatively, a marine science researcher may make a series of 100
observations about the parenting behaviours of 12 dolphins of the same
species, then develop a broader theory or framework about how that species
nurtures their young in general.
Probability plays a role in the inductive approach; the researchers in these

examples would not collect data from all managers in the world,
or all behaviours of all members of that species of dolphin, so they are
drawing conclusions based on a small sample of a larger population.
An inductive approach is often used in qualitative research, which involves
collecting data that is not easily converted to numbers. (Qualitative data is
discussed more on the next page.)
If your research uses an inductive approach, the written part of your method
section will prioritise describing the processes of data collection and analysis
and will focus less on testing hypotheses and predictions.
Deductive research
A deductive approach to research involves evaluating an idea related to an
existing theory. This often involves making a logical link between two or more
variables in the form of a hypothesis (like an educated guess), then collecting
data to determine whether the hypothesis is true or not.
For instance, a medical researcher may form a hypothesis that long-term use
of a particular medication increases the risk of kidney disease. The researcher
then collects data to determine whether or not this hypothesis is true.
Or, a psychology researcher might hypothesise that there is a link between

scrolling through social media reels before bed and sleep disturbance, and
collect data from participants to work out if this is actually the case.
A deductive approach is often used in quantitative research, which involves

collecting numerical data. (More details are found on on the next page.)
If your research uses a deductive approach, your method section will focus on
the processes used to test the research hypothesis or hypotheses developed
during the literature review, and less on the process of data collection and
analysis.
Which approach?
In general, the type of data that you collect (i.e., quantitative or qualitative)
will largely determine which research approach you use.
Other factors to consider include:

1. The purpose of your study (outlined in the opening of your introduction). If
your research question involves investigating an existing theory, model, or
idea, then a deductive approach is more suitable. On the other hand, if your
research question requires you to explore a phenomenon in order to generate
some new insights, an inductive approach is better.
2. The availability of data. If data is easily accessible, particularly in large
quantities, a deductive approach would generally be the most appropriate. On
the other hand, if there is little data available and the focus is on extracting
rich, meaningful data from a small sample, an inductive approach is more
suitable.
3. Your personal preference. You may have a preference for taking one type of
research approach over another. As writing a thesis is a lengthy commitment,
you may find it more enriching to take an approach that you find more
interesting or appealing.
Again, discussing your approach with your supervisor (or potential supervisor)
is essential before progressing towards the data collection process.
Question
What is the main difference between an inductive and a deductive approach

to performing research?
An inductive approach is based on intuition, while a deductive approach is

based on empirical evidence
An inductive approach begins with specific observations and uses them to

develop broader generalisations and theories, while deductive approach
begins with a general hypothesis and uses observations to test and confirm or
reject it
An inductive approach is more subjective, while deductive approach is more
objective
An inductive approach is more appropriate for quantitative research, while

deductive approach is more appropriate for qualitative research.
Deciding on the type of data needed
Before carrying out your research method (and writing about it!), it is important
to decide on the best approach for obtaining data to answer your research
question. On this page, we consider the decision at the broadest level:
whether your research approach is inductive or deductive.
RESEARCH APPROACHES
In general, your research will take one of the following two forms. Your
general approach will have a broad influence on the way in which your
method section is written and the types of information you provide to your
reader about how your data was collected and analysed.
Inductive research
An inductive approach to research involves drawing general
conclusions from specific data. This often involves making inferences about a
large group from a smaller one.
For example, suppose that a business researcher collects interview data from
40 managers about their approaches to organisational change. The
researcher might then look for patterns and common ideas in the resulting
data to generate a model of about how managers approach organisational
change in general.
Alternatively, a marine science researcher may make a series of 100
observations about the parenting behaviours of 12 dolphins of the same
species, then develop a broader theory or framework about how that species
nurtures their young in general.
Probability plays a role in the inductive approach; the researchers in these

examples would not collect data from all managers in the world,
or all behaviours of all members of that species of dolphin, so they are
drawing conclusions based on a small sample of a larger population.
An inductive approach is often used in qualitative research, which involves

collecting data that is not easily converted to numbers. (Qualitative data is
discussed more on the next page.)
If your research uses an inductive approach, the written part of your method
section will prioritise describing the processes of data collection and analysis
and will focus less on testing hypotheses and predictions.
Deductive research
A deductive approach to research involves evaluating an idea related to an
existing theory. This often involves making a logical link between two or more
variables in the form of a hypothesis (like an educated guess), then collecting
data to determine whether the hypothesis is true or not.
For instance, a medical researcher may form a hypothesis that long-term use
of a particular medication increases the risk of kidney disease. The researcher
then collects data to determine whether or not this hypothesis is true.
Or, a psychology researcher might hypothesise that there is a link between
scrolling through social media reels before bed and sleep disturbance, and
collect data from participants to work out if this is actually the case.
A deductive approach is often used in quantitative research, which involves

collecting numerical data. (More details are found on on the next page.)
If your research uses a deductive approach, your method section will focus on
the processes used to test the research hypothesis or hypotheses developed
during the literature review, and less on the process of data collection and
analysis.
Which approach?
In general, the type of data that you collect (i.e., quantitative or qualitative)
will largely determine which research approach you use.
Other factors to consider include:
1. The purpose of your study (outlined in the opening of your introduction). If

your research question involves investigating an existing theory, model, or
idea, then a deductive approach is more suitable. On the other hand, if your
research question requires you to explore a phenomenon in order to generate
some new insights, an inductive approach is better.
2. The availability of data. If data is easily accessible, particularly in large
quantities, a deductive approach would generally be the most appropriate. On
the other hand, if there is little data available and the focus is on extracting
rich, meaningful data from a small sample, an inductive approach is more
suitable.
3. Your personal preference. You may have a preference for taking one type of
research approach over another. As writing a thesis is a lengthy commitment,
you may find it more enriching to take an approach that you find more
interesting or appealing.
Again, discussing your approach with your supervisor (or potential supervisor)
is essential before progressing towards the data collection process.
Question
What is the main difference between an inductive and a deductive approach

to performing research?
An inductive approach is based on intuition, while a deductive approach is

based on empirical evidence
An inductive approach begins with specific observations and uses them to

develop broader generalisations and theories, while deductive approach
begins with a general hypothesis and uses observations to test and confirm or
reject it
An inductive approach is more subjective, while deductive approach is more

objective
An inductive approach is more appropriate for quantitative research, while

deductive approach is more appropriate for qualitative research.
Choose a suitable method

Selecting an appropriate research approach (inductive or deductive), data
type (qualitative or quantitative, or both) and method (e.g., survey, interview,
experiment) is critical for a good research paper. A method or approach that is
a poor fit for the research question or that is not well executed leaves your
paper open to criticism, and can call your findings into question. It is
important, therefore, to consider a number of factors when making this
decision.
WHICH METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH IS BEST?
Key considerations for method selection
When choosing how you will go about collecting your data, consider the
following:
1.
1. Will this data actually answer my research question? Clearly define your
research question and ensure that your data collection methods align with
your research objectives.
2. What methods are commonly used in researching this topic? Consider how
other researchers have gone about collecting and analysing data in your area,
and the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches.
3. How will I ensure that my data is reliable and valid? Ensure that the
instruments and procedures you use have controls that allow you to obtain
consistently-collected and accurate data.
4. What ethical implications do I need to consider? Conducting research requires
ethical approval; factors such as safety, confidentiality and informed consent
need to be understood and planned for.
5. How will the data be analysed? Plan for the analysis of your data, including
understanding how the data will be coded or processed, and obtaining training
or advice in data analysis software if needed.
6. How will I physically collect the data? Develop a detailed plan for data
collection, including timing, location, transport, permissions, forms, bookings
and so on.
7. What resources do I have available? Determine the resources required for
data collection, including funding, equipment, access, support, personnel, and
time.
8. Are there any obvious limitations to my method? Anticipate potential
limitations of your method, such as selection bias, missing data, or
confounding variables.
9. When can I conduct a pilot test? Plan to conduct an initial test of your method
to identify any problems or limitations before implementing the study on a
larger scale.
It is important to consider factors such as those in this list before collecting

data. The saying "prior planning prevents poor performance" is particularly
true when it comes to planning the method for your thesis.
During the collection process
Remember that your method section will require a description of your data
collection process. Remember to note down any important details as you go,
including any decisions that you made about adjustments to your process or
your instruments following a pilot test. While you will write a more refined
version later, it is important to record your data collection process while it is
occurring for later reference.
Word cloud
What are (or were) your main concerns when choosing an appropriate
method? Write three single words in the boxes below to add them to the word
cloud of responses from other students. (Suggestions: time, cost, ethics,
difficulty, accuracy, practicalities, culture, access, resources, analysis.)
1 of 3 2 of 3 3 of 3
1. Describe the participants or sample
Let's move on now to consider how to write the method section of your thesis.
Thankfully, writing a method is relatively straightforward, as it follows a simple
structure, and you will have most of the relevant information either to hand or
fresh in your mind. We start with the sample characteristics.
DESCRIBING YOUR SAMPLE
Points to cover
Your sample refers to what or whom you obtained your observations or

measurements from. When writing about the characterisics of your sample,
address the following questions (where they are relevant to the specific
method you have chosen):
o Who or what is your sample? How many individual elements were in the
sample?
o Is there anything that distinguishes your sample? Were there criteria for
inclusion?
o What kind of sampling strategy was used? (e.g. random, convenience,
stratified, snowball, quota)
o What sort of variation was present within your sample? (e.g. ages, species,
locations, etc.)
You can also use tables to provide any relevant descriptive statistics (i.e.
numbers that paint a picture of your sample). If you are using tables,
remember to refer to them in your body paragraphs (e.g. "The demographics
of the sample obtained are summarised in Table 2."), and follow this by
highlighting any important information from the table for the reader.
You should also include a justification that shows how your sample is
suitable for answering your research question. Address questions like:
o Why was this sample chosen? What is the target population that you are
seeking to understand?
o Why was your particular sampling strategy used?
o How was a minimum viable sample size determined?
o Did any collected data need to be excluded from the analysis? Why?
o What steps were taken to reduce possible bias in the sample selection?
You may also wish to compare your sample with samples used in previous
research. This is especially the case if your sample improves upon previous
research (e.g. by having a larger or more representative sample), or if your
sample allows the current state of knowledge about your topic to be extended
(e.g. by examining a poorly researched context or population).
Useful phrases for describing samples

If your sample is comprised of people, some useful phrases for describing
this sample may include:

o The sample consisted of...

o We recruited participants who...
o A total of ___ individuals participated in...
o Participants were selected based on...
o The sample was diverse in terms of...
o Participants ranged in age from ___ to ___.
o We excluded individuals who...
o We used a random sampling technique to...
If your sample is not comprised of people, you might use phrases like:
o The sample material was obtained from...

o The sample was obtained through a process of...
o We used a variety of methods to collect the sample substance, including...
o The sample was composed of ___ different types of materials.
o We chose the sample material based on...
o We obtained the sample material from a variety of locations, including...
o The sample was characterized by...
Examples in context
You can see an example of a sample description in this abridged excerpt
from a paper about the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports:
We employed three waves of self-reported panel data from a sample of 510

professional athletes from Rasht, Iran, who have competed for at least 5
years in their sport and were registered in 2016 in the Department of
Physical Education for the city of Rasht. [...] A random sample was
drawn from the registration list, and the sampled athletes were invited to a
large meeting area at the sporting complex to complete the questionnaires.
[...] Of the 850 athletes asked to participate, [...] 510 completed both the
second and third waves. [...] Descriptive statistics show that 57.1% of
respondents were male and 42.9% were female. Although 41.6% of
respondents were younger than 25 years, 39.4% were between 25 and 30
years old, 15.3% were between 30 and 35 years old, and 3.7 % were older
than 35 years. Moreover, 70.4% were single and the other 29.6% were
married.
Or in this article looking at high schoolers' level of preoccupation with their
appearance on social media:
The participants were 283 high school students ages 13 to 18 years (M =

