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.
