Research Report / Discussion
1
Research Reports
Functionally, the purpose of a Discussion section is to explicitly demonstrate how the new information
found in the study fits into what is already known. Specifically, the Discussion section does this by
placing the new results vis-a-vis published results and speculating on what this means. However, there are
some unstated rules in place governing how this speculation takes place! First and foremost, you must
control the impuluse to make logical leaps beyond what is reasonably supported for your data. The
solution that has evolved over time is to set up the Discussion section as a "dialogue" between your work
and everyone else’s. In other words, for every experimental result you want to talk about, you find results
from other publications bearing the relationship to your result that you want the reader to understand.
When your work is the first to show something, then you make that claim explicitly.
The 4 C’s of Discussion Sections
Claim – be clear about establishing primacy, but as always, remain constrained – do a literature check
before making this claim (I have read papers published just a month apart, both making the claim they are
the first to demonstrate something – neither group had access to the other’s publication, but it was
fortunate they submitted to two different journals!)
Words/Phrases: We are the first to show/ Our results are the first to reveal / We have shown for
the first time / To our knowledge, we are the first to demonstrate / Our approach is the first to reveal / Our
study is the first to employ X / Our results are the first to clearly demonstrate (stronger version) / For the
first time, we have conclusively elucidated (stronger version)
Corroborate – your outcomes support other published results – they add to what already exists and may
extend the reach of published results, but do not change the “nature” of the results
Words/Phases: similarly / similar to / support / corroborate / support and extend to / also
Clarify—your results limit or refine the scope/domain of some published result – they do not disprove or
cast doubt on the results, but add constraints or boundaries
Words/Phrases: logic phrases are usually used for clarifications, e.g. “A but not B” or “A, but
only in the context of B”
Conflict – these are results that disprove, cast doubt on, or weaken published results – or, they
demonstrate that the explanation of some published result is inaccurate or unlikely – usually, some
discussion follows with speculation as to where the differences come from or with alternative
explanations for the differing results
Words/Phrases: Unlike X, we found / In contrast to X, we show / Our results contradict those
found by X / Our results cast doubt on the interpretation of X results / Our results suggest the explanation
for Y is more likely to be Z
Research Report / Discussion
2
Research Report / Discussion
3
Structure of a Discussion Section
1. Paragraph One – State main result/s of study in terms of the research question. The RQ may be
bluntly restated (e.g. “We investigated if X happened in the context of Y”) or integrated into the
results statement itself (e.g. “We showed that Z happens when X occurs in the context of Y”).
2. Paragraphs 2  n – major results are discussed, always contextualized with regard to the
published literature, naming the specific relationship between the new data and what has already
been published. Speculation/explanation for similarities or differences can be made in the same
paragraph or in their own paragraph. Recommendations for future research can be made here or
in final paragraph.
3. Penultimate Paragraph – relevant study limitations are laid out
4. Ultimate Paragraph – future research, applications suggested – if specific suggestions are made in
the body of the discussion, there may be no over-arching recommendation for future research.
Research Report / Discussion
4