16.62, SD = .95; 47% male and 53% female) drawn from three schools in
an urban area of Australia. The schools were moderate in size and
contained Grades 7 to 12. The schools reported that their students were
generally from low-middle to high-middle socioeconomic backgrounds.
To measure sociocultural background, participants were asked to endorse
as many options as applied, with most (84%) of the participants endorsing
white Australian, 18% instead or in addition endorsing Asian, two endorsing
Australian first peoples/Torres Strait Islander/Pacific Islander, and 11 also
describing a diverse range of other backgrounds. Two participants did not
respond to any of the social media items and were removed from the dataset,
leaving a final sample size of 281.
(Note: You can click on the links above the text of each example to see the
excerpt in context.)
In describing the characteristics of their sample in this way, the writers are
providing a clear, concise description of from whom their data was obtained.
This allows for a fair evaluation of any conclusions reached, since any
conclusions reached by the writers will be heavily influenced by the
characteristics of the sample from which the data was drawn.
POLL
What is your main concern when it comes to obtaining your sample?
Finding a large enough sample
Access to participants or sample elements
Time involved in obtaining the sample
Cost or resources involved in obtaining the sample
Obtaining an unbiased, representative sample
Having to collect the data yourself
Something else
No concerns (or using secondary data)

Remember
If you have any concerns about obtaining data from a sample, talk to your
supervisor about them. Your supervisor will have conducted their own
research many times before, and will understand the trepidation that can
sometimes come from deciding upon, and collecting data from, a sample for
the first time.
Talking through your concerns with someone else can both: (a) help you to
articulate the problem more clearly, which generally makes the concern less
intimidating, and (b) get feedback or advice on how to go about dealing with
those concerns. Remember that your supervisor is there to support you; this is
not a solo journey. Don't be afraid to share your concerns with them.
2. Describe your instruments or materials
A key part of your method involves providing details of the instruments or

materials that you used to collect data from your sample or data source. This
should not be confused with the closely-related procedure (described on the
next page).
DESCRIBING YOUR INSTRUMENTS OR

MATERIALS
Points to cover
Your method should describe any tools that you used to collect the data that
you analysed. This includes instruments and materials like:

o Surveys, questionnaires or quizzes (whether these were developed by you, or

someone else)
o Interview, case study or focus group questions and scripts
o Observation schedules or forms
o Tests and other forms of assessment
o Scientific apparatus, used in the lab or the field
o Diagnostic or scanning equipment such as x-ray or MRI machines
o Physical measurement tools to measure variables like temperature, force or
light intensity
o Specialised tools used for processing or analysing the data
If you use a survey, questionnaire or other lengthy instrument, it is generally

good practice to describe it in the body text, perhaps with excerpts or
examples for illustration, and include a copy of the instrument itself in an
appendix. This allows your reader to verify, for example, that the questions
being asked are actually assessing your research question.
In many cases, the instrument/s that you use in your research will have
previously had their reliability and/or validity tested by other researchers. If
this is the case, you can provide references to such studies to give your
reader confidence that the instrument you are using is capable of collecting
quality data.
As with all components of the method, you should also include any
relevant explanations or justifications, explaining why you chose or
developed the particular instrument/s that you did (see the last page of this
section).
What if I didn't collect the data myself?
If you are using secondary data (i.e., data that has been collected by a third
party, or that is freely available in a repository or database), you should still try
to provide details of the instrument that the third party used to collect this data,
where relevant. This provides the reader with enough context to see how the
data was collected, even if you did not do so yourself.
Useful phrases for describing instruments and

materials
Although instruments and materials vary widely by discipline and by topic, you
could use phrases like the following:
o To measure [variable], we employed...

o In order to collect data on [variable], we utilised...
o We used [instrument/material] to assess...
o For the purposes of this study, we selected [instrument/material] to...
o The primary tool we used to gather data was...
o To conduct our analyses, we relied on...
In explaining or justifying your choice of instruments or materials, you can

use phrases like:
o We chose [instrument/material] because of its ability to...

o The use of [instrument/material] allowed us to...
o We utilized [instrument/material] due to its accuracy and reliability in
measuring...
o In order to obtain precise measurements of [variable], we employed...
o We selected [instrument/material] based on previous research that had
demonstrated its effectiveness in measuring...
Examples in context
Here is an example instrument description from a physical science
paper which examined the manipulation of materials in a magnetic field:
The experimental setups are shown as Fig. 1, which composed of the

workbench ①, Tesla meter ② and its probe ⑨, electromagnet ③, the
electronic ocular of microscope (i.e. CCD image sensor) ④, digital
metallographic microscope ⑤, precision programmable DC power supply ⑥,
laptop ⑦, objective table with light source and condenser lens ⑧. The
magnetic flux density of external uniform magnetic field is measured and
displayed by the probe and monitor of Tesla meter (Kanetec Japan, TM-
801EXP), respectively. The one-dimensional uniform magnetic field is
produced by a couple of electromagnets (Hunan Yongyi China, DC-MF), and
the strength of magnetic field is controlled by precision programmable DC
power supply (Tektronix America, 2230G-30-1). The snapshots and videos of
the nonmagnetic polystyrene microparticles in MFIDSA process
are magnified and observed by digital metallographic microscope (Shanghai
Optical China, XSP-63XDV), and recorded by the electronic ocular of
microscope (Shanghai Optical China, CCDB5M16). In addition, the Tesla
meter which is used to measure the magnetic flux density of external uniform
magnetic field is set micro-Tesla (mT) as the unit in the present experiments.
The unit can convert to Tesla (T) and Gauss (Gs) by the relation of
1 T = 1 × 103 mT = 1 × 104 Gs.
Also consider this example from a social science paper that looked at the
effect of COVID lockdowns on Indian schoolchildrens' lifestyles. (Note that a
description of the sample has been incorporated into this paragraph.)
We conducted a questionnaire-based assessment in August–September

2020 among a cohort of 1237 students aged 9–14 years studying in standards
V–VII of various private and government-aided schools across Delhi. The
children were being followed-up over the previous 2 years with details of their
near, outdoor, and reading activities as a part of ongoing study using a
questionnaire to elicit the details of various outdoor and indoor activities. The
baseline data collection had been performed through in-person interviews in
schools during the previous rounds between April and August 2019 during
pre-COVID-19 time. Due to the COVID-19 imposed school closure, the
current data was collected by telephonic interviews with the children and
subsequently confirmed by one/both of the parents from July till October 2020.
In case of any discrepancy, parents’ response was recorded. A single
telephonic interview was sufficient in most children. Repeat calls were
required only in certain cases with doubts. The following questions were
asked:
Duration of outdoor activities on weekdays and weekends

Duration of digital devices use on weekdays and weekends
Duration of watching television (TV) on weekdays and weekends
Duration of homework (offline) on weekdays and weekends.
This was compared to similar information collected from this cohort in the
pre-COVID-19 period in the year 2019 when the students had a regular
physical school curriculum.
The instruments described in these examples (i.e. a particular experimental
setup, a questionnaire-based assessment, in-person interviews, telephone
interviews, etc.) are reported in sufficient detail to allow readers to see how
the relevant data was collected.
Question
Why is a description of the instruments or materials you use for your research
an important component of a thesis?
 it helps the reader to have confidence that the data was collected
with a tool that was accurate and reliable
 it improves the transparency of the work, allowing it to be verified and/or

potentially replicated
 it allows the reader to determine whether the instruments used are a

suitable match to the research question being asked
 all of these reasons

2. Describe your procedure
In addition to describing any instruments that you used in your research, it is

also important to describe your procedure. This part of the method section
reports what was actually done, step-by-step, in your research project.
DESCRIBING YOUR PROCEDURE
Points to cover
The details of your procedure will vary depending on your topic, and on
whether you are collecting mainly qualitative or quantitative data. Ensure that
your procedure addresses questions like:
o What steps were carried out to collect your data?

o Were any pilot studies or trials conducted to refine your instrument or
procedure? If so, what changes were made, and why?
o How was data recorded?
o How was the data tested, checked or verified to ensure its accuracy?
o What information was provided to participants (if relevant)?
o How were ethical, environmental or safety concerns addressed (if relevant)?
Where practical, you may also wish to supplement your description of your
instrument (previous page) or procedure (this page) with images. If doing so,
ensure that the images are clearly labelled and referred to in the text.
For the various steps in your procedure, continue to explain or justify why
that step was included, or why the step was done in that way.
When describing your procedure, avoid excessive detail. Remember that

you are writing for an academic audience who will already be familiar with
standard procedures in your field. Allow the reader to assume that you are
following standard practices where relevant, and focus on any
specific changes or modifications that you made to that standard procedure.
Useful phrases for describing your procedure
Descriptions of procedures vary widely among disciplines. Some common

general phrases might include things like:
o The experimental procedure was performed by...

o First, participants were provided with... Next, they were asked to...
o The [materials] were prepared by...
o [The instrument] was then administered in [these conditions]...
o This process was repeated [x] times and the average measurement taken.
To provide explanation or justification to your approach, you might use

phrases like:
o This process is consistent with previous research on...

o To ensure accuracy, the collected data was checked by...
o To improve the efficiency of data collection, [the procedure] was adjusted to...
o Prior research has indicated no significant difference between [these two
processes].
o Because of [these circumstances], it was necessary to...
Examples in context
Consider the following extract from procedure from a chemistry education

paper about using potato to extract magnetic nanoparticles:

The synthesis of MNPs using potato extract as a green reaction medium and
as both reducing and stabilizing agent has been detailed in literature. Potato
extract was prepared by first drying the chopped potatoes under sunlight for
about a day to remove the residual moisture; they were then vigorously
stirred in distilled water for 10 min at 80 °C and finally filtered with Whatman
filter paper. Ferrous sulfate was then added to the yellow colored potato
extract solution at 80 °C, followed by ultrasonication and adjusting the pH to
8.0 by the dropwise addition of NaOH. Upon addition of the base, the color of
the solution changed immediately from yellow to deep black, indicating the
formation of MNPs. The applications of MNPs are dependent on their shape,
size, morphology, and magnetic behavior. Therefore, a variety of
characterization tools, such as Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-
IR), X-ray diffraction (XRD), electron microscopy (SEM and TEM), energy
dispersive spectroscopy (EDS), and vibrating sample magnetometry
(VSM) were used to investigate their properties.
Notice that the sequential nature of the procedure is clearly spelled out, while
unnecessary details (e.g., measuring devices used, the sizes of containers)
are left out.
Another example can be seen in this abridged excerpt from a business

management paper about how groups from different countries collaborate
online:
Consistent with time zone differences and related logistics, subjects were
randomly assigned to groups [...] As stated previously, there were four
U.S.-only groups, nine India-only groups, and nine heterogeneous groups. At
no time during any of the group sessions were there more than eight persons
in [a computer lab]. The labs were large enough to space the subjects in
such a manner that no subject was able to observe what the other was doing.
[…] The experiment involved one session per group, with each
session consisting of the following activities:
Activity 1 – Each group member commented on the advantages

disadvantages, obstacles and so on of each of the five options. When
finished, each group member rated the five options from 0 (least
appropriate) to 4 (most appropriate) and viewed the rating results for his or
her group. […]
Each session was observed unobtrusively by at least one of the

researchers.
Question
What is the main difference between describing the instrument and

describing the procedure in your method?
Describing the instrument refers to detailing the equipment or materials used

in the experiment, while describing the procedure refers to outlining the steps
taken to carry out the experiment.
Describing the instrument refers to outlining the steps taken to carry out the
experiment, while describing the procedure refers to detailing the equipment
used in the experiment.
Describing the instrument refers to explaining the expected results of the

experiment, while describing the procedure refers to outlining the steps taken
to carry out the experiment.
Describing the instrument refers to detailing the equipment used in the

experiment, while describing the procedure refers to explaining the expected
results of the experiment.
4. Explain your data analysis method

