Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/38505
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

With four weeks still to go, the emphasis on your thesis has shifted from one of presentation to one of finding out what went wrong. This will lead you to three probable outcomes :

1) You discover exactly what went wrong, and it's a simple factor with no effect on the measurements. A note in the method or at the beginning of the results (eg. "Measured values in mph converted to m/s") would be sufficient.

2) You discover what went wrong, and there could have been an effect on the implications of the results (eg. "Variations in volumetric flow had not considered a change in viscosity with an increase in temperature."). If there's still time to retest (on a smaller sample if necessary) this would be the best way to go, if not your investigation should be reported - the process of discovering the problem and your resolution of it has become part of the thesis, and should be reflected in the method and results. Your conclusions might be no different, or you may have to report inconclusive results.

3) You are unable to discover or quantify what went wrong. You would now be writing a very different thesis - a report on the problems encountered rather than something leading to a demonstrable conclusion. You can still display valid scientific techniques - this has become the object of the thesis rather than what you originally planned, and your conclusions (if any) should reflect that.

The investigation into what happened is the important thing now, as the way you present your observations will depend on what you find. Whichever way it goes there is an outcome where you can present valid scientific observations, but the way you present them will be different.

[I'm also going to agree with Amadeus's suggestion of applying possible factors iteratively - if you can discover the variation, this may give you an idea of what might have caused it - for example if you keep running into the numbers 9.81 or 3.142, you could guess at SI gravitational acceleration or confusion of circumference/diameter.]

It's worth remembering that as long as a consistent and repeatable process has been followed and reported, results that are inconclusive or which appear to contradict a hypothesis are valid results.

Original score: 0