How to Write a Dissertation Results and Discussion Chapter: Combined Format Guide

Home / Blog / How to Write a Dissertation Results and Discussion Chapter: Combined Format Guide

When to Combine or Separate Your Results and Discussion

You’ve finished collecting and analyzing your data. Now comes the structural question most dissertation templates don’t answer: should you write one chapter that presents findings and interprets them, or two separate chapters?

The answer depends entirely on your research method and discipline.

Separate chapters (Results, then Discussion):

Preferred in quantitative research, especially STEM fields
Used when you have large datasets, statistical analyses, or multiple independent findings
Your department or supervisor likely expects this structure
Best when you need to present raw data objectively before interpreting it

Combined chapter (Results and Discussion integrated):

Standard in qualitative research, humanities, and mixed-methods studies
Preferred when findings are narrative, thematic, or exploratory
The default format at many UK universities for social sciences and humanities
Best when your findings and interpretations are naturally intertwined

Neither approach is objectively better. The correct choice depends on what your discipline does. Southampton University’s academic skills guide explicitly states that humanities departments expect “an essay-style chapter where results and discussion are intertwined.” Quantitative programs, conversely, typically require the separate-chapters model.

Your first step before writing: Check your department’s guidelines or ask your supervisor directly. Many programs publish explicit structural requirements, and assuming the wrong format is one of the easiest ways to frustrate your examiner.

Combined vs separate: Combined chapters are the default in qualitative, mixed-methods, and humanities research. Separate chapters are the norm for quantitative/STEM work. Check your department’s expectations first.
The single most common student anxiety: Thesis Whisperer’s 10-year data shows 75% of all dissertation writing searches target the discussion section. That’s because it’s where you interpret your findings — the part most students feel least prepared for.
The “move-step” framework (from academic writing expert John Swales) gives you concrete sentence starters: “restate → comment → evaluate → suggest.” This eliminates writer’s block by replacing vague “interpret” with actionable phrases.
Contradictory findings are your most valuable discussion material — they receive the most attention, not the least. Students naturally avoid unexpected results; that’s exactly when your interpretation matters most.

If you’re unsure, read three recent dissertations from your own department — the ones that got high marks. That’s more reliable than any general guide.

How to Structure a Combined Results and Discussion Chapter

When your discipline requires or permits a combined format, you’re writing a single narrative that alternates between presenting findings and interpreting them. The structure follows a clear pattern that most supervisors expect.

Step 1: Chapter Introduction (Brief)

Start with 1–2 paragraphs that:

Restate your research question or hypothesis
Give a roadmap of the chapter’s thematic organization
Clarify that the chapter presents findings alongside interpretation

Example opening:

This chapter presents the findings from my analysis of [your data source] and offers interpretation in relation to [your theoretical framework or previous studies]. The discussion follows a thematic structure organized around [number] key themes identified through [your analysis method], each addressing different aspects of [your research focus].

Step 2: Thematic Subheadings (The Core Pattern)

For each theme or finding, follow the introduce → analyze → conclude cycle that University of Southampton’s writing guide identifies as the standard structure:

Introduce the finding (present the data, quote, or statistic)
Analyze what it means (interpret, compare with literature, relate to your framework)
Conclude the section (briefly summarize what this finding suggests and transition to the next theme)

This cycle repeats for every theme. You’re not separating results from discussion within each theme — you’re weaving them together.

Step 3: Discipline-Specific Examples

Qualitative research (humanities, social sciences):

“Participant 7 described the experience as ‘overwhelming but motivating’ (Interview 7, line 42). This aligns with motivation theory’s emphasis on self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), suggesting that perceived competence — not just external rewards — drives student persistence. However, this contradicts the findings of Smith (2019), who found that extrinsic incentives were the primary motivator in their sample. The discrepancy may stem from the qualitative nature of this study, which captures nuanced personal experience rather than aggregate trends.”

Mixed-methods research:

“The statistical analysis showed a significant positive correlation between study time and grades (r = .42, p < .05). Qualitative interviews revealed that ‘study time’ meant very different things to different students: some reported structured, focused sessions, while others described prolonged, fragmented studying. This distinction matters because the statistical finding alone cannot explain why some students study longer without improved outcomes.”

STEM / quantitative (when using combined format):

“The regression analysis indicated a significant effect (β = 0.34, p < .01). This finding supports the hypothesis that X predicts Y, though the effect size is smaller than predicted. The unexpected magnitude may reflect the moderating influence of Z, which was not included in the original model.”