Next, you need to indicate the data analysis method you used. Note that this
is only about the process, not the results of that process. The results should
not be discussed until the next section of your paper.
EXPLAINING HOW YOU ANALYSED YOUR DATA
Different data analysis methods will contain significant differences in their

description. Some of the more common analysis methods for qualitative and
quantitative research are listed below.
Common qualitative analysis methods

In qualitative research, data analysis is based on language, images and
observations. Some commonly used methods include:
o Content analysis – used to systematically categorise and discuss information
from text, images or physical objects
o Narrative analysis – used to analyse stories, experiences and events
o Discourse analysis – similar to narrative analysis, but with consideration of the
social context in which written or spoken communication takes place
o Grounded theory – used to develop an explanation of why a particular
phenomenon happened in a way that is "grounded" in the data
o Thematic analysis – involves coding and examining the data to identify broad
themes and patterns
Common quantitative analysis methods
In quantitative research, data analysis is based on numbers. Statistical
analysis is the most common method used, with results
comprising descriptive statistics (i.e., brief summaries of a data set, like
average values) and inferential statistics (i.e., numbers used to compare
groups or to make inferences about the characteristics of a larger population).
The most common inferential statistics include:
o Confidence intervals – expressess a level of certainty that a population value

lies within a particular range
o Hypothesis tests – used to see if there is a statistically significant difference
between two or more groups, or if a group is different to a particular
benchmark
o Correlation and regression – used to determine the presence or strength of a
relationship between two or more variables
Points to cover
Whether you are writing about a qualitatitve or quantitative data analysis

method, you could address questions like the following:
o Which analytical method have you used? What are its main features?
o How is this method suited to answering your research question? Is it a
standard method in your research area?
o How does your data analysis method compare to other methods that may also
have been suitable?
o Which steps were taken to analyse the data? (Not to be confused with the
steps involved in the data collection procedure.)
o Are there any relevant studies that have used similar methods?
o How does your data analysis method contribute to the field?
It is not necessary to include all of these; some aspects may be covered in the
introduction or literature review, or in previous parts of your method.
It is, however, important to remember to justify and explain your analytical

approach, as you have done for other components of your method.
As data analysis methods can become very technical, it is particularly

important for this component to use clear language and accepted
conventions for communicating the relevant information. Don't try to dazzle
your reader with your technical know-how; remember that your goal is to write
in a way that makes a contribution to the field, so you want to be clear about
how your data was processed and analysed in order to do that.
Useful phrases for explaining your data analysis

method
There is a great amount of diversity in data analysis methods, so the phrases

and sentence starters that you use will depend significantly upon the type of
method you are using. Nonetheless, you might use phrases like:
o The data was first categorised into...

o To analyse the data, I...
o This [analytical model] was used because...
o Statistical software was used to...
o This analytical approach is consistent with previous research in this area...
o The data was processed using...
o To minimise bias, a double-blind analysis was conducted...
o A linear regression model was applied to the data to...
Examples in context
Here is an abridged example from a paper we saw earlier in the course that
examined support for mothers of children with autistic spectrum disorder. This
study uses a qualitative approach.
The study adopted an inductive, bottom-up, data-driven approach to gain

insight into participants’ lived experiences (Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Priya &
Dalal, 2016). The interviews were transcribed and then analyzed
using Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) to identify repetitive
patterns and themes in the textual data collected from mothers with children
with ASD in the UAE. Thematic analysis was selected as it is a flexible
approach, offers theoretical independence, and searches for themes that
concisely describe the phenomenon studied and its relations to the social
context (Terry et al., 2017). Braun and Clarke (2006) highlight the
importance of a researcher’s judgment in identifying themes. We
recognized a theme when it was repetitive and captured crucial points in
relation to the research question. We included semantic and latent coding to
incorporate explicit meanings such as frequent keywords and phrases and
implicit meanings such as ideas within the coding process (Braun & Clarke,
2006). The data analysis involved a six-step process to ensure validity and
reliability (Howitt & Cramer, 2010). The first step, familiarization with data,
included [...]. The second step included [...] The final step included relating
findings to literature and writing the report using frequencies and quotes.
Alternatively, consider the excerpt below from a criminology paper about
the use of drugs in sport. This study uses a quantitative approach.
The contribution of this method of analysis to the field is metioned at the end
of the introduction section:

[...] we know of no study to date that has investigated the relationship
between social learning and doping over time. To that end, and in building
upon previous research, this study contributes to the literature by testing the
causal relationship between the social learning process and PED use among
athletes. More specifically, structural equation modeling (SEM) is used to
examine whether the social learning process is predictive of PED use and the
extent, if any, to which PED use, in turn, has a feedback/reciprocal effect on
the social learning process in a three-wave longitudinal study (n = 510) of
Iranian athletes.
Meanwhile, the steps involved are included later in the method:
First, we conducted bivariate correlations to assess the relationship

between social learning and PED behavior. Next, we used latent growth
curve modeling (LGM). With LGM, two latent factors are specified by factor
loadings of repeated measures. The intercept factor represents the level of
the construct at Time 0 (i.e., baseline), while the slope factor represents the
direction and rate at which the variable changes. In this way, LGM uses
longitudinal data to (a) estimate the mean trend or slope of a variable over
time, (b) test whether the level or intercept of a variable is related to the rate of
change, and (c) examine whether the level and/or rate of change are
associated with relevant risk factors or key outcomes (Preacher et al., 2008).
Specifically, we examined whether (a) performance-enhancing drug (PED)
behavior increases during the sports life circle, and whether (b) the social
learning process changes over time. Next, structural equation modelling in
AMOS was used to test the direct and indirect effects of the social learning
theory construct on self-reported doping behavior (past use, current use, and
willingness to use in the future), as well as the feedback/reciprocal effect of
PED use on the social learning process across the three waves of data.
5. Justify and explain your choices

On the last four pages, we have emphasised the need to justify and
explain your methodological choices as you go. On this page, we will
consider some general principles to keep in mind when including this
component in your thesis.
COMMUNICATING YOUR "WHY"
It's important to recognise that justifying your method is not a separate,

independent section of your method. Rather, it is an ongoing discussion that
is integrated into your description of your sample, instruments/materials,
procedures and data analysis method. It is much easier for the reader if you
explain each relevant decision as you go through these components, rather
than trying to do it all at once in a later section.
General ways of justifying and explaining your
decisions
Across all of the previously described components, you can provide a
rationale for your methodological choices in several different ways. For
example:
1.
1. Link the decision to your research question/s. Explain to the reader how a
particular component of your method most directly addresses your research
question. For example, your instrument may be able to specifically examine
the different components of a model that you are applying to a given context.
Or, you might use an inductive case study approach to unearth data about a
phenomenon that is not well-understood. Show the reader that there is a
logical link between the question that you are trying to answer and the
approach that you are using to answer it.
2. Refer to literature that verifies the reliability or validity of an approach. If
prior research has confirmed that a particular instrument or procedure is
capable of yeilding valid data, cite this research as part of your justification for
using that approach. Doing so helps to give confidence to the reader that you
are collecting your data using a tested means that has been checked by
others in the research community.
3. Indicate that there is an established protocol in the literature. If prior
research has been able to use your selected approach to successfully answer
similar research questions, you can use this to justify your own approach. This
could include statements like, "This type of analysis is commonly used in
research in this field (cf. Adinson, 2018; Charles & Ling, 2021; Yuri & Patel,
2016)" or "This procedure is considered to be the gold standard for diagnosis
of this type of problem (see Berenson et al., 2017; also Lanahorn & Tippett,
2016)".
4. Consider any relevant ethical requirements. If a particular approach is
being used in order to satisfy ethical or safety standards (particularly when
dealing with human or animal subjects), explain this to the reader. There are
some topics where ethical collection of data has a central influence over the
way in which research is conducted; if this is the case, the relevant
justification may need to be more detailed.
5. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of your approach against other
possibilities. It is likely that there are many ways in which data could be
collected in an attempt to answer your research question. Consider why the
approach that you have selecting is better than other approaches that could
also be used.
6. Mention practical considerations. If decisions were made for reasons
related to factors such as speed, time, efficiency, funding, access,
convenience, software power and so on, this can be explained as part of your
justification. All research is goverened by practical constraints, so if the
collection or processing of your data is influenced by these factors, don't be
afraid to mention them in your explanation.
The level of detail required for your justification will vary depending on your
topic and research approach. In general, aim to be concise: Tell your reader
what they need to know in order to understand why you took the approach
that you did, then move on. It's not necessary (or desirable) to write a novel
explaining your decisions, or to document the thought processes that you
went through to arrive at the decision. Only include longer justifications where
the situation is complex, and where a longer explanation is necessary for your
reader to understand your approach.
Exceptions
There are, of course, circumstances in which a justification or explanation may
not be necessary or appropriate. Examples include:
o You are conducting a replication study in which a method has been

predetermined
o You are using secondary data and have no control over the choice of the
sample, instrument or procedure (although you should still explain why the
data you are using is suitable for your research question)
o Lack of alternatives (e.g., if there is only one type of software that is used for a
particular instrument)
In most circumstances, however, even a few words of explanation may be
enough to broadly justify your approach.
Question
Why is it important to explain and justify your methodological choices?
to improve transparency of the data collection and analysis process
to allow future researchers to build on or replicate your study
to improve the reader's confidence that the method is a good match for the
research question
all of the above

In this video, we asked our guest academics two questions: "What advice
would you give to a person who is writing their method section?" and "How
much detail should I include in the description of my method?"
method section?

o Assoc. Prof. Kelly Matthews (Education): Communicate what you have

done with reference to the scholarly literature. Remember to justify why you
have done it the way that you have. There is no one right way; it is how you
make the case for the decisions you have made.
o Prof. Blake McKimmie (Psychology): Method sections can be very plain
and factual; it is helpful when a person clearly explains why they have chosen
the methodological approach that they have used.
o Dr Russell Manfield (Business): As the reader, we want to be reassured
that the method being used is the best choice to explore that particular
research question. How does the method best suited to explore or help
unpack this phenomenon?
o Dr Norman Ng (Health and Exercise Science): We like to see ethical
considerations in the method that show how human participants' rights were
protected. It is also important to address sources of bias or error, and to
provide a rationale for the method used.
Question: How much detail should I include in the description of my method?
o Dr Amy Hubbell (Languages and Cultures): In literary studies, the

methodology is not as important as in some other fields, so the level of detail
may be limited to only one or two paragraphs.
o Prof. Tamara Davis (Mathematics and Physics): Don't be afraid to
explain the simple things; ask yourself if you could reproduce what you have
done in your research based on what you have written in your method section.
o Assoc. Prof. Jack Wang (Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences): Rather
than listing every single step, it is more efficient to cite an established protocol
that exists in the literature, then explain any things that you have changed.
Students tend to provide too much detail when writing a method for the first
time.
o Prof. Kate O'Brien (Chemical Engineering): Document your method in
detail when you are doing the work, but write a more refined version for your
final paper. Let go of things that you tried whose results were not interesting
or relevant to your research question.
o Prof. Emer. David Mee (Mechanical and Mining Engineering): You will
try various things during your research, some of which will be dead ends. If
presenting a dead end may be helpful for other researchers, include it; but
don't include all of them.
SUMMARY OF MODULE 3
Choosing a research method
o To answer your research question/s, you can take an inductive approach, in which you make
broader generalisations from specific (usually qualitative) data; or a deductive approach, in
which you use (usually quantitative) data to evaluate the truth of an idea or hypothesis
o Qualitative data collection suits research that seeks to gain a better understanding of
experiences or concepts, or to develop new theories or models about something
o Quantitative data collection suits research that seeks to discover and/or quantify the strength
of relationships between variables, or to measure the influence of something
Writing about your method

Your method can be clearly explained to your reader by:
o Describing your sample, indicating who or what your data came from;
o Describing your instrument or materials, such as questionnaires, surveys or scientific

equipment;
o Describing your procedure, taking the reader through the steps that you used to collect your
data;
o Explaining your data analysis method, giving details about how the data was processed and
analysed; and
o Justifying and explaining why you decided to take the approach that you did for the above
steps as you mention each component.
► Next up: Reporting your results!

