directions for future research are discussed

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Evans D, Coad J, Cottrell K, et al. Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Oct. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.36.)

Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation.

Chapter 9 conclusions and recommendations for future research.

• How well have we achieved our original aim and objectives?

The initially stated overarching aim of this research was to identify the contextual factors and mechanisms that are regularly associated with effective and cost-effective public involvement in research. While recognising the limitations of our analysis, we believe we have largely achieved this in our revised theory of public involvement in research set out in Chapter 8 . We have developed and tested this theory of public involvement in research in eight diverse case studies; this has highlighted important contextual factors, in particular PI leadership, which had not previously been prominent in the literature. We have identified how this critical contextual factor shapes key mechanisms of public involvement, including the identification of a senior lead for involvement, resource allocation for involvement and facilitation of research partners. These mechanisms then lead to specific outcomes in improving the quality of research, notably recruitment strategies and materials and data collection tools and methods. We have identified a ‘virtuous circle’ of feedback to research partners on their contribution leading to their improved confidence and motivation, which facilitates their continued contribution. Following feedback from the HS&DR Board on our original application we did not seek to assess the cost-effectiveness of different mechanisms of public involvement but we did cost the different types of public involvement as discussed in Chapter 7 . A key finding is that many research projects undercost public involvement.

In our original proposal we emphasised our desire to include case studies involving young people and families with children in the research process. We recruited two studies involving parents of young children aged under 5 years, and two projects involving ‘older’ young people in the 18- to 25-years age group. We recognise that in doing this we missed studies involving children and young people aged under 18 years; in principle we would have liked to have included studies involving such children and young people, but, given the resources at our disposal and the additional resource, ethical and governance issues this would have entailed, we regretfully concluded that this would not be feasible for our study. In terms of the four studies with parental and young persons’ involvement that we did include, we have not done a separate analysis of their data, but the themes emerging from those case studies were consistent with our other case studies and contributed to our overall analysis.

In terms of the initial objectives, we successfully recruited the sample of eight diverse case studies and collected and analysed data from them (objective 1). As intended, we identified the outcomes of involvement from multiple stakeholders‘ perspectives, although we did not get as many research partners‘ perspectives as we would have liked – see limitations below (objective 2). It was more difficult than expected to track the impact of public involvement from project inception through to completion (objective 3), as all of our projects turned out to have longer time scales than our own. Even to track involvement over a stage of a case study research project proved difficult, as the research usually did not fall into neatly staged time periods and one study had no involvement activity over the study period.

Nevertheless, we were able to track seven of the eight case studies prospectively and in real time over time periods of up to 9 months, giving us an unusual window on involvement processes that have previously mainly been observed retrospectively. We were successful in comparing the contextual factors, mechanisms and outcomes associated with public involvement from different stakeholders‘ perspectives and costing the different mechanisms for public involvement (objective 4). We only partly achieved our final objective of undertaking a consensus exercise among stakeholders to assess the merits of the realist evaluation approach and our approach to the measurement and valuation of economic costs of public involvement in research (objective 5). A final consensus event was held, where very useful discussion and amendment of our theory of public involvement took place, and the economic approach was discussed and helpfully critiqued by participants. However, as our earlier discussions developed more fully than expected, we decided to let them continue rather than interrupt them in order to run the final exercise to assess the merits of the realist evaluation approach. We did, however, test our analysis with all our case study participants by sending a draft of this final report for comment. We received a number of helpful comments and corrections but no disagreement with our overall analysis.

• What were the limitations of our study?

Realist evaluation is a relatively new approach and we recognise that there were a number of limitations to our study. We sought to follow the approach recommended by Pawson, but we acknowledge that we were not always able to do so. In particular, our theory of public involvement in research evolved over time and initially was not as tightly framed in terms of a testable hypothesis as Pawson recommends. In his latest book Pawson strongly recommends that outcomes should be measured with quantitative data, 17 but we did not do so; we were not aware of the existence of quantitative data or tools that would enable us to collect such data to answer our research questions. Even in terms of qualitative data, we did not capture as much information on outcomes as we initially envisaged. There were several reasons for this. The most important was that capturing outcomes in public involvement is easier the more operational the focus of involvement, and more difficult the more strategic the involvement. Thus, it was relatively easy to see the impact of a patient panel on the redesign of a recruitment leaflet but harder to capture the impact of research partners in a multidisciplinary team discussion of research design.

We also found it was sometimes more difficult to engage research partners as participants in our research than researchers or research managers. On reflection this is not surprising. Research partners are generally motivated to take part in research relevant to their lived experience of a health condition or situation, whereas our research was quite detached from their lived experience; in addition people had many constraints on their time, so getting involved in our research as well as their own was likely to be a burden too far for some. Researchers clearly also face significant time pressures but they had a more direct interest in our research, as they are obliged to engage with public involvement to satisfy research funders such as the NIHR. Moreover, researchers were being paid by their employers for their time during interviews with us, while research partners were not paid by us and usually not paid by their research teams. Whatever the reasons, we had less response from research partners than researchers or research managers, particularly for the third round of data collection; thus we have fewer data on outcomes from research partners‘ perspectives and we need to be aware of a possible selection bias towards more engaged research partners. Such a bias could have implications for our findings; for example payment might have been a more important motivating factor for less engaged advisory group members.

