How to structure your qualitative PhD discussion chapter themes
Perhaps writing the discussion chapter is turning out to be harder than you expected. You might be sitting in front of your computer right now, document open, thinking, “For goodness sake, someone just tell me what this thesis is actually trying to say!”.
It’s certainly not an easy chapter to write, but ask any of the PhD researchers I’ve supported through the final stages of their doctorate over the last twenty years what my main piece of advice would be at this stage, and they’ll all say the same thing: “Elizabeth says there’s no big secret to writing the discussion chapter - there’s simply a process”.
There are no magic spells or insider secrets that nobody has let you in on yet. At this stage of the journey, there are simply so many moving parts that keeping things simple and process-focused is usually what gets people over the finish line with their sanity relatively intact.
Well, relatively intact.
One of the most important parts of that process is getting your chapter headings or themes in place - this is what’s going to help you structure your discussion and prevent you constantly losing track of what you’re trying to argue.
In general, your discussion chapter needs to have three, four or five main themes. Any more than that, and it’s going to start becoming cluttered and fragmented. Any less than that and you’re going to flatten your contribution - things will get lost in headings that are too broad.
It’s worth saying that you won’t begin with three, four or five themes - this is qualitative research, remember, we love the complexity of the human experience! That’s the number you’re aiming to get to once you’ve pared it all down. In most cases, the researchers I’ve supported over the years have started out the discussion chapter with way more than that.
It’s like packing for your holiday and immediately selecting the outfits you’re definitely going to end up wearing. That’s not a thing really, is it? It’s more likely you’ll get a lot of clothes out on the bed, way more than you’ll need - this will end up taking you over your luggage allowance - so you’ll have to be selective and strategic in removing some of those items. Yes, that lime green top is great but what are you wearing that in combination with? That outfit you’ve taken on the last four holidays and not actually ever worn - probably worth leaving that out, yes?
This process is going to take time and you’ll likely go through several iterations of the discussion chapter structure. You might reach a point where you might find yourself thinking, “I don’t think I have a structure problem. I think I have a ‘what does this actually mean’ problem’”.
Well, one can help the other out here - you can use structure as your friend in figuring out what you’re trying to say within each of your themes. Use this structure as a “back to basics” way of getting to the point quickly.
State the core claim.
Revisit the relevant findings briefly.
Position those findings in relation to existing theory and literature.
Articulate the contribution. What is extended, refined, or challenged?
For example, imagine a study exploring humour in online activism.
A discussion theme might not simply be “Humour in activism,” but something more interpretive, such as “Humour as relational resistance”.
Here, you would explain how participants used humour strategically, connect this to existing debates on digital activism and resistance, and show where your findings extend or nuance those debates - perhaps by demonstrating that humour functions less as confrontation and more as community-building.
This 4-step process is a good way of bringing you back to what your findings mean and why they matter. Think of it as the no-nonsense airport check-in desk attendant your discussion chapter desperately needs. When you’re trying to stuff every possible idea, quotation, and theoretical concept into the suitcase “just in case”, it’s there to calmly inform you that you are, in fact, significantly over the baggage allowance.
“My literature review, findings and theory all feel like they belong to different PhDs”
If everything made sense separately - until you tried to write the discussion chapter, this is one of the problems I had in mind when I wrote my PhD Survival Guide for the Discussion and Writing Up stages.
It will help you get all of the different parts of your thesis singing together in harmony - rather than sounding like one of those awkward restaurant “Happy Birthday” moments where half the people singing don’t actually know the person’s name, and someone is somehow in an entirely different key.
It’s here when you’re ready.
Move from “What I found” to “What this means” - clearly and confidently.
This guide is for you if you’re a qualitative PhD researcher who needs to turn your findings into a clear, defensible argument.
If you’ve ever thought:
“What if this isn’t enough for a PhD?”
“Should I go back and change my literature review?”
“I don’t think I have a structure problem. I think I have a ‘what does this actually mean?’ problem.”
This is the stage where your thesis stops being a collection of chapters and starts becoming a coherent argument about what your research collectively means.
This guide helps you:
Connect your findings to literature, concepts and theory so all your chapters feel like they belong to the same thesis
Move from themes to a clear thesis-level argument
Articulate your contribution without overclaiming, panicking, or underselling your work
Write discussion and conclusion chapters that feel ready to submit
This is a digital download. You’ll receive immediate access to the full guide and worksheets after purchase.
Swipe through the preview images to explore the frameworks, worksheets, and guidance included in the guide
For a more streamlined and coherent approach, you can access all four PhD Survival Guides in the full series here.
Got questions? Contact me using this form, I’ll be happy to help.
By purchasing this product, you agree to our Terms and Conditions.