DISCUSSION

Typical complaints of Referees

The Discussion fails to relate the findings and observations to other relevant studies,

There appears to be no discussion on the implications and limitations of these findings.

The main result of this study was that P = Q. However no exhaustive explanations are
given.

The authors simply limit the discussion on P by reporting previous findings that are already
documented in several papers.

I find this kind of discussion too speculative and limited.

The author claims improved efficiency and easy management. However, he did not
include any experimental results showing how fast the new system would work (in
terms of performance) compared to the traditional method.

If the author does not chose to include the actual implementation, this defect can be
pointed out in the limitation/future work section as a subsection in the Discussion section.
10.8 discussion: Structuring the discussion
Write your Discussion section by answering some or all of the questions below.

1. Do my data support what I set out to demonstrate at the beginning of the paper?
2. How do my findings compare with what others have found? How consistent are they?
3. What is my personal interpretation of my findings?
4. What other possible interpretations are there?
5. What are the limitations of my study? What other factors could have influenced my findings?
Have I reported everything that could make my findings valid or invalid?
6. Do any of the interpretations reveal a possible flaw (i.e. defect, error) in my experiment?
7. Do my interpretations contribute some new understanding of the problem that I have
investigated? In which case do they suggest a shortcoming in, or an advance on, the work of
others?
8. What external validity do my findings have? How could my findings be generalized to other
areas?
9. What possible implications or applications do my findings have?
10. What further research would be needed to explain the issues raised by my findings? Will I do
this research myself or do I want to throw it open to the community?
 STRUCTURE OF DISCUSSION

Write your Discussion section by following the structure below.

1. A reference to the main purpose or hypothesis

2. Statement of principal findings (Review of the most important finding. Whether or not they
support the original hypothesis and whether they agree with the finding of other researchers

3. Strengths and weaknesses of the study.

4. Strengths and weaknesses in relation to other studies: important

differences in results.

5. Meaning of the study: possible explanations and implications for clinicians and policymakers.

6. Limitation of the study that restrict the extent to which the finding can be generalized.

7. Unanswered questions and future research.

8. Recommendation for future research and practical application.

 How should I begin the Discussion?

Below are four possible beginnings for the same paper (see Sect. 13.4 for the paper in question).

(1) Remind readers of your goals, preferably in a single sentence:

One of the main goals of this experiment was to attempt to fInd a way to predict who shows more task
persistence.

(2) Refer back to the questions (hypotheses, predictions etc.) that you posed in your Introduction:
These results both negate and support some of the hypotheses. It was predicted that greater
perfectionism scores
would result in greater task persistence, but this turned out not to be the case.

(3) Refer back papers you cited in your Review of the Literature:
Previous studies conflict with the data presented in the Results: it was more common for any type of
feedback to
impact participants than no feedback (Shanab et al., 1981; Elawar & Corno, 1985).

(4) Briefly restate the most important points from your Results:
While not all of the results were significant, the overall direction of results showed trends that could be
COMPARING MY WORK WITH THAT OF OTHERS
EXAMPLE OF COMPARING

Overall summary and

implication

Previous study

Contrasting with Fraser’s

study. (Although…)

Further Confirmation on
On Fraser’s study from
other reaserch
ACTIVE OR PASSIVE?
HOW CAN I GIVE MY INTERPRETATION WHILE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OTHER
POSSIBLE OTHER INTERPRETATION THAT I DON’T AGREE WITH?
LESSENING NEGATIVE IMPACT OF LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
 USEFUL PHRASES: DISCUSSING THE DATA

Data commentaries usually conclude with

• explanations (and/or),

• discussions of unexpected results or unsatisfactory data (if this is

necessary),

• possible further research or possible future predictions ( Swales and

Feak, 1994: 80).
The data clarify the relationship between ...

The data indicate/suggest that there is a connection between ...

There is some evidence in the data to support our hypothesis, which proposed that ...

The errors may be due to ...

The inconsistency of data is probably a consequence of . .

.
This particular result may be attributed to the influence of . . .

The quantitative data support the initial hypothesis.

The results have failed to explain ...

The results of the experiment question/undermine the previous research.

Although the data shows support for ... , mention should be made of some of the limitations of this study.

The findings of the study need to be treated with certain caution, since ...

