Miriam Bowers-Abbott, MA
Writer’s Camp Counselor
The tools for writing good conclusions are all around us!
Pardon our clickbait title. The “one simple trick” headline is admittedly a tiresome technique to generate clicks for scam websites. Normally, we try to avoid these low-level appeals.
But the temptation here with conclusions was just too great to resist.
First, because from a personal perspective, writing conclusions is the worst thing ever. I fervently hated writing conclusions for the longest time; I actually hated writing generally for the longest time too, but that’s a different story. I don’t think I’m alone in my contempt for conclusions. Standard models for conclusion construction are very nearly insulting to the writer and the reader. Summarizing and redundantly restating the points made in a paper again in the conclusion adds nothing of value to the reading experience. It’s verbose, especially when a summary of a paper has already been offered in the abstract. Why must we do all this again?
What if I said that we don’t have to summarize and restate the main points again? Wait, let’s walk that back. It’s nice to provide a sentence or two of summarizing context at the end of a paper, just to wrap things up with a bow. But a point-by-point summary?
No one wants this.
You know what is more interesting than a summary . . . and appropriate for an academic manuscript? A conclusion with Implications and questions. Find a bigger meaning, and put that bigger meaning in your conclusion. That is the simple trick.
So, to take this advice out of the theoretical arena, let’s see this in action. Let’s look at actual conclusions in some published works and figure out what they hold for us in terms of how we can approach conclusion-writing.
Case One
My colleague and I wrote a paper that looked at NCLEX pass rates and clinical hour commitments.1 We found no significant relationship between the number of hours a program devoted to clinical time and its students’ first time pass rates. As with any paper, it opened with an introduction, a literature review, methodology, data, and an interpretation of the data. For context here, we investigated simulation hours as well. As for the conclusion, let’s look at it here:
“Given the promise of simulation as a teaching tool, it may be tempting to advocate for a wholesale reduction of clinical time and replacement with simulation. Such a conclusion discounts the incalculable value of human interaction and lived experience that direct care in clinical hours provides. The findings of this investigation invite further research to identify factors that foster student licensure success in programs with minimal clinical time commitments. Certainly, not everything that counts can be counted. At its core, if nursing is to remain a profoundly human profession centered on caring, then the human element in the education process should remain. At the same time, if nursing programs can perform at a high level with a conservative number of clinical hours, then more hours do not seem to imply better education: the evidence suggests that more is truly only … more.”
There is no summary in this conclusion at all! What does it do instead?
- The conclusion discusses possible inferences that can be drawn from the evidence (Shall we replace clinical with simulation wholesale?). It ultimately retreats from endorsing those inferences, but it gives those queries a presence. In modern vernacular, it says the quiet part out loud.
- The conclusion also suggests new directions for research: “The findings of this investigation invite further research . . .”
- It ends with a statement that implies a reflective question about common assumptions. It invites the reader to ask themselves: What does it mean if more clinical isn’t better?
Case Two
Let’s look at another paper, this time, a paper on inclusive language guidelines that found interesting, sometimes contradictory, recommendations for terminology use when comparing the guidelines of different healthcare-related organizations.2 The concluding section for this paper was entitled “Recommendations.” Again, there was no summary, not even in the final paragraph:
“Inevitably, there will be mistakes in choices of terms along the way. Even those with the best intention may unknowingly use a term that is inappropriate. In these cases, the best suggestion is an attitude that is open to learning, and a quick apology.3 The changing nature of language demands that speakers and writers continue to learn and adapt over their lifetime. If there is uncertainty in the best path to create an inclusive message, it is reflective of the importance of the task and struggle to find enduring expressions of respect in contexts of constant change.”
What does the conclusion do instead of summarize?
- The conclusion finds meaning in learning and openness. Learning and openness is a theme that is common in many research projects. After all, learning is what research is all about! In this sense, this theme is something that can be leveraged in conclusions about all sorts of topics.
- The conclusion also cites a new source information. The Udelf article was not mentioned earlier in the manuscript, and this approach is under-utilized in the writing arena. There is absolutely no reason to avoid introducing new resources in a conclusion. There is no law that states “All literature must be introduced in the Background section.” If we are finding new meaning from the data, then new literature is perfectly appropriate.
- That said, we should not be introducing new information from the study in the conclusion. Your findings should be presented in the results and discussion, not in the conclusion. A new resource is not the same as new findings.
Conclusion
We could summarize here, but we’ve already agreed that summaries in conclusions are, at the very least, overrated. Look at what we just did here, though. We looked at conclusions and we verified the absence of summaries and the presence of other features. We can use those features in our own writing. We can also use this approach (looking at conclusions) to detect and find new features in the conclusions of additional papers we find that inspire us. The tools for writing good conclusions are all around us!
(That was “new meaning” in the conclusion, right? Did you catch it?)
References
- Schmitz S, Abbott MRB. Clinical time and national council licensure exam results for baccalaureate programs. Journal of Professional Nursing. 2025;58:119-121. doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2025.03.012
- Bowers-Abbott M. Finding the right words: Cohesion and divergence in inclusive language guidelines. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing. 2022;27(3). Accessed October 15, 2025. https://ojin.nursingworld.org/table-of-contents/volume-27-2022/number-3-september-2022/finding-the-right-words/
- Udelf D. The accidental racist. Psychology Today. August 22, 2020. Accessed October 15, 2025. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sport-between-the-ears/202008/the-accidental-racist
Author: Miriam Bowers-Abbott
Reviewed and Edited by: Leslie H. Nicoll
Copyright © 2025 Writer’s Camp and Miriam Bowers-Abbott. CC-BY-ND 4.0
Citation: Bowers-Abbott M. Write better conclusions with this one simple trick! The Writer’s Camp Journal, 2025; 1(3):3. doi:10.5281/zenodo.17361957