Ask for them and follow them exactly. Peer reviewers examine the soundness of the materials and methods section. For some studies, age may be an important factor. For example, did you use mouse pups or adults? Seedlings or mature plants? The description must include both physical and biological characteristics of the site pertinant to the study aims. Include the date s of the study e. It is often a good idea to include a map labeled as a Figure showing the study location in relation to some larger more recognizable geographic area.
Someone else should be able to go to the exact location of your study site if they want to repeat or check your work, or just visit your study area. NOTE: For laboratory studies you need not report the date and location of the study UNLESS it is necessary information for someone to have who might wish to repeat your work or use the same facility.
Most often it is not. So, what do you want to do to make the discussion section a success? Importance of Your Results Be sure to advocate for your findings and underline how your results significantly in move the field forward.
Remember to make sure you give your results their due and not undermine them. The Writing Center. Writing the Discussion. Writing in Psychology course syllabus. University of Florida; Yellin, Linda L. A Sociology Writer's Guide. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Interpretation is a subjective exercise.
Therefore, be careful that you do not read more into the findings than can be supported by the evidence you've gathered. Remember that the data are the data: nothing more, nothing less. One of the most common mistakes that you can make when discussing the results of your study is to present a superficial interpretation of the findings that more or less re-states the results section of your paper.
Obviously, you must refer to your results when discussing them, but focus on the interpretion of those results, not just the data itself. Azar, Beth. The discussion section should end with a concise summary of the principal implications of the findings regardless of their significance. Give a brief explanation about why you believe the findings and conclusions of your study are important and how they support broader knowledge or understanding of the research problem.
This can be followed by any recommendations for further research. However, do not offer recommendations which could have been easily addressed within the study. This would demonstrate to the reader that you have inadequately examined and interpreted the data.
Overall Objectives The objectives of your discussion section should include the following: I. You should write a direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results, usually in one paragraph.
Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important Consider the likelihood that no one has thought as long and hard about your study as you have. Systematically explain the underlying meaning of your findings and state why you believe they are significant. If applicable, begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most significant or unanticipated finding first, then systematically review each finding. Otherwise, follow the general order you reported the findings in the results section.
Relate the Findings to Similar Studies No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for your research. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps to support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your study differs from other research about the topic.
Note that any significant or unanticipated finding is often because there was no prior research to indicate the finding could occur. If there is prior research to indicate this, you need to explain why it was significant or unanticipated. If you always get clear-cut answers whenever you ask this question, then the study is proceeding towards the right direction. Besides application of a template which contains the intended clear-cut messages to be followed will contribute to the communication of net messages.
One of the important mistakes is refraining from critical review of the manuscript as a whole after completion of the writing process. Therefore, the authors should go over the manuscript for at least three times after finalization of the manuscript based on joint decision.
The first control should concentrate on the evaluation of the appropriateness of the logic of the manuscript, and its organization, and whether desired messages have been delivered or not. Secondly, syutax, and grammar of the manuscript should be controlled. It is appropriate to review the manuscript for the third time 1 or 2 weeks after completion of its writing process.
Other erroneous issues consist of superfluousness of the manuscript with unnecessary repetitions, undue, and recurrent references to the problems adressed in the manuscript or their solution methods, overcriticizing or overpraising other studies, and use of a pompous literary language overlooking the main objective of sharing information.
Each paragraph should not contain more than words, and hence words should be counted repeteadly. The introductory paragraph contains the main idea of performing the study in question. The introductory paragraph starts with an undebatable sentence, and proceeds with a part addressing the following questions as 1 On what issue we have to concentrate, discuss or elaborate?
However summarizing the basic findings of the experimental studies in the first paragraph is generally recommended by the editors of the journal. Indicating limitations of the study will reflect objectivity of the authors, and provide answers to the questions which will be directed by the reviewers of the journal.
On the other hand in the last paragraph, future directions or potential clinical applications may be emphasized.
Be wary of mistaking the reiteration of a specific finding for an interpretation. This decision may vary depending on the specific study. University of Florida; Yellin, Linda L.
Most often it is not. If you found this article helpful or if there is a topic you want us to address in a future article, please use our online comment submission form , or contact us directly. Paragraph 4: Discuss the limitations of the study.
Hypothesis: a more general claim or possible conclusion arising from the results [which may be proved or disproved in subsequent research]. If you choose to combine the results section and the discussion section into a single narrative, you must be clear in how you report the information discovered and your own interpretation of each finding. This is especially important when describing the discovery of significant or unanticipated findings. Besides, talents, skills, and experiences of the researchers in different fields ie. Paragraph 2: This paragraph provides a critical analysis of your major finding s. However, generally, before onset of the writing process of the manuscript, its abstract might be already presented in various congresses.