A conclusion states what your work found and why it matters, in fewer words than anything before it, and it adds no new results. Beyond that, it depends on what you are ending. A research paper’s conclusion gives the answer and its significance in a few paragraphs. A literature review’s conclusion sums up what is known, names the gap and leads into your study. The final chapter of an Indian PhD thesis answers each objective in turn, then sets out the contribution, recommendations, limitations and scope for further research.
Below, each of the three gets a short made-up example, followed by the two parts of a thesis ending that examiners read most sceptically: recommendations and future scope. Interpreting results is the discussion’s job, and that has its own guide. Last reviewed September 2026.
What is the difference between a paper, literature review and thesis conclusion?
They share one rule: no new evidence. After that they differ in length and in what they point towards.
| Research paper | Literature review | Final thesis chapter | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Its job | Say what the study found and why it matters | Say what is known, what is not, and where your study comes in | Answer every objective, state the contribution, hand over to future researchers |
| Typical length | One to three paragraphs, often 150–300 words | One to two pages in a thesis; a few sentences in a paper | Often 10–30 pages |
| Points towards | Implications and one or two next steps | Your own objectives | Recommendations and scope for further research |
| Usual heading | “Conclusion(s)”, sometimes a subsection of the discussion | “Summary and research gap” | “Summary, Findings, Suggestions and Conclusion” or “Conclusion and Future Scope” |
The lengths are what I see in practice, not rules. Your journal’s author guidelines and your university’s thesis format come first, and if your department has a habit (some want a separate “Suggestions” chapter), follow it. Open three recent theses from your department on Shodhganga and read their last chapters before planning yours.
How do you write the conclusion of a research paper?
Keep it short. Elsevier’s generic guide for authors says the study’s key conclusions “may be presented in a short Conclusions section, which may stand alone or form a subsection of a Discussion or Results and Discussion section.” Check your target journal before deciding which.
How is it different from the discussion and the abstract?
The discussion argues. It compares your results with other studies, explains surprises and weighs limitations. By the conclusion the arguing is over, and you state where it landed.
The abstract summarises the whole paper, method included, for someone deciding whether to read it. The conclusion is for someone who has read it, so it doesn’t need the sample size again. It needs the answer, why it matters, and where the work should go next. If your conclusion and abstract could be swapped without anyone noticing, rewrite the conclusion (the abstract guide covers the other side).
The ICMJE recommendations, written for medical journals but sound anywhere, ask authors to link conclusions with the goals of the study and to avoid unqualified statements and conclusions the data do not support.
What should you leave out?
- A result that is not in the results section. If it is worth mentioning, it belongs there first.
- The abstract pasted again with the tense changed.
- Fresh citations. The literature was dealt with in the discussion.
- Claims the design cannot carry. A survey in one district does not show what “Indian farmers” do, and a correlation does not show a cause.
- Broad closing statements about national development or the need for “more awareness”.
Example
The study and its numbers are made up. Suppose a civil engineering paper tested bricks with different proportions of fly ash.
Bricks with 30 per cent of the clay replaced by fly ash met the strength requirement we tested against, while those with 40 per cent or more did not. For small kiln owners near thermal power plants, this suggests a practical upper limit for fly-ash use without changing the firing process. The tests covered one source of ash and one firing temperature; trials with ash from other plants, and durability tests under repeated wetting and drying, are the next steps.
Three sentences: the answer, who should care, and the edge of the evidence. No citations, no p-values.
How do you write the conclusion of a literature review?
Three moves, in order. Pull the themes together into a statement of what is known. Say what is not known. Then lead straight into your study, which is the move scholars forget. The chapter should end on something close to your objectives, so that the methodology chapter can open by explaining how you studied them.
Our literature review examples page has a full sample closing paragraph for a management thesis. Rather than repeat it, here is a shorter one from agriculture. The topic is made up and citations are left out on purpose.
The studies reviewed agree that drip irrigation cuts water use on sugarcane farms, and most report higher yields. Nearly all of them, however, measure outcomes in the first two seasons after installation, on farms that received a subsidy and technical visits. Almost nothing is known about whether smallholders keep using drip systems once that support ends. The present study therefore follows adopters in two districts of Maharashtra for three seasons to identify the factors associated with continued use.
Read it again for what is absent. No new study appears; every claim summarises work discussed earlier in the chapter. There is no list of authors. The gap is specific (continued use after support ends) rather than “no study has been done in this area”, a phrase examiners have learnt to distrust. In a journal article the same moves shrink to two or three sentences before your aim.
What about the conclusion of a research proposal?
A synopsis ends the same way but looks forward: the problem in a sentence, the objectives, and the expected contribution. Don’t promise findings. “The study will show that…” invites a committee member to ask how you already know. The research proposal guide covers the rest.
