MODULE 08: DISCUSSION

OF RESEARCH FINDINGS

Lesson preparation
This video is to introduce the key rhetorical purposes of a discussion section in your research paper. Watch
the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E5nqB0ugv4) and fill the missing purposes in the table
below:
Purpose 01 Summarize the results
Purpose 02
Purpose 03 Compare the results with what previous research has found
Purpose 04
Purpose 05 Highlight real-life impacts of these results
Purpose 06
Purpose 07
In the video, Purpose 03 “compare the results with what previous research has found” is not mentioned.
Think about why we should also fulfil this purpose while writing the discussion section. Keep this question
at the back of your mind to see whether you have the answer to the above question by the end of the lesson.

Learning targets
By the end of this module, you will be able to:
- restate (in your own words) the key purposes of the discussion section in a research paper;
- recognize how these purposes are actually fulfilled in examples of real research papers;
- be aware of the dos and don’ts in writing the discussion section and follow this guidance in your
writing process.

Keywords
Discussion of research findings; Implications; Limitations of the study; Future research

References
Annesley, T. (2010). The discussion section: Your closing argument. Clinical Chemistry, 56, 1671-74.
Bitchener, J., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Perceptions of the difficulties of postgraduate L2 thesis students
writing the discussion section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 4-18.
MacCoun, R.J. (1998). Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annual Review of
Psychology, 49, 259-287.
 MODULE 8.1. RHETORICAL PURPOSES

OF THE DISCUSSION SECTION IN RESEARCH PAPERS

1. What is the discussion section?

The purpose of the discussion section is to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in
relation to what was already known about the research problem being investigated and to explain any new
understanding or insights that emerged as a result of your research. The discussion often connects to the
introduction by way of the research questions or hypotheses you have posed and the literature you have
reviewed, but the discussion does not simply repeat or rearrange the first parts of your paper. In fact, the
discussion clearly explains how your study advances the reader's understanding of the research problem
from where you have left them at the end of your review of prior research.

2. Why do we need to have the discussion section?

The discussion section is often considered the most important part of your 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 upon a logical synthesis of the findings, and to formulate a deeper, more
profound understanding of the research problem under investigation. In addition, it presents the underlying
meaning of your research, notes possible implications in other areas of study, and explores possible
improvements that can be made in order to further develop the concerns of your research. It also highlights
the importance of your study and how it can contribute to understanding the research problem within the
field of study. This cannot go without mentioning the fact that it also presents how the findings from your
study have revealed and helped fill gaps in the literature that were not previously exposed or adequately
described as well as engages the reader in thinking critically about issues based on an evidence-based
interpretation of findings.

3. What rhetorical purposes does the discussion section often fulfill?

3.1 Restate the major findings of the study

The discussion should begin with a statement of the major findings of the study. This should be the very
first paragraph in the discussion. It should be a direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study
results. However, it should not include data or reference to the study design. Several examples illustrate
the point. In a paper by Anton et al. (2003), the discussion section begins with the sentence, “Our results
confirm that these nasal and full-face masks are similarly efficient over 15 min of NPPV with COPD
patients recovering from acute hypercapnic respiratory failure.” This clearly states the most important

2
finding of that study. Fluck et al. (2003) also began the discussion section of their paper with the sentence,
“Our findings suggest that ambient light has no statistically significant effect on Spo2 readings and that
ambient light’s effect on Spo2 is clinically unimportant.” That is a good example of a direct, declarative,
and succinct proclamation of the study results.

3.2 Explain the meaning of your research findings

None has thought as long and as hard about your study as you have. As the person who has conceived,
designed, and conducted the study, the meaning of the results and their importance seem obvious to you.
However, they might not be so clear for the person reading your paper for the first time. One of the
purposes of the discussion is therefore to explain the meaning of the findings and why they are important,
without appearing arrogant, condescending, or patronizing. After reading the discussion section, you
might want the reader to think, “That makes perfect sense. Why hadn’t I thought of that?” Even if your
study findings are provocative, you do not want to force the reader to go through the paper multiple times
to figure out what it means; most readers will not go to that effort and your findings will be overlooked,
disregarded, and forgotten.