There were a number of practical difficulties we encountered. One challenge was when to recruit the case studies. We recruited four of our eight case studies prior to the full application, but this was more than 1 year before our project started and 15 months or more before data collection began. In this intervening period, we found that the time scales of some of the case studies were no longer ideal for our project and we faced the choice of whether to continue with them, although this timing was not ideal, or seek at a late moment to recruit alternative ones. One of our case studies ultimately undertook no involvement activity over the study period, so we obtained fewer data from it, and it contributed relatively little to our analysis. Similarly, one of the four case studies we recruited later experienced some delays itself in beginning and so we had a more limited period for data collection than initially envisaged. Research governance approvals took much longer than expected, particularly as we had to take three of our research partners, who were going to collect data within NHS projects, through the research passport process, which essentially truncated our data collection period from 1 year to 9 months. Even if we had had the full year initially envisaged for data collection, our conclusion with hindsight was that this was insufficiently long. To compare initial plans and intentions for involvement with the reality of what actually happened required a longer time period than a year for most of our case studies.

In the light of the importance we have placed on the commitment of PIs, there is an issue of potential selection bias in the recruitment of our sample. As our sampling strategy explicitly involved a networking approach to PIs of projects where we thought some significant public involvement was taking place, we were likely (as we did) to recruit enthusiasts and, at worst, those non-committed who were at least open to the potential value of public involvement. There were, unsurprisingly, no highly sceptical PIs in our sample. We have no data therefore on how public involvement may work in research where the PI is sceptical but may feel compelled to undertake involvement because of funder requirements or other factors.

• What would we do differently next time?

If we were to design this study again, there are a number of changes we would make. Most importantly we would go for a longer time period to be able to capture involvement through the whole research process from initial design through to dissemination. We would seek to recruit far more potential case studies in principle, so that we had greater choice of which to proceed with once our study began in earnest. We would include case studies from the application stage to capture the important early involvement of research partners in the initial design period. It might be preferable to research a smaller number of case studies, allowing a more in-depth ethnographic approach. Although challenging, it would be very informative to seek to sample sceptical PIs. This might require a brief screening exercise of a larger group of PIs on their attitudes to and experience of public involvement.

The economic evaluation was challenging in a number of ways, particularly in seeking to obtain completed resource logs from case study research partners. Having a 2-week data collection period was also problematic in a field such as public involvement, where activity may be very episodic and infrequent. Thus, collecting economic data alongside other case study data in a more integrated way, and particularly with interviews and more ethnographic observation of case study activities, might be advantageous. The new budgeting tool developed by INVOLVE and the MHRN may provide a useful resource for future economic evaluations. 23

We have learned much from the involvement of research partners in our research team and, although many aspects of our approach worked well, there are some things we would do differently in future. Even though we included substantial resources for research partner involvement in all aspects of our study, we underestimated how time-consuming such full involvement would be. We were perhaps overambitious in trying to ensure such full involvement with the number of research partners and the number and complexity of the case studies. We were also perhaps naive in expecting all the research partners to play the same role in the team; different research partners came with different experiences and skills, and, like most of our case studies, we might have been better to be less prescriptive and allow the roles to develop more organically within the project.

• Implications for research practice and funding

If one of the objectives of R&D policy is to increase the extent and effectiveness of public involvement in research, then a key implication of this research is the importance of influencing PIs to value public involvement in research or to delegate to other senior colleagues in leading on involvement in their research. Training is unlikely to be the key mechanism here; senior researchers are much more likely to be influenced by peers or by their personal experience of the benefits of public involvement. Early career researchers may be shaped by training but again peer learning and culture may be more influential. For those researchers sceptical or agnostic about public involvement, the requirement of funders is a key factor that is likely to make them engage with the involvement agenda. Therefore, funders need to scrutinise the track record of research teams on public involvement to ascertain whether there is any evidence of commitment or leadership on involvement.

One of the findings of the economic analysis was that PIs have consistently underestimated the costs of public involvement in their grant applications. Clearly the field will benefit from the guidance and budgeting tool recently disseminated by MHRN and INVOLVE. It was also notable that there was a degree of variation in the real costs of public involvement and that effective involvement is not necessarily costly. Different models of involvement incur different costs and researchers need to be made aware of the costs and benefits of these different options.

One methodological lesson we learned was the impact that conducting this research had on some participants’ reflection on the impact of public involvement. Particularly for research staff, the questions we asked sometimes made them reflect upon what they were doing and change aspects of their approach to involvement. Thus, the more the NIHR and other funders can build reporting, audit and other forms of evaluation on the impact of public involvement directly into their processes with PIs, the more likely such questioning might stimulate similar reflection.

