May 14, 2026
No Comments
A research paper may present a compelling question, carefully gathered evidence and a well-developed analysis, yet still leave readers uncertain about what the research has established. This often happens when the conclusion simply repeats the findings rather than explaining their significance.
Writing an effective conclusion requires more than summarising the research. It involves bringing the central argument together, demonstrating the contribution of the study and acknowledging the boundaries of its findings. As Booth, Colomb and Williams (2008, pp. 244–245) emphasise, a conclusion should return to the central argument while helping readers understand why it matters.
As Tablas-Mejia (2021) explains in the San José State University Writing Center handout, a conclusion should do more than summarise a paper: it should help readers understand the significance of the research. Although the structure of a conclusion varies across disciplines and publication formats, its underlying purpose remains consistent: to communicate what the research has established, why it matters and what can reasonably be concluded from the evidence.
A research paper conclusion brings the central argument to a close by answering the research question and explaining the significance of the findings. Rather than repeating individual results, it draws together the most important insights and shows how they contribute to the wider field of research.
Depending on the nature of the study, the conclusion may also acknowledge limitations, consider implications or identify questions that remain unanswered. These elements should strengthen the overall argument without introducing new evidence or reopening the discussion.
Although closely related, the discussion and conclusion serve different purposes in a research paper.
The discussion is where researchers examine their findings in depth. They interpret the results, consider alternative explanations, compare their findings with existing literature and address methodological limitations. The conclusion, by contrast, brings these interpretations together to communicate the study’s central argument and contribution.
In papers with a separate discussion section, the conclusion is often relatively brief. It should answer the research question and leave readers with a clear understanding of what the study contributes. However, some disciplines and journals combine the discussion and conclusion into a single section. Researchers should therefore consider the conventions of their discipline and the requirements of their chosen publication.
Writing a strong conclusion involves several decisions, from identifying the most important findings to explaining their wider significance. The following six principles provide practical guidance for bringing these elements together while maintaining a clear connection to the research question.
Throughout the following sections, we use a hypothetical study exploring how the design and management of communal spaces influence residents’ everyday use and social interaction.
The study is entirely fictional. No research has been conducted, and the findings and conclusions presented are invented solely for illustrative purposes. They are used to demonstrate different approaches to writing a research paper conclusion and should not be interpreted as actual research evidence.
A conclusion should return to the question that guided the research, but simply restating the original aim is not enough. Readers need to understand what the study has established in relation to that question. An answer may be qualified, especially where findings are mixed or context-dependent, but it should not leave readers to reconstruct the argument for themselves.
To check your conclusion, place the research question beside your closing paragraph. Does the paragraph answer it, or merely describe the topic and methods? If the question has several parts, consider whether each has been addressed in proportion to the evidence.
Example Card 1 shows the difference. The weaker statement describes what was investigated; the stronger statement identifies what the hypothetical findings suggest. Its wording matters too: “suggest” acknowledges uncertainty, while “prove” would imply more certainty than the evidence may justify.
A useful conclusion does not need to be definitive. If the research cannot fully answer its original question, state what it can establish and what remains unresolved. The strength of the answer should follow from the evidence, not the writer’s desire for a decisive ending.
The results section presents what the research has found. A conclusion should do more than repeat those findings: it should show how the most important results relate to one another and what they mean for the central argument. This is synthesis, and it often requires leaving less relevant details behind.
A useful starting point is to ask what the findings reveal when read together. Do they point to a shared explanation, expose a tension or suggest that an initial assumption needs revising? The aim is not to make every result fit one neat message. Contradictory or unexpected findings may be central to the contribution and should not be concealed.
Example Card 2 illustrates the difference. The first version lists observations about maintenance, seating and access rules. The second draws out a broader relationship: providing communal space is not, by itself, enough to ensure that residents use it. The conclusion becomes more informative because it connects the observations without treating them as proof of a universal rule.
When revising, identify the two or three findings that most directly answer your research question. Then ask what you can reasonably say about their relationship. If your synthesis introduces an idea not developed in the discussion, it may need further support before it belongs in the conclusion.
A research paper should leave readers with a clear understanding of what it contributes to existing knowledge. This does not require a claim of originality on a grand scale. A contribution might lie in questioning an assumption, connecting previously separate concerns, offering a different interpretation of evidence or examining a familiar problem in a new setting.
