HIGH STANDARDS FOR

SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTION AND

COMMUNICATION
UNIT 1. TECHNIQUES FOR EFFECTIVE
WRITING
LESSON 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 Rational
• Results and Conclusion, sometimes named Conclusion and Discussion (depending
on the discipline, journal or other contexts) is a double section. Firstly, the Results
section belongs to the Empirical design part of the paper, including statistical
methodologies, modeling, statistical tests, techniques, tables, interpretations, etc.
In this subsection the author just interpret correctly the test’s outputs, crafting
different analytical or graphic results in order to show what data says about our
tests, experiments or proofs. Next subsection, Discussion+Conclusions, interprets
results, positioning them into the conversation. The latter means that our results
are the response to the above (Introduction Section) question (goal or research
gap). Therefore, our results need to be discussed against similar works by other
colleagues, positioned against (or in favour of) them. As a result, the discussion
will show our paper’s CONTRIBUTION, our way to extend (modify or alter, or
incrementally improve) the CONVERSATION.
• This Section is also key because some Editors, after the Introduction section have a
look to see whether the paper’s delivers or not what is promised in the
Introduction. It also shows the novelty of our work for the good of the
conversation
 Structure of the lesson
1 Methods and results
2 Discussion and conclusion: the meaning
3 Discussion and conclusions: the process
4 Discussion and conclusions: the product
5 Discussion and conclusions: concluding
 Methods and results
• 1-COMPLETENESS of description about how the
data is obtained and its fit with the study
(sampling)
• 2-CLARITY about how measures are adapted or
coded (right variables, metrics, etc.)
• 3-CREDIBILITY about the methods:
– Is the sample correct?
– Conceptual definition of the construct
– Operationalization, linking dimension to construct
– Statistical techquines are adequate?
 Methods and results
• JUANJO PASCUAL
 DISCUSION AND CONCLUSION: the
meaning
• Results only confirm or reject hypothesis
• Results, through the interpretation of hypothesis, provide an
answer to the research question (goal of the paper)
• The results of our work (answer to our original question) need to be
discussed and debated (following the conversation) in front of other
works, coinciding with them, confirming them or disagreeing with
them: discussion is necessary to hold a debate, as in any
converstion.
• Once the discussion is set, we need to set our CONTRIBUTION out.
What have we brought to the conversation? How can we turn the
tide or modify the knowledge of the conversation? What value,
something community of scholars did not know before, is new?
• So what? Which are the implication of that new knowledge? How
the conversation is enriched?
• Which are the implications for future works?
 DISCUSION AND CONCLUSION: the
process
• Results section: OK, so what?
• Strengthen the message to convince readers. Provide a reasoning
(argumentation) about results, telling ( a story) about what they
mean in our context (conversation, particular journal, etc.)
• Embed the study into the existing literature: discuss your results
against other works’ results: how much the conversation is changed
or reinforced?
• Summarize the main findings and their meaning for the literature:
THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION AND IMPLICATIONS for the
conversation. From now on, according to your conclusions, how the
conversation is evolving, which it its future?
• Limitations of your work: sample, methods, data,..etc.
• Future research: which other gaps arise from your work? What
questions should researchers focus on?
 DISCUSION AND CONCLUSION: the
product
• First part, Results section contains the results and
the acceptation/rejection of hypothesis.
Therefore, hypothesis should be mentioned and
interpreted.
• Second part, Research question (paper’s goal is
reminded, in order to set the discussion)
• Third part, Discussion with existing conversation:
So what?
– Contextualize results in a literature: our result affects
previous related works?
– Reinforce other researchers’ results or provide
alternative explanations?
 DISCUSION AND CONCLUSION: the
product (ii)
• Fourth, What do results mean for the
academic conversation? What is the
theoretical contribution? CONTRIBUTION
– HOW THE CONVERSATION IS NOW CHANGED
– WHICH ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
SCHOLARS, THE INDUSTRY, THE POLICYMAKERS

• LIMITATIONS
• FUTURE RESEARCH
 DISCUSION AND CONCLUSION:
concluding*
• Common errors:
– Rehashing results: summarizing and resummarizing
results, without explaining what they mean
– Meandering: draw on theoretical implications
disconnected from the paper’s research question
and/or theoretical development: lack of focus and
superficial. Does the implications cohere with the
research questions?
– Overraching: add new (previously unmentioned)
theory in the conclusions. Do it in the introduction
and theory section, instead!
Source: * Geletkanycz, M. and Tepper, BJ (2012)
 References
• Geletkanycz, M. and Tepper, BJ (2012) From the Editors, Publishing in AMJ—Part 6: Discussing the
implications, Academy of Management Journal, 55, 2, 256-260
• Zhang, Y and Shaw J. (2011) From the Editors, Publishing in AMJ—Part 5: Crafting the methods and results,
Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1, 8-12

SUGGESTED READING
• Grinnell, RM (1997) Social Work Research and evaluation: quantitative and qualitative approaches, Illinois,
FE Peacock Publishers, Inc.
• Green, JC (1994) Qualitative programme evaluation: Practice and promise, in Denzin, NK & Lincoln, YS
(eds) Handbook of qualitative research. California: Sage Publications Inc.
• Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández Collado, C., and Baptista Lucio, MP (2010) Metodología de la
investigación, fifth edition, McGraw-Hill, Mexico.
• Kulka, R. A. 1981. Idiosyncrasy and circumstance. American Behavioral Scientist, 25: 153–178
• Mertens, d. (2005). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology. Integrating Diversity with
Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. 2ª. ed. Thousand Oaks, CA. SAGE.
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 25: 879–903.