what is discussion in research paper example

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research paper
• How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples

How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples

Published on August 21, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on July 18, 2023.

The discussion section is where you delve into the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results .

It should focus on explaining and evaluating what you found, showing how it relates to your literature review and paper or dissertation topic , and making an argument in support of your overall conclusion. It should not be a second results section.

There are different ways to write this section, but you can focus your writing around these key elements:

• Summary : A brief recap of your key results
• Interpretations: What do your results mean?
• Implications: Why do your results matter?
• Limitations: What can’t your results tell us?
• Recommendations: Avenues for further studies or analyses

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What not to include in your discussion section, step 1: summarize your key findings, step 2: give your interpretations, step 3: discuss the implications, step 4: acknowledge the limitations, step 5: share your recommendations, discussion section example, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about discussion sections.

There are a few common mistakes to avoid when writing the discussion section of your paper.

• Don’t introduce new results: You should only discuss the data that you have already reported in your results section .
• Don’t make inflated claims: Avoid overinterpretation and speculation that isn’t directly supported by your data.
• Don’t undermine your research: The discussion of limitations should aim to strengthen your credibility, not emphasize weaknesses or failures.

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

Start this section by reiterating your research problem and concisely summarizing your major findings. To speed up the process you can use a summarizer to quickly get an overview of all important findings. Don’t just repeat all the data you have already reported—aim for a clear statement of the overall result that directly answers your main research question . This should be no more than one paragraph.

Many students struggle with the differences between a discussion section and a results section . The crux of the matter is that your results sections should present your results, and your discussion section should subjectively evaluate them. Try not to blend elements of these two sections, in order to keep your paper sharp.

• The results indicate that…
• The study demonstrates a correlation between…
• This analysis supports the theory that…
• The data suggest that…

The meaning of your results may seem obvious to you, but it’s important to spell out their significance for your reader, showing exactly how they answer your research question.

The form of your interpretations will depend on the type of research, but some typical approaches to interpreting the data include:

• Identifying correlations , patterns, and relationships among the data
• Discussing whether the results met your expectations or supported your hypotheses
• Contextualizing your findings within previous research and theory
• Explaining unexpected results and evaluating their significance
• Considering possible alternative explanations and making an argument for your position

You can organize your discussion around key themes, hypotheses, or research questions, following the same structure as your results section. Alternatively, you can also begin by highlighting the most significant or unexpected results.

• In line with the hypothesis…
• Contrary to the hypothesized association…
• The results contradict the claims of Smith (2022) that…
• The results might suggest that x . However, based on the findings of similar studies, a more plausible explanation is y .

As well as giving your own interpretations, make sure to relate your results back to the scholarly work that you surveyed in the literature review . The discussion should show how your findings fit with existing knowledge, what new insights they contribute, and what consequences they have for theory or practice.

Ask yourself these questions:

• Do your results support or challenge existing theories? If they support existing theories, what new information do they contribute? If they challenge existing theories, why do you think that is?
• Are there any practical implications?

Your overall aim is to show the reader exactly what your research has contributed, and why they should care.

• These results build on existing evidence of…
• The results do not fit with the theory that…
• The experiment provides a new insight into the relationship between…
• These results should be taken into account when considering how to…
• The data contribute a clearer understanding of…
• While previous research has focused on  x , these results demonstrate that y .

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Even the best research has its limitations. Acknowledging these is important to demonstrate your credibility. Limitations aren’t about listing your errors, but about providing an accurate picture of what can and cannot be concluded from your study.

Limitations might be due to your overall research design, specific methodological choices , or unanticipated obstacles that emerged during your research process.

Here are a few common possibilities:

• If your sample size was small or limited to a specific group of people, explain how generalizability is limited.
• If you encountered problems when gathering or analyzing data, explain how these influenced the results.
• If there are potential confounding variables that you were unable to control, acknowledge the effect these may have had.

After noting the limitations, you can reiterate why the results are nonetheless valid for the purpose of answering your research question.

• The generalizability of the results is limited by…
• The reliability of these data is impacted by…
• Due to the lack of data on x , the results cannot confirm…
• The methodological choices were constrained by…
• It is beyond the scope of this study to…

Based on the discussion of your results, you can make recommendations for practical implementation or further research. Sometimes, the recommendations are saved for the conclusion .