Still need help?
If you have watched the videos and read through text in this module and are still having
trouble with writing your method, post a comment in the discussion board below. A staff
member or peer might be able to suggest some steps that you could take to explain
your method more clearly.
Remember never to post your actual work in the discussion forums; just describe the
problem you are having in general terms. Questions about how to conduct your method
or analysis are better directed towards your thesis supervise.
Presenting your results is, in many ways, the heart of your thesis, and
represents the culmination of your research efforts. All of the previous
sections in your thesis have been building up to this section.
It's important, therefore, to ensure that your results section is written clearly
and logically. Take a look at the video below as we consider an overview
of how to write your results section.
A results section should include only data that is directly relevant to

answering your research question/s. To organise this data, you can:
o Separate your data into logical groups, such as by research question,

independent variable or participant group
o Present your findings in a general-to-specific pattern, both in terms of
the order of groups (overall results that apply to all groups first) and within
each group (broadest finding for that group first)
o Refer to specific data such as statistical tests, excerpts of qualitative data
and figures; this improves transparency and communicates where your
conclusions will be coming from
o Comment on your findings to clarify points of interest or to indicate a
particular strength or limitation; presence and depth of comments is discipline-
and data-specific
DETERMINING WHICH DATA TO USE
You may have collected a lot of data during your data collection process. If
your thesis uses secondary data, you probably have access to even more
data than you need. The decision about which of these data to include is
important, as it will determine the content of your results section.
A common mistake
An error that people who are new to writing research sometimes make is to try
to include all of the data that was collected during the data collection
process. Including every bit of data that you have collected, however, is often
not advisable. There are several reasons for this:
o Your paper can lose its sense of purpose. Including data that is
unnecessary, invalid, incomplete or irrelevant can cause your paper to drift
from its objective, as it becomes more about listing data rather than answering
a research question.

o Your reader may become bored or overwhelmed. Too much data can
cause your results section to become cluttered and confusing. It can also
make your results section tedious and time-consuming to read, which tends to
cause readers to lose interest and disengage with your writing.
o Your results become difficult to interpret. Writing in excessive detail can
make it difficult for both you and your reader to see the bigger picture of what
you have found. You may "miss the forest for the trees" – that is, missing
larger, overall patterns by being too focused on the details of individual pieces
of data.
For these reasons, it's important to take a refined approach and narrow
down the data that you are going to use before you start writing.
How do I decide which data to include?
Remember that the goal of your research is to answer the research

question/s that you identified earlier in your paper. Therefore, for each set of
data that you have, ask yourself:
Is this data directly related to my research question/s?
 If the answer is "yes", and the data is valid and complete, you may choose to
include it in your results.
 If the answer is "no", it does not belong in your paper.
If you find during your data collection that you unearth something that is not
related to your research question, but it is worth addressing, you can always
revise earlier parts of your paper to add or modify a research question. This
then allows you to discuss the relevant data more purposefully in your paper.
Construct figures before you write
Tables, graphs and diagrams form a key component of many results sections.
While this is especially the case for quantitative research, even qualitative
analysis often benefits from flowcharts or diagrams that illustrate overall
patterns. Here, we will refer collectively to all types of tables, graphs,
flowcharts, models, illustrations and diagrams as figures.
USING FIGURES IN YOUR THESIS
When should I use a figure?

You should use a figure in your research paper when you need to visually
represent data that is important to your research question. Not all data is
best represented as a figure, so it is important to consider whether a figure is
going to add value to your paper, or whether it could be more easily explained
(and more easily understood by the reader) in a couple of sentences instead.
Often, you would use a figure when you
o have quantitative data that needs to be presented in a clear and organised

way, like a column graph or scatterplot
o have qualitative data that can be better illustrated through a visual
representation, such as a photograph, illustration or diagram
o want to show the relationships between variables or compare data across
different groups or conditions
o want to highlight important patterns or trends that may be difficult to convey in
written form alone
Characteristics of good results figures
There are several quailties that can enhance a reader's understanding of your
results. These include:
1. Clarity and conciseness. The figure should be to-the-point and easy to

understand. This is aided when the most important or relevant information is
presented in a prominent position, and the figure doesn't contain excess or
unimportant information that could potentially confuse or distract your reader
from the main point that you are trying to communicate.
2. Accuracy. It is important that your figure accurately and honestly represents
your data. Check that the data points, bars, axes, and other elements are
plotted correctly, and that any statistical analyses are reported accurately.
Ensure that figures are precise enough that rounding errors would not affect
your results.
3. Appropriateness. Ensure that your choice of figure (particularly if that figure
is a graph) is appropriate to the type of data that you are presenting, and that
the axis scales and units of measurement allow the data to be presented in an
understandable way. Figures that are inappropriately chosen can severely
limit the quality of your paper.
4. Independence. Accompany your figure with a clearly-worded, concise caption
which allows the figure to be understood without referring to the text. In a
similar way, the text that refers to the figure should also be clear enough that it
can be understood independently of the figure. This allows your reader to
understand the necessary information from the figure quickly, and ensures
that their understanding of your results does not require them to read both the
text and the figure's caption.
Checking any figures you produce against the above checklist is a good way
to refine the visual elements of your thesis. Asking your supervisor or other
academics for feedback on your figures is also a good way to improve their
quality.
Separate your data from logical groups
Once you have decided which of your data you will write about, and have
constructed relevant figures to organise your data, you can begin writing your
results section! On the next four pages, we will go over the four step
process discussed in the opening video in more detail and with examples.
The first step in this process is to separate your data into logical groups.
GROUPING YOUR DATA LOGICALLY

Ways of grouping your data
For most kinds of data, your findings can be divided into logical sets or groups
that can be discussed relatively independently of one another. For example,
you could choose to separate your data into groups based on:
o research question (or sets of related research questions, if your paper has
many)
o independent variable (considering the effect of each variable that you have
changed in your experiment and looking at its effects)
o dependent variable (considering factors that have affected the variables that
you are measuring)
o theme (common in qualitative research, where common responses have been
obtained)
o analysis method (if you used more than one analytical method to examine
your data from different angles)
o participant group or location (especially in studies involving humans or
other living things)
o time (especially if your research is chronological or longitudinal)
The decision on how best to group your data will generally be determined by
the purpose of your paper and the type of data that you have collected. In
most cases, the logical choice will be obvious. However, if you are in doubt, or
if there are multiple suitable ways to organise your results, select the grouping
that will produce the least amount of repetition as you write.
Make your organisational system explicit

In addition to deciding how you are going to group your data, it is also
important to communicate this to the reader. The most common way to do
this is through the use of headings and subheadings (thus clearly showing
how your data is organised).
You may also choose to supplement this by opening your results section
with a statement about how your data is organised. This can be facilitated
with phrases like:
o These results are organised into...

o This section is divided into the following sections...
o X will be considered first, followed by Y and Z.
o Findings are grouped based on...
o Data is organised according to...
o The results section is structured around...
o Data is presented here in sections covering...
Phrases like these can help your reader to have a clear idea of what to expect
as they read the rest of your results section.
Examples in context
The use of headings and subheadings is nearly always used to indicate how
data in a paper is grouped. For example, consider this education paper that
groups its data by dependent variable and uses headings (in bold here) to
make this grouping explicit:
RESULTS
Academic achievement
The pretest examined the students’ science knowledge prior to the learning
activities. As shown in Table 1, the t-test result (t = 1.29, p = .2 > .05) shows...
[...]
Student engagement
Table 3 illustrates the comparisons between the experimental and control
groups' general engagement...
[...]
Technology acceptance
Regarding the experimental group evaluations of the IVR device's perceived
usefulness and ease of use...
[...]
(Note: Click or tap on the link above the box to view the full paper.)
We can also see an example from this pharmacology paper of a statement

that makes the organisational system used by the authors explicit to the
reader. In this case, the authors opened their results section by saying that
they were organising their results by theme, then proceeded to give a list of
what these themes were:
RESULTS
We interviewed 48 stakeholders from 20 case studies, including trial staff,
vendors and patient representatives (Table 2). The qualitative findings are
presented as themes influencing the implementation of a remote
decentralised clinical trial (Table 3). These include facilitators and barriers to
recruitment and engagement, technology-related challenges and proposed
solutions, transferred burden, data-flow challenges and proposed solutions,
and COVID-19 restrictions.
This approach allows the reader to immediately understand what they should
expect to see in the remainder of the results section.
2. Use a general-to-specific order
When your results have been separated into logical groups, the next step is
to organise your results that the sequence in which they are presented
makes sense to your reader. The most common way of doing this is to use a
general-to-specific order.
SEQUENCING YOUR RESULTS
Why does order matter?

Using a general-to-specific order (where appropriate) in your results section
has two main benefits:
 it provides context to the reader by helping them to understand how

more specific findings fit into a larger picture; and
 it reduces repetition in cases where results exist that apply to multiple
groups
Jumping directly into specific findings without providing your reader with any
context tends to make your results section more difficult to read and can give
an "unpolished" feel to the paper. Think of yourself instead like someone
giving a tour of a house, starting with the outside and entryway before
examining the details of each specific room.
Organising across groups
Open your results section by presenting any general or overall findings

first, before reporting on the specific findings of any specific groups. These
general findings may be in their own group with their own heading, or they
may be presented as an unlabelled paragraph or two at the beginning of your
results section.
These general or overall findings might include data such as:

o descriptive statistics of the subjects being studied
o any "big picture" trends or patterns in the data
o comments about the validity or reliability of the data collected
o a summary of any significant or important findings
o any broad findings that apply to all groups
Such broad results can help to orient the reader for the individual sections
that follow.
Organising within each group

The same general-to-specific order can also be used within each of your
groups. To do this, present any general findings that apply to the whole
group first, before narrowing your focus down to talk about individual findings
that apply to that group.
This layering, both across and within groups, is illustrated in the figure below.
Example in context
You can see an example of this two-layered, general-to-specific approach in

this engineering education paper.
Regarding organising across groups, you can see that its results section is
divided into parts, with general results that apply to all of their findings in the
opening section, then separate subheadings under which they group
their specific findings. Just the first couple of sentences of each are shown
here to illustrate the way in which the paper is organised:
(4) RESULTS
Our results indicated that the measures of identity and FTP used with first-
year engineering students had strong validity evidence (Table 2). To
answer the research question of this study,“How are identity and motivation
constructs relatedto one another when predicting students' interest in a future
engineering degree pathway,” we focus on the connections between
engineering role identity measures and the domain-specific motivation
measures...
[several paragraphs of general data]
(4.1) Measurements of identity and motivation

The measurement model, conducted using confirmatory factor analysis,
showed that... [several paragraphs of details]
(4.2) Relationships between identity and motivation constructs