3.3 Relate your research findings to those of similar studies

No study is so novel and with such a restricted focus that it has no relation to other previously published
papers. The discussion section should relate your study findings to those of other studies. Questions raised
by previous studies may have served as the motivation for your study. The findings of other studies may
support your findings, which altogether strengthen the importance of your study results. Stoller et al.
(2003), for example, discussed their study results in the context of a previous study by others: “Our finding
that changing in-line suction catheters less frequently is associated with lower cost and no higher incidence
of VAP replicates the findings of a randomized controlled trial conducted by Kollef et al. (2001), upon
which our amended policy was based.” It is also important to point out how your study differs from other
similar studies. An example can again be drawn from Stoller et al. (2003): “Certainly, differences in the
specific criteria used to define VAP could contribute to the rate differences between the present study and
that of Kollef et al. (2001). For example, comparison of the criteria for nosocomial pneumonia in our study
with the criteria used by Kollef et al. (2001) shows similar component features but different rating schemes
to establish the diagnosis.”

3.4 Consider alternative explanations of your research findings

Despite efforts to remain objective and to maintain equipoise, it is easy to consider only those explanations
that fit your bias. It is important to remember that the purpose of research is to discover and not to prove.
3
It is easy to fall into the trap of designing the study to prove your bias rather than to discover the truth.
When writing the discussion section, it is important to carefully consider all possible explanations for the
study results, rather than just those that fit your biases.

3.5 Draw relevant implications

Pedagogy

How might the results of your thesis influence teaching and learning? If your work relates in some way to
the way people teach and learn about your field, con- sider its pedagogical implications. Your results may
influence the way that an entire teaching program (or curriculum) is understood, such as the ways in which
new material or technologies are integrated into classrooms. Assessment and evaluation practices, too,
may benefit from the application of your results.

Policy

In what ways do the results of your thesis influence areas of policy for institutions, businesses,
organizations, or governments? Policies are developed through com- plex, and often political, processes
with a range of stakeholders. If appropriate, consider how the outcomes of your own study may influence
such processes and resource allocations as relevant to your domain of study. In this area, your work would
help to set the priorities for policy leaders and other influential people.

Professional development

How do the results of your thesis inform the way that professionals in your field are trained? Think about
people who are already working in the field, and how they maintain their understanding of current and
innovative practices in their area. You may want to suggest specific areas of professional development
that can benefit from your work, or how aspects of your findings could be taught to current professionals.

Practice and methodology

How might the way that you conducted your study affect future data collection, research designs, or
analytical procedures? If your study has involved innovative methods or instruments to gather data, write
about the ways in which your innova- tion could be applied to future studies. For example, it may be that
your approach to data collection yielded richer results, was more efficient, or otherwise provided insights
that had not been previously considered. Also, if your project was an interdisciplinary study, and combined
practices from different areas, highlight how such combinations have led to greater understanding.

Products

4
How could the results of the study influence the way products such as materials, software, and
instrumentation are designed and built? During your minor thesis, you may have developed a product such
as a new material, innovative software or algo- rithms, a piece of machinery, or a tool. Consider the
implications of this creation: How has your design improved on its predecessors? Who might adopt it?
What other tools might be improved or adapted to make use of your development? In what ways is it more
efficient, more reliable, or less expensive to produce and maintain? You may not know the answer to such
questions, but simply raising them, in particular contexts, will demonstrate your appreciation for the
implications of your work.

The implications of your thesis will not touch on all of these five areas; indeed, students should highlight
only one or two of them. The main part of writing about the implications of your work is to move ‘theory
into practice’, to show that your work has relevance in the world beyond research.

3.6 Acknowledge the limitations of your study

All studies have limitations. Unfortunately, the limitations of some studies are fatal flaws that preclude
publication. However, even the best studies in the most prestigious journals have limitations. It is far better
for you to identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by a peer-
reviewer or a reader (in a letter to the editor after publication). Fluck et al. (2003), for instance,
acknowledged a limitation of their study and used it to make a suggestion for further research: “We used
only healthy white subjects, to minimize confounding variables. Future research should include testing
subjects with darker skin and subjects whose oxygen saturation is below normal (< 95%).”