• Recommendations for further research

There are a number of gaps in our knowledge around public involvement in research that follow from our findings, and would benefit from further research, including realist evaluation to extend and further test the theory we have developed here:

• In-depth exploration of how PIs become committed to public involvement and how to influence agnostic or sceptical PIs would be very helpful. Further research might compare, for example, training with peer-influencing strategies in engendering PI commitment. Research could explore the leadership role of other research team members, including research partners, and how collective leadership might support effective public involvement.
• More methodological work is needed on how to robustly capture the impact and outcomes of public involvement in research (building as well on the PiiAF work of Popay et al. 51 ), including further economic analysis and exploration of impact when research partners are integral to research teams.
• Research to develop approaches and carry out a full cost–benefit analysis of public involvement in research would be beneficial. Although methodologically challenging, it would be very useful to conduct some longer-term studies which sought to quantify the impact of public involvement on such key indicators as participant recruitment and retention in clinical trials.
• It would also be helpful to capture qualitatively the experiences and perspectives of research partners who have had mixed or negative experiences, since they may be less likely than enthusiasts to volunteer to participate in studies of involvement in research such as ours. Similarly, further research might explore the (relatively rare) experiences of marginalised and seldom-heard groups involved in research.
• Payment for public involvement in research remains a contested issue with strongly held positions for and against; it would be helpful to further explore the value research partners and researchers place on payment and its effectiveness for enhancing involvement in and impact on research.
• A final relatively narrow but important question that we identified after data collection had finished is: what is the impact of the long periods of relative non-involvement following initial periods of more intense involvement for research partners in some types of research, particularly clinical trials?

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License .

• Cite this Page Evans D, Coad J, Cottrell K, et al. Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Oct. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.36.) Chapter 9, Conclusions and recommendations for future research.
• PDF version of this title (4.3M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• Health Services and Delivery Research

Recent Activity

• Conclusions and recommendations for future research - Public involvement in rese... Conclusions and recommendations for future research - Public involvement in research: assessing impact through a realist evaluation

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

How to Write the Conclusion and Future Work section of Your Dissertation or Thesis?

The conclusion and future work section of a PhD or Post Graduate dissertation serves as the pivotal culmination of extensive research, critical analysis, and scholarly exploration. It is the chapter where the researcher brings their study to a satisfying closure, summarizing the main findings, discussing their implications, and paving the way for future investigations. In this discussion, we will delve into the intricacies of crafting an impactful conclusion and future work section, focusing on their purpose, significance, and key elements.

The conclusion and future work section holds paramount importance in a dissertation, as it encapsulates the essence of the entire research endeavor. It provides a concise and comprehensive summary of the study’s outcomes, reinforcing the significance of the research questions and objectives. By carefully crafting this section, researchers not only reinforce the value of their own work but also contribute to the broader body of knowledge in their respective fields.

Within the conclusion section, the researcher has the opportunity to restate the research questions and objectives, emphasizing their relevance and the study’s focus. This serves as a gentle reminder to the reader, bringing them back to the core aspects of the research. Additionally, summarizing the main findings allows for a concise overview of the research outcomes, enabling readers to grasp the key insights and discoveries at a glance. Moreover, discussing the implications of the findings showcases the researcher’s understanding of how their work contributes to the existing knowledge in the field, addresses gaps, and potentially influences future practices or theories.

Equally crucial is the future work section, which demonstrates the researcher’s awareness of the study’s limitations and presents directions for future research. By acknowledging the constraints and suggesting potential avenues for further investigation, the researcher invites future scholars to build upon the current work, advancing the field and propelling innovation. It is through this section that researchers showcase their thought leadership and forward-thinking mindset, leaving a lasting impact on the academic community.

In the following sections, we will explore the art of writing a conclusion for PhD or Post Graduate dissertation. We will delve into the importance of restating the research questions and objectives, summarizing the main findings, discussing the implications, reflecting on the significance of the research, and providing a concise summary. Additionally, we will examine the significance of the future work section, highlighting its purpose in demonstrating awareness of limitations and offering directions for future research.

By meticulously crafting the conclusion and future work section, researchers can not only conclude their dissertation effectively but also make a lasting impression on readers and inspire the next generation of scholars to push the boundaries of knowledge in their respective fields.

Let us now embark on a journey to uncover the secrets of writing an exceptional conclusion and future work section in a dissertation.

If you are in paucity of time, not confident of your writing skills and in a hurry to complete the writing task then you can think of hiring a research consultant that solves all your problems. Please visit my article on Hiring a Research consultant for your research tasks for further details.

Introduction

A. restating the research questions/objectives, b. summarizing the main findings, c. discussing the implications, d. reflecting on the significance of the research, e. providing a concise summary, writing the future work.

In a dissertation, the conclusion section serves as a crucial component that brings together the research findings and provides a comprehensive summary of the study. It allows researchers to reflect on the implications of their work and discuss potential future directions. – The future work section, on the other hand, highlights the researcher’s awareness of the study’s limitations and provides suggestions for further research to build upon the current work.

The conclusion section consolidates the main findings and insights from the research, emphasizing the significance of the study. It allows the researcher to demonstrate the impact of their work and its contributions to the field.

The future work section offers a forward-looking perspective by identifying areas that warrant further investigation, addressing research gaps, and proposing potential extensions or improvements to the existing research.

Example 1: In the field of computer vision , the conclusion section of a dissertation might summarize the key findings and insights obtained from developing a novel object detection algorithm. It could discuss the algorithm’s performance in terms of accuracy and efficiency, highlighting its potential applications in various domains such as autonomous vehicles, surveillance systems, and medical imaging. The conclusion might also reflect on the challenges faced during the research and suggest improvements or alternative approaches to enhance the algorithm’s performance in future work.