The fit indices (as shown in Table 3) indicate good fit of the final model [...]
The resulting final model in Figure 2 shows the connections
between... [several paragraphs of details]
Under each subheading, the same pattern of general-to-specific can be
observed. In their section 4.2, they open with general statements like those
shown in the box immediately above, before going into more specific details
such as those shown below:
(Later in 4.2)
The results of our work, as shown in Figure 2, indicated that the effects of
connectedness and value on students' perceptions of the future were
mediated by students' expectancies and perceived instrumentality. This
mediation indicates that future-time perspective (FTP) consists of three
rather than two domains. [...]
We also hypothesized that engineering role identity would predict motivation

domain-general constructs which would predict FTP domain-specific
constructs which would predict the outcome of students' continuing
engineering major interest. We did find that the engineering role identity
constructs were fully mediated by FTP constructs inpredicting students'
continuing engineering major interest. However, we found that engineering
role identity constructspredicted the domain-specific constructs of perceptions
of the future and instrumentality rather than domain-general constructs [...]
This type of sequential organisation makes it much easier for readers to make
sense of the findings being presented.
3. Refer to specific data

Throughout your results section, you should frequently refer to specific
data to indicate on what basis you are making your statements. This helps to
improve the transparency of your paper, and allows you to guide the reader
through your results in a clear and understandable way.
WAYS OF REFERRING TO SPECIFIC DATA
There are three main ways in which you can refer to your data as you write
your results section:
1. Include statistical data within a sentence
When presenting quantitative findings, it is common to refer to any relevant

statistics within the relevant sentence. This may include:
o descriptive statistics that give details such as sample size, species, material
characteristics, age, gender, and so on; and/or
o inferential statistics that indicate confidence intervals or the results of
statistical tests or regression analyses.
Consider the following example of in-text reference to descriptive statistics

from a paper on this paper on marital satisfaction and religious practice in
Pakistan:
The sample size of this study was 508 and comprised 254 males (50%)
and 254 females (50%). The age factor was investigated according to the
ranges: (1) 20–29, (2) 30–39, (3) 40–49, and (4) >50. The findings showed
that 26.31% of respondents were aged 20 to 29 years, 46.05% were in the
age bracket of 30-39 years, 21.38% were between 40 and 49, and only 5.59%
were over 50 years of age. Regarding the collection of data from different
fields, 23.0% of the respondents were from education sector, 22.06% were
from the health sector, 13.08% were from the business sector, 15.07% were
from households, and 26.78% were from public places.
Or this example of reference to the results of statistical tests from a paper on
self-care methods used by palliative care workers:
Wilcoxon’s test also demonstrated a change on the scale of the Emotion

Thermometer, in particular regarding the following dimensions: anger (Z = -
2.214, p = .027); sleep (Z = -2.268, p = .023); help (Z = -2.184, p = .029). The
mean pre-test anger value is 3.09 and post-test is 1.73. The pre-test mean
sleep value is 2.45 and post-test is 1.41. The pre-test mean help value is 3.50
and the post-test value is 2.55.
Always use accepted conventions when presenting any statistics relating to
your paper. This includes using appropriate terminology and symbols,
following standard formatting rules, and reporting results in a way that is
consistent with the requirements of your referencing style. This allows your
results to be easily understood and interpreted by other researchers, and
allows comparison of your findings to the results of other similar studies in the
field.
2. Refer to data in a table, graph or diagram
When data is presented in a figure such as a table or a graph, refer to this

figure in the text at the point where the reader should look at the figure.
Commonly used phrases for referring to figures include:
o As shown in Figure 2...

o Table 3 shows the results related to...
o Figure 5 provides an overview of...
o Graph 2 indicates a clear relationship between...
o In Table 4, it can be seen that...
o The data presented in Figure 7...
You can often follow this with some brief highlights of the data that draw
your reader's attention to important points. Remember to highlight parts of the
data only: Don't simply list the data that is in the figure in sentence form. (That
is what the figure is there for!) Instead, draw the reader's attention to an
important aspect of the data, and describe or explain what the data is
showing.
A short example can be seen in this environmental science paper about

carbon emissions for various countires, with brief highlights indicated after
reference to the relevant table:
The Descriptive Statistics in Table 3 revealed that the average

CO2 emission for the sample Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) countries was
6.949, with maximum and minimum values of 37.468 and 0.098
respectively. This implies that carbon emissions in metric tons per capita is
relatively low. This shows a high compliance level of the green BRI.
3. Refer to qualitative data using excerpts
If you collected qualitative data in your research, you can use excerpts from
your data in the form of quotes from interviews, case studies or surveys to
illustrate an observed pattern or idea. In this case, explicitly describe the
pattern or idea first, then use one or two quotes (de-identified) that help the
reader to see your observation in context. This can involve phrases such as:
o A number of participants found that... For example, Participant 12 stated: "..."
o The data revealed a common theme of... As one participant described it, "..."
o As observed in the case studies, "..."
o Several respondents reported that "...", which is in line with the findings that...
o In agreement with this idea, one interviewee remarked that "..."
o Participant responses indicated that... as seen in the following quote: "..."
o Supporting this observation, a survey respondent noted that "..."
It is common to follow such statements with quotes that show alternative or
contrasting patterns or ideas. This helps the reader to have a more well-
rounded view of your data.
An example of the use of excerpts can be seen in this paper about teachers'
reactions to using corpora (language databases) in their teaching. Notice how
the pattern is identified first, then quotes are used to illustrate:
When asked whether the practice training activities were helpful for learning
how to use corpora, both primary and secondary trainees tended to speak
highly of the training they received in terms of how learning about corpora
benefitted them personally as a reference resource:
Trainee J (Primary): The course helped me to learn how to use corpora. I

know how check synonyms, collocations, and also […] find many examples.
Trainee C (Secondary): Speaking personally, the practice activities [...] were

really helpful for me to learn how to use corpora, because before this, I wasn’t
really sure of how to use it.
Remember to be explicit
Don't forget that the point of your results section is to clearly show the
reader what you have found. Explicitly referring to specific data not allows
the reader to see the justification for your later conclusions; it also
provides transparency and accountability to your paper, as your reader can
verify your findings by examining the data themselves. This way of writing also
demonstrates your ability to accurately organise, process and analyse data,
which is a key skill for anyone conducting research.
4. Comment on your findings
A final element of writing your results section is to comment on your results,

by providing further description or elaboration for your reader. In general,
these comments would be about the findings themselves, while leaving more
detailed consideratons of the meaning and influence of your findings to the
discussion section.
COMMENTING ON YOUR RESULTS
Should I include comments?
The choice about whether to make comments, and to what depth, is

something that is very discipline- and data-specific. In some papers, like the
example paper in the video at the start of this module, comments are scarce
or almost non-existent in the results section. In others, however, comments
are extensive, with findings being examined in comprehesive detail. For most
papers, the level of detail for comments is somewhere in between these two
points.
One good way to judge whether comments will be expected in your paper is to
examine 3-4 similar studies from your literature review and use them to get an
idea as to what is common in your topic area.
If in doubt, the main question to ask yourself is, "Do these comments help to
clarify or explain the answer to my research question?" Include only
those that do, and leave others out.
Types of comments
Once you have presented your findings, you may choose to make some
comments on those findings, where it is appropriate for your discipline and
data type. These comments could be things like:
o Interpretation: Giving more details about why the results are likely to be that
way, or clarifying what was found. This may also include providing any
plausible alternative explanations for findings, or considering other variables
or factors that may be at work that were not considered in your research
design.
o Evaluation: Stating whether a particular finding or set of findings support or
do not support one of your research hypotheses, or answer a research
question.
o Limitations: Identifying any limitations or weaknesses that may apply to a
particular finding (e.g., problems with sampling, instrumentation or
methodology). These may include factors relating to reliability, validity or the
generalisability of a result.
o Comparison: Comparing your findings to that of other published work in the
field, and considering how your results may be similar or different, or how your
results add to existing findings.
o Unexpected results: Highlighting any result that is contrary to what was
expected, and/or considering why this might be the case.
Adding comments like the ones in this list can help your reader to understand
your results more fully, and give meaningful context to your findings.
Comments can also make your paper more interesting! Results sections that
contain descriptions of findings only without any comments can be very dry
and tedious to read. Providing your own reflections and inserting your own
voice into your paper can help to break up the otherwise very descriptive
nature of the results section.
Examples in context
You can see an example of limited commenting on results in this
paper about self-compassion in social workers. In the excerpt below, the text
is fully descriptive, with only a single comment at the end that evaluates the
finding against the hypothesis made earlier in the paper.
As shown in Table 1, the results of the linear regression indicate a significant

and positive relationship between self-compassion and cultural competence,
F(1, 255) = 17.04, p < .001, R2 = .06, with an r of .25. A participant’s predicted
mean score on the Multicultural Counselling Inventory (MCI) was equal to
2.19+.30 (SCSMean), where SCSMean is measured in scale score units. The
participant’s mean MCI score increased .30 units for every scale unit increase
in the SCSMean score. A higher score on self-compassion resulted in a
higher score on cultural competence. The study hypothesis that self-
compassion predicts levels of cultural competence was thereby
confirmed.
By comparison, consider the excerpt below from a business paper about
spinoff companies. You can see here that they have referred to a table, then
highlighted a key finding from that table. In the third sentence, they have then
added comments that both interpret their finding (starting with the word
"suggesting") and compare it to the findings of previous authors (starting with
the word "observed"):
Table 6 presents a general overview of survival of the UK spinoff companies

by formation cohort. While the formation of the spinoff companies has
decreased since 2002, there is a clear pattern signifying higher survival
rate of spinoffs in their first three years with typically at least approximately
95% of firms in each cohort surviving. In the subsequent two years reported
here (i.e. five- year survival), the survival falls at an accelerated
rate, suggesting the liability of adolescence (Coad, 2017) or presence of
the ‘honeymoon’ effect (Hudson, 1987), observed in smaller samples by
Jelfs (2016) and Lawton Smith et al. (2014).
Notice also that the latter example has included references to four different
papers in one sentence. Including comments that include references like this
can enhance the credibility of your findings and show how your work connects
to the field more broadly.

Question: What advice would you give to a person who is writing their results
section?
o Prof. Blake McKimmie (Psychology): Make sure that the analyses

clearly test the research question. Rather than just presenting a factual
account of the results, be sure to link the results back to the predictions that
have been made earlier in the paper.
o Dr Amy Hubbell (Languages and Cultures): This is the core of what you
are working on! It needs to be well-organised with clearly stated themes.
Make sure that the section contains everything that is relevant. Help the
reader to learn something new.
o Prof. Tamara Davis (Mathematics and Physics): Present a coherent
account of what you have achieved. Figures are very valuable, especially if
they have a clear caption that communicates what the reader should be taking
away from that section.
o Assoc. Prof. Jack Wang (Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences): There
can sometimes be too much of an emphasis on numbers; remember to also
explain qualitatively how the individual pieces of data you have collected are
connected to one another.
o Prof. Kate O'Brien (Chemical Engineering): This is the heart of the
thesis; many readers will read only this section. A good results section is "pre-
digested" (like a bird feeding its young) so that the reader doesn't have to
work to try to understand the results.
o Prof. Emer. David Mee (Mechanical and Mining Engineering): It's not
necessary to include all the results that you have collected; focus on the ones
that develop the ideas that lead to your conclusions. Any additional results
can go in an appendix if necessary.
o Assoc. Prof. Kelly Matthews (Education): Remind the reader of your
research aims, then give an overview of how the results will be presented.
Bring the reader along with you by reminding
SUMMARY OF MODULE 4
Selecting which data to write about
o Trying to include all of the data that you have collected is usually not advisable; it may cause
your paper to lose its sense of purpose, and could make your results boring or difficult to read.
o Only include data in your results section if it is directly related to your research
question/s and can be used to draw valid conclusions
Writing about your results
Your results section can be structured by using the following four steps as a guideline:
o Separate your data into logical groups, such as by research question, variable, theme, time or
participant group, and make this explicit to the reader
o Use a general-to-specific order, both across groups and within each group, by presenting
broad findings first before going into more specific individual details
o Refer to specific data as you write, including in-text references or descriptions; references to
tables, graphs or diagrams; and/or reference to excerpts of qualitative data
o Optionally, comment on your findings, such as by providing clarifications, comparing findings

to expectations or hypotheses, or evaluating the validity or reliability of a finding
Commenting on findings varies significantly by discipline and data type, so consult

similar papers in your field to see what is common practice for your type of research.

