How to connect theory and data in your PhD discussion chapter (without making it awkward)
I was at a family event earlier this year - a big gathering at a pub in the English countryside.
Bear with me. This has something to do with writing your PhD discussion chapter. Obviously. Apparently I can't even attend a family gathering without thinking about qualitative research. Yeah, FML.
It was for a relative with a wide social circle, so there were lots of people there who didn’t know each other. Different parts of their life, all in one place.
Which meant, at various points, I found myself playing social matchmaker.
You know the sort of thing:
“I was just speaking to Andy about…”, “Steve has a dog - you’ve got a dog as well, haven’t you?”, “So, do you batch cook?”, “Have you ever tried those meal prep kits?”.
Nothing sophisticated. Just small ways of helping people find a point of connection.
Once they had that, the conversation tended to take care of itself.
Why connecting theory and data in your PhD discussion chapter feels so difficult
It struck me afterwards that this is very similar to what’s going on when you’re trying to bring theory and data together in your discussion - because I think about PhD challenges far more than is healthy too.
You’ve got your data - detailed, often quite rich. You’ve got your theory - ideas that help explain things.
Left on their own, they don’t always naturally “get into conversation” with each other.
What many people end up doing is writing them separately: describing what participants said… and then trying to bring theory in afterwards.
It can feel a bit like standing between two people, making increasingly obvious introductions, and wondering why it still feels awkward.
How to use theory to explain your qualitative research findings
What helps is to change how you approach your data.
Ask, “What might help explain this?”
That’s your equivalent of:
“I was just speaking to Andy about…”
It gives you a way to bring the two into conversation.
An example of connecting theory and findings in a PhD discussion chapter
I was speaking recently with someone struggling with her discussion chapter. She was researching patient experiences of long-term pain management. We looked at what she had and asked, “What might help explain this?”.
She had themes around ‘frustration’, ‘not being believed’, and ‘learning to “get on with it”’.
Alongside that, she had theory around identity, legitimacy, and chronic illness from her literature review.
We took each theme and sat with it for a moment, asking one question: what might help explain this experience?
When participants talked about not being believed, ideas about legitimacy and contested illness came in - the sense that some conditions aren’t always recognised in the same way, and that patients can feel they have to work to be taken seriously.
When people described frustration or feeling dismissed, we linked that back to those same ideas - not just as individual experiences, but as part of a broader pattern.
When participants talked about “getting on with it”, we connected that to identity - how people adjust their expectations, their roles, and their sense of self over time.
Rather than adding theory at the end, she was using it to ask better questions of her data.
That’s when the writing started to properly flow - less blank staring, more of that steady, assured tapping of keys because there was finally something solid to work with. Her thinking was taking shape on the page rather than bouncing around in her head. Because you don’t think before writing - you think through it. (Cue the eye rolls from the folks in my community who are SICK of hearing me repeat that!)
What if your theory doesn't explain your findings?
Also worth me saying that sometimes, when you try to introduce your data to your theory, they don't get along at all. Like that awkward moment when you introduce two friends from different areas of your life to each other, thinking, “OMG, Gemma would LOVE Lauren, and vice versa!”. Yeah, turns out Gemma and Lauren want to claw each other’s eyes out. (Names have been changed to protect the prickly)
That's interesting too.
Perhaps the theory only explains part of what you've found. Perhaps your participants' experiences challenge something other researchers have assumed.
You don't have to force them into a happy relationship, sometimes the disagreement is where the most interesting thinking happens.
If your theory and data are standing awkwardly on opposite sides of your discussion chapter, about to pop off and get another drink or peruse the buffet for the fourth time, stop trying to force them together.
Find out what they have to say to each other.
You're not just introducing them. You're the one who has to work out whether the conversation is actually going anywhere. Yeah, and there aren’t even any sausage rolls. Sorry about that.
What’s next?
FREE Discussion Chapter Mini Guide
If this blogpost made you think, “Ah, yes - that’s a different way of thinking about it!”, grab my free mini guide to the discussion chapter, which tells you about the stuff you really need to know.
Tap here to get the free guide
Discussion and Writing Up Guide
If you’re like, “No, this woman knows things, she may even be a bit witchy… show me her finest wares immediately!”, my Discussion and Writing Up Guide is probably what you’re after. It’s £75 and it’s not your typical PhD resource, because you’ve tried them before, right? If they worked you wouldn’t be still reading this far down. 😉