3.7 Make suggestions for future research

Although a study may answer important questions, other questions related to the subject may remain
unanswered. Moreover, some unanswered questions may become more focused because of your study.
You should make suggestions for further study in the discussion section. Laboratory experimental studies
typically lead to suggestions for follow-up clinical studies with human subjects. An example comes from
a laboratory study of oscillating positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) devices by Volsko et al. (2003), who
wrote, “One subject that remains to be explored is how to determine at the bedside whether a patient can
perform OPEP and, if so, which device to select.”

3.8 Give a “Take-home” message in the form of a conclusion

What is the “take-home message”? What do you want the reader to remember from your study? The take-
home message should be the first sentence of your conclusions section. In some journals, the conclusion

5
section is a paragraph or subsection at the end of the discussion, whereas other journals (RESPIRATORY
CARE, for instance) require a separate conclusion section. The conclusion section may also provide
suggestions for practice change, if appropriate. An example of a well-written conclusion comes from a
study by Apostolopoulou et al. (2003), who wrote: “VAP is a common infection and certain interventions
might affect the incidence of VAP. ICU clinicians should be aware of the risk factors for VAP, which
could prove useful in identifying patients at high risk for VAP and modifying patient care to minimize the
risk of VAP, such as avoiding unnecessary bronchoscopy or modulating enteral feeding.”

Stop and check

Activity 1: Put the following information into its relevant subsection of the discussion section

Information Subsection
1. What theories/models can help
account for these findings? A. Summary of key findings
2. What can these findings inform all
involved stake-holders about? B. Importance of research findings
3. What flaws does this study still
have? C. Comparison/contrast of the findings against prior research
4. What makes this study and its
findings stand out in the current D. Explanation of research findings
literature?
5. What has the study found? E. Implications
6. What research gaps remain
unfulfilled? F. Limitations
7. Do these findings resonate or differ
from what previous studies have G. Future research
found?

Activity 2: Study the following extracts from real research papers and identify what rhetorical purposes
above each discussion has fulfilled.

Extract 01: Nguyen, C.D. (2021). Scaffolding student engagement with written corrective feedback:
Transforming feedback sessions into learning affordances. Language Teaching Research (online view
first). doi: 10.1177/13621688211040904. In answer to the primary research questions, the students,
regardless of the type of writing conference they partook in, were all able to correct a noticeable
number of form-related errors in their writing as well as pick up a sizeable amount of the underlying
knowledge associated with these errors. Specifically, the students in the typical Student–Student
writing conference could, on average, correct about 40% of all lexical and grammatical errors in their
writing and recognize the correct forms of the relevant words and structures to complete novel
sentences after their WCF engagement in the above writing conference. This finding is in line with
what Hyland (2006) and Nassaji (2018) have found for the benefit of writing conferences in general.