The discussion section is arguably the most important part of your entire
thesis. Your discussion applies meaning to your findings, and shows your
reader why they should care about what you have found.
The open-ended and somewhat subjective nature of the discussion can make
it a difficult section to write. Nevertheless, a quality discussion can be the
difference between a good thesis and a great thesis.
In this module, we will examine the key components of this final section of
your paper. Watch the video below to get started.
A discussion section should include the following components:
o Describe the overall outcomes of your research by (a) restating

the purpose of your research (specifying which research gap you wanted to
address); (b) explaining in general terms how your study has contributed to
existing knowledge by filling that gap; and (c) summarising your key
findings in general terms
o Interpret specific findings for your research by (a) referring to a research
question; (b) interpreting the finding (i.e., what does it mean? how does it help
us understand the phenomenon?); and (c) explaining the significance or
importance of the finding; and repeating these steps for each finding
o Compare your findings to existing literature on the topic, commenting on
whether your results are similar or different to previous studies, or whether
your findings provide additional insight or build on existing research.
 WHY WRITE A DISCUSSION?
 The purpose of a discussion
 The discussion section is a crucial part of your thesis, where

you interpret your results and explain what they reveal about the
phenomenon that you are investigating. It is also the place where you
can connect your findings to your research question/s and the
broader literature. In doing these things, you can showcase your critical
thinking and evaluative skills.
 Comparison of results and discussion
 To understand the difference between the results and discussion

sections, consider the following table:
Results Section Discussion Section
Presents the findings in a clear and concise Interprets and explains the results
manner
Provides visual aids, such as tables and Assigns meaning and context to findings
figures
Analyses processed data to identify Discusses the significance of the findings

patterns and trends
Avoids interpretation or evaluation of the Compares the findings with existing

results literature
Relatively objective More subjective
 As you can see, the results section focuses on

objectively presenting your findings, while the discussion section
subjectively interprets and explains those findings.
 The way a discussion is written is heavily influenced by the background
knowledge, experience, perspective and biases of the writer. The way
that you write a discussion from your data may be different to the way
that another writer would write a discussion from the same data. Thus, a
discussion is the section in which your voice and point of view are
more prominent than in other parts of your paper.
 Stay anchored to your data
 When writing your discussion section, remember to focus on

interpreting your results, without speculating with ideas that cannot be
supported by your data.
 It may help to imagine your findings like an anchor, and your
interpretations like the boat that the anchor is connected to. Your
interpretations can "move about" to a limited extent from your data, but
not too far. Any speculation that you make about your findings should
be firmly based on the data that you do have, without making guesses
based on data that you don't have.
PRESENTING OVERALL OUTCOMES
To present your overall research outcomes to your reader, consider the

following steps:
1. Restate the purpose of your research
Begin your discussion by restating the purpose of your research. Note that
this is not necessarily a specific research question/s; rather, it is
the purpose that you outlined after you identified the research gap at the end
of your introduction section. Restating your purpose has several benefits:
o It helps to remind the reader what you set out to achieve. This is a matter of
practicailty; there is a lot of text in a thesis between the end of your
introduction (where your research purpose is stated) and the beginning of
your discussion.
o It gives meaningful context to the discussion that follows. Your results could
possibly be interpreted in a number of ways, but your interpretation will be
informed by your research purpose.
o It provides boundaries to your discussion. While your research may have
some interesting incidental findings, restating your purpose helps you as a
writer to limit your interpretations to those related to your purpose.
You may also wish to include a brief reference to the method used to achieve
this purpose, particularly if this is common in your topic area, or if doing so is
important to providing context for your subsequent discussion.
Restatements of purpose often use phrases like:
o The primary objective of this study was to investigate...

o In this study, the effect of X on Y was explored to...
o The purpose of the current study was to examine...
o This research aimed to both (a) ... and (b) ...
o To achieve the research aim, the study...
o As outlined in the introduction, this research aimed to better understand...
Consider the following example from this food science article, which
includes both a restatement of purpose and a reference to the method used to
achieve it:
In this study, natural Bulgarian zeolite was investigated for its

effectiveness to remove ammonium from synthetic wastewater and to treat
second cheese whey. Batch experiments were performed in both flasks
and fixed-bed columns to examine the effect of various operating conditions
on zeolite performance. The conclusions reached from this study are: [...]
2. Indicate your contribution to the literature
After presenting your purpose, the next logical thing to say is how your
research has fulfilled your purpose. Given that the purpose of all research
is to address a research gap, you should indicate how your research has
addressed the gap you have identified, and therefore contributed to the
existing body of knowledge on the topic.
This is particularly important for higher level papers such as Ph.D. theses, in
which your contribution to the literature is more heavily scrutinised.
Key phrases to indicate your level of contribution include:
o This study advances our understanding of...

o The findings of this research provide new insights into...
o The results of this research expand upon...
o This research adds to the exisiting body of knowledge by...
o In addressing this research gap, this study made a valuable contribution to the
field of...
o By examining X, this research provides insight into...
The following example from a teacher training paper shows a statement of

purpose (in the opening sentence), followed by indications of the researchers'
contribution to the literature (in bold):
The present study has provided an in-depth investigation into the nature of [...]
teacher trainees’ integration of language corpora and data-driven learning
pedagogies into lesson planning [...]. The findings represent valuable
qualitative data on computer assisted language learning lesson planning
activity and add to the small pool of studies on lesson planning involving
corpus integration in the L2 classroom. In particular, our data provides
valuable examples of data-driven learning-focused lesson planning
constitutive of low, medium and high levels of TPACK respectively, involving
elements of technological, pedagogical and content knowledge at the
individual level as well as how trainees acheived the ‘fit’ of all three. We now
address each research question in turn.
This consumer behaviour article contains the same elements in the
reverse order, specifying the contribution first (in bold) before stating the
research purpose:
This study contributes to customer behavior and social

identification literature in marketing, particularly in the hospitality
context. This study is the first to have simultaneously examined the
relationships among customer brand identification, affective commitment,
customer satisfaction, brand trust, and customer behavioral intention of loyalty
(CBIL), having developed and empirically tested an integrated model that
comprehensively assessed these relationships. Therefore, this research
sought to develop and test a theoretical model of CBI and customer
satisfaction effects on a specific set of customer-based variables, including
brand trust, affective commitment, and CBIL.
It is important to make sure that your contribution is clearly articulated, as it
summarises why your research is worth reading.
3. Summarise your findings
To finish the opening to your discussion, you should summarise your

findings. This involves giving your reader a quick overview of what you found,
but saving details for a subsequent part of your discussion.
It can be helpful to think of this like a traffic light explanation: Imagine that you
are stopped at traffic lights and need to quickly explain the general findings of
your research to a passenger before the light goes green again. Putting
yourself in this frame of mind will force you to focus on the key highlights of
what you have found without getting bogged down in detail.
Your summary should be concise and compelling. Remember that by the

end of this summary, your readers will be formulating an impression of your
paper as a whole, and deciding whether or not they want to read the rest of
your discussion. Therefore, it is worth investing time in a careful phrasing of
this component.
Key phrases to do this include:


o It was found that...

o The data collected indicates that...
o I found significant support for the connection between...
o Most participants indicated X, while others stated that Y.
o As predicted, X had a strong influence on Y.
o Contrary to predictions, X and Y had no noticeable effect, while Z had a
modest effect...
You can see examples of this type of summary (as well as the other
components on this page) from this study testing people's senses of taste
and smell:
The current study firstly assessed intra-individual differences between

sensitivity measures to decremental and incremental stimulus changes, and
their links to the gold standard. While both d′(d) and d′(i) were correlated
with d′(t), an inverse relationship was found between these two sub-
measures for some of the testing compounds. The implication is
that individuals who are less sensitive to stimulus reduction are more
sensitive to stimulus increment, and vice versa. While these findings are
highly novel in terms of chemosensory capacity, such asymmetrical
sensitivities to high- versus low- stimulus intensities are in line with findings
from comparable auditory (Geier et al., 2006, Kerameas et al., 2015, Rinne et
al., 2006) and visual (Blundell, 2001, Rizk and Treat, 2015, Robinson et al.,
2016) analyses. Altogether, these findings highlight the importance of treating
d′(t), d′(d), and d′(i) as independent measures.
HOW TO WRITE INTERPRETATIONS

Determine a logical order first
To organise the interpretation of your results into a logical order, it is usually a

good idea to retain the same order that you used in your results section. For
example, if your results section is organised by research question (RQ1, RQ2,
RQ3...), it is usually advisable to organise your interpretations in the same
order.
However, if multiple findings have something in common, it may make more

sense to combine those findings and interpret them together. This will help
you to avoid repetition and maintain an engaging pace when interpreting
these results.
Once you have decided on a suitable organisational method, there are three
steps involved here that can be used for each specific finding (or group of
related findings) in your research.
1. Refer to a research question or finding
Begin by concisely referring to the research question or result you are about
to discuss. This may be a sentence on its own, or a sentence fragment. You
should avoid repeating the phrasing you used when describing this finding in
the results section; the statement is simply there to indicate to your reader
which research question or finding you are about to talk about.
2. Interpret the finding
Interpretation involves reflecting on your findings and considering what the

finding means in the greater context of your study. It answers questions like:
o What do these results tell us about the true nature of the thing you are
studying?
o What does this show about how A is connected to B?
o If the result is surprising or counter-intuitive, why might this be?
o Why might A influence B and C, but not D?
o Are there any other plausible explanations for the same results? If so, why is
one more likely than another?
o How confident can we be in drawing conclusions about our phenomenon from
this finding?
o How can these results be generalised to a larger population, or to similar
populations?
o ...and others.
It's important to note that interpretation is a subjective process that is

influenced by your your background knowledge, your biases and many other
factors. In other words, there is no one best way to interpret data; another
writer could pick up your data and interpret it differently.
With this in mind, you should consider multiple perspectives when
interpreting all but the most obvious results, and consider which
interpretations or explanations are the most likely to be true or accepted by
others in the field. If your interpretation diverges from what has been
suggested by previous research, you should explain why an alternative
understanding is more appropriate.
However you choose to interpret your data, ensure that each interpretation
can be supported by the data that you have collected. You have invested a
significant amount of time and energy in collecting and analysing your data, so
make sure that your interpretations are centred around what your data
actually says, not on feelings or on assumptions that are unrelated to your
data.
Avoid phrases conveying too much certainty, like "This study has proven..." or
"This result shows that people need to...". Your study does not contain perfect
and complete data, and that therefore your conclusions need to contain an
openness to other possibilities. Instead, use tentatitve language (words such
as "could", "might" or "may") in phrases like:
o [Result] provides strong evidence for the existence of...

