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.
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.
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, researchers often assume they're doing the PhD "wrong". Finished theses look beautifully coherent, so it's easy to imagine everyone else got there in a beautifully coherent way too. They didn't. Behind every polished thesis is someone who went through several existential crises and had files called 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.
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. (If you're finding it hard to trust your own interpretations, I wrote about that here.)
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 arriving in one neat lightbulb moment.
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.
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.
But, how do I fix it?
If all of this feels uncomfortably familiar, then the problem is probably that you've reached the stage where you need to move from "What did I find?" to "What does all of this actually mean?" That's exactly what my Discussion and Writing Up PhD Survival Guide is designed to help with.
It shows you how to move from describing findings to interpreting them, identify your contribution to knowledge, connect your findings back to the literature, and write a discussion chapter that actually sounds like you know what you're talking about.
Click here to learn more about it.
Move from “what I found” to “what this means” - without going round in circles.
This guide is for qualitative PhD researchers who have findings, themes, data, notes, and chapter drafts… but still feel unsure how to turn them into a clear discussion.
This is the stage where your PhD has to become more than a set of chapters, it has to become an argument. That’s exactly what this guide helps you work through.
Swipe through the images to explore the frameworks, worksheets, and guidance included.
Get the full Survival Guide set 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.