How do you write the final chapter of a PhD thesis?
In commerce, management, education and the social sciences, many Indian theses title the last chapter something like “Summary, Findings, Suggestions and Conclusion”. Engineering and science theses more often use “Conclusion and Future Scope”. The contents are close. Where the chapter sits is covered in the thesis structure guide; this is about what goes inside.
Brief recap of the study
A page or two: the problem, the objectives and the method, in past tense.
Findings, objective by objective
One sub-section per objective, in the exact wording of Chapter 1, pointing to the table or section where each result is reported.
Conclusions and contribution
What the findings add up to, and what the thesis adds to theory, method or practice.
Suggestions or recommendations
Addressed to named actors, each traceable to a finding.
Limitations
Briefly, or a pointer back to the discussion if they are covered there.
Scope for further research
Three to five specific studies someone could design from what you have written.
The findings section is where final chapters most often need rework, usually in the same way: the scholar copies the results chapters again, table by table. Examiners have read those. What they want now is each objective, worded as in Chapter 1, with a direct answer beneath it. If your objectives have drifted since the synopsis, fix that first (the objectives guide shows how to word them so they can be answered).
Findings by objective: an illustrative extract
Imagine a commerce thesis on UPI use among small retailers in two districts of Tamil Nadu. Everything here is invented.
Objective 2: To identify the factors associated with regular use of UPI by small retailers.
Regular use was most strongly associated with in-person onboarding by a bank or payments agent, followed by the share of customers under 35 (Section 5.3, Table 5.7). Shop size and the owner’s education were not significant once these were controlled for. Fear of disputes over failed transactions was the reason most often given by cash-only retailers (Section 5.5).
One objective, one short block, a pointer back to the evidence. Do this for each objective and an examiner can tick them off in five minutes.
Then step back. For this thesis, the conclusion might be one paragraph arguing that adoption depended more on how retailers were introduced to UPI than on who they were. The contribution says what that adds: perhaps a correction to studies that stress education and income, or a tested questionnaire others can reuse. Claim only what you can defend; “what is your contribution?” is a common opening question at the viva, and the viva questions guide has the usual follow-ups.
How should recommendations follow from the findings?
Every recommendation should point to a finding. If you can’t say which one, delete it, however sensible it sounds.
This is where examiners most often write “generic” in the margin. The usual culprits: “the government should create awareness”, “training programmes should be conducted”. Either could have been written before any data were collected, and that is the problem.
| Finding (illustrative) | Weak recommendation | Stronger recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| Retailers onboarded in person by a bank or payments agent were far more likely to be regular users. | The government should create more awareness about digital payments. | Banks and payment providers in the two districts could run in-shop demonstrations for kirana owners, since in-person onboarding was the factor most closely linked with regular use. |
| Fear of disputes over failed transactions was the commonest reason for accepting cash only. | Retailers should be educated about UPI. | Payment providers could show the complaint and refund route in Tamil inside the merchant app. |
The stronger versions name who should act, say what they should do, and carry the reason with them. They also stay inside the sample: two districts, not “all of India”.
Six grounded suggestions beat twenty, and a committee at the pre-submission seminar will pick the weakest one to question you on.
How do you write the scope for further research without being generic?
“Future research may be carried out in other states with a larger sample.” I have read that sentence in more theses than I can count. It tells the next scholar nothing.
Useful future scope comes from your own limitations, your unexpected results, and the questions your findings opened. Each suggestion should say what to study, with whom or with what, and why your work makes it worth doing.
Generic: The study can be extended to other districts and other types of digital payment.
Specific: Because in-person onboarding was the strongest correlate of regular use but the design was cross-sectional, a field experiment offering onboarding visits to a random half of retailers would show whether the link is causal. The finding that education made no difference once onboarding was controlled for also deserves a qualitative study with low-literacy retailers, on how they learn the app.
The same applies in engineering. “The model can be improved using deep learning” is generic; “the model was tested only on summer data from one plant, so monsoon data is the next test” gives someone a project.
Sources
FAQ
Questions scholars ask
Can I cite references in the conclusion?
In a paper, avoid it. In a thesis final chapter, an occasional citation when stating the contribution is acceptable, but the chapter should not become another literature review.
Should the conclusion be written in past or present tense?
Past tense for what you did and found, present tense for what it means (“this suggests…”), the same convention as in the discussion.
Are “suggestions” and “recommendations” the same thing?
In Indian theses they are used almost interchangeably. Use whichever heading your department’s recent theses use.
How long should the final chapter of a thesis be?
There is no fixed rule; it is usually shorter than the results chapters. If it is longer than your methodology chapter, it is probably repeating the results.