Suggestions for further research can lead directly from the limitations. Don’t just state that more studies should be done—give concrete ideas for how future work can build on areas that your own research was unable to address.

• Further research is needed to establish…
• Future studies should take into account…
• Avenues for future research include…

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

• Anchoring bias
• Halo effect
• The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon
• The placebo effect
• Nonresponse bias
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

In the discussion , you explore the meaning and relevance of your research results , explaining how they fit with existing research and theory. Discuss:

• Your  interpretations : what do the results tell us?
• The  implications : why do the results matter?
• The  limitation s : what can’t the results tell us?

The results chapter or section simply and objectively reports what you found, without speculating on why you found these results. The discussion interprets the meaning of the results, puts them in context, and explains why they matter.

In qualitative research , results and discussion are sometimes combined. But in quantitative research , it’s considered important to separate the objective results from your interpretation of them.

In a thesis or dissertation, the discussion is an in-depth exploration of the results, going into detail about the meaning of your findings and citing relevant sources to put them in context.

The conclusion is more shorter and more general: it concisely answers your main research question and makes recommendations based on your overall findings.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, July 18). How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/discussion/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a results section | tips & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition
• Language Editing Services
• Translation Services

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

• 4 minute read
• 25.9K views

Table of Contents

The discussion section in scientific manuscripts might be the last few paragraphs, but its role goes far beyond wrapping up. It’s the part of an article where scientists talk about what they found and what it means, where raw data turns into meaningful insights. Therefore, discussion is a vital component of the article.  

An excellent discussion is well-organized. We bring to you authors a classic 6-step method for writing discussion sections, with examples to illustrate the functions and specific writing logic of each step. Take a look at how you can impress journal reviewers with a concise and focused discussion section!  

Discussion frame structure   

Conventionally, a discussion section has three parts: an introductory paragraph, a few intermediate paragraphs, and a conclusion¹.  Please follow the steps below:  

1.Introduction—mention gaps in previous research¹⁻ ²

Here, you orient the reader to your study. In the first paragraph, it is advisable to mention the research gap your paper addresses.  

Example: This study investigated the cognitive effects of a meat-only diet on adults. While earlier studies have explored the impact of a carnivorous diet on physical attributes and agility, they have not explicitly addressed its influence on cognitively intense tasks involving memory and reasoning.  

2. Summarizing key findings—let your data speak ¹⁻ ²

After you have laid out the context for your study, recapitulate some of its key findings. Also, highlight key data and evidence supporting these findings.  

Example: We found that risk-taking behavior among teenagers correlates with their tendency to invest in cryptocurrencies. Risk takers in this study, as measured by the Cambridge Gambling Task, tended to have an inordinately higher proportion of their savings invested as crypto coins.  

3. Interpreting results—compare with other papers¹⁻²    

Here, you must analyze and interpret any results concerning the research question or hypothesis. How do the key findings of your study help verify or disprove the hypothesis? What practical relevance does your discovery have?  

Example: Our study suggests that higher daily caffeine intake is not associated with poor performance in major sporting events. Athletes may benefit from the cardiovascular benefits of daily caffeine intake without adversely impacting performance.    

Remember, unlike the results section, the discussion ideally focuses on locating your findings in the larger body of existing research. Hence, compare your results with those of other peer-reviewed papers.  

Example: Although Miller et al. (2020) found evidence of such political bias in a multicultural population, our findings suggest that the bias is weak or virtually non-existent among politically active citizens.  

4. Addressing limitations—their potential impact on the results¹⁻²    

Discuss the potential impact of limitations on the results. Most studies have limitations, and it is crucial to acknowledge them in the intermediary paragraphs of the discussion section. Limitations may include low sample size, suspected interference or noise in data, low effect size, etc.  

Example: This study explored a comprehensive list of adverse effects associated with the novel drug ‘X’. However, long-term studies may be needed to confirm its safety, especially regarding major cardiac events.  

5. Implications for future research—how to explore further¹⁻²    

Locate areas of your research where more investigation is needed. Concluding paragraphs of the discussion can explain what research will likely confirm your results or identify knowledge gaps your study left unaddressed.  

