What Does Not Belong in the Results Section
Seven prohibitions, a construction that inverts the sense of half of them, and a central rule the source states three incompatible ways across five slides. All three positions are given here and the conflict is left standing.
The seven prohibitions, as the source gives them
The list is introduced by the two words "Do not" on a line of their own, followed by seven bullets. That construction matters, and it is dealt with in the next section.
THE SEVEN, WITH THE GUIDANCE ATTACHED TO EACH
| Do not | And instead |
|---|---|
| Discuss or interpret results | Save this for the discussion section |
| Report background information or attempt to explain your findings | This should have been done in the introduction; revise as needed |
| Ignore negative results | Document them, and in the discussion say why you believe a negative result emerged — they "often provide an opportunity to write a more interesting section" |
| Include raw data or intermediate calculations | If raw data is to be included, put it in appendices and refer to it in the text |
| Use phrases that are vague or non-specific | Be concise and factual |
| Present the same data or repeat the same information more than once | If you want to highlight something, do that in the discussion section |
| Confuse figures with tables | Be sure to properly label any non-textual elements in your paper |
Both columns are the source's own wording, split at the point where each bullet turns from prohibition to instruction.
The construction problem, and why it is worth naming
This is worth naming rather than silently repairing, because it is a good illustration of a general habit: a list under a negative heading will usually contain some items that are not prohibitions, and reading it mechanically produces nonsense. The same applies to any checklist you inherit — including your own from six months ago.
The central conflict: may you explain a finding?
This is the single most important question about a results section, and the supplied material answers it three different ways across five consecutive slides.
Three positions, one deck
No interpretation at all
"The results section should state the findings, without interpretation, and arranged in a logical sequence." Stated on the opening slide of the section, as a governing rule.
A short explanation is correct
"Present the results followed by a short explanation of the findings." Stated one slide later, with a worked case: pointing out an unusual correlation is correct; speculating about why it exists is not.
Do not attempt to explain your findings
"Report background information or attempt to explain your findings. This should have been done in your Introduction section." Stated in the prohibitions list, three slides after position 2.
Raw data, calculations and the appendix boundary
Prohibition four is the clearest of the seven and the easiest to apply: raw data and intermediate calculations do not belong in the results chapter. If raw data is to be included at all, it goes to an appendix and is referred to from the text.
Chapter or appendix
Negative results — required, and undefined
Prohibition three is the most interesting of the seven, and the source is right to insist on it. Not reporting what failed to appear is one of the most common quiet distortions in research writing, and the reason is human rather than technical: a finding that did not materialise feels like a failure of the study rather than a property of the world.
Two prohibitions that argue with themselves
Prohibition six — repetition
- "Do not present the same data or repeat the same information more than once"
- "If you want to highlight something, do that in the discussion section"
- So: repetition is forbidden, and the reader is sent elsewhere to repeat it
- The sense is that emphasis belongs in the discussion — but as written it forbids and then licenses
Prohibition seven — figures and tables
- "Do not confuse figures with tables"
- This is the only mention of the distinction in the entire supplied source
- Neither term is defined here or on the two slides that name both repeatedly
- An earlier week gives separate rules for tables and graphs without distinguishing the categories either
Applying the seven without being paralysed by them
A pass over the finished chapter
- Your stated convention on interpretation appears at the top and is kept throughout
- Raw data and intermediate calculations are out, in appendices, and referred to from the text
- Anything you looked for and did not find is reported, not quietly dropped
- No data appears twice in the chapter in two forms
- Vague quantifiers — many, several, most — are replaced with what you actually observed
- Tables and figures are numbered in separate series and labelled correctly
- Nothing that belongs in the introduction has migrated into the chapter
What to carry forward
- The source forbids interpretation, permits a short explanation, and forbids explaining findings — on three slides, five slides apart. Choose a convention, declare it, hold it.
- Report the pattern, withhold the mechanism. That is the one usable distinction the material draws, and it draws it only once.
- Raw data goes to an appendix and is referred to from the text. What else goes there is a question the material never answers.
- Report what you looked for and did not find. It is the prohibition most often broken and the one that costs a study most.
- You are told not to confuse figures with tables by material that never distinguishes them. Get the convention from your institution's format requirements.
Frequently asked questions
So can I explain a finding in the results or not?
The supplied source says both. It forbids interpretation on one slide, permits a short explanation on the next, and forbids explaining findings three slides later. This library gives all three and does not choose. Decide once, state your convention at the top of the chapter, and apply it without drift.
What counts as a negative result in a qualitative study?
The material does not say — the term appears once in six weeks and is never defined, and the concept comes from hypothesis testing. A workable reading is: anything you looked for and did not find, and anything your data contradicted. That reading is this library's, not the source's.
What goes in an appendix besides raw data?
The source names only raw data. The test this library uses is whether a reader needs the material to follow your argument or only to verify your work — the second goes to an appendix. Research instruments always go there.
What is the difference between a figure and a table?
The supplied source never says, while telling you not to confuse them. In ordinary academic usage a table is values in rows and columns, and a figure is anything presented graphically. Confirm against your institution's format requirements, because the two are usually numbered in separate series.
Is it really wrong to repeat a finding for emphasis?
The source forbids repeating data and then sends you to the discussion section to highlight it, which is a form of repetition. The workable reading is that a finding is stated once in results, and its significance is drawn out once in the discussion — the same fact, doing two different jobs.
References and source attribution
- The supplied teaching source: weekly study notes, slide decks and assessment activities for a master's-level research methods subject in project management. Author, institution and year not stated in the supplied files.
- The results-section guidance in the supplied slides is attributed by the source to a university library research-guide website; no author, title or date is given.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- Am I allowed to explain a finding inside the results section?
- What should go in an appendix rather than in the results chapter?
- How do I report something I looked for and did not find?
- What is the difference between a figure and a table?
- How do I keep interpretation out of a qualitative results chapter?