Chapter Five carries four things and they are not the same thing. The summary restates your Chapter Four findings with no new interpretation. The conclusion answers each research question directly. The recommendations say what a named body should do. The contribution to knowledge states what is now known that was not known before — and in Nigeria that is a required element, not an optional flourish.
It is the shortest chapter and the one most students write in one night, which is why it is also the one that most often contradicts the rest of the project. A panel reading four research questions in Chapter One, three tables in Chapter Four and five conclusions in Chapter Five does not need to check your statistics to know something is wrong.
This guide assumes Chapter Four is finished, because Chapter Five is assembled almost entirely from material it already contains — see how to write Chapter Four if it is not.
Step 1: Take the section headings from your department, not from a downloaded project
Expected output: the exact headings your department requires, written down before you draft.
The usual Nigerian title is “Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations”, sometimes with “Summary of Findings” as a separate first section. Obafemi Awolowo University’s guidelines are the useful reference point here because they specify the main body by required elements rather than by chapter count, and one of those elements is the contribution to knowledge — a distinction set out in the guide to how many chapters a final year project has. Most departments fold that element into the final chapter.
Some departments also expect a short restatement of the study — problem, objectives and method in two or three sentences — at the top of the chapter, for a reader who opens at the end. Check yours; do not reproduce your whole Chapter Three.
Step 2: Build the summary of findings from your tables, in order
Expected output: one short numbered paragraph per research question, containing the figures and nothing else.
Open Chapter Four, take each table in the order it appears, and write one sentence stating what it showed. Then stop. No causes, no comparison with other studies, no new tables.
Where your instrument used a four-point scale, the summary reports the mean against the criterion your Chapter Four used. Most Nigerian departments use 2.50 on a four-point scale, so a mean at or above it is reported as agreement and one below it as disagreement. Say which criterion you used; do not assume the reader knows.
Write the findings in the past tense, and make every figure identical to the table it came from, to the same number of decimal places. A mean that reads 3.14 in Chapter Four and 3.1 in Chapter Five is exactly the inconsistency a panellist notices while turning pages.
Step 3: Write one conclusion for each research question
Expected output: the same number of conclusions as research questions, in the same order.
A conclusion is the answer to a question you asked in Chapter One. Copy your research questions out of Chapter One, paste them onto a blank page, and write one conclusion under each. That is the structure, and it is the first thing a panel checks.
The difference between a finding and a conclusion is the level of generality. The finding is about your respondents and carries the number; the conclusion is about the variable and carries none.
- Finding: “Respondents rated access to credit at a mean of 2.14, below the 2.50 criterion.”
- Conclusion: “Small business owners in the study area do not consider formal credit accessible.”
Two cautions. Do not generalise past the population your Chapter Three defined — a conclusion about “Nigerian SMEs” drawn from 300 respondents in one local government area is the easiest question a panel will ask all day. And where you tested a hypothesis, the conclusion must carry the decision explicitly: “The null hypothesis is rejected; there is a significant relationship between access to credit and business growth.” Whether that decision came from a p-value or from comparing a calculated value against a critical table value, state which convention you used, as your Chapter Three promised.
Step 4: Address every recommendation to a named body
Expected output: a numbered list in which each entry names who should act and the finding that justifies it.
The most common single fault in a Nigerian Chapter Five is a recommendation nobody could act on: “government should do more to support SMEs”. It names no actor, no action and no finding. Replace it with a fixed sentence shape:
“Since the study found that [finding], it is recommended that [named body] [specific action].”
Worked example:
“Since respondents rated access to formal credit below the criterion mean (2.14) while rating awareness of loan schemes above it (3.02), it is recommended that the Bank of Industry desk officer in the local government area shorten the documentation requirement rather than expand publicity, because awareness is not the constraint.”
The named bodies in a Nigerian project are usually concrete: the department, the faculty board, the local government, a named agency, the management of the firm you studied, or your professional association. Name whichever your data actually reaches. If you recommend something to a body you did not study, a panellist will ask how your data supports it.
Close with recommendations for further study, drawn from your own scope and delimitation rather than from the standard three. “A larger sample, a longer period, and other variables” is the answer every panel has read a hundred times. “This study surveyed only registered traders; unregistered traders were excluded by the sampling frame and are the obvious next population” is a real recommendation.
Step 5: Write a contribution to knowledge an undergraduate can defend
Expected output: two to four short statements of what is now known that was not known before.
This section frightens students because “contribution to knowledge” sounds doctoral. It is not, at this level. A doctoral thesis has to contribute something previously unknown to the field; a final year project is examined on whether you can carry out and report research competently, and the contribution expected is proportionate.
What counts:
- New evidence in a setting nobody had measured. “This study provides the first survey evidence on X among Y in Z local government area.”
- A relationship tested where it had only been asserted. “It establishes empirically a relationship that earlier Nigerian studies had assumed.”
- An instrument adapted and validated for a Nigerian population. If you reworded a foreign instrument and reported its reliability, say so.
- A usable output. A framework, a checklist, a model or a piece of software that did not exist before.
