Writing the Results Section
The first treatment of the results section anywhere in six weeks of supplied material. Four governing rules, six required contents, two ways to organise it — and no worked example of any of them.
What the results section is
Read the definition carefully and it does real work. The results section reports findings based upon the information gathered as a result of the methodology you applied — which means a finding that does not trace to a method you described has no place in it. That single clause is the test that keeps a results section honest, and it is why the methodology chapter and the results chapter have to be written against each other rather than in sequence.
For a project research study this matters more than it does in a lab report. You will have access to things your methodology never covered — a conversation in a corridor, a figure someone showed you, your own experience of the organisation. None of it is a result. Some of it may be worth pursuing as further data, with the design amended and the amendment recorded.
The four governing rules
THE FOUR RULES AND WHAT EACH ONE COSTS YOU
| Rule | What it means in practice | The discipline it demands |
|---|---|---|
| Report findings from your study | Every statement traces to data your stated methods produced | Cutting material you know to be true but did not gather |
| Without interpretation | State what you observed, not why you think it happened | Holding back the explanation you are most pleased with until the discussion |
| Arranged in a logical sequence | The order follows your methodology section | Reporting in the order you collected, not the order of interest |
| Always in the past tense | "Respondents reported", not "respondents report" | Consistency across a long chapter written over weeks |
The first, second and fourth rules are stated on one slide; the sequencing gloss comes from a later slide in the same deck.
The six required contents
The source lists six items under the heading "Contents should include". The numbering is the source's own.
What the results section must contain
An introductory context
Restate the research problem that underpins the purpose of your study, so the reader knows what the findings are findings about.
A summary of key findings
Arranged in a logical sequence that generally follows your methodology section. This is the sequencing rule in its only usable form.
Non-textual elements where appropriate
Figures, charts, photos, maps, tables and the like, to further illustrate the findings. The placement rules are separate and strict.
A systematic description in the text
Highlighting for the reader the observations most relevant to the topic under investigation. The elements do not report themselves.
The past tense throughout
Stated again here as a content requirement rather than only as a style rule.
Length governed by the data
Guided by the amount and types of data to be reported — focusing only on findings that are important and related to the research problem.
Two ways to organise the chapter
The source offers two structures and gives one criterion for choosing between them.
Option A — results first, discussion after
- Present the results, each followed by a short explanation of the finding
- All interpretation deferred to the discussion section
- The structure the governing rules assume
- No selection criterion is stated for it
Option B — section by section
- Present a section, discuss it, present the next, discuss it
- "More common in longer papers because it helps to better understand each finding"
- Closes with a brief conclusion tying the findings together
- Length is the one stated criterion
Working the sequencing rule properly
The instruction to follow your methodology section is the most transferable thing in this material, and it is worth more than the sentence it gets. The source does not develop it; what follows is this library's development of it.
Deriving your results structure from your methods
What this material does not give you
The last of those is the most consequential and the least obvious. Reporting qualitative findings without interpretation is genuinely harder than reporting counts without interpretation, because selecting which quotation to present is already an interpretive act. The material does not acknowledge the difficulty, and you will have to resolve it yourself — usually by being explicit about your selection rule.
Getting it right
Before you submit the chapter
- Every finding traces to a method described in your methodology section
- The order of the results follows the order of the methods
- You have declared which of the two structures you are using
- Past tense throughout, checked in a single pass at the end
- The research problem is restated at the top so findings have something to be about
- Each non-textual element is referred to in the text and does not merely sit there
- Nothing in the chapter answers the question 'why'
What to carry forward
- Findings only, in the past tense, in the order your methodology set out. Those three rules carry most of the chapter.
- A finding that does not trace to a described method is not a result, however true you know it to be.
- Choose between all-results-then-discussion and section-by-section deliberately, declare the choice, and hold to it.
- The sequencing rule — results follow methods — is the most useful sentence in this material and the source states it once, in passing.
- There is no worked example and nothing written for qualitative data anywhere in this half of the material. Read examined theses to see the shape.
Frequently asked questions
Can I include a short explanation of a finding in the results section?
The supplied source says three incompatible things about this across five slides — one forbids interpretation, one permits a short explanation, one forbids explaining findings at all. The library does not resolve the conflict. In practice, decide once, state your convention early in the chapter, and apply it consistently.
How long should the results section be?
The source says only that length is guided by the amount and types of data, and to focus on findings related to the research problem. No range, proportion or worked case is given anywhere in six weeks of material.
Does this guidance work for qualitative findings?
It was not written for them. The word 'qualitative' appears nowhere in this half of the material and the one example given is a correlation between two variables. The rules mostly transfer, but selecting which quotation to present is itself interpretive, and the material does not address that.
Where does the research problem get restated — introduction or results?
Both, according to the source: the introduction supplies the background context, and the results section opens by restating the research problem so the findings have something to attach to. The restatement in results should be brief.
What if my findings do not follow my methodology order?
That usually means the methodology section is ordered by how you thought about the study rather than by how you ran it. Reordering the methodology is generally the better fix, because the reader meets it first.
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 and non-textual-element 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
- How do I structure a results chapter from my methodology section?
- What is the difference between a result and an interpretation?
- Should I present all results first or discuss each section as I go?
- How do I report interview findings without interpreting them?
- What has to appear in a results section and what does not?