Hi all,
In my findings I want to refer back to my 3 objectives to establish how they have been met, I also wish to foreground my contributions to knowledge, such as they are! The objectives read best in their current order but I've not found anything really new for the first one, one key conclusion straddles the last 2 objectives, & the other main result doesn't really fit any of them.
All tips on how to lay this out will help enormously! For me, today is just not a writing day!!
Many thanks, Mog :$

Hi Mog,

I think it depends a bit on how you have laid out your results and the rest of your conclusions/analysis but for mine, after my general discussion relating my results back to previous literature, I have literally spelt it out to be clear of how the research has met each objective - so I have a subheading of objective one and then discuss how my findings relate to it, then objective two etc. My supervisors are keen for me to really emphasise how I meet my objectives and what my contribution is and they've suggested this is the best way - although admittedly, it may not be best for everyone. 

If you do go down this route, I think if you haven't found anything new for the first one, that's exactly what you should say under that objective - the fact that you have not found anything new may be significant in itself?

Then maybe after you've done each specific objective, have a separate bit for other findings where you can put your other main result.

Not sure I've helped you much but it may give you some ideas!  Good luck with it Mog :-)

I am of a slightly different opinion about objectives. I am assuming your objectives and research questions are slightly different.
We the researchers set out the objectives for ourselves. If we find that we have not met an objective, we should probably not include that objective. At least, that was the feedback I got from my supervisor when I ran into similar troubles.

Example: 1) To find out what flavour ice cream penguins like. 2) To see if penguins get cramps if they swim immediately after eating ice cream. 3) To see if penguins like a cherry on top of their ice cream.
You were unable to determine objective 2 as penguins did not go swimming after eating ice cream.
This study has 2 objectives: (1) and (3).

Interested to hear if others disagree and why (i.e. so I have something to counter argue with my super). Good luck Mog.

======= Date Modified 12 Jun 2012 14:39:31 =======
To me this seems like something for the Discussion chapter rather than the Findings chapter - at least as an explicit discussion of how well the objectives have been met. In fact, the negative aspects of your study may not even arise fully until the final Conclusion chapter in the 'limitations' section (notably short section in most PhDs I've read!). In a sense, though, I suppose each Conclusion of your Finding(s) chapter(s) will start to answer your research question and how your objectives have been met. But a full reflection on how I've met the objectives of my research does not arise until the Discussion in my PhD. Of course, some theses don't have separate discussion and findings chapters though...

As I said in the thread I started, I do think that there is much better advice around about what should go into the earlier chapters (literature review and methodology) than the later chapters (findings and especially the discussion chapter). Anyone who can suggest any guidance on writing good Discussions and Conclusion chapters would be gratefully received - whether from personal experience or a useful article/chapter they've read.

======= Date Modified 14 Jun 2012 21:42:21 =======

Agreed with the other post, sounds like you're describing discussion chapters?