o The weak connection between X and Y suggests that...
o This may explain...
o This could be due to...
o [Result] provides support to the hypothesis that...
o Several explanantions could account for this unexpected result.
o It is possible that other factors such as... could influence...
o The observed difference between these groups indicates that...
Such phrasing shows your reader that you understand that there is some
uncertainty in your conclusions, and that you have a realistic appreciation of
the findings of your study in the context of the wider field.
You can see this kind of speculation about the reasons behind results in this
example from a psychology paper about performance anxiety for musical
performers:
Although one might expect principals [i.e. lead peformers] to have the
highest levels of musical performance anxiety (MPA), due to their greater
exposure and responsibility, the study found evidence of raised MPA
among associate principals. This could be due to the requirement for
associate principals to “step up” and play principal when the principal player is
absent, and anxiety that “there’s always a chance the principal will bow out
without warning the night of a concert” (Smith, 2009, p. 6). Associate
principals might also suffer from anxiety over potential negative
comparisons with the principal player, and increased work stress because
of the need to develop a wide range of technical abilities in order to play a
variety of different roles (Brodsky, 1996; Parasuraman & Purohit, 2000).
A similar tone can be seen in this excerpt from a study on motivations for
volunteering where results were not as expected:
There are several alternative explanations for our results that undercut
our hypothesis of differential warm glow. These explanations arise
specifically from our experimental environment, rather than generally
applying to situations involving charitable giving; that is, they suggest that the
subjects’ preferences for donating time may be a confound of our design. We
address each possibility in turn.
3. Explain why the finding matters
During the introduction to your thesis, you explained why your particular
research gap is worth studying. This is a good opportunity to link back these
ideas and talk about why your findings and their interpretations are important
or significant. Explaining the importance of your findings helps you to make a
case for the value of your research. You are telling your reader why they
should care about this particular finding. Examples of why a result may be
important include:
o The information has some practical, real-world use or benefit to humanity or

other living things
o The outcomes of a given practice or set of practices could be improved
o A surprising or unexpected finding could indicate that there are other
important factors that may need consideration
o There may be opportunities to improve the efficiency or effectiveness of a
process
o We may be able to gain a more complete or sophisticated understanding of
your phenomenon
o There may be a discovery of something that warrants further exploration or
confirmation
o It could challenge or confirm existing concepts, models or theories in the field
One example of this can be seen in this Italian business management

study, whose results suggested that commonly held assumptions in the field
may not apply to their context:
...we find that the board of directors, in spite of the agency theory
assumptions, does not necessarily benefit from a high number of
independent directors; rather, a more balanced composition of the board is
beneficial. In this respect, the percentage of independent directors has a
positive effect on firm performance for lower levels of independents and
negative effects on firm performance for higher levels of independents. Our
results suggest that the agency theory assumptions in the Italian
context need to be reconsidered, confirming that independent directors on
the board play a prominent role, but they do not have to be higher in number
than executives.
Remember that a finding does not need to be paradigm-shifting in order to be
important. There are different ways in which something could be considered
important or significant, which varies from field to field. While some
disciplines will emphasise practical application, others will value the
development of theoretical understanding just as highly, or perhaps even
more highly than practical use. Make sure that you express the importance or
significance of your findings in a way that is appropriate to what is valued in
your discipline area.
Keyboard Help
Try classifying each of the statements below to indicate whether they are
descriptive (more suited to the results section) or interpretive (more suited to
the discussion section).
The data analysis revealed a clear correlation between variables X and Y.
, draggable
These results suggest that the observed effects are likely due to a combination of factors.
, draggable
These findings suggest that the underlying mechanisms of this phenomenon include...
, draggable
The mean values obtained from the study indicated a significant improvement in performance.
, draggable
The current study's outcomes raise questions about the existing theoretical frameworks in the field.
, draggable
The findings demonstrate a consistent pattern across all participants.
, draggable
The data collected indicates a strong positive relationship between...
, draggable
It is plausible to argue that the results reflect a complex interplay between...
, draggable
MAKING COMPARISONS
It is important to note that unlike the components described on the previous

two pages, comparison to existing literature is not usually a separate
section of your discussion. Rather, comparison is something that
is incorporated into the component where you are interpreting specific
results. Thus, it is found distributed – sometimes unevenly – throughout your
discussion, as you make comparisons where appropriate.
Why compare?
When writing your discussion section, it's important to compare your findings
to existing literature for several reasons:
o Comparison validates your research by showing consistency with previous

studies, which assures readers that your results are valid and trustworthy.
o Showing contrasts with previous studies emphasises your contribution to
existing literature.
o Identifying disagreements highlights areas for future research to provide
greater clarity around particular aspects of your phenomenon.
A discussion section that does not compare its results to existing literature can
give the impression that your research was done in an isolated manner with
no attention paid to other studies. This can harm the credibility of your
research by making it feel "disconnected" from the larger body of research on
the topic.
Types of comparison
There are three main types of comparison that you can make when
considering your own results against those of others.
1. Similar to existing research. Showing that at least some of your results

agree with previous research can give your reader confidence that your
research methods and conclusions are valid and reliable. Example phrases
for indicating similarity include:
 This is consistent with research conducted by...
 Similar results were obtained by...
 This interpretation is in line with the theory of...
 Other studies (e.g. _______) have similarly found that...
 In agreement with previous research, my findings suggest that...
 These findings align with some prior studies in this area, such as...
2. Different to existing research. Contrasting (or partly contrasting) findings
are often the more interesting parts of your discussion: If two (or more)
researchers are carefully examining the same phenomenon and obtaining
different results, it is worth considering why this might be the case,
and what this contrast can reveal to us about the phenomenon being
investigated. Avoid trying to simply dismiss your own findings or to assume
that others must be right, as this can harm the credibility and value of your
paper. Example phrases for highlighting differences include:

 In contrast to prior research, this study found that...

 These results differ from those of previous studies in that...
 Unlike earlier research by (____________), my findings indicate...
 This contradicts previous research (e.g. __________) which has suggested
that...
 While previous studies have shown _______, this set of findings indicates
_______.
 My results diverge from prior research in that...
3. Adding to existing research. This involves highlighting where your
results extend or build on what has already been found, and therefore make
a contribution to the existing literature. Such results might have been
obtained by exploring an under-researched area, examinining a different
population, considering a problem from a different point of view, and so on.
Example phrases for this type of comparison include:
 This study contributes to the existing body of literature by...

 This research provides another perspective on...
 These findings add to the growing body of literature on...
 This study advances the current understanding of...
 My research fills a gap in the literature by...
 The results of this study extend the current knowledge base on...
Examples in context
Here is an example of comparison showing similarity from an anthropology

paper about the health of an isolated tribe off the coast of India. The results
of the study are reported, followed by a description of similar findings for
populations in other parts of the world:
In the present study, muscle strength was shown to be highest in 20-year-

old adults, and then it decreased with advancing age. Similar observations
have been made in Pittsburg population of men, where an increase in the
rate of decline of muscle strength with age was reported (Forrest et al., 2005).
[...] Another study [similarly] reported that grip strength increases with age
of less than 50 years and decreases after 50 years and above among Afro-
Caribbean men (Forrest et al., 2012).
A comparison highlighting a difference to prior research can be seen in this
technology paper, which challenged the idea that household smart devices
could understand male voices better than female ones:
Previous work discussed that women are less well understood by commercial
devices for more than a decade (Kobie, 2019). Similarly, Tatman (2019)
showed that algorithms used by Google understand males better than
females. In contrast to previous work, our results do not support the
assumption that algorithms necessarily understand men better than women.
[...]
A comparison adding to existing research can be seen in this biology
paper in which the authors built on previous research to develop a more
efficent way of modelling a particular biological process:
The approach we implement [with our new mathematical model] builds on

previously described approaches (Whelan and Goldman 2001; Le and
Gascuel 2008), and our analyses reveal that it improves on them in terms
of model fit to the data.
Emphasise contrast and contribution
While showing similarity can help with the credibility of your paper, it should
not form the sole component of your discussion section. If your
research only agrees with existing findings, this means that it has not really
added much to the existing body of knowledge. This can cause your reader to
lose interest, as they don't really gain any new knowledge by reading past
your literature review.
It is important, therefore, to give attention to areas where your research has

shown differences to, or (particularly) added to, existing knowledge about
the topic. These types of comparisons show the value of your research much
more clearly, and therefore deserve emphasis in your discussion.
The conclusion of your thesis moves on from interpreting your data and
takes a more evaluative stance. Your conclusion is where you reflect on your
own research and consider what it means for theory, for practice and for future
research in the area. The video below explores the key points to include in
your conclusion.
A conclusion, which may be separate to or part of the discussion, should

include the following components:
o Describe the implications of your research, both within your field and, if
relevant, beyond your field; these implications may be for theory and/or for
practice
o Outline the limitations and strengths of your study, describing the limitations
in a strategic way that focuses on the positive aspect of the limitation where
possible; focus on big-picture limitations and strengths only
o Suggest future research directions, linking the suggestions that you make to
aspects of your own study's discoveries or limitations
WRITING ABOUT IMPLICATIONS

What is an implication?
An implication refers to the potential consequences or effects of your
research findings. It is a way of considering the broader significance of your
work beyond the specific research question/s you set out to answer.
Implications address the question, "What should we do about these findings?"
The implications that you explore will generally be within your field – that is,
closely related to the topic that you are studying. These are the easiest
implications to write about, since you will be familiar with the field from your
literature review, and such implications will flow on logically from your findings.
However, you may also wish to consider implications beyond your field,
particularly if your research is used as a basis for other fields. If you are
presenting implications for a field that you are unfamiliar with, however, it is a
good idea to consult with someone in that field to ensure that the implications
that you are proposing are appropriate and realistic.
Types of implications
The implications of your research tend to be theoretical or practical. You

may choose to consider either or both in your thesis; which you choose will
depend heavily on what is appropriate your topic area.
Theoretical implications are about the impact of your research on existing

theories or conceptual frameworks. For example, your findings may challenge
or support existing theories in your field. When discussing theoretical
implications, you might use phrases like:
o This research challenges the prevailing view that...

o These findings support the idea that...
o This research raises questions about...
o This research has significant implications for our understanding of...
o The present study extends current thinking on...
o These results provide a new perspective on the relationship between...
Practical implications, on the other hand, are about the potential real-world
applications of your research. This might include policy implications, or
suggestions for how practitioners in your field might use your findings to
improve their work. Useful phrases for discussing practical implications
include:
o These findings have important implications for...

o This research suggests that policymakers should consider...
o Practitioners in this field could use these findings to...
o The outcomes of this study have important implications for practitioners in...
o These results suggest new approaches to solving the problem of...
o These findings may be used to inform the development of best practices for...
Examples of both types of implications can be found in the conclusion of this

engineering paper in which the authors develop an improved method for
detecting faults in hydraulic pumps:
The main contribution of the paper is twofold. From the theoretical

perspective, the original empirical wavelet transform (EWT) is improved to
address the issue of unreasonable spectrum segmentation. [...] Both
simulation analysis and experimental analysis demonstrate that improved
EWT perform better in signal reconstruction and is more robust in different
noise environments than the original EWT.
From the methodological perspective, [...] the fusion algorithm [...] has a
good performance in weak fault detection for hydraulic pumps and has
some superiority on the aspect of high accuracy and small computation cost
among state of the art of vibration signal fusion approaches.
Another example of stating practical implications can be seen in this short
excerpt from a psychotherapy paper on helping people deal with
psychological aspects of irritable bowel syndrome:
In addition to trait anxiety and anxiety sensitivity, depression,

number of diagnosable psychiatric conditions, situational anxiety,
and stress moderated IBS symptom improvement from the
perspective of the patient [...] Clinical gastroenterologists may find
that understanding patients’ sensitivity to stressors [...] can help them
get the most out of empirically validated nondrug treatments, such as
cognitive behavioural therapy. Short screening methods may optimize
health outcomes by setting realistic treatment expectations and
personalizing options.
Remain realistic
It is important to be wary of overstating the implications or consequences of
your study. Notice that the example phrases above use tentative
language, with words such as "could", "consider", "suggests" and "supports",
rather than words that express complete certainty like "proven", "must",
"essential" or "needs".
Using tentative language like this can help you describe the implications of
your study in a way that is balanced and realistic. Remember that your study
is part of a much larger field that has been developing over a long period.
Consider where your study sits in the existing body of literature, and make
sure that the implications you present are reasonable within that broader
context. Over-reaching can suggest to your reader that your view of your own
research is exaggerated, which can cause them to lose confidence in your
ability to accurately evaluate your data.
EVALUATING YOUR RESEARCH
Why talk about limitations?
You may think that to talk about the limitations of your own research would
undermine its credibility. If done carefully, however, an examination of your
study's limitations can actually increase its credibility, as it:
 showcases your awareness of the boundaries of your study;

 specifies to which context your findings actually apply, thus managing
readers' expectations and preventing unwarranted generalisations;
 guides future research by indicating areas that other researchers can
address; and
 encourages transparency, allowing others to more comprehensively
understand and evaluate your work.
These factors give your reader a realistic appreciation of the limits of your
research, and therefore a better understanding of your research as a whole.
Common limitations and strengths
When writing about your limitations and strengths, avoid simply listing pros
and cons without context or explanation. It is better to focus on a small
number of the most important ones, and explain concisely the impact that
they have had on your research.
The table below contains some common limitations and strengths that are
often found in thesis research.
Common limitations Common strengths
Small sample size Well-defined research question
Limited data access Rigorous research methodology
Incomplete data Clear or consistent patterns in data
Confounding variables Novel contribution to the field
Lack of diversity in the sample Practical implications for real-world problems
Short study duration Meaningful or insightful results
Bias in data collection Careful statistical analysis