Example 2: In the domain of natural language processing , the conclusion section could summarize the results of a dissertation focused on sentiment analysis in social media data. It might discuss the effectiveness of the proposed sentiment analysis model in capturing the nuances of sentiments expressed in user-generated content. The conclusion could emphasize the practical implications of the research, such as aiding businesses in understanding customer feedback and improving their products or services. The future work section might suggest exploring multilingual sentiment analysis, investigating sentiment evolution over time, or incorporating contextual information for more accurate sentiment classification.

By providing these examples, researchers can understand how the conclusion and future work sections serve as essential components of a dissertation, allowing them to effectively communicate the significance of their research and guide future studies.

Writing the Conclusion

Restating the research questions or objectives in the conclusion section is crucial as it helps the reader remember the main purpose of the study. It serves as a reminder of the specific goals and objectives that guided the research process.

For instance:

“The primary research question of this study aimed to investigate the feasibility of accurately classifying sentiment in social media posts using machine learning techniques. In pursuit of this goal, we designed and implemented a novel sentiment analysis system and evaluated its effectiveness on a diverse dataset. By restating the research question and objectives, we emphasize the primary aim of the study and provide the reader with a clear reminder of the research’s specific focus.”

Restating the research questions or objectives in the conclusion helps create a cohesive conclusion by maintaining the connection between the findings and the original research intent. It allows the reader to see how the research directly addresses the initial questions or objectives.

Summarizing the main findings in the conclusion allows the reader to quickly grasp the essential outcomes of the research. It provides a condensed overview of the key results and insights gained from the study.

Example: Building upon the previous example of developing an automated sentiment analysis system for social media data, let’s consider the main findings of the study. The findings may include the accuracy achieved by the developed system, comparisons with existing approaches, and insights into the challenges and limitations of sentiment analysis in the social media domain.

In the conclusion section, summarizing the main findings would involve providing a concise overview of the key results and insights. For instance:

“Our findings demonstrate that the developed sentiment analysis system achieved an accuracy of 85% on the social media dataset, outperforming existing state-of-the-art approaches by a significant margin. This highlights the effectiveness of incorporating contextual information and deep learning techniques for sentiment classification. Furthermore, the study shed light on the challenges of sentiment analysis in social media due to the presence of slang, abbreviations, and contextual nuances. These insights emphasize the importance of developing robust models that can handle the intricacies of social media data.”

By summarizing the main findings, researchers allow readers to gain a quick understanding of the crucial outcomes and insights obtained from the study. It helps readers identify the key contributions and impact of the research in a concise manner. Summarizing the main findings also assists readers in connecting the dots between the research questions or objectives and the results obtained, providing a clear and coherent picture of the research outcomes.

Moreover, a well-crafted summary of the main findings serves as a reference point for readers, enabling them to recall the significant results without revisiting the entire dissertation. It allows researchers to convey the core contributions of their study efficiently and reinforces the value and relevance of the research in the field of computer science.

Continuing from the previous example of developing an automated sentiment analysis system for social media data, let’s consider the implications of the findings, the research’s contribution to the existing knowledge, and the limitations addressed in the conclusion section.

Discussing the implications of the findings in the conclusion helps provide a broader understanding of the research’s significance. It allows the researcher to explore the practical and theoretical implications of the results and their potential impact on the field.

“The findings of this study have significant implications for various domains relying on sentiment analysis, such as brand monitoring, market research, and customer feedback analysis. The high accuracy achieved by our sentiment analysis system demonstrates its potential for real-world applications, enabling organizations to gain valuable insights from social media data. The system’s ability to handle contextual nuances and accurately classify sentiment can help businesses make informed decisions and enhance customer satisfaction.”

Analyzing how the research contributes to the existing knowledge in the field helps situate the study within the broader research landscape. It allows the researcher to demonstrate how their work fills gaps, extends current understanding, or challenges existing theories or practices.

“The findings of this study have significant implications for various domains relying on sentiment analysis, such as brand monitoring, market research, and customer feedback analysis. The high accuracy achieved by our sentiment analysis system demonstrates its potential for real-world applications, enabling organizations to gain valuable insights from social media data. The system’s ability to handle contextual nuances and accurately classify sentiment can help businesses make informed decisions and enhance customer satisfaction.” Addressing the limitations or constraints of the study in the conclusion section shows the researcher’s awareness of the study’s boundaries. It also provides an opportunity to suggest areas for future research, building upon the current study’s findings.

“This study contributes to the existing knowledge in sentiment analysis by incorporating deep learning techniques and contextual information specific to social media data. Our research extends current understanding by demonstrating the effectiveness of leveraging these approaches for improved sentiment classification. Additionally, the insights gained from addressing the challenges of sentiment analysis in the social media domain contribute to the ongoing discourse on refining sentiment analysis models for diverse text sources.”

Reflecting on the significance and impact of the research in the broader context of the field allows the researcher to highlight the relevance and importance of their work. It helps the reader understand the broader implications and potential contributions of the research.