To explain a contribution convincingly, identify what the study adds and to which conversation it adds it. A conclusion should distinguish between what the evidence establishes and what the researcher hopes its wider influence might be. Claims such as “revolutionary” or “groundbreaking” rarely help readers make that judgement.
Example Card 3 contrasts an exaggerated claim with a more precise statement. The stronger version identifies the relationship between management practices and spatial characteristics as the study’s contribution. It gives readers something specific to assess rather than asking them to accept a declaration of importance. When revising your conclusion, try completing the sentence “This study contributes by…” and check that the answer is supported by your analysis.
Every research study has boundaries. These may arise from its methodology, the size or characteristics of its sample, the geographical or historical context, or the period during which data were collected. Acknowledging these limitations does not diminish the value of the research. Instead, it helps readers understand the conditions under which its findings can reasonably be interpreted.
The important distinction is between identifying a limitation and explaining its implications. Simply stating that a study involved a small sample, for instance, tells readers relatively little. Researchers should consider how that sample influences the scope of their conclusions. Does it restrict the possibility of generalisation? Does it limit the range of perspectives represented? Or does it leave particular questions unanswered?
Example Card 4 illustrates this distinction through our hypothetical study of communal spaces. The stronger statement does more than acknowledge the limited research setting. It explains why the findings should be interpreted in relation to the particular developments examined rather than applied automatically to all residential environments.
Researchers should also distinguish between limitations that affect the central argument and those already addressed elsewhere in the paper. If the discussion section examines methodological limitations in detail, the conclusion needs only to revisit those that directly influence its final claims.
The aim is not to catalogue everything the study could not achieve, but to define clearly what its evidence allows us to conclude.
A research paper should help readers understand why its findings matter beyond the immediate study. This may involve considering implications for theory, professional practice, policy or future research. However, not every study needs to produce practical recommendations. Some make their most important contribution by questioning an established interpretation, refining a concept or identifying an issue that requires further investigation.
Research implications concern what the findings may mean for a wider field of knowledge or practice. In our hypothetical study, the relationship between management arrangements and residents’ use of communal spaces could have implications for architectural design and housing management, as illustrated in Example Card 5. However, implications must remain proportionate to the evidence. A study conducted in a limited number of settings cannot establish that the same relationships will occur everywhere.
Future research recommendations, by contrast, identify questions that the study could not fully address. These may arise from its limitations, unexpected findings or relationships that deserve closer examination. Booth et al. (2008, p. 245) highlight the importance of recognising questions that remain unanswered, allowing research to contribute to an ongoing scholarly discussion.
Example Card 5 also illustrates how a future research direction can follow from the study’s findings and limitations. Rather than simply stating that further investigation is necessary, it identifies what could be examined next. When writing this part of a conclusion, researchers should ask whether their implications and recommendations genuinely follow from the evidence. Avoid ambitious proposals that the study has not established or a long list of loosely related possibilities.
A well-considered conclusion identifies where the findings may lead without claiming more than the research can support.
The final sentence of a research paper deserves careful attention. Although it may be only a small part of the conclusion, it shapes the impression readers take away from the study. An effective ending should reinforce the central argument without repeating the research question, introducing new evidence or making claims that extend beyond the findings.
There is no single formula for writing a strong final sentence. Some papers end by emphasising their principal contribution, while others highlight an implication or a question that remains open. The most appropriate approach depends on the nature of the research and the conventions of the discipline.
One useful technique is to return to an idea introduced at the beginning of the paper. Booth et al. (2008, p. 247) discuss how revisiting an earlier idea or image can create a sense of coherence. However, this should not become a purely stylistic exercise. The closing statement must still communicate something meaningful about what the research has established.
Example Card 6 illustrates how a final sentence can move beyond a general statement about the importance of a subject. In our hypothetical study, the stronger version brings together the relationship between physical design, accessibility and management practices. It leaves readers with the study’s central insight rather than simply reminding them that communal spaces matter.
When revising your final sentence, consider whether it could appear unchanged at the end of almost any paper on the same topic. If so, it may be too general. A more effective ending should reflect the particular argument and contribution of your research.
