Three principles for writing an effective qualitative results section

Sayra Cristancho, Christopher Watling, Lorelei Lingard

Abstract


Writing an effective qualitative results section can be a daunting task. How do you report the findings of the study and tell a compelling story? It is this delicate balance that we strive to navigate in this paper. We offer three principles—storytelling, authenticity and argument—to help writers envision the story they will tell, select the data as evidence for that story and integrate quotations to guide the reader’s interpretation. Practical advice and concrete illustrations make the principles easy to apply to your own writing. Finally, by reflecting on how historical, methodological and disciplinary elements shape their application, you will be able to use these principles to enhance the persuasiveness of your qualitative results section.

Keywords


academic writing; results section; qualitative research

Full Text:

PDF

References


Apramian, T., Cristancho, S., Watling, C., Ott, M., & Lingard, L. (2015). Thresholds of principle and preference: Exploring procedural variation in postgraduate surgical education. Academic Medicine, 90, S70–S76. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000909

Bynum, W. E., Varpio, L., Lagoo, J., & Teunissen, P. W. (2021). "I’m unworthy of being in this space": The origins of shame in medical students. Medical Education, 55(2), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14354

Corden, A., & Sainsbury, R. (2006). Using verbatim quotations in reporting qualitative social research: Researchers’ views. University of York. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/pdf/verbquotresearch.pdf

Emmerton-Coughlin, H., Schlachta, C., & Lingard, L. (2017). "The other right": Control strategies and the role of language use in laparoscopic training. Medical Education, 51(12), 1269–1276. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13420

Ginsburg, S., Regehr, G., Lingard, L., & Eva, K. W. (2015). Reading between the lines: Faculty interpretations of narrative evaluation comments. Medical Education, 49(3), 296–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12637

Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2018). “They say/I say”: The moves that matter in academic writing (4th ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.

Greenhalgh, T., Seyan, K., & Boynton, P. (2004). “Not a university type”: Focus group study of social class, ethnic, and sex differences in school pupils’ perceptions about medical school. BMJ, 328(7455), 1541. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7455.1541

Lingard, L. (2004). Communication failures in the operating room: An observational classification of recurrent types and effects. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13(5), 330–334. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2003.008425

Lingard, L. (2019). Beyond the default colon: Effective use of quotes in qualitative research. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8, 360–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-00550-7

Lingard, L., & Watling, C. (2016). It’s a story, not a study: Writing an effective research paper. Academic Medicine, 91(12), e12. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001389

McElhinney, Z., & Kennedy, C. (2021). By accident or design? An exploration of the career pathways, experiences and identities of academic GPs using composite narratives. Education for Primary Care, 32(5), 266–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/14739879.2021.1894991

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250

Pack, R., Lingard, L., Watling, C., & Cristancho, S. (2020). Beyond summative decision making: Illuminating the broader roles of competence committees. Medical Education, 54(6), 517–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14072

Pratt, M. G. (2008). Fitting oval pegs into round holes: Tensions in evaluating and publishing qualitative research in top-tier North American journals. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107303349

Pratt, M. G. (2009). From the editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.44632557

Should scientists tell stories? (2013). Nature Methods, 10(11), 1037–1037. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2726

Simmons, A. (2019). The story factor: Inspiration, influence, and persuasion through the art of storytelling (Revised ed.). Basic Books.

Tottie, G. (2016). Planning what to say: Uh and um among the pragmatic markers. In G. Kaltenböck, E. Keizer, & A. Lohmann (Eds.), Studies in language companion series (Vol. 178, pp. 97–122). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.178.04tot

Varpio, L., Ajjawi, R., Monrouxe, L. V., O’Brien, B. C., & Rees, C. E. (2017). Shedding the cobra effect: Problematising thematic emergence, triangulation, saturation and member checking. Medical Education, 51(1), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13124

Watling, C., Driessen, E., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Lingard, L. (2012). Learning from clinical work: The roles of learning cues and credibility judgements. Medical Education, 46(2), 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04126.x

Willis, R. (2019). The use of composite narratives to present interview findings. Qualitative Research, 19(4), 471–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118787711




DOI: https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v22i3.556

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.