Modal verb use in conclusions

In Move 4 of a conclusion, writers will often need to take a position on the value of their research to the academic community, recommend ongoing research directions and/or discuss what their work means in practical terms.

Here are some excerpts from Oxford theses and dissertations to show how students have utilised modals effectively in their conclusion: 

Excerpts from Oxford MPLS thesis: 

Example of Move 3.3 (Limitations) and Move 4 (Suggestions* for Future Work)

Due to contamination it was never possible to accurately assess the efficacy of the Ω parameter or its optimisation. The one billet which was not contaminated (5opt) showed a high stability when compared to the binary phase diagrams which show relatively low solubility across multiple systems. It would be valuable therefore to melt some equiatomic and optimised billets in the clean furnace and then to compare their microstructures to once and for all answer the question of whether a higher Ω really leads to a more stable solid-solution microstructure.

Analysis

After having first stated a limitation with their work (Move 3.3), the writer imagines another world and uses the hypothetical "would". Grammar books call this "second conditional". It is often linked to a conditional clause of the type "If something were true" or "if something happened"; however, here the conditional clause is implied (not stated directly but understood by the reader to be "if someone melted some equiatomic and optimised billets..., it would be valuable").

Example of Move 4 (Suggestions for Future Work)

To fully understand the effect of impurities, more APT and TEM data is needed. This would allow the composition and crystal structures of the different phases to be measured more accurately. Combining this information with the XRD phases would allow a more accurate assessment of how much of each phase the samples contain, and how much the composition varies. It may also be interesting to use high-resolution EBSD to calculate the orientation relationships between the HCP and rocksalt structured phases, which are marked but were too difficult to quantify during this project.

Analysis

The writer states a view on what is missing from our understanding with "is needed".

The current truth is that there is a lack of data, but the writer imagines another world and uses the hypothetical "would". Again, the conditional clause is not stated directly but understood by the reader to be "if we had more data ...".

An additional suggestion is made using "may", which sounds less certain than "would" but more certain than "might". "May" is often used to hypothesise: it indicates that the writer has some reason to believe the statement but that they are not certain. 

Excerpt from Oxford Social Science dissertation:

Example of Move 4 (Suggestions for Future Work)

Interestingly, in two cases in this study, where the interpretation of one dispute party was clearly found to be a better match, the winning party did not act triumphantly or use this conclusion to publicly criticize the opponent. ... We see this dynamic when after the Iraq intervention it became clear that there were no WMD in Iraq, which cast doubt on the legitimacy and legality of the intervention. Opponents of the military intervention including France and Germany refrained from publicly highlighting this. Similarly, when the arbitration tribunal clearly found in favor of the Philippines in the South China Sea arbitration case, the Philippines refrained from harshly and openly criticizing China for its non-conforming behavior, and instead pursued diplomacy outside of the public eye. It might therefore be a relatively common occurrence in international affairs that states exercise restraint in publicly criticizing other states whose norm interpretation was exposed as not conforming with international law. This phenomenon warrants further research as it [could] help us to better understand reputational mechanisms.

Analysis

This writer outlines two examples and then wonders if they if they are part of a wider trend using "might".

They go on to use the hypothetical "could". Grammar books call this "second conditional". Such phrases are often linked to a conditional clause of the type "If something were true" or "if something happened"; however, here the conditional clause is not stated directly but understood by the reader to be "if someone researched this phenomenon, ... it could help us to better understand". Pragmatically, "could" is used to recommend a research direction. 

Example of Move 4 (Suggestions for Future Work)

When it becomes clear that one interpretation does not comply with international law, the social costs of this non-conforming behavior are automatic and do not require public shaming. Hence, the state(s) whose interpretation triumphed may not need to further strain their relationship with the opposing side for the opponent to incur reputational costs. In this age of "fake news" a related question is what makes the evidence of noncompliance so clear that it need not be pointed out publicly. Experimental studies into what kind of evidence resonates with public audiences might provide further insights. 

Analysis

The writer speculates about a claim using "may", which sounds less certain than "would" but more certain than "might". "May" is often used to speculate in this way (or to "hypothesise"): it indicates that the writer has some reason to believe the statement but that they are not certain.

Example of Move 4 (Suggestions for Future Work)

The dispute between China and the WHO on how to manage the SARS outbreak shows that norm neglect can pave the way for norm clarification. China’s concession to accept the health measures and travel warnings that the WHO suggested (claims), eventually led China to accept a strengthening of global health norms and of the WHO’s authority (frames). Further research on this or other cases could identify under what circumstances claim agreement prompts frame agreement. ... Considerations of output legitimacy also may play a role here: China might have realized that the travel warnings and health measures have the beneficial consequence of improving public health and thus decided that a long-term commitment to global health norms, and thus to the hitherto contested norm frame, is desirable. 

Analysis

Again, the writer uses the hypothetical "could" pragmatically to recommend a research direction.

"may" suggests the writer has some reason to believe their claim is true.

The writer uses the speculative "might have" to offer an educated guess on a what happened in the past.

 Excerpt from Oxford Humanities thesis:

Example of Move 4 (Suggestions for Future Work)

What I hope to have established in this thesis is that in order for literature’s moral, and cognitive, significance to be traced, literary technique must be entered into, then analysed. Attention to the form of a text is what will yield interpretations of its moral significance. Such interpretations may be debated and argued about, but they will have taken into account how literature operates and they will have treated a literary text as a literary text and not as a document, moral treatise or ‘guide’, or biographical evidence. Those excavations are worthy on their own terms, but they must not be confused with a literary interest, nor with an interpretation of literature’s moral significance as literature. 

Analysis

The writer offers strong recommendations using "must".  By using "must" the writer indicates that they see no alternative but that they have arrived at this view a priori.

The writer's three uses of "will" indicate certain results, if certain conditions are satisfied.

The first "will" assumes that if the implied condition ("if you pay attention to the form of the text") is true, then we can be certain about what follows ("[it] will yield interpretations of its moral significance).

The writer uses "may" to establish a possibility that they have some reason to think will occur. "might" here would sound more speculative and less certain. Pragmatically, "[s]uch interpretations may be debated and argued about" is the condition "if/when such interpretations are debated and argued about".

The second and third "will" do something similar to the first "will" in stating an certain outcome when/if a condition is fulfilled. However, in these examples, the certainty is stated in the past ("will have taken into account").

© AWH 2025