Above all, avoid the temptation to finish with an exaggerated claim or an inspirational statement disconnected from the evidence. The purpose of the final sentence is not to impress readers with its language, but to leave them with a clear understanding of what the research contributes.
Writing an effective conclusion involves bringing individual techniques together into a coherent closing argument without repeating the discussion or introducing new evidence. The following worked example draws on our fictional study of communal residential spaces.
The difference between the two conclusions is not simply a matter of length or more sophisticated language. The revised version demonstrates how a conclusion can develop a coherent argument from the findings rather than merely report that research has been conducted.
First, it answers the research question. The weak conclusion tells readers what the paper investigated but provides little indication of what was learned. The revised version immediately establishes the central insight: the use of communal residential spaces depends on more than their physical provision. This gives readers a clear answer to the question underlying the hypothetical study.
Second, it synthesises the findings. Rather than listing maintenance, accessibility and management as separate observations, the revised conclusion brings them together to explain how residents experience communal spaces. This is an important distinction. A conclusion should help readers understand the relationships between findings and what those relationships suggest about the wider research problem.
Third, it identifies a contribution without exaggeration. The revised conclusion does not claim to have discovered a universal principle of residential design. Instead, it identifies the value of examining spatial characteristics alongside everyday management practices. This is a more specific and defensible contribution, grounded in the hypothetical findings.
Fourth, it acknowledges the boundaries of the research. By referring to the two residential developments and the single-season research period, the conclusion makes clear that its findings cannot automatically be applied to other residential settings. These limitations do not invalidate the study; they help readers understand the conditions under which its conclusions should be interpreted.
Fifth, it proposes a meaningful direction for future research. The recommendation to investigate developments with different management arrangements and examine changes over time follows directly from the study’s findings and limitations. It is more useful than the generic suggestion that further research is needed because it identifies specific questions worth investigating.
Finally, it ends with a clear central insight. Rather than closing with a broad statement about the importance of communal spaces, the revised conclusion reinforces the relationship between physical environments and the practices through which those environments are managed and experienced.
Taken together, these changes demonstrate that an effective conclusion is not a compressed version of the entire paper. It is a carefully constructed argument that brings the research to a meaningful close. The aim is to help readers understand what has been established, why it matters and how far the evidence allows the researcher to go.
An effective research paper conclusion does more than signal that the discussion has ended. It brings the different parts of the research together and helps readers understand what the study has established.
Writing this section requires judgement. Researchers must decide which findings deserve emphasis, how their contribution should be expressed and where the boundaries of their claims lie. A conclusion that attempts to include everything may obscure the central argument, while one that makes exaggerated claims can weaken the credibility of otherwise valuable research.
The strongest conclusions are not necessarily the longest or most ambitious. They are those that communicate the significance of the research with clarity, precision and appropriate confidence.
Ultimately, a conclusion is where the researcher takes responsibility for the argument: explaining what the evidence supports, acknowledging what remains uncertain and showing how the work contributes to a wider conversation.
Before submitting your paper, use these six questions to review your conclusion:
As a final exercise, read your conclusion on its own. Could a reader understand what the study establishes, why it matters and how far its claims extend? Then read the introduction and conclusion together: they should address the same research problem, but the conclusion should show what has been learned.
To help you review your own conclusion, SPACE Studies has prepared a one-page Research Paper Conclusion Checklist that you can download and use while writing or revising your paper.
If you would like more detailed guidance, our Research Paper Conclusions: A Practical Writing Toolkit takes you through the writing process with explanations, worked examples and practical exercises designed to help you develop your own conclusion.
For a more interactive learning experience, join our Research Paper Conclusion Writing Workshop, where we explore effective writing strategies, examine practical examples and guide you through developing and refining your own research conclusion. The workshop is offered regularly, providing opportunities to participate at a time that suits you.
For those seeking personalised guidance, SPACE Studies also offers one-to-one mentorship sessions tailored to each participant’s individual needs and goals. Whether you are working on a research paper, developing an academic project or seeking professional guidance, our mentorship programme provides an opportunity to receive focused support and constructive feedback. Sessions can also be dedicated to developing and refining your research paper conclusion.