6
These learning gains can be attributed to the combined effect of three different factors: (1) the
instructor’s implicit WCF, (2) the opportunity for discussing WCF with their peers, and (3) the chance
to resort to Google search engine. First, the instructor’s implicit WCF might have enabled these
students to notice gaps/holes in their lexical and grammatical resources. This noticing, in turn, could
have prompted them to search for relevant lexis and syntax from their peers and/or online resources.
Therefore, the typical Student–Student writing conference can promote vocabulary and grammar
learning in accordance with the Noticing function of Swain’s Output Hypothesis (2005). However, the
qualitative data of this study also showed that whether the students in this group could succeed in
correcting their own form-related errors and acquiring the underlying knowledge related to these
errors largely depended on the quality of the input that they received from their peers and online
resources. Therefore, though ‘mutual peer scaffolding’ – an inherent feature of the typical Student–
Student writing conference (Hyland & Hyland, 2006, p. 91) – might foster learner autonomy
(Cotterall & Cohen, 2003) as well as collaboration between and among L2 student writers (De
Guerrero & Villamil, 2000), the effects that such a writing conference has on the success rate of error
correction and L2 uptake can be either positive or negative, depending on the quality of L2 input that
is available and accessible in this writing conference. However, such input, especially that from their
peers, is often found to be flawed (Hyland, 2000; Mendoca & Johnson, 1994). Therefore, to minimize
the negative effects of this writing conference on L2 writing accuracy and L2 uptake, a plausible
measure is to ensure that there would be at least one more-able student in each conferencing group.
Extract 02: Ishimaru et al. (2021). Industry and workplace characteristics associated with the
downloading of a COVID-19 contact tracing app in Japan: a nation-wide cross-sectional study.
Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 26(94). An important finding of this study was that
the contact tracing app was under-implemented in the retail and wholesale and food/beverage
industries. This finding did not change substantially after adjusting for demographic, health behavior,
and risk perception variables. However, further adjustment for company size attenuated these
associations. One possible reason for this change in results is that most workplaces in these types of
industries are small-scale, which may be the cause of insufficient downloading of the app. This idea is
consistent with a previous study showing that small companies were relatively unlikely to implement
workplace measures against COVID-19. This may be because of the limited opportunities to obtain
information and the lack of human, time, and financial resources to take countermeasures against
health threats at small companies. However, workers in these industries have particularly a strong
need to use the contact tracing app because they are in contact with an unspecified number of people,
such as in restaurants and bars, where customers eat and drink without masks. An awareness
campaign should be conducted for the retail and wholesale and food/beverage industries to promote
the use of the contact tracing app.

Extract 03: Musyifah, I, & Simanjuntak, M. (2016). Online shopping behavior on Generation Y in
Indonesia. Global Business & Finance Review, 21 (1), 33-45. Although this study does provide some
valuable insights, several potential limitations should be noted. First, the findings from this study may
not be generalizable to the population as a whole, since this study did not use random sampling in
selecting the sample. Also, this study focused on a single location and among university students. This
is severely inadequate as the sample is extremely biased towards ‘educated’ young consumers. The
other young consumers who did not go to universities that also disregard consumers in other major
cities in Indonesia have not covered in this research. Second, this research used the small sample size
7
 (n=100). Thus, the generalization of findings is limited. Third, this research did not measure indirect
influence of independent variables toward dependent variable. Thus, the conclusion was only for
direct effects of individual characteristics, lifestyle, attitude and internet usage on online shopping
behavior….
… For government authorities such as Indonesian Consumers Foundation, National Consumer
Protection Board, and the Ministry of Trade of RI, this study will become a reference in formulating
policies related to online shopping. Huge purchasing by online will opened opportunity for fraud
actions in the virtual world, so the government should take steps to protect consumers. The
government should continue to play their role especially in accelerating the development of retail e-
commerce, which is currently lacking compared to other more developed nations.

MODULE 8.2. THE DISCUSSION SECTION

Dos and Don’ts

1. Dos

1.1 General rules

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 the use of jargon or undefined technical language
• Follow a logical stream of thought; in general, interpret and discuss the significance of your
findings in the same sequence you described them in your results section [a notable exception is
to begin by highlighting an unexpected result or a finding that can grab the reader's attention]
• Use the present verb tense, especially for established facts; however, refer to specific works or
prior studies in the past tense
• If needed, use subheadings to help organize your discussion or to categorize your interpretations
into themes.

1.2 Content

The content of the discussion section of your paper most often includes:

• Explanation of results: Comment on whether or not the results were expected for each set
of findings; go into greater depth to explain findings that were unexpected or especially

8
 profound. If appropriate, note any unusual or unanticipated patterns or trends that emerged
from your results and explain their meaning in relation to the research problem.
• References to previous research: Either compare your results with the findings from other
studies or use the studies to support a claim. This can include re-visiting key sources already
cited in your literature review section, or, save them to cite later in the discussion section if
they are more important to compare with your results instead of being a part of the general
literature review of prior research used to provide context and background information. Note
that you can make this decision to highlight specific studies after you have begun writing the
discussion section.
• Deduction: A claim for how the results can be applied more generally. For example,
describing lessons learned, proposing recommendations that can help improve a situation, or
highlighting best practices.
• Hypothesis: A more general claim or possible conclusion arising from the results [which
may be proved or disproved in subsequent research]. This can be framed as new research
questions that emerged as a consequence of your analysis.