Step 4: Discussion Conclusion (Brief)

End the chapter with 1–2 paragraphs that:

Summarize what the themes collectively suggest
Link back to your research question
Transition to the next chapter (usually the Conclusion)

Example closing:

Taken together, these findings suggest that [your core conclusion]. This directly addresses our research question by demonstrating [specific answer]. The following chapter discusses the implications of these findings and offers recommendations for practice and future research.

Statistical Reporting Within a Combined Chapter

If your research uses quantitative methods but you’re writing a combined format, statistical reporting requires careful handling. You’re presenting numbers alongside interpretation, so the reporting needs to stay crisp and the interpretation needs to stay distinct.

Follow these principles from the University of Basel’s APA-style examples:

Report statistics in parentheses with proper formatting: t(24) = 3.21, p < .05, d = 0.56
Always report effect sizes alongside significance tests
Never say “prove” — use “suggest,” “indicate,” or “provide evidence for”
Present each statistic immediately before the interpretation of that statistic
Avoid reporting every single test — focus on findings relevant to your research question

What to avoid (from peer-reviewed writing guidance in PubMed Central):

Over-interpreting non-significant results
Confusing statistical significance with clinical or practical significance
Presenting results without connecting them to your theoretical framework
Using absolute language (“this proves that…”)

The “Move-Step” Framework: Concrete Sentence Starters

One of the reasons students struggle with the discussion section is that “interpretation” feels vague. The move-step framework from academic writer Inger Mewburn turns interpretation into concrete actions with ready-made sentence starters.

Move	What It Means	Example Sentence Starter
Restate	Rephrase the finding (no repetition)	“These findings suggest that…”
Comment	Offer your interpretation	“This may indicate that…”
Evaluate	Judge the finding’s strength or limitations	“While this aligns with X, it contradicts Y because…”
Suggest	Draw implications or future directions	“One implication of this finding is…”

Use this framework for every finding you discuss. It forces you to move beyond summary and into genuine analysis. The structure also creates predictable transitions that make your chapter readable — examiners can follow your reasoning without guessing what you’re doing next.

Common Mistakes in Combined Chapters (and How to Fix Them)

Mistake 1: Over-interpreting Preliminary Findings

Problem: Treating preliminary or exploratory results as conclusive.
Fix: Use cautious language (“suggest,” “may indicate,” “appears to”) and flag exploratory analyses as preliminary. Grad Coach explicitly warns against absolute terms.

Mistake 2: Losing Objectivity

Problem: Letting interpretation bleed back into the results section, making it read like discussion.
Fix: Keep a strict boundary. The results portion presents data, quotes, and statistics — nothing more. Save all interpretation for the discussion portion within each thematic section.

Mistake 3: Confusing Summary with Discussion

Problem: Repeating findings in the discussion without adding interpretation.
Fix: If you find yourself re-stating results, stop. Add a “Comment” or “Evaluate” move from the move-step framework. The discussion must add new insight.

Mistake 4: Ignoring Contradictory or Unexpected Results

Problem: Focusing only on findings that confirm your hypothesis and sidestepping surprising or contradictory results.
Fix: Give contradictory findings the most discussion attention. Editage and Grad Coach both flag this as a mark of strong discussion writing. Unexpected results are the most interesting part of your work.

Mistake 5: Disjointed Structure

Problem: The discussion doesn’t mirror the results structure. You jump between themes or present interpretation without clear ties to the data.
Fix: Use the same thematic headings or ordering for both presentation and interpretation. Mirroring the organizational framework significantly improves readability — a point emphasized across multiple authoritative guides.

How to Decide Your Format: A Quick Checklist

Use this checklist before committing to a structure:

[ ] Department guidelines exist: Check first. Follow them if present.
[ ] Your discipline convention: Humanities/qualitative → combined. STEM/quantitative → separate. Mixed methods → ask your supervisor.
[ ] Your data volume: Large datasets with many analyses → usually separate. Narrative or thematic findings → usually combined.
[ ] Your examiners’ expectations: Read recent dissertations from your department. Mimic the format of high-scoring work.
[ ] Your chapter length: If a combined chapter exceeds 60 pages, splitting is likely practical regardless of convention.

What To Do Next

You now have a clear framework for writing a combined results and discussion chapter. The structure is straightforward: introduce the theme, present the finding, interpret it, and conclude the section. Repeat for each theme.

Important: Before you start writing, confirm your department’s structural expectations. This single question prevents the most common formatting mistake.

If you need support with any part of this process — presenting results, interpreting findings, choosing between combined and separate formats — our team of qualified academic writers can help. You can place an order for individual chapters or request direct communication with a writer who matches your discipline and research area.

This article covers the combined results-and-discussion format. If your department requires separate chapters, you’ll find dedicated guidance in our standalone results and discussion chapter guides.