Writing up a qualitative PhD study rarely feels linear - what my IKEA bookshelf taught me
Were you hoping that by the time you got to the discussion chapter writing stage, things would be a lot clearer? But they’re… kind of not. Like an exhausted hiker who’s just arrived at the only cafe in a 10-mile radius only to discover it’s closed. Or that it’s run out of cake - equally devastating.
Surely by now, the literature review should align neatly with the methodology, the theoretical framework should feel settled, the overall argument should feel coherent and examiner-ready.
Then actual doctoral research happens and it doesn’t quite work out this way. Sorry.
This is especially true during the final stages of writing qualitative thesis, when the dissertation discussion chapter often starts feeling far less straightforward than people expected.
The IKEA bookshelf problem
A few years ago, I bought an IKEA bookshelf for my office at home.
You know the sort of thing. Flatpack, approximately 7,000 pieces, instructions illustrated by somebody who considered words an unnecessary luxury.
Somewhere during the assembly process, I managed to put one of the side panels on backwards. The slightly less attractive unfinished side now faces outwards into the room instead of discreetly inwards where it was apparently intended to go.
Every so often, I look at it and think: “Oh for goodness’ sake.”
There was a brief period where I considered dismantling the entire thing and rebuilding it properly.
Then I remembered two important facts.
Taking IKEA furniture apart is not good for one’s mental health.
The bookshelf works perfectly well. It holds exactly the same books it would have held had I assembled it in the “correct” order.
I think many qualitative PhD researchers struggle with a version of this feeling during the discussion chapter and final writing-up stages of the doctorate.
The myth of the perfectly linear PhD
On Planet Perfect, “proper” doctoral research unfolds in a clean, logical sequence where the conceptual framework becomes clear early, the methodology aligns neatly from the beginning, the analysis develops predictably, and the final argument emerges exactly as originally planned.
Most experienced qualitative researchers are probably laughing knowingly into their coffee as they read this because qualitative PhD studies do not develop like that at all. We do not live on Planet Perfect.
The cold hard reality of doctoral progression is that you revisit earlier chapters after analysing data, rethink concepts halfway through writing, discover what matters most while drafting the discussion chapter, and sometimes realise - very late in the process - that the real contribution of the thesis is rather different from what you originally thought it was going to be.
When this happens, PhD researchers get a bit embarrassed. They think it’s because they haven’t done the work correctly, in the normal order.
Given that everyone else’s finished theses look coherent on paper, there’s a tendency to assume that the authors must have arrived there through a coherent process.
Erm, no. They usually did not. Behind every neat, published thesis is a person who went through four existential crises, often ducked behind plant pots to avoid their supervisor and had files on their desktop with names like Discussion_Final_Final_V4c_USETHISONE.
What PhD writing and the discussion chapter actually look like
Over the last twenty years supporting qualitative PhD researchers, I have seen how much doctoral writing actually involves reshaping, restructuring, retrofitting, reverse engineering, and gradually discovering what the thesis is really trying to say.
This nonlinearity unsettles people because they interpret it as evidence they are somehow “doing the PhD wrong.”
As though changing your mind means your analysis really wasn’t “good enough”, or discovering the argument through writing is somehow cheating.
Qualitative interpretation rarely develops in a perfectly linear way because understanding itself develops through engagement with the material. Clarity emerges retrospectively because you are still figuring out what matters most while you are writing.
This is also why many researchers struggle to identify their contribution to knowledge until relatively late in the writing-up process. The argument often becomes visible through coffee-fuelled deep dives into the findings, literature, and discussion chapter whilst racing towards the submission deadline, rather than appearing in a lightbulb moment 60 seconds after data analysis has been completed.
Why the discussion chapter leaves you feeling raw
The discussion chapter asks you to do something fundamentally different from earlier parts of the thesis, so it can feel a bit… intense.
You are no longer simply presenting findings or describing what participants said. Now, it’s about trying to interpret what the findings collectively mean, how they connect to theory and literature, where tensions remain unresolved, and what contribution your research is making overall. That’s a lot. It’s like a task in a silly 1980s gameshow where people are trying to carry a glass of water, solve a puzzle, remember a sequence of flashing lights, and avoid inflatable obstacles while somebody shouts contradictory instructions from the sidelines.
Then there’s the truth that no one’s told you about the final stages of the PhD yet - that the argument becomes clearer through writing itself. That is why writing up starts feeling harder rather than easier, even though submission is getting closer.
Your PhD thesis is not a diary of your confusion
Your PhD does not need to reveal the exact order in which your thinking developed. The finished thesis is not a diary of your confusion. It is a carefully constructed account of the intellectual position you eventually arrived at through sustained engagement with the research.
That distinction matters enormously for qualitative researchers who are deep into writing up and worrying that the nonlinear nature of their thinking somehow means they did something wrong.
If your discussion chapter currently feels untidy, improvised, or as though you are gradually assembling the argument several months later than you expected, you didn’t do anything wrong.
Coherence in qualitative research is very often assembled retrospectively, and sometimes the bookshelf still works beautifully, even if one side ended up facing the wrong way.
“I don’t think I have a structure problem. I think I have a ‘what does this actually mean?’ problem.”
If you read that and though, “Ouch, I feel that”, my Discussion and Writing Up PhD Survival Guide will help you.
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.