NURS9904 brings the entire PhD research sequence to its conclusion — completing the analysis, writing up findings in a way that honestly represents what the data actually showed, and defending the completed dissertation before the doctoral committee.
Completing analysis and writing the results chapter
NURS9904 requires students to complete their full data analysis and write a results chapter that reports findings objectively and completely — including findings that don't support the original hypotheses or expectations, since selectively reporting only favorable results undermines the scientific integrity of the dissertation.
Writing the discussion chapter and preparing the final defense
The course covers writing the discussion chapter, which interprets the results in light of the existing literature and theoretical framework, honestly acknowledges the study's limitations, and articulates the study's contribution to nursing knowledge and practice. Students then prepare for the final dissertation defense, where they present and defend their complete body of research before the committee.
Key topics in NURS9904
- Completing final data analysis and reporting results objectively and completely
- Writing a results chapter that includes non-supportive or unexpected findings
- Writing a discussion chapter interpreting findings against the existing literature
- Honestly articulating study limitations and their implications
- Articulating the dissertation's original contribution to nursing knowledge and practice
- Preparing for and delivering the final dissertation defense
Working on your dissertation results/discussion chapters or final defense preparation?
Our doctoral nursing experts help finalize NURS9904-level dissertation writing and defense preparation.
Worked example: honestly reporting an unexpected finding
- Hypothesis: Telehealth-only nurses would report significantly higher burnout than bedside nurses
- Actual finding: No statistically significant difference in overall burnout scores between groups, though telehealth nurses reported significantly higher scores specifically on the depersonalization subscale
- Honest reporting: The results chapter reports both the non-significant overall finding and the significant subscale finding, rather than omitting the disappointing overall null result
- Discussion: The discussion chapter explores what the depersonalization-specific finding might mean, connecting it to literature on reduced interpersonal cues in virtual care relationships
- Lesson: A dissertation's scientific credibility depends on complete, honest reporting — including findings that complicate or contradict the original hypothesis
Get Help With NURS9904
Dissertation results, discussion, and final defense assignments.
Place Your OrderView All ServicesRelated courses
Frequently asked questions
Selectively reporting only findings that support the original hypothesis, while downplaying or omitting contradictory or null findings, is a form of research misconduct known as selective reporting or outcome reporting bias, and it fundamentally undermines the scientific integrity and usefulness of a dissertation — future researchers and practitioners rely on published findings accurately representing what a study actually found, including inconvenient or unexpected results. NURS9904 requires complete, objective reporting because a dissertation's genuine contribution to nursing science depends on it representing the true state of evidence, even when that evidence is more complicated or less clean than originally hypothesized — a null or unexpected finding, honestly reported and thoughtfully discussed, still adds real value to the field's understanding, while a dissertation that conceals inconvenient findings to present a cleaner story is scientifically compromised regardless of how polished its narrative appears.
The limitations section requires the researcher to honestly and specifically identify the ways their study's design, sample, or methodology constrain how far its findings can be generalized or how confidently its conclusions can be drawn — for example, a small convenience sample limits generalizability, a cross-sectional design limits causal claims, or reliance on self-report data introduces potential response bias. NURS9904 teaches that a thoughtful, specific limitations section (rather than a brief, generic paragraph listing standard limitations without real reflection) demonstrates the doctoral candidate's genuine methodological sophistication and intellectual honesty — a candidate who can precisely identify how their specific study's limitations affect the specific interpretation of their specific findings shows a much deeper command of research methodology than one who simply acknowledges, in passing, that "all studies have limitations" without engaging with what those limitations actually mean for their particular conclusions.