How to End a Relationship Part II:The Graduate Paper

By Jeff Zuckerman, Dissertation Specialist and CSS Faculty Member

In my last blog post for the Writing Center, I offered expert advice on how undergraduates should end an academic paper. I also gave some inexpert advice on how to end a relationship. Most of my advice came from two places: Lunsford (2008) and the participant-observer research I did by way of my lousy romances before I met my wife.

This time let’s stick with finding ways to conclude a graduate paper or research article.

No doubt you’ve read some primary research in your graduate work. Whether studying the relationship between barking dogs and human aggression, bowling performance and mental skills training, or banking laws and consumers’ likelihood to have a checking account, authors of journal articles most often conclude their work with a discussion and interpretation of the work, a commentary on its significance, and the resulting avenues for future research.

In fact, if you’re looking for a writing recipe, take the advice in chapter 2 of the APA (2010) manual. The traditional journal article structure is laid out in plain English, and the authors of the APA manual offer a pair of questions to guide your conclusion:

• What is the theoretical, clinical or practical significance of the outcomes, and what is the basis for these interpretations?
• What problems remain unresolved or arise anew because of these findings? (p. 36)

Here’s an example from Banks and Banks (2002), who studied the effects of pet therapy on the elderly in long-term care facilities in Mississippi:

We found that [animal-assisted therapy], even one session of 30 minutes per week, was effective in reducing loneliness to a statistically significant degree. . . . The mean UCLA-LS score of the residents not receiving AAT was almost 50, indicating a high degree of loneliness. Even with therapy, scores were still about 40.

The authors added to their quantitative findings with this qualitative note:

One serendipitous finding of this study was the occurrence of spontaneous recollection by the residents. While visiting with the animal, the residents often spontaneously began to talk to the animal about past events with their pets. For example, one resident spoke to the dog and asked if the dog had gone hunting. She remembered fondly how her pet dog would bring dead squirrels, rabbits, and opossums back to her. She would then “fillet them and fry them in oil” and eat them. Another resident remembered how her dog would sit at her feet and keep her company.  (p. 431)

To assist with the data interpretation, Banks and Banks (2002) offered this insight:

This study had several strengths that helped to negate possible confounders. Residents were randomized, and the results were analyzed by ANCOVA, which can correct for any differences in the pretest scores that might have arisen from insufficient randomization (p. 431).

The authors also mentioned that one potential weakness of the study was that participants were all “cognitively intact” (p. 432), and cautioned against applying the results to patients with dementia.

In other words, there’s both a limitation and an avenue for future research.

So the question arises, how does all this affect your life in course papers?

First, notice that the Banks and Banks (2002) research led to a logical conclusion: The authors came up with findings based on the evidence of their research and not just on their gut feelings or preconceptions. The authors were honest about the strengths and weaknesses of their results.

They might have added how their research compares and contrasts to earlier findings, something that’s almost always required in your research. And although it should go without saying, the authors did address their research problem: “No randomized, prospective study has determined whether AAT is effective in combating loneliness among elderly adults” (p. 428).

Second, the authors were plain spoken, concise, and confident in their writing style. Here’s their final paragraph:

In summary, we found that the loneliness of self-selected residents in long-term care facilities improved with AAT. These residents had a strong life-history of responsibility and emotional attachment to pets, usually beginning in early childhood. These residents missed their pets and desired to have pets in their current environment. A single, 30-minute session of AAT per week for 6 weeks significantly reduced loneliness as measured by the UCLA-LS and was as effective as three sessions per week. The results show that AAT is effective in combating loneliness in long-term care facilities.

It’s refreshing to find that kind of directness in academic writing. Although their writing is dispassionate and scientific, you can get the sense these researchers cared about their topic . . . and their subjects.

That’s not a bad way to end things. Period.

------------

References

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Banks, M. R., & Banks, W. A. (2002). The effects of animal-assisted therapy on loneliness in an elderly population in long-term care facilities. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences, 57A, 428-432.

Lunsford, A. A. (2008). St. Martin’s handbook (6th ed.). Boston, MA: St. Martin’s Press.