Example: Continuing from the previous example of developing an automated sentiment analysis system for social media data

Significance and Impact:

“Reflecting on the significance and impact of our research reveals its potential to revolutionize sentiment analysis methodologies. By developing an accurate sentiment analysis system tailored to social media data, our study addresses a critical need in today’s digitally connected world. The insights gained from this research have far-reaching implications for understanding public sentiment, market trends, and brand perception. Our work has the potential to empower businesses and organizations with actionable insights, leading to informed decision-making and improved customer satisfaction.”

Advancement of Knowledge and Filling Gaps in Existing Literature:

“Our study contributes to advancing the knowledge in sentiment analysis by addressing several gaps in the existing literature. By incorporating deep learning techniques and considering the contextual nuances specific to social media data, our research provides a fresh perspective on sentiment analysis approaches. We extend current understanding by showcasing the effectiveness of these techniques in improving sentiment classification accuracy. Additionally, our work sheds light on the challenges of sentiment analysis in the social media domain, highlighting areas where further research and refinement are required.”

Practical Implications in Real-World Scenarios:

“The practical implications of our research are significant, with potential applications in various domains. Our sentiment analysis system can be leveraged by businesses for brand monitoring, customer feedback analysis, and market research. It enables organizations to gain valuable insights into customer sentiment, enabling them to identify areas for improvement, monitor brand reputation, and make informed business decisions. Furthermore, our work opens avenues for the development of new tools and applications that can assist in sentiment analysis across diverse social media platforms.”

By reflecting on the significance and impact of the research, researchers convey the broader relevance and importance of their work. It allows readers to understand the potential contributions and implications of the research in a wider context.

Explaining how the study advances knowledge and fills gaps in existing literature demonstrates the originality and novelty of the research. It showcases how the research addresses unanswered questions, challenges prevailing methodologies, or provides new insights, thereby contributing to the growth of the field.

Considering the potential practical implications of the research in real-world scenarios helps highlight its relevance and application. It allows researchers to discuss how the findings can be implemented or used to solve real-world problems, thereby bridging the gap between academic research and practical applications.

Overall, by reflecting on the significance and impact, explaining the advancement of knowledge and filling gaps, and considering practical implications, researchers highlight the broader implications and potential contributions of their research. It allows readers to appreciate the relevance, novelty, and practicality of the study, paving the way for future advancements in the field of study.

A concise summary within the conclusion section plays a pivotal role in reinforcing the main points and takeaways from the research. By distilling the essential findings, implications, and future research directions, researchers ensure that readers grasp the core essence of their work.

Highlighting the key points discussed throughout the dissertation reaffirms the significance and contributions of the research. It allows readers to quickly grasp the overarching themes and outcomes, reinforcing the main arguments and supporting evidence presented in the study. By providing a condensed overview of the research, researchers ensure that the core messages resonate with readers, leaving a lasting impact.

A concise and impactful summary also aids in information retention. As readers progress through a lengthy dissertation, a well-crafted summary serves as a mental anchor, reinforcing the most salient aspects of the study. It enables readers to revisit and recall the main findings, implications, and future research possibilities long after they have completed reading the document.

To achieve a concise and impactful summary, researchers should focus on extracting the most relevant and significant elements from each section of the dissertation. They should avoid repetition and prioritize clarity and precision in their language. By distilling complex ideas into digestible snippets, researchers ensure that their summary effectively encapsulates the core essence of their research.

Example: Continuing from the previous example of developing an automated sentiment analysis system for social media data, let’s explore how a concise summary within the conclusion section helps reinforce the main points and takeaways from the research.

“In conclusion, our study on developing an automated sentiment analysis system for social media data has demonstrated significant advancements in the field. By incorporating deep learning techniques and considering contextual nuances, we achieved an accuracy of 85%, surpassing existing state-of-the-art approaches. The practical implications of our research are substantial, with potential applications in brand monitoring, market research, and customer feedback analysis.

Furthermore, our findings contribute to the existing knowledge in sentiment analysis by filling gaps in the literature. We highlight the challenges posed by social media data, such as slang and contextual nuances, and propose future research directions for handling these complexities. This study underscores the importance of refining sentiment analysis models to cater to the unique characteristics of social media platforms.

In summary, our research not only advances sentiment analysis methodologies but also offers valuable insights for businesses and organizations seeking to harness the power of social media data. We emphasize the need for further exploration in adapting sentiment analysis to different domains and languages, as well as refining models to handle sarcasm and irony. Overall, our work showcases the relevance and potential impact of sentiment analysis in today’s digital age.”

In conclusion, a concise summary within the conclusion section is an invaluable tool for reinforcing the main takeaways from the research. By highlighting the key points and delivering them in a concise and impactful manner, researchers leave readers with a clear understanding of the study’s significance and contributions. A well-crafted summary ensures that the main findings and implications resonate with readers long after they have completed reading the dissertation, solidifying the research’s impact in the field.

Including a future work section in a dissertation is significant as it demonstrates the researcher’s understanding of the study’s limitations and the potential for further research. It acknowledges that research is an iterative process and provides valuable insights for future researchers in the field.

The future work section showcases the researcher’s awareness of the limitations and constraints of their study. It acknowledges that there may be unanswered questions, unexplored avenues, or areas that require further investigation. By providing directions for future research, the researcher contributes to the continuous advancement of knowledge in their field.