Example: Our study demonstrates that roads paved with the plastic-infused compound ‘Y’ are more resilient than asphalt. Future studies may explore economically feasible ways of producing compound Y in bulk.  

6. Conclusion—summarize content¹⁻²    

A good way to wind up the discussion section is by revisiting the research question mentioned in your introduction. Sign off by expressing the main findings of your study.  

Example: Recent observations suggest that the fish ‘Z’ is moving upriver in many parts of the Amazon basin. Our findings provide conclusive evidence that this phenomenon is associated with rising sea levels and climate change, not due to elevated numbers of invasive predators.  

A rigorous and concise discussion section is one of the keys to achieving an excellent paper. It serves as a critical platform for researchers to interpret and connect their findings with the broader scientific context. By detailing the results, carefully comparing them with existing research, and explaining the limitations of this study, you can effectively help reviewers and readers understand the entire research article more comprehensively and deeply¹⁻² , thereby helping your manuscript to be successfully published and gain wider dissemination.  

In addition to keeping this writing guide, you can also use Elsevier Language Services to improve the quality of your paper more deeply and comprehensively. We have a professional editing team covering multiple disciplines. With our profound disciplinary background and rich polishing experience, we can significantly optimize all paper modules including the discussion, effectively improve the fluency and rigor of your articles, and make your scientific research results consistent, with its value reflected more clearly. We are always committed to ensuring the quality of papers according to the standards of top journals, improving the publishing efficiency of scientific researchers, and helping you on the road to academic success. Check us out here !  

Type in wordcount for Standard Total: USD EUR JPY Follow this link if your manuscript is longer than 12,000 words. Upload  

References:   

• Masic, I. (2018). How to write an efficient discussion? Medical Archives , 72(3), 306. https://doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2018.72.306-307  
• Şanlı, Ö., Erdem, S., & Tefik, T. (2014). How to write a discussion section? Urology Research & Practice , 39(1), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2013.049  

Navigating “Chinglish” Errors in Academic English Writing

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

You may also like.

Submission 101: What format should be used for academic papers?

Page-Turner Articles are More Than Just Good Arguments: Be Mindful of Tone and Structure!

A Must-see for Researchers! How to Ensure Inclusivity in Your Scientific Writing

Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider

The Clear Path to An Impactful Paper: ②

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 8. The Discussion
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The purpose of the discussion section is to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in relation to what was already known about the research problem being investigated and to explain any new understanding or insights that emerged as a result of your research. The discussion will always connect to the introduction by way of the research questions or hypotheses you posed and the literature you reviewed, but the discussion does not simply repeat or rearrange the first parts of your paper; the discussion clearly explains how your study advanced the reader's understanding of the research problem from where you left them at the end of your review of prior research.

Annesley, Thomas M. “The Discussion Section: Your Closing Argument.” Clinical Chemistry 56 (November 2010): 1671-1674; Peacock, Matthew. “Communicative Moves in the Discussion Section of Research Articles.” System 30 (December 2002): 479-497.

Importance of a Good Discussion

The discussion section is often considered the most important part of your research paper because it:

• Most effectively demonstrates your ability as a researcher to think critically about an issue, to develop creative solutions to problems based upon a logical synthesis of the findings, and to formulate a deeper, more profound understanding of the research problem under investigation;
• Presents the underlying meaning of your research, notes possible implications in other areas of study, and explores possible improvements that can be made in order to further develop the concerns of your research;
• Highlights the importance of your study and how it can contribute to understanding the research problem within the field of study;
• Presents how the findings from your study revealed and helped fill gaps in the literature that had not been previously exposed or adequately described; and,
• Engages the reader in thinking critically about issues based on an evidence-based interpretation of findings; it is not governed strictly by objective reporting of information.

