https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gexgyfogK98 Channel: Qualitative Researcher Dr Kruikow The video discusses five common mistakes that can lead to a qualitative research study’s results or findings chapter being “marked down,” and how to fix them. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:
-
Lack of Signposting (0:33): Mistake: Not clearly linking different elements of the written work, making it difficult for the reader to follow the flow and understand connections. This is especially problematic as the reader (often the marker) might be disengaged, tired, or bored. Fix: Actively guide the reader through the chapter using phrases like “as explained in section…”, “as noted in table…”, “as discussed further in chapter…”, “as evident in Figure…“. Remind the reader of the research questions at the beginning of the findings chapter and at the start of relevant sections. The goal is to make it super clear where everything is and how different parts relate.
-
Lack of Visual Representation of Results (4:14): Mistake: Presenting findings solely through text, without an initial visual summary. Fix: After briefly summarizing the main findings (the key takeaway from your study), immediately point the reader to a table or figure that visually presents your themes and sub-themes. This provides an immediate overview and allows the reader to constantly refer back to it for context while reading the detailed textual explanation.
-
Lack of Clarity About Answers to Research Questions (5:36): Mistake: The findings presented do not clearly or explicitly answer the research questions, or the connection between the findings and the research questions is ambiguous. This can stem from the first two mistakes. Fix: Ensure that as you present your findings, you make it explicit how they contribute to answering your research questions. The reader should never be left wondering how a particular finding relates to the core questions of your study. This doesn’t mean every single finding has to directly link to one specific research question, but the overall contribution and answers should be clear.
-
Problems with Quotes (8:33): Mistake: This is a multi-faceted problem including: Over-reliance: Too many quotes, especially in succession, without sufficient author narration or interpretation. Lack of quotes: Not enough direct participant quotes to substantiate claims, making the findings seem biased or unsubstantiated. Unexplained quotes: Inserting quotes without telling the reader why the quote is there or what it demonstrates. Inappropriate length/formatting: Quotes that are too long or too short for their block-quoted or in-text format. Fix: Balance: Strike a balance between direct quotes and your analytical narrative. Quotes should support your points, not replace them. Explanation: Always introduce and explain your quotes. Tell the reader what to look for and how the quote supports your argument. Meaningful selection: Choose quotes that are impactful and illustrative. Formatting: Use block quotes for longer excerpts (e.g., 40 words or more, depending on style guide) and integrate shorter ones into the main text. Ensure proper citation.
-
Confusing Structure (12:43): Mistake: The overall organization of the findings chapter is unclear, making it hard for the reader to navigate the information. Fix: Recognize that there are multiple valid ways to structure a findings chapter, and the “best” way depends on your specific study. Common structures include: By Research Question: Each research question serves as a main section, with relevant themes/findings discussed under it. By Main Theme: Each overarching theme is a main section, with sub-themes and relevant findings discussed. By Method/Data Source: If you used multiple data collection methods (e.g., interviews, focus groups, observations), you might have sections for the findings from each method. Key Principle: The ultimate goal is to choose a structure that presents your results in the clearest and most convincing way for your specific study. You, as the researcher, know your data best and must take ownership of deciding the most effective structure to ensure the reader understands your findings as thoroughly as you do.
Related Concepts
- reader engagement — Wikipedia
- flow management — Wikipedia
- Thematic Analysis — Wikipedia
- Qualitative Research — Wikipedia