Example1 : Continuing from the previous example of developing an automated sentiment analysis system for social media data, let’s explore how including a future work section in the conclusion acknowledges the study’s limitations and offers valuable insights for future research.

“The inclusion of a future work section in this dissertation is crucial in acknowledging the limitations of our study and providing a roadmap for future research endeavors. While our research has made significant advancements in sentiment analysis for social media data, several areas warrant further investigation.

Firstly, the scalability of our sentiment analysis system can be explored to handle large volumes of data in real-time. As social media platforms continue to grow, the need for efficient and scalable sentiment analysis techniques becomes paramount.

Additionally, investigating the generalizability of our model across different languages and cultural contexts is an exciting avenue for future research. Adapting sentiment analysis techniques to diverse languages, understanding regional variations in sentiment expressions, and accounting for cultural nuances can enhance the applicability of sentiment analysis in a global context.

Moreover, exploring the integration of multimodal data, such as text, images, and videos, presents an intriguing opportunity. Sentiment analysis systems that can effectively analyze and interpret multimodal content have the potential to offer deeper insights into user sentiments and experiences.

Furthermore, the ethical implications of sentiment analysis in terms of privacy, bias, and fairness need to be thoroughly investigated. Designing and implementing ethical guidelines and frameworks for sentiment analysis can ensure responsible and unbiased use of these technologies.

By including a future work section, we recognize that research is an ongoing process and acknowledge the possibilities for further exploration. This section serves as a valuable resource for future researchers in the field, providing a starting point and suggesting intriguing directions for their investigations.

In summary, the future work section of this dissertation highlights the limitations of our study and opens up exciting avenues for future research. The research community can build upon our work to address the identified challenges, expand the scope of sentiment analysis, and develop more robust and context-aware models. By continually advancing the field, we can enhance the accuracy, applicability, and ethical use of sentiment analysis techniques in the digital age.” Example 2: In the field of data mining, a dissertation might propose a new algorithm for anomaly detection in large-scale datasets. In the future work section, the researcher can acknowledge the limitations of the proposed algorithm, such as its performance on specific types of anomalies or scalability to even larger datasets. They can suggest investigating techniques to handle these challenges, exploring the application of the algorithm to different domains, or evaluating its performance under various real-world scenarios. This demonstrates the researcher’s awareness of the study’s limitations and provides clear directions for future research in improving and extending the anomaly detection algorithm. Example 3: In the domain of computer networks, a dissertation focused on improving network performance might present a novel congestion control mechanism. In the future work section, the researcher can acknowledge potential limitations in the mechanism, such as its adaptability to dynamic network conditions or its interoperability with different network protocols. They can suggest conducting further experiments to evaluate the mechanism’s performance in more complex network topologies, exploring its integration with emerging network technologies, or investigating the impact of various parameters on its effectiveness. This showcases the researcher’s awareness of the study’s limitations and provides concrete guidance for future researchers interested in advancing network performance optimization.

By including a future work section in a dissertation, researchers demonstrate their awareness of the study’s limitations and contribute to the ongoing progress in their field. Providing directions for future research guides the efforts of future researchers and fosters the continuous development of knowledge and innovation.

The conclusion and future work section of a PhD or Post Graduate dissertation holds immense significance as it brings the research journey to a satisfying close while setting the stage for future explorations. Throughout this discussion, we have explored the key elements and best practices for crafting an impactful conclusion that leaves a lasting impression on readers.

Upcoming Events

• Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
• Visit for  Research Internships Worldwide

Recent Posts

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

How to Write the Discussion Section of a Research Paper

The discussion section of a research paper analyzes and interprets the findings, provides context, compares them with previous studies, identifies limitations, and suggests future research directions.

Updated on September 15, 2023

Structure your discussion section right, and you’ll be cited more often while doing a greater service to the scientific community. So, what actually goes into the discussion section? And how do you write it?

The discussion section of your research paper is where you let the reader know how your study is positioned in the literature, what to take away from your paper, and how your work helps them. It can also include your conclusions and suggestions for future studies.

First, we’ll define all the parts of your discussion paper, and then look into how to write a strong, effective discussion section for your paper or manuscript.

Discussion section: what is it, what it does

The discussion section comes later in your paper, following the introduction, methods, and results. The discussion sets up your study’s conclusions. Its main goals are to present, interpret, and provide a context for your results.

What is it?

The discussion section provides an analysis and interpretation of the findings, compares them with previous studies, identifies limitations, and suggests future directions for research.

This section combines information from the preceding parts of your paper into a coherent story. By this point, the reader already knows why you did your study (introduction), how you did it (methods), and what happened (results). In the discussion, you’ll help the reader connect the ideas from these sections.

Why is it necessary?

The discussion provides context and interpretations for the results. It also answers the questions posed in the introduction. While the results section describes your findings, the discussion explains what they say. This is also where you can describe the impact or implications of your research.

Adds context for your results

Most research studies aim to answer a question, replicate a finding, or address limitations in the literature. These goals are first described in the introduction. However, in the discussion section, the author can refer back to them to explain how the study's objective was achieved. 

Shows what your results actually mean and real-world implications

The discussion can also describe the effect of your findings on research or practice. How are your results significant for readers, other researchers, or policymakers?

