Dissertation Conclusion Examples & Strategies

Introduction

A dissertation conclusion is your final say on the research. It ties your arguments together, answers the research question clearly, and sets out what your findings mean for theory, practice, and future work. It should be concise, analytical, and rooted in the evidence you have already presented. No new data, no new methods—just clear reasoning and a confident, well-supported finish.

If your topic is anti-corruption in public procurement in Ghana and Kenya, your conclusion should do three things especially well:

• State how far the legal frameworks and institutions have worked, and where they have not.
• Compare the two systems with precision, using your own data and examples from the body chapters.
• Offer realistic recommendations and targeted areas for further study.

This guide shows you how to write that kind of conclusion, with ready-to-use examples and a simple structure that keeps you focused on the research question.

What You’ll Learn

• How to structure a dissertation conclusion in 5–8 clear paragraphs
• How to link findings directly to the research question
• How to assess Ghana’s Public Procurement Act 2003 (Act 663) and Kenya’s Public Procurement and Disposal Act 2005 in your final analysis
• How to evaluate the role of institutions (PPA, PPOA, KACC) and explain differences in performance
• How to compare headline cases such as the Goldenberg scandal (Kenya) and the Alfred Woyome judgment debt case (Ghana)
• How to write practical recommendations and realistic next steps for research
• Useful sentence starters and phrasing that keep your conclusion tight and persuasive
• A quick checklist and table you can use while drafting

Core Concepts

Purpose and Structure of a Strong Conclusion

Your conclusion should:

• Answer the research question directly and without hedging.
• Summarise the main findings briefly (two to three sentences), then interpret them.
• Explain the degree of effectiveness or impact (e.g., limited, mixed, moderate, substantial) and support this with your evidence.
• Connect findings to theory and prior studies, noting where your results agree or differ.
• Discuss implications for policy and practice, with short, feasible recommendations.
• Acknowledge limitations and scope conditions.
• Indicate concrete directions for future research.

Practical structure (typical for a 10,000–20,000-word dissertation):

1. Restatement of the question and headline answer
2. Concise synthesis of key findings
3. Interpretation and contribution to the academic debate
4. Evaluation of legal frameworks in practice
5. Assessment of institutions and enforcement
6. Comparative points (Ghana vs Kenya)
7. Recommendations and policy relevance
8. Limitations and future research

Length guide: aim for roughly 5–10% of total word count.

Linking Findings to the Research Question

Research question example: Do anti-corruption laws in Ghana and Kenya help reduce corruption in public procurement?

How to respond convincingly:

• Be explicit about the degree of effectiveness: “limited”, “mixed”, “moderate”, or “strong”.
• Pin your claims to your data (e.g., audit findings, case outcomes, procurement irregularities reported, enforcement actions).
• Distinguish between what the laws require on paper and what happens in practice.
• State where improvements have occurred (e.g., transparency provisions, bid protest mechanisms) and where gaps remain (e.g., enforcement capacity, political interference, sanctions).

Useful phrasing:

• “The findings suggest a mixed effect: transparency requirements improved bidding discipline, but enforcement shortfalls limited deterrence.”
• “While Act 663 and the PPDA set clear standards, implementation was uneven, particularly in high-value contracts.”

Assessing Legal Frameworks: Ghana’s Act 663 and Kenya’s PPDA 2005

Key points to cover in your conclusion:

• Aims and design: transparency, non-discrimination, competition, accountability.
• Implementation gaps: rules ignored, weak sanctions, delays in dispute resolution, or loopholes exploited.
• Evidence from your chapters: examples where provisions worked as intended and where they fell short.
• System-level effects: has the incidence or visibility of irregularities changed? Are procurement decisions more reviewable? Are suppliers more willing to challenge decisions?

Keep it balanced:

• Note the improvements (e.g., standardised procedures, oversight roles, complaint mechanisms).
• Note the limits (e.g., capacity constraints, inconsistent data reporting, limited penalties for breaches).

Institutions and Enforcement: PPA, PPOA, and KACC

Institutional performance often explains why laws work—or do not.

• Roles: PPA (Ghana) and PPOA (Kenya) oversee procurement rules; anti-corruption bodies (e.g., KACC in Kenya) handle investigations.
• Capacity: staffing, skills, training, budgets, and independence all shape outcomes.
• Coordination: do oversight and anti-corruption bodies work together efficiently, or do mandates overlap and create friction?
• Political context: leadership commitment, protection from interference, and follow-through on sanctions matter.

In your conclusion:

• State which bodies, on your evidence, have been more effective and why.
• Tie specific institutional strengths/weaknesses to observed outcomes (e.g., better audits vs. weak prosecutions).
• Avoid generalities—reference the concrete examples you analysed.

