How exactly to write the discussion section of an paper that is academic

This might be probably one of the most challenging questions people have ever asked me, because after looking through a large number of journal articles in my Mendeley database, i really could not find many of them who used Discussion sections. In my opinion this concept associated with Discussion element of an academic journal article (or book chapter, in many cases) originates from the IMRAD type of publishing, that is, papers that have at least the following five sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, Analysis and Discussion (hence the acronym).

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

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. good at explaining how a paper’s results may contradict earlier work, extend it, advance our comprehension of X or Y phenomenon and, almost certainly:
5. NOT the conclusion associated with paper.

What I think is important to consider when writing the Discussion area of a paper, is always to really ANALYZE, not describe just. Link theories, methods, data, other work.

My post from the difference between Description and Analysis should help you 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 in my own blog posts, I here url to a resources that are few may be of help (compiled by other authors).

• Dr. Pat Thomson, as usual providing advice that is great Results/Discussion sections of journal articles.
• A handy handout on what goes in each one of the IMRAD sections.
• Note how this informative 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 very nice, albeit brief.
• This short article by Hцfler et al offers good advice on integrating substantive knowledge with results to create a solid Discussion section.
• In this specific article, Цner Sanli and coauthors provide great suggestions on how exactly to write a Discussion section of a journal article.

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

In the event that you now browse the Discussion section, you’ll see that during my yellow highlights, i have noted how this article that is particular to your literature. This is certainly section of what is going within the Discussion section. Significantly more than explaining results, how your outcomes url to broader debates. pic.twitter.com/a19hE5FB9d

Discussion sections are particularly found in articles that follow the IMRAD model https://t.co/FzunG4tnce I like this charged power Point on what is going in each one of the IMRAD sections https://t.co/SQLVLsD6JB – what I’ve found is that often times, Discussion sections are blended/morphed

There are occasions when scholars blend Discussion and Conclusions, or Results and Discussions sections. This is simply not even discipline-dependent write my paper, it is author-dependent.

As an example, in this #Free2DownloadAndRead World Development article, the discussion section is blended with the results. https://t.co/cgB82kYXla This might be common, and I also personally do not have objection to carrying this out. As for PhD discussion and dissertation chapters: this is challenging

Another example, now from the criminal justice field.

That they bring back their empirical results to the broader debates if you notice how these authors start their Discussion section, you’ll see. That’s what I have seen in most Discussion sections of journal articles (in engineering, public health insurance and some pysch). pic.twitter.com/wpH9jGghjk

Paper With Writing