What to include in your discussion (in the correct order)

A complete and effective discussion section should at least touch on the points described below.

Summary of key findings

The discussion should begin with a brief factual summary of the results. Concisely overview the main results you obtained.

Begin with key findings with supporting evidence

Your results section described a list of findings, but what message do they send when you look at them all together?

Your findings were detailed in the results section, so there’s no need to repeat them here, but do provide at least a few highlights. This will help refresh the reader’s memory and help them focus on the big picture.

Read the first paragraph of the discussion section in this article (PDF) for an example of how to start this part of your paper. Notice how the authors break down their results and follow each description sentence with an explanation of why each finding is relevant. 

State clearly and concisely

Following a clear and direct writing style is especially important in the discussion section. After all, this is where you will make some of the most impactful points in your paper. While the results section often contains technical vocabulary, such as statistical terms, the discussion section lets you describe your findings more clearly. 

Interpretation of results

Once you’ve given your reader an overview of your results, you need to interpret those results. In other words, what do your results mean? Discuss the findings’ implications and significance in relation to your research question or hypothesis.

Analyze and interpret your findings

Look into your findings and explore what’s behind them or what may have caused them. If your introduction cited theories or studies that could explain your findings, use these sources as a basis to discuss your results.

For example, look at the second paragraph in the discussion section of this article on waggling honey bees. Here, the authors explore their results based on information from the literature.

Unexpected or contradictory results

Sometimes, your findings are not what you expect. Here’s where you describe this and try to find a reason for it. Could it be because of the method you used? Does it have something to do with the variables analyzed? Comparing your methods with those of other similar studies can help with this task.

Context and comparison with previous work

Refer to related studies to place your research in a larger context and the literature. Compare and contrast your findings with existing literature, highlighting similarities, differences, and/or contradictions.

How your work compares or contrasts with previous work

Studies with similar findings to yours can be cited to show the strength of your findings. Information from these studies can also be used to help explain your results. Differences between your findings and others in the literature can also be discussed here. 

How to divide this section into subsections

If you have more than one objective in your study or many key findings, you can dedicate a separate section to each of these. Here’s an example of this approach. You can see that the discussion section is divided into topics and even has a separate heading for each of them. 

Limitations

Many journals require you to include the limitations of your study in the discussion. Even if they don’t, there are good reasons to mention these in your paper.

Why limitations don’t have a negative connotation

A study’s limitations are points to be improved upon in future research. While some of these may be flaws in your method, many may be due to factors you couldn’t predict.

Examples include time constraints or small sample sizes. Pointing this out will help future researchers avoid or address these issues. This part of the discussion can also include any attempts you have made to reduce the impact of these limitations, as in this study .

How limitations add to a researcher's credibility

Pointing out the limitations of your study demonstrates transparency. It also shows that you know your methods well and can conduct a critical assessment of them.  

Implications and significance

The final paragraph of the discussion section should contain the take-home messages for your study. It can also cite the “strong points” of your study, to contrast with the limitations section.

Restate your hypothesis

Remind the reader what your hypothesis was before you conducted the study. 

How was it proven or disproven?

Identify your main findings and describe how they relate to your hypothesis.

How your results contribute to the literature

Were you able to answer your research question? Or address a gap in the literature?

Future implications of your research

Describe the impact that your results may have on the topic of study. Your results may show, for instance, that there are still limitations in the literature for future studies to address. There may be a need for studies that extend your findings in a specific way. You also may need additional research to corroborate your findings. 

Sample discussion section

This fictitious example covers all the aspects discussed above. Your actual discussion section will probably be much longer, but you can read this to get an idea of everything your discussion should cover.

Our results showed that the presence of cats in a household is associated with higher levels of perceived happiness by its human occupants. These findings support our hypothesis and demonstrate the association between pet ownership and well-being. 

The present findings align with those of Bao and Schreer (2016) and Hardie et al. (2023), who observed greater life satisfaction in pet owners relative to non-owners. Although the present study did not directly evaluate life satisfaction, this factor may explain the association between happiness and cat ownership observed in our sample.

Our findings must be interpreted in light of some limitations, such as the focus on cat ownership only rather than pets as a whole. This may limit the generalizability of our results.

Nevertheless, this study had several strengths. These include its strict exclusion criteria and use of a standardized assessment instrument to investigate the relationships between pets and owners. These attributes bolster the accuracy of our results and reduce the influence of confounding factors, increasing the strength of our conclusions. Future studies may examine the factors that mediate the association between pet ownership and happiness to better comprehend this phenomenon.

This brief discussion begins with a quick summary of the results and hypothesis. The next paragraph cites previous research and compares its findings to those of this study. Information from previous studies is also used to help interpret the findings. After discussing the results of the study, some limitations are pointed out. The paper also explains why these limitations may influence the interpretation of results. Then, final conclusions are drawn based on the study, and directions for future research are suggested.

How to make your discussion flow naturally

If you find writing in scientific English challenging, the discussion and conclusions are often the hardest parts of the paper to write. That’s because you’re not just listing up studies, methods, and outcomes. You’re actually expressing your thoughts and interpretations in words.