Notwithstanding their applicability, these findings will still be limited to simply providing advice and guidance.
 EXAMPLES: TEACHING VOCABULARIES WITH COLOUR

Identify its three basic

parts
The results show that students preferred the colours which had a positive
4

influence on their psyche and were pleasant for the eyes. 5The colours may
also have improved their intellectual abilities, although not so much their
imagination and creativity. This again illustrates that learning vocabulary is
perceived as a task requiring concentration and good memory more than fantasy.

………………………… expand the commentary by adding several more

highlighting statements and by indicating the limitations of the study

 Discussion Sections

 Interpret the results and their relationship to

the research problem and hypotheses (Jordan, 1996: 85)

 Are organized as certain logical sequences of rhetorical moves

1. Background information.
2. Statement of results.
3. (Un)expected result(s).
4. Reference to previous research (comparison).
5. Explanation of unsatisfactory result(s).
6. Exemplification.
7. Deduction and hypothesis (or Claim).
8. Reference to previous research (in support of a claim).
9. Recommendation.
10. Justification.
 EXAMPLES

Analyze the move structure of the text according to the model suggested by Hopkins and
Dudley-Evans.

1Our results showed that eyewitnesses gave richer and more detailed
statements
about the crime when they had prior knowledge of the crime context. 2 But
it only occurred in those subjects who were interviewed by means of the
CI. 3 T h e subjects who were interviewed by means of the SSI were
unable to
benefit from their prior knowledge of the parking area of the University of
La
Laguna. ...
4Nevertheless, more errors were found in relation to the description of
persons when the CI was used. 5This result is consistent with results obtained
in previous studies (see Milne & Bull, 1995; Milne, Kohnken, & Memon,
1995). 6 T h e appearance of errors in our study could be explained by taking
into consideration the level of complexity of the video sequence used in our
experiment . . . . 7Due to the greater complexity of our material, our subjects
may have found the sequence more difficult to remember and, therefore,
committed more errors in their accounts. ...
8 In real life, frames play an important role when encoding and recalling the
information related to the witnessed event. 9 T h e influence of the prior knowledge
of the crime context on witnesses' memory when they are interviewed by means
of the CI is obviously something to take into account in both application and theory.

1. Which of the moves suggested by Hopkins and Dudley-Evans are missing ?

2. Is the sequence of moves in the text the same as in the model?

3. Which sentences include instances of cautious language? Why is such language

used there?
 MANAGING RESULT SECTION: LABORATORY STUDIES

 Provide clarity ONLY on the findings : information about what you found

 Begin by naming the type of analysis carried out on the data,

 Mention the difference or lack of difference between groups with respect to the activity they
participated in during the study

 Express this difference (or lack of) by including each group’s score numerically in brackets

 Back up with statistical evidence to support the difference (or lack of)

 Mention the name of the statistical test using appropriate statistical symbols, such as t, F, M

 Include the degrees of freedom, the value of the statistic, and the level of probability

 Provide the N value or number of participants

 state whether the difference was “signifi cant” or “not significant”
 summarise the main features or patterns in words
 Don’t duplicate information
 MANAGING DISCUSSION SECTION

 Begin with a sentence or paragraph, summarising the results, including whether they support or disconfirm the
hypothesis

 Choose to highlight the similarities in findings with the current study and previous ones

 Explain, interpret, and where relevant, justify your findings involving repetition of some of the theoretical
frameworks or models mentioned in the Introduction

 Consider any alternative explanations for the findings if they are inconsistent with the theory

 Mention any flaws in the study, such as a lack of diversity amongst participants, sample size, and other
characteristics of the sample population

 Consider the future application of the findings and further investigations to ascertain unexplained aspects of the
research outcomes

 Finish by reaffirming the findings and their significance to the research area.
 Summary: How can I assess the quality
of my Results section?

To make a self-assessment of your Results section, you can ask yourself the following questions.
¶ Have I expressed myself as clearly as possible, so that the contribution that my results give stands
out for
the referees and readers?
¶ Have I limited myself to only reporting the key result or trends that each figure and table conveys,
rather
than reiterating each value?
¶ Have I avoided drawing conclusions? (this is only true when the Results is an independent section)
¶ Have I chosen the best format to present my data (e.g. figure or table)? Have I ensured that this is
no
redundancy between the various figures and tables?
¶ Have I ensured that my tables of results are comprehensive in the sense that they do not exclusively
include
points that prove my point?
¶ Have I mentioned only what my readers specifically need to know and what I will subsequently refer
to in
the Discussion?
¶ Have I mentioned any parts of my methodology (e.g. selection and sampling procedures) that could
have