[WEEK 8] DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (HOW THE 1.
PROVIDE A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE MOST
DISCUSSION SECTION OF THE RESEARCH PAPER
SHOULD BE WRITTEN?)
DISCUSSION SECTION
• often considered the most important part of a
research paper because it most effectively
demonstrates your ability as a researcher to
think critically about an issue, to develop
creative solutions to problems based on the
findings, and to formulate a deeper, more
profound understanding of the research problem
you are studying.
• is where you explore the underlying meaning of
your research, its possible implications in other
areas of study, and the possible improvements
that can be made in order to further develop the
concerns of your research.
• where you need to present the importance of
your study and how it may be able to contribute
to and/or fill existing gaps in the field.
• If appropriate, the discussion section is also
where you state how the findings from your
study revealed new gaps in the literature that
had not been previously exposed or adequately
described.
• not strictly governed by objective reporting of
information but, rather, it is where you can
engage in creative thinking about issues through
evidence-based interpretation of findings.
• This is where you infuse your results
with meaning.
GENERAL GUIDELINES
• Below is an excerpt from the USL Research
Guide, with integration of examples of
McCombes (2020) in her article on How to Write
a Discussion Section, of regarding the key
points to remember in writing the Discussion of
Result of your study.
A. IN YOUR DISCUSSION SECTION, RELATE THE
RESULTS BACK TO YOUR INITIAL HYPOTHESES.
• Do they support or disconfirm them?
• Remember: Results do not prove hypotheses
right or wrong; they support them or fail to
provide support for them.
✔Do your research findings support your initial
hypothesis? Why and how?
✔Do your findings only support the hypothesis in part?
Why and how?
✔Do your findings disprove your hypothesis? Why and
how?
• Examples:
• In line with the hypothesis…
• Contrary to the hypothesized
association…
• The results contradict the claims of
Smith (2007) that…
• The results might suggest that X.
However, based on the findings of
similar studies, a more plausible
explanation is Y.
B. INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN THE
FOLLOWING ORDER:
IMPORTANT PARTS OF THE INTRODUCTION AND
THEN THE RESULTS SECTION.
• Examples:
• The results indicate that…
• The study demonstrates a correlation
between…
• This analysis supports the theory
that…
• The data suggests that…
2. IN DOING SO, YOU SHOULD RELATE THE RESULTS
TO THE THEORIES YOU INTRODUCED IN THE
INTRODUCTION.
• Your findings are just one piece among many --
resist the tendency to make your results the final
story about the phenomenon or theory of
interest.
• Integrate the results and try to make sense of
the pattern of the findings.
• Examples:
• These results build on existing
evidence of…
• The results do not fit with the theory
that…
• The experiment provides a new insight
into the relationship between…
• These results should be taken into
account when considering how to…
• The data contributes a clearer
understanding of…
• While previous research has focused
on X, these results demonstrate that Y.
• NOTE: In the case of a
correlational research, be careful
not to use causal language to
discuss your results – unless you
did an experiment you cannot infer
causality.
• However, it would be impossible to
fully discuss the implications of
your results without making
reference to causality. That is fine.
Just don't claim that your results
themselves are demonstrating
causality.
3. TALK ABOUT ANY LIMITATIONS RELEVANT TO
THE INTERPRETATION OF YOUR FINDINGS.
• All studies have weaknesses or qualifications.
• Examples:
• The generalizability of the results
is limited by…
• The reliability of this data is
impacted by…
• Due to the lack of data on X, the
results cannot confirm…
• The methodological choices were
constrained by…
• It is beyond the scope of this study
to…
C. IF YOUR RESULTS DID SUPPORT YOUR
HYPOTHESIS, THE LIMITATIONS SECTION OFTEN
 INCLUDES A DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE "THIRD
VARIABLE" EXPLANATIONS, UNMEASURED
MEDIATORS, AND/OR ISSUES WITH THE
GENERALIZABILITY OF YOUR RESULTS.
D. IF YOUR RESULTS DID NOT SUPPORT YOUR
HYPOTHESIS, THE SECTION ON LIMITATIONS OFTEN
INCLUDES DISCUSSION OF VARIOUS FEATURES OF
THE STUDY WHICH MIGHT BE RESPONSIBLE
• (e.g., operational definitions, self-report biases,
unmeasured moderator variables, the size or
composition of the sample). Where possible,
support your speculation with references.
