Conclusion

Consider yourself a judge, pronouncing the verdict after a complex case. Or a scientist, summarizing the conclusion and “next steps” in a scientific experiment.

First and most centrally, make sure that your Conclusion is clearly stated, consistent with the evidence presented, and accurate about what the investigation achieved. Avoid overreaching: This is not the place to generalize in such a way that includes cases you haven’t actually investigated.

Second, explain why any conclusion you draw must be provisional, given the nature of the historical discipline. Refer to relevant TOK issues involved: how films necessarily simplify issues, how biographies are too subjective, how statistics are open to interpretation, etc. (ActiveHistory)

Third, if you have space available, draw any implications of your focused investigation to the original guiding question that you were assigned or that motivated your choice of initial topic. Suggest a clear but not necessarily simple answer to the question, based on your analysis. It is not to be expected that your narrow, limited investigation should allow you to give an unqualified answer to the original question. So suggest a qualified answer!

Finally, again, if you have space available, revisit the wider significance, importance, or limits of the investigation. Did your research not examine some factor that now looks central? Does it suggest an interesting new hypothesis to examine? Are there any unanswered questions? Do your findings have implications for an ongoing historiographical debate?

Points 3 and 4 above are not indispensable; do them only if you have space and time available. But they do offer you an opportunity to tie your work to larger, more broadly significant issues, so they are good to do if possible.