What does not count: repeating your findings in different words, or claiming to have “filled a gap in the literature” without naming the gap that Chapter Two identified. Panels ask “what is new here?” and “what should someone do with this finding?” — the pattern set out in what panels ask at a project defence. Two defensible sentences beat five inflated ones.
Step 6: Keep new material out
Expected output: a chapter with no new table, no new citation and no new variable.
Every number in Chapter Five already appeared in Chapter Four. Every comparison with other studies already happened in the Chapter Four discussion. A variable appearing for the first time in the final chapter was never measured, and a citation appearing for the first time here suggests the literature was read after the conclusions were written.
Also keep your reference list clean as you finish — a chapter written last is where stray in-text citations with no matching entry appear, and the style your department requires is a fact you can confirm from the handbook, as set out in how to reference the way your university requires.
Step 7: Run the four-list alignment check
Expected output: four lists of equal length in the same order.
On one page, write out:
- your research questions from Chapter One, numbered;
- your objectives, numbered;
- the tables in Chapter Four, in order;
- your conclusions in Chapter Five, numbered.
If your project tested hypotheses, add a fifth column for each decision. All of these should match in number, in order and in subject. Where they do not, either you answered something you never asked or you asked something you never answered, and both are cheap to fix now and expensive to fix at a defence. This check takes about fifteen minutes and is the highest-value quarter hour in the whole project.
A filled-in template you can adapt
For a descriptive study with three research questions, using the headings most Nigerian departments expect:
5.1 Summary of Findings
1. Most respondents were male (58.3%) and had operated their business for one to five years (61.7%).
2. Access to formal credit was rated below the criterion mean (x̄ = 2.14), while awareness of available schemes was rated above it (x̄ = 3.02).
3. A significant positive relationship was found between access to credit and reported business growth (r = 0.62, p < 0.05).5.2 Conclusion
1. The respondent group is predominantly male and early stage.
2. Small business owners in the study area are aware of formal credit schemes but do not find them accessible; awareness is therefore not the binding constraint.
3. Access to credit and business growth are significantly related; the null hypothesis of no relationship is rejected.5.3 Recommendations
1. Since awareness was rated above the criterion while access was rated below it, it is recommended that the scheme’s local desk officer reduce documentation requirements rather than expand publicity.
2. Since credit access is significantly related to growth, it is recommended that the local traders’ association negotiate a group guarantee arrangement on behalf of members.
3. It is recommended that future researchers extend the study to unregistered traders, who were excluded by this study’s sampling frame.5.4 Contribution to Knowledge
1. The study provides survey evidence on credit access among registered small traders in the study area, where no prior measurement existed.
2. It separates awareness from access empirically, showing that the two move independently in this population.
3. It adapts and reports the reliability of a credit-access scale for a Nigerian small-trader population.
Write the last chapter without breaking the first four
Tesify keeps your research questions, tables and conclusions in one connected document, so the alignment check is something you can see rather than something you rebuild by hand at midnight. Start on the free plan, alongside 9,000+ students and 15,000+ chapters — every word still written by you.
Frequently asked questions
How do you write Chapter Five of a final year project?
Summarise your Chapter Four tables in order, write one conclusion per research question, write recommendations that each name a body and a parent finding, then state your contribution to knowledge in two to four specific statements. Add no new tables, citations or variables.
What is the difference between summary, conclusion and recommendation?
The summary reports what your data showed, with figures. The conclusion answers your research question, without figures. The recommendation says what a named body should now do about it.
What is contribution to knowledge in a final year project?
A short statement of what is now known that was not known before — new evidence in an unmeasured setting, a relationship tested rather than assumed, an instrument adapted for a Nigerian population, or a usable output. It is a required element in guidelines such as OAU’s, and it is examined.
How many conclusions should Chapter Five have?
The same number as your research questions, in the same order. That one-to-one mapping is what a panel checks first.
How long should Chapter Five be?
There is no national page count and any figure you find online is somebody’s departmental rule presented as universal. It is normally the shortest chapter because it contains no tables and no citations. Check your own department’s guideline.
Can I put a new table in Chapter Five?
No. Every figure must already appear in Chapter Four. A table appearing for the first time in the final chapter raises the question of where the data came from.
What tense should Chapter Five use?
Findings in the past tense, because data collection is finished. Conclusions in the present tense, because you are stating what is now known. Be consistent within the chapter and follow your department where it specifies.
My hypothesis was not supported. What do I write?
State the decision plainly — “the null hypothesis is not rejected” — and conclude accordingly. A result that goes the other way is a finding, not a failure, and hiding it is far more damaging than reporting it.
Does a qualitative project use the same structure?
Yes, with themes in place of means. The summary reports the themes, the conclusions answer the research questions, and the recommendations follow from the themes. If you are still fixing your sample, see how many respondents a qualitative project needs.
Where does Chapter Five sit in the proposal?
It does not. A proposal is Chapters One to Three written in the future tense and defended before data collection — see how to write a research proposal. Chapter Five can only be written after Chapter Four exists.
Do recommendations need to be numbered?
Number them if your department allows it. Numbering makes the mapping from finding to recommendation visible at a glance, which is exactly the property being examined.