Just how to write the discussion section of an paper that is academic

This is certainly one of the more questions that are challenging have ever asked me, because after looking through a large number of journal articles in my own Mendeley database, i possibly could not find most of them who used Discussion sections. I believe this idea of this Discussion part of an journal that is academic (or book chapter, in many cases) comes from the IMRAD model of publishing, this is certainly, papers which have at least listed here five sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, Analysis and Discussion (hence the acronym).

Personally, I neither like, nor do I often write this type of journal article. Even when I was a chemical engineer, I can’t recall as they all had a variation (merging Discussion with Results, or Results with Conclusion, or Discussion with Conclusion) that I read many papers in the IMRAD model,. As I said on Twitter, I read engineering, natural science and social science literatures. Thusly, the Discussion sections that I read vary QUITE A LOT.

All Discussion sections I’ve read are

  1. analytical, not descriptive,
  2. specific inside their interpretation of research results,
  3. robust within their linkage of research findings with theories, other empirical reports and various literatures,
  4. proficient at explaining how a paper’s results may contradict earlier work, extend it, advance our comprehension of X or Y phenomenon and, most definitely:
  5. NOT the final outcome associated with the paper.

The thing I think is very important to keep in mind when writing the Discussion section of a paper, is always to really ANALYZE, not just describe. Link theories, methods, data, other work.

My post in the difference between Description and Analysis should assist you to write Discussion sections. https://t.co/oxz8uIY3Pd you should all read Graf and Birkenstein’s They Say/I Say https://t.co/yDXHawbez1 as preparation to write Discussions – for the moves that are rhetorical.

As usual during my blog posts, I here url to a resources that are few could be of help (written by other authors).

  • Dr. Pat Thomson, as usual providing advice that is great Results/Discussion sections of journal articles.
  • A handout that is handy what gets into all the IMRAD sections.
  • Note how this short article by Sollaci and Pereira on 50 many years of IMRAD articles won’t have a Conclusion section (oh, the irony!). However, their Discussion section is quite nice, albeit brief.
  • This informative article by Hцfler et al offers good advice on integrating substantive knowledge with results to create a discussion section that is solid.
  • In this article, Цner Sanli and coauthors provide great suggestions on how exactly to write a Discussion part of a article that is journal.

Within my Twitter thread, I suggested how to discern (and learned from) how authors have written their discussion sections.

If you now read the Discussion section, you’ll see that in my yellow highlights, i have noted how this particular article contributes into the literature. It is element of what should go within the Discussion section. Significantly more than explaining results, how your results url to broader debates. pic.twitter.com/a19hE5FB9d

Discussion sections are particularly found in articles that proceed with the IMRAD model https://t.co/FzunG4tnce I like this Power Point on which is going in all the IMRAD sections https://t.co/SQLVLsD6JB – what I’ve found is the fact that often times, Discussion sections are blended/morphed

There are times when scholars blend Discussion and Conclusions, or Results and Discussions sections. This is not even discipline-dependent, it is author-dependent.

The discussion section is blended with the results for example, in this # Free2DownloadAndRead World Development article. https://t.co/cgB82kYXla That is common, and I personally don’t have any objection to achieving this. As for PhD discussion and dissertation chapters: that is challenging

Another example, now from the justice field that is criminal.

If you notice how these authors start their Discussion section over here, you will see that they bring back their empirical results to the broader debates. That is what I have present in most Discussion sections of journal articles (in engineering, public health and some pysch). pic.twitter.com/wpH9jGghjk

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published / Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>