W1B. Results Section Goals, Ordering Citations, Critical Writing, Hedging, Citation Patterns, Tenses

Author

Georgy Gelvanovsky

Published

March 19, 2026

1. Summary

1.1 Goals of the Results Section

The Results section of a literature review is the core of your document. Its purpose is not simply to list what each source says but to present a synthesized, interpreted picture of what the literature as a whole reveals about your research question. Specifically, the Results section must:

  • Cite every source selected during your systematic search process. Every paper that passed your inclusion/exclusion criteria must appear here.
  • Report how sources respond to your research question: For each source, explain what it found and how that finding relates to your RQ.
  • Provide synthesis: Compare and contrast the findings across sources. Do they agree? Contradict each other? Complement each other?
  • Report any risk of bias: If a source has methodological weaknesses, a limited sample, or other credibility concerns, note them.
1.2 Ordering Citations in Results

The sequence in which you present your sources is not arbitrary. There are three standard ordering strategies, and you should choose one deliberately based on your research question and the nature of your sources:

  1. Distant to close: Begin with sources most tangentially related to your topic and move toward those most directly relevant. This builds context progressively.
  2. Chronological: Present sources from earliest to most recent. This is useful for showing how a field has evolved over time, especially if there is a visible development or shift in findings.
  3. Comparison and contrast: Group sources by approach, methodology, or perspective. This is useful when your RQ requires evaluating competing theories or methods:
    • One approach → An alternative approach → Another approach

In practice, your chosen ordering strategy should be stated explicitly in your Results section (e.g., “Sources are presented in chronological order to trace the development of…”).

1.3 Critical Writing

Critical writing is not about criticism in the negative sense—it does not mean finding fault with every paper you read. Instead, critical writing is interpretative writing: you present sources not as neutral containers of information but as pieces of evidence that you actively evaluate, compare, and interpret.

The key distinction is:

  • Descriptive writing: “Brown [1] found that productivity increases by 5%.”
  • Critical writing: “The new SAP system does not appear to yield a stable improvement in workflow. For example, Brown [1] found a 5% productivity increase, while several other researchers registered no significant changes [2–5].”

In critical writing, you tell the reader what to learn from the sources and how to relate one source to another.

1.3.1 Critical Writing Strategies

You can apply critical writing through several techniques:

  • Compare and contrast different theories, perspectives, and terminology across sources.
  • Select references strategically to support or challenge a specific argument.
  • Combine arguments from two or more sources to create a more developed point of view than any single source offers alone.
  • Agree with and defend a finding by analyzing its merits, acknowledging its strengths explicitly.
  • Concede partial strength but qualify your support: acknowledge that one position has some validity while highlighting its weaknesses and supporting the alternative.
  • Reject a point of view with explicit reasoning—inadequate evidence, logical fallacies, flawed methodology, etc.
1.3.2 The Two Elements of Critical Writing

Critical writing always moves between two layers:

  • What’s known: The factual content of the sources you are citing.
  • What’s concluded: Your inference or generalization drawn from those sources.

A well-written Results paragraph typically opens with your conclusion (inference), then supports it with evidence (sources). This structure—conclusion first, evidence second—is the hallmark of academic critical writing.

1.4 Hedging

Hedging is the use of linguistic devices that signal uncertainty or tentativeness. In academic writing, hedges are essential because research findings are rarely absolute truths—they are probabilistic claims that may be overturned by new evidence.

Common hedging devices include:

  • Modal verbs: might, may, could, would
  • Adjectives and adverbs: possible, probable, likely, perhaps, apparently
  • Verbs of uncertainty: suggest, appear, seem, indicate

Example: “This idea suggests that a competition exists between nucleation at the hopper edges and within the hopper, which might account for the narrow temperature range…”

Hedging does not make your writing weak—it makes it honest and professionally calibrated. It shows you understand the limits of the evidence.

1.5 Citation Patterns

When you cite sources in academic writing, you can do so in two ways, and choosing the right pattern affects the emphasis of your sentence:

  • Integral citation: The author’s name appears as a grammatical subject or agent within the sentence. This pattern foregrounds the researcher.
    • Example: “Johnson [1], amongst other scholars, has argued that…”
  • Non-integral citation: The citation appears in brackets at the end of the sentence. The idea or finding is foregrounded, not the individual researcher.
    • Example: “Several ways exist to address the issue of overpopulation [1].”

Use integral citations when the researcher’s identity is significant (e.g., a founding figure, a controversial voice). Use non-integral citations when the finding itself is more important than who discovered it.

1.6 Tenses in the Results Section

Choosing the correct tense in the Results section depends on what kind of claim you are making:

  • Past Simple: Used to report what a specific study found, since you are describing a completed action.
    • Example: “Chen et al. [3] found that…”
  • Present Simple: Used for established facts or for synthesizing findings that are treated as generally accepted.
    • Example: “The literature shows a consistent pattern of…”
  • Present Perfect: Used to connect past research to the present state of knowledge.
    • Example: “Researchers have demonstrated that…”

In practice, the Results section of a literature review uses mostly Past Simple (to report individual study findings) and Present Simple (to state synthesized conclusions).