Common limitations Common strengths
Limited generalisability New intervening variables identified
Inconsistent findings Validity and reliability of the study
Researcher subjectivity Strong theoretical framework
Presenting limitations strategically

In many cases, the limitations that are present in your study can also contain
a positive or deliberate element. This is not always the case, but it can be
worth pointing out to your reader that limitations are not necessarily all
negative.
For example, if you were only able to collect qualitative information from a
small number of participants, you could argue that this also allowed you to
capture more detailed data about participants' subjective experiences than
would have been possible with a larger but less in-depth study.
Or, if your experimental study was unable to control external variables, you
can argue that the data collected more accurately captures elements that are
likely to be present in real-world conditions and is therefore less restrictive
than a study that is more tightly controlled.
Some useful phrases that can be used in this context include:
o Although this study was limited by...

o One possible limitation of this study is... However...
o This study provides valuable insights into [specific group]
o Despite these limitations, this study has...
o A [limitation] allowed a greater exploration of...
o While I was not able to exclude the effect of _________, this is frequently
observed in natural settings of...
Consider this example from a veterinary research paper on dog

ownership, which indicates a limitation, then supplements this by explaining
that this was done for an expected benefit, and had little expected impact on
the quality of results:
Despite potential selection bias within our cohort, previous work has
suggested prioritising enrolling motivated participants who are more likely to
retain their involvement over time over representativeness of the cohort
compared to the target population, as the effect of selection bias on
exposure-outcome associations was limited.
A similar strategic presentation of limitations can be seen in this paper on
the effect of promotion of solar power on farmland value in Taiwan:
With respect to the econometric model, some recent analyses of farmland

prices have applied spatial regression models. The reason we did not adopt
this approach is because the exact geographic location of each transacted
farmland is not available due to confidentiality concerns. Without this
information, we are unable to conduct spatial regression analyses in this
study. Regardless of this data limitation, we have some confidence
that spatial correlation may not be very serious in our case because many
studies on farmland prices in Taiwan do not adopt this approach (e.g., Chang
and Lin, 2016; Chen et al., 2018).
Limitations are not failures
Don't be discouraged by the existence of limitations in your study. Remember

that all studies, even the very best ones, have limitations. There is no way of
conducting research that can possibly collect all data about a phenomenon in
a perfectly objective and unbiased way.
Time, knowledge and resources will always be limited, and therefore
research that is based on those things will be limited too. Avoid viewing it as a
negative, and instead consider it to be a natural and inherent part of the
research process.
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
Link suggestions to your own study

When making suggestions for future research, it is important to ensure that
these ideas are clearly linked in some way to your own research, rather than
being random or unexpected. Remember that the point of this component is to
make suggestions about how future research can build on your study, not to
suggest general avenues of exploration for the field in general. The most
obvious way to do this is to link your suggestions for future research to
the limitations or implications of your study. For example, you could
suggest that future research:
o compares results with other populations to test generalisability
o employs other methods (qualitative or quantitative)
o explores the effect of other possible variables that you have identified
o examines long-term effects or conducts a longitudinal study
o considers whether the results can be replicated in other contexts
o investigates whether the practical implications you have identified are effective
...and so on.
Some useful phrases for making suggestions for future research include:
o To address the limitations of this study, future research could...
o A promising direction for future research would be to...
o To build upon the findings of this study, researchers could... because...
o Further investigation is needed to understand... in order to...
o Given the practical implications of this research, future studies should... to
better understand how...
o To advance our understanding of this topic, future research might...
o The potential impact of future research in this area could be...
You can see a simple example of this type of linkage between a limitation and
a suggestion for future research in this medical paper looking at individuals
with lung cancer:
Finally, our [model] was created using a large population and validated using
external data with good discrimination and consistency, but the external
validation data is only for cases in a single region and is not representative
of other regions. Hence, more data from different regions is required for
external validation.
It can often be helpful to briefly justify why this particular avenue of research
is worth pursuing. An example can be observed in this paper on people's
privacy concerns about smart speakers:
Our study has several limitations. First, we collected cross-sectional rather

than longitudinal data, preventing strong causal claims. Smart speakers
are an emerging technology and increased awareness about the benefits and
risks could change people’s privacy protection behavior. Therefore, we
encourage future research to study privacy concerns and privacy protection
behavior over time, including additional factors such as media coverage.
Notice that the addition of a brief justification in between the limitation and the
suggestion makes the suggestion more robust as the writer
communicates why this direction of future study is worthwhile.
Make quality suggestions
When making suggestions, make sure that the research that you propose
is realistic and achievable. Don't suggest something that is not actually
feasible, as this can give the impression to the reader that you do not have a
reasonable appreciation of where the field can reasonably go from its current
position.
Suggestions should also be clear and concise, avoiding vague or overly

broad descriptions.
You can also show your reader that you can anticipate where the field is going
by focusing on avenues of exploration that are likely to be the most fruitful,
or to have the greatest impact on the field.
Remember that your suggestions for future research should not be an

afterthought. Rather, they should be a natural extension of your work and an
opportunity to contribute to the ongoing conversation in your field.
In this final video, we asked our guest

academics, "What advice would you give to
a person who is writing their discussion?"
Hear what they have to say below!
discussion section?
o Prof. Tamara Davis (Mathematics and Physics): Bring all the threads of
your thesis together. Consider both the contributions you have made, as well
as any potential weaknesses that indicate where research in that area could
go in the future.
o Dr Amy Hubbell (Languages and Cultures): Bring everything together
and make sure it is consistent with what you've written already. Don't surprise
the reader by introducing something new that you haven't talked about
already.
o Prof. Kate O'Brien (Chemical Engineering): Read the discussions of
three papers that you enjoy reading and another three that are of poor quality.
Reflect on the characteristics of the well-written papers. This will help you to
discover what makes a good quality discussion for your particular field.
o Assoc. Prof. Jack Wang (Chemistry and Molecular
Biosciences): Connect your findings to others in the field. Don't assume that
they have necessarily done it better. If no other paper out there can address
new gaps that you have identified, it is likely you have done something
innovative!
o Dr Russell Manfield (Business): Don't focus only on reinforcing what is
already known. Try to show how your research illuminates something that
was not previously known. If you can, offer a counter-intuitive insight;
something that makes the reader go, "I would not have expected that!"
o Dr Norman Ng (Health and Exercise Science): Make sure you clearly and
concisely interpret your research findings. Aim for the reader to have a
"eureka!" or light bulb moment when they are reading. Get feedback from your
supervisor or peers to ensure it is well-written.
o Prof. Blake McKimmie (Psychology): Go beyond a factual retelling of
what you have reported in the results section. Instead, give an overall analysis
of what the results mean, within the context of the literature. Also be careful
not to over-interpret the data; be realistic about what you have found.
o Prof. Emer. David Mee (Mechanical and Mining Engineering): Continue
to cite the work of others throughout your discussion. Show how your findings
or interpretations might agree or disagree with the work of other researchers
in the field.
o Assoc. Prof. Kelly Matthews (Education): Contribution, contribution,
contribution! Clearly show how your findings contribute to the field. Bring your
findings into conversation with the existing literature, and show what you have
added to the field with your research.
SUMMARY OF MODULE 5
Discussing your findings
The purpose of a discussion section is to interpret your findings; this is a more

subjective and personal process than reporting your findings in your results section. In
your discussion, you should:
o Outline the general outcomes of your research, reminding the reader of the research gap you
identified at the end of your introduction, and how your research has contributed to the existing
body of knowledge by addressing that gap
o Interpret the specific findings of your research, inferring what your results can tell us about the
phenomenon you are exploring (i.e., what do these findings mean?)
o Compare your results to existing literature on the topic, discussing similarities, differences and
points where your research has added to what is already known
Concluding your thesis
A conclusion may be a separate component of your thesis, or it may

be incorporated into your discussion. In either case, the following components should
be included:
o Explain the theoretical and practical implications (or consequences) of your research as it
relates to your field of study, and beyond your field of study if appropriate
o Describe the limitations and strengths of your research, emphasising the positive aspects of
any limitations where appropriate
o Suggest directions for future research, linking any suggestions that you make to aspects of
your own study.

Reseach Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reseach Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reseach Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 1

Choose your topics

What to write in thesis?

4. Combine complementary fields of study

FINDING CURRENT PROBLEMS OR DEVELOPMENT

 interventions to improve sleep

In addition to problems, it is also worth considering current

o the effect of digital devices on student learning

Ways to find problems or current developments

1. Reading a meta-analysis or detailed review of a research area

Conferences are places where researchers come together to share research

3. Asking a prospective supervisor what they are working on

5. Going outside academia

There is sometimes a gap between what university academics think is

Limitations of existing models

1. What type of review should I write?

TYPES OF LITERATURE REVIEW

Option 1: Traditional literature review

A traditional (or narrative) literature review is an overview of the significant

The short paragraphs below illustrate a traditional style literature review.

Additionally, AI can be used to automate time-consuming tasks such as

In contrast, a systematic literature review is a comprehensive, detailed

Systematic reviews are generally used in situations where there is a large

The example below illustrates the systematic style of review.

A systematic review of the existing literature on AI in education was

The review included a total of 10 studies, which were conducted across

Characteristic Narrative Systematic

Scope Presents the significant Presents a comprehensive,

Search strategy to find Not included Documented

Inclusion/exclusion Not included Documented and defined in

How included Summary or key points Detailed synthesis of each study

Interpretation of Influenced by writer's Writer attempts to be unbiased

In general, if the objective of your literature review is to provide a broad

If your research question is complex, involving many interconnected parts, a

DECIDING WHAT TO INCLUDE

One revelation that many people have as they undertake research is

Remember your objective

Filtering your sources

In order to stick to what is relevant, ask yourself the same question

Is this [paper, article, source] directly relevant to my research question?

This can be hard to do! As a postgraduate researcher, you are likely to be a

you may feel overwhelmed by trying to cover everything

all of the above

whenever you feel like it

3. How should I organise my review?

OPTIONS FOR ORGANISING YOUR REVIEW

A chronological literature review tends to suit situations in which:

A thematic literature review is organised around a series of topics or ideas,

It is also possible to present your review as a combination of these two,

When deciding on a large-scale organisational structure for your review,

Using a reference manager (optional)

SETTING UP REFERENCE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE

What does a reference manager do?

A reference management program or app:

How is it better than referencing by hand?

Where can I download the software?

Review a reference manager

Reference management tool

Use the 5-step guideline for writing