• How formal should it be?
• What words should you use, or not use?
• How do you meet strict word limits, or make it longer and more informative?

Always give it your best, but sometimes a helping hand can, well, help. Getting a professional edit can help clarify your work’s importance while improving the English used to explain it. When readers know the value of your work, they’ll cite it. We’ll assign your study to an expert editor knowledgeable in your area of research. Their work will clarify your discussion, helping it to tell your story. Find out more about AJE Editing.

Adam Goulston, PsyD, MS, MBA, MISD, ELS

Science Marketing Consultant

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

Pair your Premium Editing with our add-on service Presubmission Review for an overall assessment of your manuscript.

Suggestions for Future Research

Your dissertation needs to include suggestions for future research. Depending on requirements of your university, suggestions for future research can be either integrated into Research Limitations section or it can be a separate section.

You will need to propose 4-5 suggestions for future studies and these can include the following:

1. Building upon findings of your research . These may relate to findings of your study that you did not anticipate. Moreover, you may suggest future research to address unanswered aspects of your research problem.

2. Addressing limitations of your research . Your research will not be free from limitations and these may relate to formulation of research aim and objectives, application of data collection method, sample size, scope of discussions and analysis etc. You can propose future research suggestions that address the limitations of your study.

3. Constructing the same research in a new context, location and/or culture . It is most likely that you have addressed your research problem within the settings of specific context, location and/or culture. Accordingly, you can propose future studies that can address the same research problem in a different settings, context, location and/or culture.

4. Re-assessing and expanding theory, framework or model you have addressed in your research . Future studies can address the effects of specific event, emergence of a new theory or evidence and/or other recent phenomenon on your research problem.

My e-book,  The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: a step by step assistance  offers practical assistance to complete a dissertation with minimum or no stress. The e-book covers all stages of writing a dissertation starting from the selection to the research area to submitting the completed version of the work within the deadline. John Dudovskiy

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Write an “Implications of Research” Section

4-minute read

• 24th October 2022

When writing research papers , theses, journal articles, or dissertations, one cannot ignore the importance of research. You’re not only the writer of your paper but also the researcher ! Moreover, it’s not just about researching your topic, filling your paper with abundant citations, and topping it off with a reference list. You need to dig deep into your research and provide related literature on your topic. You must also discuss the implications of your research.

Interested in learning more about implications of research? Read on! This post will define these implications, why they’re essential, and most importantly, how to write them. If you’re a visual learner, you might enjoy this video .

What Are Implications of Research?

Implications are potential questions from your research that justify further exploration. They state how your research findings could affect policies, theories, and/or practices.

Implications can either be practical or theoretical. The former is the direct impact of your findings on related practices, whereas the latter is the impact on the theories you have chosen in your study.

Example of a practical implication: If you’re researching a teaching method, the implication would be how teachers can use that method based on your findings.

Example of a theoretical implication: You added a new variable to Theory A so that it could cover a broader perspective.

Finally, implications aren’t the same as recommendations, and it’s important to know the difference between them .

Questions you should consider when developing the implications section:

●  What is the significance of your findings?

●  How do the findings of your study fit with or contradict existing research on this topic?

●  Do your results support or challenge existing theories? If they support them, what new information do they contribute? If they challenge them, why do you think that is?

Why Are Implications Important?

You need implications for the following reasons:

● To reflect on what you set out to accomplish in the first place

● To see if there’s a change to the initial perspective, now that you’ve collected the data

● To inform your audience, who might be curious about the impact of your research

How to Write an Implications Section

Usually, you write your research implications in the discussion section of your paper. This is the section before the conclusion when you discuss all the hard work you did. Additionally, you’ll write the implications section before making recommendations for future research.

Implications should begin with what you discovered in your study, which differs from what previous studies found, and then you can discuss the implications of your findings.

Your implications need to be specific, meaning you should show the exact contributions of your research and why they’re essential. They should also begin with a specific sentence structure.

Examples of starting implication sentences:

●  These results build on existing evidence of…

●  These findings suggest that…

●  These results should be considered when…

●  While previous research has focused on x , these results show that y …

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

You should write your implications after you’ve stated the results of your research. In other words, summarize your findings and put them into context.

The result : One study found that young learners enjoy short activities when learning a foreign language.

The implications : This result suggests that foreign language teachers use short activities when teaching young learners, as they positively affect learning.

 Example 2

The result : One study found that people who listen to calming music just before going to bed sleep better than those who watch TV.

The implications : These findings suggest that listening to calming music aids sleep quality, whereas watching TV does not.

To summarize, remember these key pointers:

●  Implications are the impact of your findings on the field of study.

●  They serve as a reflection of the research you’ve conducted.              

●  They show the specific contributions of your findings and why the audience should care.

●  They can be practical or theoretical.

●  They aren’t the same as recommendations.

●  You write them in the discussion section of the paper.

●  State the results first, and then state their implications.

Are you currently working on a thesis or dissertation? Once you’ve finished your paper (implications included), our proofreading team can help ensure that your spelling, punctuation, and grammar are perfect. Consider submitting a 500-word document for free.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

5-minute read

Free Email Newsletter Template

Promoting a brand means sharing valuable insights to connect more deeply with your audience, and...

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.