Internal logic of the Discussion
→ See also: IMRaD sections | Introduction argument | research questions → For suggestions on how to write the Discussion, see Pre-writing workflow (Discussion).
A well-written Discussion delivers on the promise that was made in the introduction (aims & scope). That means it should answer the research questions within the defined scope. This answer forms an argument with a conclusion.
A complete argument includes:
- Conclusion: How your findings answer the research question
- Results (supporting and conflicting)
- Literature (supporting and conflicting)
- Assumptions
- Limitations (can also be at study level — matches the study scope)
Conflicting results, literature, and assumptions require sub-arguments defending why the conclusion still stands. Limitations require specific suggestions for future research.
A good answer to the research question:
- Should address the question, not repeat the results (otherwise it doesn’t deliver on its promise).
- Should interpret the results within reason: (see also: Supporting your arguments)
- Don’t inflate your findings: Our results prove that mangrove species employ an identical biomechanical strategy of branch strengthening and leaf shedding to achieve universal storm immunity.
- Don’t be too cautious: Our data might perhaps suggest that there could potentially be some form of relationship between morphological traits and wave exposure, although it is possible that other factors may also be involved
Tip
What the Discussion actually looks like in a published paper can vary widely. Have a look at papers in your field to see if you can identify each element (conclusion, supporting evidence, conflicting evidence, assumptions, limitations, sub-arguments).