E. BE SPECIFIC WHEN DISCUSSING LIMITATIONS.
• For example, if you claim that a third variable
might affect your correlation, tell the reader what
that third variable is and how it affects the
results.
• If you think that the fact that the use of a
convenience sample (and thus, a non-
representative/random sample) is a limitation,
you must explain what segment of the
population might respond differently than did the
participants in your sample and why
F. SPECULATE ABOUT FUTURE DIRECTIONS THE
RESEARCH COULD TAKE TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE
YOUR QUESTION.
• This might relate back to any weaknesses
you’ve mentioned above (or reasons why the
results didn’t turn out as expected).
• Future directions may also include interesting
next steps in the research.
• NOTE: (there should be at least 20 literatures
used in this section)
• In addition, these are the general rules
you should adopt when composing
your discussion of the results:
✔ Do not be verbose or repetitive.
✔ Be concise and make your points clearly.
✔ Avoid using jargon.
✔ Follow a logical stream of thought.
✔ Use the present verb tense, especially for established facts;
however, refer to specific works and references in the
past tense.
✔ If needed, use subheadings to help organize your presentation
or to group your interpretations into themes.
• Some techniques to differentiate your own
research from previous research in your writing
(these are suggestions, not rules, and your best
guide is to see how other writers in your
discipline do this):
• This sample discussion section is from the study
of Teitelbaum et al.,(2021) on “Habitat use as
indicator of adaptive capacity to climate
change,” with labels indicating the content of the
section.
[Key finding] Moose in the contiguous United States
are considered highly vulnerable to climate change.
[Key finding] Their cold-adapted morphology and
physiology make them sensitive to increasing
temperatures, and they experience particularly high
exposure to warm temperatures at the southern edge
of their range (Lenarz et al., 2009; Ruprecht et al.,
2016; Weiskopf et al., 2019). [Key finding] Our
habitat suitability models indicated that moose
occurred in locally cooler areas within the Northeast,
confirming that they select for cooler areas, even at
this regional scale. [Placing findings in
context/Relating to previous concepts] Moreover, in
many of these areas, at least 50% of days were
warmer than previously-identified thresholds at
which moose respiration rates begin to increase
(McCann et al., 2013; Renecker & Hudson,
1986)...[Key finding] Our results show that
temperature is associated with changes in habitat
suitability and habitat use at multiple scales;
however, it is not clear from our study whether these
patterns are true adaptations (i.e., that they confer a
fitness benefit). [Limitation/placing findings in
context] Our models are based on occurrence data
and thus do not consider the effects of behaviour on
other population-level differences, such as
population density and reproductive rates (Hoy et al.,
2018)...[Restating key findings] This study suggests
that adaptive capacity might enable even sensitive
species to persist in the face of rapid climate change.
[Restating key findings] Our results highlight
opportunities for decreasing moose vulnerability to
climate change in the Northeast (e.g., through
restoring and protecting thermal refuges such as
closed-canopy forests or forested wetlands in warm
areas, Wattles et al., 2018a)… [Recommendation for
follow-up research] Next steps include incorporating
future changes in land cover and forest biomass,
investigating interactions with co-occurring species
(e.g., parasites, predators and whitetailed deer,
Weiskopf et al., 2019), mapping climate change
refugia that can be protected from other stressors to
enable persistence of moose, and attempting to
identify selective gene regions that have evolved to
enable moose to persist in warmer condition.
GENERALIZATION
• After gathering and presenting results, the next
step is to discuss the main findings together with
literatures that have read.
• It’s like a puzzle where researchers have to put
together the new knowledge with the existing
ones.
• The discussion section is probably the most
difficult and challenging to write because you
have to think carefully about the specific results
you obtained in your investigation, relate them to
the aims, interpret them and generalize from
them.
• It is here where you have to point out what is
new with your research and what is its
contribution to the field of knowledge.
• In this way you relate your own results to the
store of scientific
 knowledge.

• Pay careful attention to the following points

when writing your discussion:
• Relate the results back to your initial
hypotheses.
• Include the following information in the
following order:
• most important parts of the
introduction and then the results
section
• relate the results to the theories
you introduced
• limitations relevant to the
interpretation of your findings
include in limitation section
variables that may explain why
your results did or did not support
your hypothesis.
• BE SPECIFIC when discussing limitations.
• Speculate about future directions the research
could take