Annesley Thomas M. “The Discussion Section: Your Closing Argument.” Clinical Chemistry 56 (November 2010): 1671-1674; Bitchener, John and Helen Basturkmen. “Perceptions of the Difficulties of Postgraduate L2 Thesis Students Writing the Discussion Section.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (January 2006): 4-18; Kretchmer, Paul. Fourteen Steps to Writing an Effective Discussion Section. San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  General Rules

These are the general rules you should adopt when composing your discussion of the results :

• Do not be verbose or repetitive; be concise and make your points clearly
• Avoid the use of jargon or undefined technical language
• Follow a logical stream of thought; in general, interpret and discuss the significance of your findings in the same sequence you described them in your results section [a notable exception is to begin by highlighting an unexpected result or a finding that can grab the reader's attention]
• Use the present verb tense, especially for established facts; however, refer to specific works or prior studies in the past tense
• If needed, use subheadings to help organize your discussion or to categorize your interpretations into themes

II.  The Content

The content of the discussion section of your paper most often includes :

• Explanation of results : Comment on whether or not the results were expected for each set of findings; go into greater depth to explain findings that were unexpected or especially profound. If appropriate, note any unusual or unanticipated patterns or trends that emerged from your results and explain their meaning in relation to the research problem.
• References to previous research : Either compare your results with the findings from other studies or use the studies to support a claim. This can include re-visiting key sources already cited in your literature review section, or, save them to cite later in the discussion section if they are more important to compare with your results instead of being a part of the general literature review of prior research used to provide context and background information. Note that you can make this decision to highlight specific studies after you have begun writing the discussion section.
• Deduction : A claim for how the results can be applied more generally. For example, describing lessons learned, proposing recommendations that can help improve a situation, or highlighting best practices.
• Hypothesis : A more general claim or possible conclusion arising from the results [which may be proved or disproved in subsequent research]. This can be framed as new research questions that emerged as a consequence of your analysis.

III.  Organization and Structure

Keep the following sequential points in mind as you organize and write the discussion section of your paper:

• Think of your discussion as an inverted pyramid. Organize the discussion from the general to the specific, linking your findings to the literature, then to theory, then to practice [if appropriate].
• Use the same key terms, narrative style, and verb tense [present] that you used when describing the research problem in your introduction.
• Begin by briefly re-stating the research problem you were investigating and answer all of the research questions underpinning the problem that you posed in the introduction.
• Describe the patterns, principles, and relationships shown by each major findings and place them in proper perspective. The sequence of this information is important; first state the answer, then the relevant results, then cite the work of others. If appropriate, refer the reader to a figure or table to help enhance the interpretation of the data [either within the text or as an appendix].
• Regardless of where it's mentioned, a good discussion section includes analysis of any unexpected findings. This part of the discussion should begin with a description of the unanticipated finding, followed by a brief interpretation as to why you believe it appeared and, if necessary, its possible significance in relation to the overall study. If more than one unexpected finding emerged during the study, describe each of them in the order they appeared as you gathered or analyzed the data. As noted, the exception to discussing findings in the same order you described them in the results section would be to begin by highlighting the implications of a particularly unexpected or significant finding that emerged from the study, followed by a discussion of the remaining findings.
• Before concluding the discussion, identify potential limitations and weaknesses if you do not plan to do so in the conclusion of the paper. Comment on their relative importance in relation to your overall interpretation of the results and, if necessary, note how they may affect the validity of your findings. Avoid using an apologetic tone; however, be honest and self-critical [e.g., in retrospect, had you included a particular question in a survey instrument, additional data could have been revealed].
• 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.

IV.  Overall Objectives

The objectives of your discussion section should include the following: I.  Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings

Briefly reiterate the research problem or problems you are investigating and the methods you used to investigate them, then move quickly to describe the major findings of the study. You should write a direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results, usually in one paragraph.

II.  Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important

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. After reading the discussion section, you want the reader to think critically about the results and why they are important. You don’t want to force the reader to go through the paper multiple times to figure out what it all means. 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 presented in the results section.

III.  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. IV.  Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings

It is important to remember that the purpose of research in the social sciences is to discover and not to prove . When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations for the study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. This is especially important when describing the discovery of significant or unanticipated findings.

V.  Acknowledge the Study’s Limitations

It is far better for you to identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor! Note any unanswered questions or issues your study could not address and describe the generalizability of your results to other situations. If a limitation is applicable to the method chosen to gather information, then describe in detail the problems you encountered and why. VI.  Make Suggestions for Further Research

You may choose to conclude the discussion section by making suggestions for further research [as opposed to offering suggestions in the conclusion of your paper]. Although your study can offer important insights about the research problem, this is where you can address other questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or highlight hidden issues that were revealed as a result of conducting your research. You should frame your suggestions by linking the need for further research to the limitations of your study [e.g., in future studies, the survey instrument should include more questions that ask..."] or linking to critical issues revealed from the data that were not considered initially in your research.

