- characteristics
- How to do a discussion of results
- Questions to develop a discussion of results
- Example of discussion of results
- References
The discussion of results refers to the section of the research work or scientific report, in which the meaning of the findings obtained is described, it is compared with those of previous publications and they are emphasized in the new ones. If a hypothesis has been raised, its verification or rejection must also be argued with the results obtained.
For some scientific publications and various academics, the discussion of results is the most important aspect of the research, as it will be the section where the theory converges and is contrasted with the data from experimentation.
The discussion of results describes the meaning of the findings obtained Source: Pixabay
The discussion of results with the presentation of the same and with the conclusion of the investigation can be confused, however they respond to different intentions. The IMRyD format (I = introduction; M = methods; R = results; y = y, D = discussion) established by the American National Standards Institute for scientific articles, differentiates each section with a question.
In the case of the discussion, the question is answered: what significance do the findings have? For the results and conclusion sections, they would respond, respectively, to the following questions: what was found or what was obtained? And what are the most important data of the investigation?
characteristics
-The discussion of results is presented after the presentation of the data that come from the experimentation. In addition, this section precedes the conclusions of the research work.
-It must present the own writing of the scientific literature, which is characterized by its coherence, precision, clarity, order, conciseness and relevance.
-The tense used is mainly the present tense, since the findings are already considered scientific evidence. For example: "The data indicate that…", "Our proposal shows similarities…".
-It is intended to raise the relationships between what is observed and the results. In addition, it must connect the findings with the proposed objectives, the hypothesis and the theories that were taken as a frame of reference.
- You should not repeat the results, but rather interpret them, being the opportune moment to raise personal positions and contrast them with the perspective of other authors.
-It has a double explanatory and argumentative component, by indicating how the data obtained support the veracity of the hypothesis or discard its validity.
-Exposes technical consequences of the investigation, as well as contradictions in the data, its limitations or the problems encountered.
-Can suggest new studies or recommendations for future research.
-Mention the strengths and the most notable factors of the study carried out.
How to do a discussion of results
Do not include details of the results already exposed previously. Source: Pixabay
There are two essential aspects that should not be missing in the discussion of results, such as the meaning of the results obtained and the relationship of these findings with other previous investigations. Experts in the area recommend that this section have the following structure:
1- Start with a brief summary of the most outstanding results, without falling into details.
2- Posing possible explanations for these results, for which it can be supported by the comparison of other related investigations. This supposes both the results that are similar and that therefore support the hypothesis, as well as those that are contradictory and affect the level of veracity of the statements.
All important findings should be addressed, even those that initially seem unexplained, as they may be clarified in future reports.
3- This is the opportunity to include opinions and interpretations of the author, as well as to contrast them with other researchers.
4- Specify the limitations and weaknesses of the study.
5- Weigh the implications that these results mean for the investigated area. Some scientific publications present the conclusions separately, while others usually place it as a closing of the discussion.
6- If you add the conclusion, you must then infer all the ideas derived from the comparison and analysis of the results. In formulating each conclusion the supporting evidence is summarized.
7- Present recommendations for future research, as well as make a separate mention of the aspects that were not addressed and that deserve to be studied.
Questions to develop a discussion of results
These are some of the questions that are suggested to be answered while writing this section or at the end of it as a checklist:
- What is the validity of the results?
- How effective is the implemented method?
- What were the limitations and why were they presented?
- What are the similarities and differences between the data obtained and the research background? Are there contradictions?
- How is it possible to apply the results in other situations and contexts?
- How do the results support or make the hypothesis that was initially proposed invalid?
- What other hypotheses can be raised in light of the most recent findings?
- Does the interpretation of the results conform to the proposed delimitation of the problem studied, the objectives of the research and the proposed methodology or does it intend to cover more? This question will allow the author not to exceed the applicability of the findings or overestimate their generalizability.
Example of discussion of results
Below are various phrases that could be part of the section for discussing the results of an investigation. In order to exemplify the writing style and the approaches that could be presented, variables and generic elements were placed.
- "The decrease in aspect A that is registered in the population studied is attributed to the changes that situation B has undergone. It is possible that this will result in the appearance of an event C".
- "Result A is similar to that found in previous research and in contexts where phenomenon B prevails."
- "There is no association between A and B, contrary to our hypothesis."
- "The A results were different from those detected ten years ago in other Central European countries, despite the fact that these studies had a longer follow-up time than ours."
- "For this study the figure was lower when it was inquired about condition A".
- "The results of this study are only comparable by methodology with those carried out in countries B".
- "Possibly there are temporary changes in the trends of A, due to the absence or presence of B elements."
- “Both for its theoretical-conceptual relevance and for its empirically endorsed clinical implications, the investigation of construct A should be deepened”.
- "There is high consistency with the results of other studies (regardless of the methodology) with respect to condition B".
- "It could be affirmed, then, that both subjects A and B in this research have difficulties in the C contexts. Consistent with the above, subjects D also had more difficulty in situation E".
- "Taking into account that A is a powerful indicator of the risk of B, the results obtained in this study may indicate that C, due to its significant relationship with A, could be considered a significant indicator of the moderate-high risk of B".
References
- González, M., & Máttar, S. (2010). IMRaD or IMRyD format for scientific articles? Magazine MVZ Córdoba, 15 (1).doi.org / 10.21897 / rmvz.326
- Lam Díaz, Rosa María. (2016). The writing of a scientific article. Cuban Journal of Hematology, Immunology and Hemotherapy, 32 (1), 57-69. Recovered from scielo.sld.cu
- Eslava-Schmalbalch, J., & Alzate, JP (2011). How to elaborate the discussion of a scientific article. Rev Col Or Tra, 25 (1), 14-7.
- González Labrador, Ignacio. (2010). Component parts and preparation of the investigation protocol and the work of termination of the residency. Cuban Journal of Integral General Medicine, 26 (2) Recovered from scielo.sld.cu
- Frías-Navarro, D. (2010). Recommendations for preparing the research report. Valencia (Spain): University of Valencia Recovered from uv.es