Study Skill · Understanding
Understanding & Summarising
How to select content effectively and summarise research studies in your own words.
What does this skill involve?
Understanding means engaging with theories and research at a level that goes beyond surface description. It involves grasping why a study was conducted, what it found, and what those findings mean in the context of the broader debate. Summarising is the skill of condensing a study into a concise, accurate account that captures the method, findings, and significance — without copying the original wording. Together, these skills show the reader that you have genuinely engaged with the material, not just listed facts.
📖 Example 1: Effective Research Summary
Student Writing
Ainsworth et al. (1978) developed the Strange Situation to classify infant attachment styles. In this laboratory procedure, 12- to 18-month-old infants were observed during a series of separations and reunions with their caregiver and a stranger. The study identified three primary attachment styles: secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant, with approximately 65% of infants classified as securely attached. These findings provided the first empirical framework for measuring individual differences in attachment, though the artificial laboratory setting may not fully reflect how infants behave in naturalistic contexts.
Why this works: This summary is concise but complete. It names the researchers and year, describes the method in one sentence, states the specific findings with data, and ends with a brief critical comment about the methodology. The reader knows exactly what the study did, found, and means — all in four sentences.
📖 Example 2: Vague Summary vs. Effective Summary
❌ Weak Version
Bowlby did a study on juvenile thieves and found that maternal deprivation was bad for children. This shows that attachment is important.
Why this is weak: This summary is too vague. It doesn't explain what Bowlby actually did (the method), what he specifically found (the data), or why the findings matter (the implications). "Bad for children" and "attachment is important" are not academic language and don't demonstrate understanding of the research.
✅ Improved Version
Bowlby (1944) conducted a case study of 44 juvenile thieves referred to a child guidance clinic. He found that 14 of the 44 displayed 'affectionless psychopathy' — a lack of empathy and inability to form meaningful relationships — and that 12 of these 14 had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers before the age of two. This led Bowlby to propose his maternal deprivation hypothesis: that continuous emotional care from a mother figure is essential during a critical period for healthy emotional development. However, the retrospective, correlational nature of the study means that other factors — such as the reasons for the separation — may have contributed to the outcomes observed.
Why this is better: This version names the method (case study), gives specific data (14 out of 44), defines the key term (affectionless psychopathy), explains the theoretical conclusion (maternal deprivation hypothesis), and offers a critical evaluation. It demonstrates real understanding of the study.
✏️ Practice: Summarise a Research Study
Use the bullet points below to write a clear, concise summary of this research study. Aim for 3-4 sentences covering: what was done, what was found, and what it means.
- Researchers: Rutter and the English and Romanian Adoptees (ERA) study team
- Year: began 1998, followed up to age 15+
- Method: longitudinal study of 165 Romanian orphans adopted into UK families after varying periods of institutional deprivation
- Findings: children adopted before 6 months showed normal cognitive development by age 4; those adopted after 6 months showed initial delays but significant catch-up, though some effects persisted
- Significance: challenged Bowlby's claim that deprivation effects are irreversible; showed importance of quality of care after adoption
Write your summary paragraph below: