Conclusions are notoriously difficult to write. One nice thing about macro-structures (or any attention you might pay to genre conventions more generally) is they can help give you some direction for how to think about structuring your conclusion.
Each of the three macro-structures for academic articles have fairly different approaches to concluding, which reflects values of the sorts of disciplines and purposes for each macro-structure.
What do you notice in each of our three examples? How does each concluding section begin? How does the first paragraph start? What do you notice across paragraphs? What does each paragraph do? What is the tone of the section? The overall purpose of the section? What do you notice about sentences? How are they structured? What about word choice? How does the concluding section end? Do you notice any interesting organizational differences? What about layout? Are there subsections or lists? What is notable about those?
In about 150-200, think about the differences and similarities among the three conclusions of each article in response to some of these questions above. Here are the places to look:
- Pages 18-20 of “The age of ressentiment” section of thesis-driven paper: “Donald J. Trump and the rhetoric of ressentiment“ by Casey Ryan Kelly, published in Quarterly Journal of Speech (a journal in rhetoric)
- Pages 608-611 of Discussion section of IMRD paper: “‘He said he’d deport me’: Factors influencing domestic violence help-seeking practices among Latina immigrants” by Angelica S. Reina, Brenda J. Lohman, Marta María Maldonado, published in Journal of Interpersonal Violence (cited in the Qasim article; a journal in social science studies of trauma and violence).
- Page 7 of Problem-solution paper: “Immigration White Paper” published by the Christian Community Development Association (a group that seeks to connect Christians and help under-served communities).
After commenting below, click on the button below to continue.
In the first paper, the conclusion tells us that Trump is successful in talking to his audience and makes them powerless and he becomes this leader for the people he stands for during his speeches. Trump has been able to get supporters to become violent and plot violent attacks against his “enemies”. In the second paper, the conclusion section is more of a discussion section and the main points are that these Latina women deal with embarrassment about abuse and they cannot react like other cultural groups to domestic abuse for a variety of reasons. These groups of individuals are at a disadvantage and the resources that are needed are hard to access without speaking fluent English and there isn’t much outreach for these individuals. The solutions section of the last paper shows three major solutions that can solve a majority of the problems with immigration and there are a few mentioned things that have been done.
In “Donald J. Trump and the rhetoric of ressentiment“ by Casey Ryan Kelly, the author uses the conclusion to go over all everything that has been talked about in the document. The conclusion is used where most of the sub-topics were reconnected to the thesis statement to make a concluding point on how all that information supports the author’s thesis, as seen in the abstract.
In “‘He said he’d deport me’: Factors influencing domestic violence help-seeking practices among Latina immigrants” by Angelica S. Reina, the conclusion is the discussion section, as it is with IMRD format. In the discussion section, the relevancy of the results and the methods used analyzed and compared to any other studies and/or findings previously mentioned. By the end of the discussion section, after discussing some of the findings of the study, further research and inquiry are usually recommended for a specific matter of the topic that requires further analyses to be understood and solved.
In “Immigration White Paper” published by the Christian Community Development Association, the conclusion technically is the resolution part of the problem-solution format, in which the author -after stating the problems to be solved- proposes solutions that they consider effective to tackle the issue at hand.
The first thing that stood out to me from the thesis-driven paper was that even its conclusion is rhetorically named. At first, I confused it for an analysis paragraph. After a skim, I found that the conclusion is mostly a repeat of the analysis paragraphs and the paper’s central claim. Adding on to the repetition, it is also awfully long, which to me was a little repulsive.
Although the conclusion of the IMRAD paper is just as long, if not longer, it actually offers new information and further analysis.
The conclusion of the problem-solution paper is embedded in the Solutions section. This again serves to prove that this structure is the most concise of all.
In the first thesis driven paper the author uses the conclusion to restate and repeat the important parts on the essay. After reading it for a while I found it to be very repetitive (and a bit boring). Overall the author uses the conclusion to drill the arguments and points made into the readers mind.
Next we have the IMRD conclusion. In this conclusion the author discusses the many different sources and their findings. It also restates and reminds the readers of the many valuable points made through the essay. Like the thesis driven paper this one was also extremely long and boring.
In the last paper we see the conclusion which is much shorter and to the point. This conclusion manages to summarize all the claims and bring them together. I felt as though this one was the easiest to read and kept me engaged.
In the thesis-driven paper, the author uses several examples from Trump’s speech to explain how the president frames his arguments and presents them to his supporters. More specifically, the author utilizes rhetorical analysis to explain what Trump states and means when he communicates with his supporters. On the other hand, the section in the IMRD paper breaks down the findings of the research by quoting evidence from sources as well as the lived experiences of the participants. Unlike in the thesis-driven paper, the author here only states what has been observed as opposed to making assumptions regarding what might happen. Alternatively, the problem-solution paper follows a method where the author utilizes short paragraphs to provide as much information as possible concerning the issues under discussion. This method is somewhat similar to the research paper because it utilizes facts and statistics to explain phenomena unlike in the thesis-driven paper where the analysis largely relies on the presumptions of several scholars.
The thesis-driven essay concludes by going back over the point that were previously made, but in a more brief fashion. The author also points out that Trump is quite successful in his use of rhetoric because it has shaped how many Americans think about immigration in the US (for good or bad). In the IMRD essay, basically concludes by discussing the results of their research. It points out certain statistics that could be made based on the women that were interviewed and then argues that these results could be broadened to represent many more Latina immigrants. The problem-solution essay concludes by listing three possible solutions to the problems that were brought up earlier in the essay. The conclusions ends with a call for action to make changes to current policies that are unjust.
In the first paper the conclusion reiterates the thesis once more and any lasting conclusions that could be made from all the evidence given throughout the paper.
In the second paper the conclusion wasn’t really a summary of the paper but a summary of the findings and topic. A summary isn’t really in the formatting of a IMRD. After explaining the findings. To me the conclusion connects the findings to the initial argument.
In the third paper the conclusion are the solutions to the issue that was presented earlier in the paper.
In the thesis-driven paper, the concluding paragraph is basically a summary of what was analyzed throughout the paper and how it ties into the original claim. It was quite repetitive but overall demonstrated a solid conclusion of the rhetoric of resentment in Trump’s speech.
In the IMRD paper, the discussion section is seen as the conclusion. Here, the author basically explains what was found after conducting the research. It also ties in all the main points made in the paper as most concluding paragraphs do.
In the problem-solution paper, the conclusion is where all the solutions to the challenges are presented. The structure here is quite easy to understand and is given in the fewest words possible.
Thesis-driven: Outside analysis is used to back up the analysis presented above. It’s not quite a summary, but rather draws on the components of the essay to discuss ressentiment.
IMRD: Similarly, this paper compares and contrasts the findings to other similar studies. It also analyzes the direction for studies looking to follow up on this one.
Problem-solution: This first addresses the audience and lists specific issues that could be remedied through legal action.
The first paper concludes the paper in a generic manner and basically summarizes the findings and ideas. It furthers the points discussed in the articles leaving the reader thinking. The second paper uses the conclusion of the “Discussion” section as an opportunity for the author to add an opinion that was previously not found during the research sections. The last paper uses the conclusion to discuss the solutions to the problems that were stated throughout the article.