1.3 Content organization

Keep the following sequential points in mind as you organize and write the discussion section of your
paper:

1. Think of your discussion as an inverted pyramid. Organize the discussion from the general
to the specific, linking your findings to the literature, then to theory, then to practice [if
appropriate].
2. Use the same key terms, narrative style, and verb tense [present] that you used when
describing the research problem in your introduction.
3. Begin by briefly re-stating the research problem you were investigating and answer all of
the research questions underpinning the problem that you posed in the introduction.
4. Describe the patterns, principles, and relationships shown by each major findings and
place them in proper perspective. The sequence of this information is important; first state
the answer, then the relevant results, then cite the work of others. If appropriate, refer the
reader to a figure or table to help enhance the interpretation of the data [either within the
text or as an appendix].

9
 5. Regardless of where it's mentioned, a good discussion section includes analysis of any
unexpected findings. This part of the discussion should begin with a description of the
unanticipated finding, followed by a brief interpretation as to why you believe it appeared
and, if necessary, its possible significance in relation to the overall study. If more than
one unexpected finding emerged during the study, describe each of them in the order they
appeared as you gathered or analyzed the data. As noted, the exception to discussing
findings in the same order you described them in the results section would be to begin by
highlighting the implications of a particularly unexpected or significant finding that
emerged from the study, followed by a discussion of the remaining findings.
6. Before concluding the discussion, identify potential limitations and weaknesses if you
do not plan to do so in the conclusion of the paper. Comment on their relative importance
in relation to your overall interpretation of the results and, if necessary, note how they
may affect the validity of your findings. Avoid using an apologetic tone; however, be
honest and self-critical [e.g., in retrospect, had you included a particular question in a
survey instrument, additional data could have been revealed].
7. The discussion section should end with a concise summary of the principal implications
of the findings regardless of their significance. Give a brief explanation about why you
believe the findings and conclusions of your study are important and how they support
broader knowledge or understanding of the research problem. This can be followed by
any recommendations for further research. However, do not offer recommendations which
could have been easily addressed within the study. This would demonstrate to the reader
that you have inadequately examined and interpreted the data.

2. Don’ts

2.1 General rules

• Do not waste time restating your results. Should you need to remind the reader of a
finding to be discussed, use "bridge sentences" that relate the result to the interpretation.
An example would be: “In the case of determining available housing to single women
with children in rural areas of Texas, the findings suggest that access to good schools is
important...," then move on to further explaining this finding and its implications.

10
 • As noted, recommendations for further research can be included in either the
discussion or conclusion of your paper, but do not repeat your recommendations in the
both sections. Think about the overall narrative flow of your paper to determine where
best to locate this information. However, if your findings raise a lot of new questions or
issues, consider including suggestions for further research in the discussion section.
• Do not introduce new results in the discussion section. Be wary of mistaking the
reiteration of a specific finding for an interpretation because it may confuse the reader.
The description of findings [results section] and the interpretation of their significance
[discussion section] should be distinct parts of your paper. If you choose to combine the
results section and the discussion section into a single narrative, you must be clear in how
you report the information discovered and your own interpretation of each finding. This
approach is not recommended if you lack experience writing college-level research
papers.
• Use of the first person pronoun is generally acceptable. Using first person singular
pronouns can help emphasize a point or illustrate a contrasting finding. However, keep in
mind that too much use of the first person can actually distract the reader from the main
points [i.e., I know you're telling me this--just tell me!].

2.2 Do not overinterpret the results

It is easy to inflate the interpretation of the results. Be careful that your interpretation of the results does
not go beyond what is supported by the data. The data are the data: nothing more, nothing less.

2.3 Do not make unwarranted speculation

There is little room for speculation in the discussion. The discussion should remain focused on the your
data and the patients and/or devices in your study. If the subjects in your study had asthma, it is usually
not appropriate to speculate about how your findings might apply to other patient populations. If your
study used volume-controlled ventilation, it may not be appropriate to speculate about how the findings
might apply to pressure-controlled ventilation. If you feel compelled to speculate, be certain that you
clearly identify your comments as speculation: “We speculate that____.”