Ghana–Kenya: Commonalities and Differences

Bring out both sides:

• Common ground: shared goals (transparency, fairness), common law heritage, similar procurement reform agendas.
• Differences: timing and depth of reforms, take-up of e-procurement, strength of review bodies, track record on debarment, and notable cases that shaped public expectations.
• Example contrasts: lessons drawn from the Goldenberg scandal in Kenya and the Alfred Woyome judgment debt case in Ghana can show how public scrutiny and institutional responses differ.

Your conclusion should explain what these similarities and differences mean for the overall assessment and for practical reform.

Key Examples or Case Studies

Example 1 — Headline answer and legal frameworks “This study finds that anti-corruption laws in Ghana and Kenya have produced mixed results in public procurement. Both Act 663 (Ghana) and the PPDA 2005 (Kenya) strengthened transparency and established review mechanisms, yet uneven application and limited sanctions reduced their overall impact. Evidence from procurement audits and dispute outcomes indicates progress on procedural compliance, but a weaker record on enforcement when breaches occur.”

Example 2 — Institutions and enforcement “The performance of oversight bodies shaped outcomes more than the statutory text alone. Where the PPA and PPOA conducted regular audits, issued clear directives, and were backed by prompt investigative action, procurement processes improved. However, gaps emerged where investigations stalled or sanctions were rarely applied. These findings suggest that resourcing, independence, and inter-agency coordination are decisive for sustained progress.”

Example 3 — Comparative case signals “Comparing major scandals highlights how systems respond under pressure. In Kenya, the Goldenberg legacy drove calls for tighter oversight and stronger review mechanisms; in Ghana, the Alfred Woyome judgment debt case exposed weaknesses in high-value contract scrutiny. These episodes highlight the need for robust enforcement tools and consistent follow-through, particularly for complex procurements.”

Example 4 — Recommendations and future work “Targeted steps can improve results: expand e-procurement coverage to reduce discretion, publish complete contract award data for scrutiny, and strengthen sanctions for non-compliance. Further research should test regional approaches and map which institutional designs correlate with faster, more credible enforcement.”

Practical Applications

Use this step-by-step plan when drafting your conclusion:

1. Restate the research question and give a direct answer

• One or two sentences.
• Include the degree of effectiveness (limited/mixed/moderate/strong).

1. Synthesis of key findings

• Three to five sentences pulling together your strongest results.
• Refer to the most persuasive evidence (audit results, case outcomes, complaint resolutions).

1. Laws in practice

• Two to three sentences on Act 663 and the PPDA 2005: what worked, what did not.
• Be specific: mention provisions (e.g., review boards, competition rules) and observed practice.

1. Institutions and coordination

• Two to three sentences on PPA, PPOA, and relevant anti-corruption bodies.
• Explain how capacity and independence affected outcomes.

1. Comparative statement

• Two to three sentences on Ghana vs Kenya: key commonalities and differences with one short example per country.

1. Recommendations

• Three to five bullet points. Keep them feasible (e.g., expand e-procurement coverage; publish full award data; tighten sanctions; improve training; streamline complaint timelines).

1. Limitations and future research

• Two to three sentences acknowledging scope limits (time period, data coverage) and suggesting precise, manageable next studies.

Helpful phrasing (mix and match as needed):

• “This research shows a mixed effect: procedure improved, but weak enforcement blunted deterrence.”
• “Act 663 and the PPDA 2005 created clearer rules; their practical effect depended on audit frequency and sanction certainty.”
• “The PPA/PPOA achieved gains where they had resources and independence; results faded when investigations stalled.”
• “Ghana and Kenya share reform aims, yet differ in enforcement pathways and public case histories.”
• “Further work should test whether regional peer review and broader e-procurement coverage produce stronger enforcement signals.”

Common pitfalls to avoid:

• Introducing new data or methods.
• Repeating the discussion chapter verbatim.
• Making broad claims without linking to your evidence.
• Overlong recommendations that are not feasible in current budget or legal constraints.
• Vague conclusions that do not answer the research question directly.

Editing checklist:

• Every claim in the conclusion traces back to data or analysis you have already presented.
• The main answer to the research question appears in the first 2–3 sentences.
• Ghana vs Kenya comparison is balanced and evidence-led.
• Recommendations are short, specific, and linked to findings.
• Word count stays within 5–10% of total dissertation length.

Summary Checklist

• Clear, direct answer to the research question (state the degree of effectiveness)
• Short synthesis of key findings with evidence signposts
• Assessment of Act 663 (Ghana) and PPDA 2005 (Kenya) in practice
• Evaluation of PPA, PPOA, and anti-corruption bodies (roles, capacity, coordination)
• Balanced comparison: similarities and differences, with one example per country
• Feasible recommendations linked to findings (e.g., e-procurement, data transparency, sanctions)
• Limitations and scoped, realistic next steps for research
• No new data introduced; tone is analytical and concise
• Conclusion length: about 5–10% of total word count

Quick Reference