NOTE: Besides the literature review section, the preponderance of references to sources is usually found in the discussion section . A few historical references may be helpful for perspective, but most of the references should be relatively recent and included to aid in the interpretation of your results, to support the significance of a finding, and/or to place a finding within a particular context. If a study that you cited does not support your findings, don't ignore it--clearly explain why your research findings differ from theirs.

V.  Problems to Avoid

• Do not waste time restating your results . Should you need to remind the reader of a finding to be discussed, use "bridge sentences" that relate the result to the interpretation. An example would be: “In the case of determining available housing to single women with children in rural areas of Texas, the findings suggest that access to good schools is important...," then move on to further explaining this finding and its implications.
• As noted, recommendations for further research can be included in either the discussion or conclusion of your paper, but do not repeat your recommendations in the both sections. Think about the overall narrative flow of your paper to determine where best to locate this information. However, if your findings raise a lot of new questions or issues, consider including suggestions for further research in the discussion section.
• Do not introduce new results in the discussion section. Be wary of mistaking the reiteration of a specific finding for an interpretation because it may confuse the reader. The description of findings [results section] and the interpretation of their significance [discussion section] should be distinct parts of your paper. 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 approach is not recommended if you lack experience writing college-level research papers.
• Use of the first person pronoun is generally acceptable. Using first person singular pronouns can help emphasize a point or illustrate a contrasting finding. However, keep in mind that too much use of the first person can actually distract the reader from the main points [i.e., I know you're telling me this--just tell me!].

Analyzing vs. Summarizing. Department of English Writing Guide. George Mason University; Discussion. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Hess, Dean R. "How to Write an Effective Discussion." Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004); Kretchmer, Paul. Fourteen Steps to Writing to Writing an Effective Discussion Section. San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008; The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sauaia, A. et al. "The Anatomy of an Article: The Discussion Section: "How Does the Article I Read Today Change What I Will Recommend to my Patients Tomorrow?” The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 74 (June 2013): 1599-1602; Research Limitations & Future Research . Lund Research Ltd., 2012; Summary: Using it Wisely. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Schafer, Mickey S. Writing the Discussion. Writing in Psychology course syllabus. University of Florida; Yellin, Linda L. A Sociology Writer's Guide . Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2009.

Writing Tip

Don’t Over-Interpret the Results!

Interpretation is a subjective exercise. As such, you should always approach the selection and interpretation of your findings introspectively and to think critically about the possibility of judgmental biases unintentionally entering into discussions about the significance of your work. With this in mind, be careful that you do not read more into the findings than can be supported by the evidence you have gathered. Remember that the data are the data: nothing more, nothing less.

MacCoun, Robert J. "Biases in the Interpretation and Use of Research Results." Annual Review of Psychology 49 (February 1998): 259-287; Ward, Paulet al, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Expertise . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Write Two Results Sections!

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 interpretation of those results and their significance in relation to the research problem, not the data itself.

Azar, Beth. "Discussing Your Findings."  American Psychological Association gradPSYCH Magazine (January 2006).

Yet Another Writing Tip

Avoid Unwarranted Speculation!

The discussion section should remain focused on the findings of your study. For example, if the purpose of your research was to measure the impact of foreign aid on increasing access to education among disadvantaged children in Bangladesh, it would not be appropriate to speculate about how your findings might apply to populations in other countries without drawing from existing studies to support your claim or if analysis of other countries was not a part of your original research design. If you feel compelled to speculate, do so in the form of describing possible implications or explaining possible impacts. Be certain that you clearly identify your comments as speculation or as a suggestion for where further research is needed. Sometimes your professor will encourage you to expand your discussion of the results in this way, while others don’t care what your opinion is beyond your effort to interpret the data in relation to the research problem.

