This can be probably one of the most challenging questions people have ever asked me, because after looking through dozens of journal articles in my own Mendeley database, i really could not find a lot of them who used Discussion sections. In my opinion this notion regarding the Discussion element of an journal that is academic (or book chapter, in many cases) originates from the IMRAD style of publishing, that is, papers which have at the 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 if 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,. I read engineering, natural science and social science literatures as I https://www.essaywritersite.com/buy-essay-online said on Twitter. Thusly, the Discussion sections that I read vary QUITE A LOT.

All Discussion sections I’ve read are

1. analytical, not descriptive,
2. specific in 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 surely:
5. NOT the conclusion regarding the paper.

The thing I think is important to consider when writing the Discussion part of a paper, would be to really ANALYZE, not describe just. Link theories, methods, data, other work.

My post on the difference between analysis and description 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 create Discussions – for the moves that are rhetorical.

As usual during my blog posts, I here url to a few resources that could be of help (compiled 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 each one of the IMRAD sections.
• Note how this informative article by Sollaci and Pereira on 50 many years of IMRAD articles does NOT have a Conclusion section (oh, the irony!). However, their Discussion section is quite nice, albeit brief.
• This short article by Hцfler et al offers good advice on integrating substantive knowledge with leads to create a solid Discussion section.
• In this article, Цner Sanli and coauthors provide great suggested statements on how exactly to write a Discussion section of a article that is journal.

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

If you now read the Discussion section, you will see that within my yellow highlights, i have noted how this article that is particular into the literature. This can be element of what is going when you look at the Discussion section. Significantly more than explaining results, how your results connect to broader debates. pic.twitter.com/a19hE5FB9d

Discussion sections are particularly used in articles that proceed with the IMRAD model https://t.co/FzunG4tnce I love this Power Point on what 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 occasions when scholars blend Discussion and Conclusions, or Results and Discussions sections. This isn’t even discipline-dependent, it’s author-dependent.

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

Another example, now from the criminal justice field.

In the event that you notice how these authors start their Discussion section, you’ll see which they bring back their empirical leads to the broader debates. That is what We have observed in most Discussion sections of journal articles (in engineering, public health and some pysch). pic.twitter.com/wpH9jGghjk