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The craft of research (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226062648.001.0001
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://study.sagepub.com/creswellrd4e
Tablas-Mejia, I. (2021). Conclusion section for research papers [Handout]. San José State University Writing Center. https://pdp.sjsu.edu/writingcenter/docs/handouts/Conclusion%20Section%20for%20Research%20Papers.pdf
Scribbr. (n.d.). Research paper conclusion. https://www.scribbr.com/research-paper/research-paper-conclusion/
Sheffield Hallam University. (n.d.). Conclusions. https://libguides.shu.ac.uk/researchprojects/conclusions
The University of Manchester. (n.d.). Writing conclusions. Academic Phrasebank. https://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/writing-conclusions/
University of Oxford. (n.d.). Writing conclusions. https://lifelong-learning.ox.ac.uk/writing-conclusions/
Sign in to continue
Not a member yet? Sign up now
Administrative Assistant
Deniz Bol is the Administrative Assistant at SPACE Studies, where she supports the day-to-day operations and contributes to the smooth functioning of the organization. Alongside her administrative role, Deniz is an artist with a passion for creative expression. She is currently pursuing her studies at the University of the Arts London (UAL), where she continues to develop her artistic practice. Her organizational skills, paired with her artistic background, make her a valuable asset to the SPACE Studies team, helping bridge the worlds of administration and creativity.
E-mail: denizbol@spacestudies.co.uk
Digital Marketing Consultant
Murat Oktay is the Digital Marketing Consultant at SPACE Studies, where he provides strategic guidance to enhance our digital presence and community engagement. With a keen eye for digital marketing trends and best practices, Murat plays a key role in refining our content strategy, expanding our online reach, and connecting with a wider audience. His expertise in digital tools and innovative marketing techniques aligns with SPACE Studies’ mission as a social enterprise, ensuring that our campaigns are impactful and resonate with our commitment to social responsibility in architecture and design. Outside his work with SPACE Studies, Murat stays at the forefront of digital marketing advancements, continually exploring new tools and sharing his insights with peers.
E-mail: muratoktay@spacestudies.co.uk
Marketing Manager
Santa Noella Matabaro is the Marketing Manager of SPACE Studies, bringing her expertise in strategic planning, community engagement, and relationship-building to the organization’s mission as a social enterprise. With a background in Politics & Law from the University of Kent, Santa combines analytical insights with a creative approach to advancing SPACE Studies’ vision of fostering interdisciplinary dialogue in architecture, design, and urban planning. In her role, she develops targeted campaigns and strategic partnerships, building brand presence and fostering meaningful connections with the community. Santa’s collaborative and people-centered approach enhances SPACE Studies’ impact, aligning with its commitment to social responsibility and innovation in the built environment.
Academic Content Coordinator
Betul Uckan is an architect and dedicated academic with a background in both architectural practice and research. She holds a Master of Science in Architectural Design and a Bachelor’s degree in Architecture from Istanbul Technical University, where she cultivated her interests in architectural theory and design. Betul has gained experience as a research assistant in various universities, contributing to design studios and foundational courses. She has also worked in the field as an architect with projects focused on design, modeling, and construction, and has been involved in notable projects, including Maltepe Piazza and Emaar Square in Istanbul. With her expertise spanning both digital and material architecture, Betul brings a dynamic, interdisciplinary approach to her role as the Academic Programme Coordinator.
E-mail: betuluckan@spacestudies.co.uk
Senior Researcher & Managing Editor
Arghavan Pournaderi is a senior researcher in the field of architectural conservation and restoration, with an academic foundation in architecture and specialized expertise in historic sites and buildings. Completing her PhD at the Art University of Isfahan, Iran, in 2019, her research has contributed to the understanding of Iran’s architectural heritage, with a focus on Isfahan’s urban and architectural evolution during the Safavid period. In addition to her extensive research, Dr. Pournaderi has held academic positions at various institutions in Isfahan, teaching at both undergraduate and graduate levels. Her work extends beyond academia as she contributes to SPACE Studies as Senior Researcher & Managing Editor, where she oversees scholarly initiatives that foster deeper interdisciplinary dialogue in architecture and heritage conservation.
