Conclusions and Critical Reflection

Moving from findings to an answer

Fieldwork begins with a geographical question. A conclusion returns to that question and answers it using the evidence collected. An evaluation then considers how much confidence you should place in that answer, given the strengths and limitations of the enquiry.

These skills apply both to your own physical and human fieldwork and to unfamiliar enquiries. You might be given measurements, graphs, observations or interview transcripts. The task is not simply to repeat them: it is to decide what they justify.

Building an evidenced conclusion

Start by returning to the aim and, where one was used, the hypothesis. Identify the overall finding, select specific supporting evidence, and consider anything that challenges it. Finish with a judgement: the hypothesis may be supported, partly supported or not supported by the evidence collected.

Consider this constructed teaching illustration, not actual fieldwork results. An enquiry asks whether a shopping street is busiest at lunchtime. Five-minute pedestrian counts at the same counting point record 12 people at 09:00, 30 at 13:00 and 28 at 16:00, all on one weekday.

An evidenced conclusion would be: ‘The lunchtime count was the highest of the three counts, with 30 pedestrians compared with 12 in the morning. This supports the hypothesis for the times sampled. However, the afternoon count was only two pedestrians lower, so the evidence does not show a large difference between lunchtime and late afternoon.’

Notice the boundary around the answer. These observations identify the busiest sampled time, not necessarily the busiest time of the entire day or every day of the week. A conclusion should not claim more than the enquiry investigated.

Where relevant, connect your findings to geographical theories or case-study knowledge. Explain whether the pattern fits the expected relationship rather than merely naming a theory. An unusual result should remain part of the judgement; it should not be ignored just because it does not fit your prediction.

Drawing conclusions from transcripts

A transcript is a written record of spoken responses, such as an interview. It provides evidence about people's experiences and viewpoints rather than a direct measurement of everyone’s behaviour.

Look for recurring themes, differences between respondents and statements relevant to the enquiry question. Select a short quotation or accurately summarise a response, then explain what it supports.

For example, if an interviewee says they usually visit the shopping street during their lunch break, that response supports an explanation for lunchtime activity. It does not establish that most visitors do the same. A respondent who prefers afternoon visits provides a different viewpoint that should also be considered.

Combine evidence carefully. Counts can show when recorded activity was greatest; interview responses can help explain why particular people visited. Agreement between these types of evidence can strengthen an interpretation, but neither removes the limitations of the other. A useful summary captures the main findings and important differences without listing every response or measurement.

Evaluating the data and methods

Critical reflection means explaining how the enquiry’s strengths and weaknesses affect its findings. Simply saying ‘there was human error’ does not show what went wrong or why it matters.

Ask whether measurements were accurate, whether repeated measurements would be consistent, and whether the sample represented the places, people or conditions you wanted to investigate. Check the suitability of questionnaire questions, equipment, recording procedures and the time allowed for collection.

In the pedestrian enquiry, using the same counting point and equal five-minute periods makes the counts more comparable. However, collecting data on only one weekday limits how confidently the result can be applied to weekends or other days. Repeating the counts on several days would address that limitation; simply using a different graph would not.

Access also matters. If some planned sites could not be reached, the remaining sites might not represent the whole study area. Weather, roadworks or unusual river conditions may affect results on the day. Explain the likely consequence rather than assuming these factors definitely caused an unexpected result.

Improvements should target the identified problem. A larger sample can broaden coverage; repeated measurements can check consistency; clearer questions can make responses more relevant to the aim. For river velocity measurements, a flow meter can provide a more accurate measurement than a float. Choose improvements that are practical and explain how they would strengthen the evidence.

Judging conclusions and reflecting on learning

Finally, evaluate the conclusion itself. Does it answer the original question? Was the question testable using the methods and location chosen? Is the evidence strong enough for the scale of the claim?

You can retain a useful conclusion while qualifying it. The pedestrian enquiry supports a finding about three sampled periods on one weekday, but a wider claim needs further observations. Extending the study to more days or locations would investigate whether the pattern also occurs elsewhere or at other times.

Reflection also considers the knowledge gained. Explain what you learnt about the geographical pattern, how the findings affected your initial expectations, and what remains uncertain. This connects the enquiry’s answer to its limitations and identifies a meaningful next question.

Conclusion

• Answer the aim and judge whether the hypothesis is supported, partly supported or not supported.
• Use specific figures or transcript evidence.
• Include contradictory evidence and unusual results.
• Link findings to relevant geographical knowledge.
• Keep the claim within the places, people and times investigated.

Critical evaluation

Check data, methods and conclusions:

• Accuracy: closeness to the true value.