2.4 Do not inflate the importance of your research findings

After all of the hard work that goes into a study, it is easy to attribute unwarranted importance to study
findings. We all want our study to make an important contribution that will be cited for generations to
11
come. However, unwarranted inflation of the importance of the study results will disgust reviewers and
readers. A measure of humility goes a long way.

2.5 Do not inject tangential issues into your discussion

It is important to remain focused on the hypothesis and study results. Injecting tangential issues into the
discussion section distracts and confuses the reader. Tangential issues run the risk of diluting and
confounding the real message of the study.

2.6 Do not exercise “the bully pulpit”

Do not use the discussion section to criticize other studies. Although you should contrast your findings to
other published studies, this should be done professionally. Do not use the discussion to attack other
investigators. Moreover, never preach to the reader.

Stop and check

Activity 03: One highly recommended way to organize the discussion section is the inverted pyramid
model, i.e., you organize the content in this section from the general to the specific. You first need to sum
up your key findings and then link these findings to the literature then to the theory and then to the practice
[if applicable]. Study the first extract in Activity 02 again and decide whether it follows this model. If yes,
identify the section in which the researcher summarizes the key findings, relates these findings to the
literature then to the theory and then to the practice.

Nguyen, C.D. (2021). Scaffolding student engagement with written corrective feedback: Transforming
feedback sessions into learning affordances. Language Teaching Research (online view first). doi:
10.1177/13621688211040904.

In answer to the primary research questions, the students, regardless of the type of writing conference
they partook in, were all able to correct a noticeable number of form-related errors in their writing as
well as pick up a sizeable amount of the underlying knowledge associated with these errors.
Specifically, the students in the typical Student–Student writing conference could, on average, correct
about 40% of all lexical and grammatical errors in their writing and recognize the correct forms of the
relevant words and structures to complete novel sentences after their WCF engagement in the above
writing conference. This finding is in line with what Hyland (2006) and Nassaji (2018) have found for
the benefit of writing conferences in general. These learning gains can be attributed to the combined
effect of three different factors: (1) the instructor’s implicit WCF, (2) the opportunity for discussing
WCF with their peers, and (3) the chance to resort to Google search engine. First, the instructor’s
implicit WCF might have enabled these students to notice gaps/holes in their lexical and grammatical
resources. This noticing, in turn, could have prompted them to search for relevant lexis and syntax from
their peers and/or online resources. Therefore, the typical Student–Student writing conference can
promote vocabulary and grammar learning in accordance with the Noticing function of Swain’s Output

12
 Hypothesis (2005). However, the qualitative data of this study also showed that whether the students in
this group could succeed in correcting their own form-related errors and acquiring the underlying
knowledge related to these errors largely depended on the quality of the input that they received from
their peers and online resources. Therefore, though ‘mutual peer scaffolding’ – an inherent feature of
the typical Student–Student writing conference (Hyland & Hyland, 2006, p. 91) – might foster learner
autonomy (Cotterall & Cohen, 2003) as well as collaboration between and among L2 student writers
(De Guerrero & Villamil, 2000), the effects that such a writing conference has on the success rate of
error correction and L2 uptake can be either positive or negative, depending on the quality of L2 input
that is available and accessible in this writing conference. However, such input, especially that from
their peers, is often found to be flawed (Hyland, 2000; Mendoca & Johnson, 1994). Therefore, to
minimize the negative effects of this writing conference on L2 writing accuracy and L2 uptake, a
plausible measure is to ensure that there would be at least one more-able student in each conferencing
group.

Activity 04: In the following video, you are going to listen to another way to organize the content in the
discussion section. Watch the video and identify whether the rhetorical purposes we have learnt above are
all fulfilled by this content and content organization. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvRdamY2MBw

3. Self-assessment log

Are you now able to…

- restate (in your own words) the key purposes of the discussion section in a research paper?
- recognize how these purposes are actually fulfilled in examples of real research papers?
- be aware of the dos and don’ts in writing the discussion section and follow this guidance in
your writing process?

13