Senior Researcher & Educational Consultant
Gregory Cowan is a Senior Researcher and Educational Consultant at SPACE Studies, where he leads initiatives that bridge academic research and practical application in architecture and urban design. He contributes his extensive experience to mentoring postgraduate students, designing educational workshops, and guiding community-focused projects. Gregory is also a freelance academic at the University of Wales Trinity St David and the University of Westminster, and founder of The Architects Coach. His expertise spans architectural workspace analysis, professional development, and positive intelligence coaching.
E-mail: gregorycowan@spacestudies.co.uk
Senior Researcher
Alison Hand is a Senior Researcher at SPACE Studies. She is a painter and writer with an MA in Painting from the Royal College of Art. Alison’s work focuses on creating absurd, unstable heterotopic spaces and dialogues with painting history. She is currently the Artist in Residence for King’s College London Philosophy Department on the Dreams and Wakeful Consciousness Research Project, exploring themes of time and simultaneity in new work. Alison has received numerous awards for her painting and is currently working with Bloomsbury Publishers on a major essay on Drawing in Contemporary Art. She is also the BA Fine Art Programme Leader at Art Academy London and co-director of Cement Arts. Her role at SPACE Studies involves leading research projects, mentoring junior researchers, and contributing to our artistic and academic initiatives.
E-mail: alisonhand@spacestudies.co.uk
Senior Researcher
Julian Wild is a Senior Researcher at SPACE Studies and the Sculpture Program Leader at The Art Academy London. With over 30 years of experience in creating and exhibiting sculptures, Julian has worked with high-profile clients such as Cate Blanchett and the University of Oxford. A fellow and former vice president (2015-2019) of the Royal Society of Sculptors, his work has been featured at venues like Modern Art Oxford and Chatsworth House. At SPACE Studies, Julian leads research projects, mentors junior team members, and conducts workshops that blend art and urban studies. In his free time, he enjoys attending academic conferences and crafting new sculptures.
E-mail: julianwild@spacestudies.co.uk
Director of Publications & Senior Researcher
Elif Suyuk Makakli (Associative Professor) earned her PhD in Architecture from the Vienna University of Technology, where she studied the impact of technology on architecture under Prof. William Alsop. With extensive experience in architectural practice in Istanbul and Vienna, she is now an Associate Professor at FMV Isik University, focusing on design education and technology. At SPACE Studies, Elif serves as both the Head of Publications and Senior Researcher, guiding scholarly content and contributing to research initiatives. She is dedicated to mentoring and fostering design innovation.
E-mail: elifsmakakli@spacestudies.co.uk
Director of Research
Sanaz Shobeiri is an architect, urban designer, and landscape urbanist, currently a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Planning at Queen’s University Belfast. Her research focuses on age-gender inclusiveness and the interplay of architectural, historical, political, and sociocultural dimensions in urban spaces, exemplified by her project on city centres in Belfast and Tehran. Sanaz holds a PhD in Urban Planning from the University of Tehran and has a robust portfolio in sustainability and urban theory. As Head of Research at SPACE Studies, she leads innovative research initiatives, fostering collaboration and academic excellence. In her free time, Sanaz enjoys exploring urban landscapes and supporting community development.
E-mail: sanazshobeiri@spacestudies.co.uk
Creative Director
Selin Gulce Sozmen is the Creative Director at SPACE Studies, where she leads the artistic vision and design strategy for the organisation. With a background in graphic design and visual arts, Selin has been instrumental in creating visually captivating books, journals, and event posters. Her role extends to developing and coordinating workshops and creative projects, ensuring that all visual materials meet the highest standards of quality and innovation. Selin’s dedication to creativity and excellence drives the visual and creative direction of SPACE Studies, making her an essential part of the team.
E-mail: selinsozmen@spacestudies.co.uk
Founder & Executive Director
Pinar Engincan is the Founder and Executive Director of SPACE Studies, an innovative social enterprise focused on fostering interdisciplinary dialogue and education in architecture and urban design. With extensive experience as a lecturer and researcher, Pınar holds a PhD in Architecture and has led numerous academic initiatives. Her career includes curriculum development, international collaborations, and research on housing and urban policies. Passionate about bridging academia and community, she champions accessible education and consultancy services, empowering individuals to shape the built environment.
E-mail: pengincan@spacestudies.co.uk
