Just how to write the discussion portion of an paper that is academic

Forex Signals

Just how to write the discussion portion of an paper that is academic

Just how to write the discussion portion of an paper that is academic

This will 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 could not find most of them who used Discussion sections. I believe this notion for the Discussion element of an journal that is academic (or book chapter, in some instances) comes from the IMRAD model of publishing, that is, papers that have at 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 though I was a chemical engineer, I can’t recall that I read many papers within the IMRAD model, while they all had a variation (merging Discussion with Results, or Results with Conclusion, or Discussion with Conclusion). I read engineering, natural science and social science literatures as I 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 in their linkage of research findings with theories, other empirical reports and various literatures,
  4. great at explaining how a paper’s results may contradict earlier work, extend it, advance our knowledge of X or Y phenomenon and, most definitely:
  5. NOT the conclusion of this paper.

The things I think is essential to consider when writing the Discussion element of a paper, is 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 create Discussions – for the moves that are rhetorical.

As usual in my own blog posts, I here backlink to a resources that are few might be of help (written 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 all the IMRAD sections.
  • Note how this article by Sollaci and Pereira on 50 years of IMRAD articles does NOT have a Conclusion section (oh, the irony!). However, their Discussion section is very nice, albeit brief.
  • This article by Hцfler et al offers good advice on integrating substantive knowledge with leads to create a solid Discussion section.
  • In this specific article, Цner Sanli and coauthors provide great suggestions on just how to write a Discussion area of a journal article.

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

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

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

There are times when scholars blend Discussion and Conclusions, or Results and Discussions sections. This is simply not even discipline-dependent, it’s author-dependent essay writer site com buy essay online.

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

Another example, now through the justice field that is criminal.

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 is what We have noticed in most Discussion sections of journal articles (in engineering, public health and some pysch). pic.twitter.com/wpH9jGghjk