Internal logic of the Discussion
→ See also: 1 IMRaD sections | Introduction logic → For suggestions on how to write the Discussion, see Interpreting the findings.
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:
- Addresses the question. E.g. it should not simply repeat the results, otherwise it doesn’t deliver on its promise.
- Interpret the results within reason: (see also: Supporting with evidence)
- Doesn’t inflate findings: Our results prove that mangrove species employ an identical biomechanical strategy of branch strengthening and leaf shedding to achieve universal storm immunity.
- Isn’t overly 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
Check your field
What the Discussion actually looks like in a published paper can vary widely. To understand better what I mean with the logic explained here, look at papers in your field and identify each element (conclusion, supporting evidence, conflicting evidence, assumptions, limitations, sub-arguments).