• << Previous: Using Non-Textual Elements
• Next: Limitations of the Study >>
• Last Updated: Aug 30, 2024 10:02 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

How to Write the Discussion Section of a Research Paper

The discussion section of a research paper analyzes and interprets the findings, provides context, compares them with previous studies, identifies limitations, and suggests future research directions.

Updated on September 15, 2023

Structure your discussion section right, and you’ll be cited more often while doing a greater service to the scientific community. So, what actually goes into the discussion section? And how do you write it?

The discussion section of your research paper is where you let the reader know how your study is positioned in the literature, what to take away from your paper, and how your work helps them. It can also include your conclusions and suggestions for future studies.

First, we’ll define all the parts of your discussion paper, and then look into how to write a strong, effective discussion section for your paper or manuscript.

Discussion section: what is it, what it does

The discussion section comes later in your paper, following the introduction, methods, and results. The discussion sets up your study’s conclusions. Its main goals are to present, interpret, and provide a context for your results.

What is it?

The discussion section provides an analysis and interpretation of the findings, compares them with previous studies, identifies limitations, and suggests future directions for research.

This section combines information from the preceding parts of your paper into a coherent story. By this point, the reader already knows why you did your study (introduction), how you did it (methods), and what happened (results). In the discussion, you’ll help the reader connect the ideas from these sections.

Why is it necessary?

The discussion provides context and interpretations for the results. It also answers the questions posed in the introduction. While the results section describes your findings, the discussion explains what they say. This is also where you can describe the impact or implications of your research.

Adds context for your results

Most research studies aim to answer a question, replicate a finding, or address limitations in the literature. These goals are first described in the introduction. However, in the discussion section, the author can refer back to them to explain how the study's objective was achieved. 

Shows what your results actually mean and real-world implications

The discussion can also describe the effect of your findings on research or practice. How are your results significant for readers, other researchers, or policymakers?

What to include in your discussion (in the correct order)

A complete and effective discussion section should at least touch on the points described below.

Summary of key findings

The discussion should begin with a brief factual summary of the results. Concisely overview the main results you obtained.

Begin with key findings with supporting evidence

Your results section described a list of findings, but what message do they send when you look at them all together?

Your findings were detailed in the results section, so there’s no need to repeat them here, but do provide at least a few highlights. This will help refresh the reader’s memory and help them focus on the big picture.

Read the first paragraph of the discussion section in this article (PDF) for an example of how to start this part of your paper. Notice how the authors break down their results and follow each description sentence with an explanation of why each finding is relevant. 

State clearly and concisely

Following a clear and direct writing style is especially important in the discussion section. After all, this is where you will make some of the most impactful points in your paper. While the results section often contains technical vocabulary, such as statistical terms, the discussion section lets you describe your findings more clearly. 

Interpretation of results

Once you’ve given your reader an overview of your results, you need to interpret those results. In other words, what do your results mean? Discuss the findings’ implications and significance in relation to your research question or hypothesis.

Analyze and interpret your findings

Look into your findings and explore what’s behind them or what may have caused them. If your introduction cited theories or studies that could explain your findings, use these sources as a basis to discuss your results.

For example, look at the second paragraph in the discussion section of this article on waggling honey bees. Here, the authors explore their results based on information from the literature.

Unexpected or contradictory results

Sometimes, your findings are not what you expect. Here’s where you describe this and try to find a reason for it. Could it be because of the method you used? Does it have something to do with the variables analyzed? Comparing your methods with those of other similar studies can help with this task.

Context and comparison with previous work

Refer to related studies to place your research in a larger context and the literature. Compare and contrast your findings with existing literature, highlighting similarities, differences, and/or contradictions.

How your work compares or contrasts with previous work

Studies with similar findings to yours can be cited to show the strength of your findings. Information from these studies can also be used to help explain your results. Differences between your findings and others in the literature can also be discussed here. 

How to divide this section into subsections

If you have more than one objective in your study or many key findings, you can dedicate a separate section to each of these. Here’s an example of this approach. You can see that the discussion section is divided into topics and even has a separate heading for each of them. 

Limitations

Many journals require you to include the limitations of your study in the discussion. Even if they don’t, there are good reasons to mention these in your paper.

Why limitations don’t have a negative connotation

A study’s limitations are points to be improved upon in future research. While some of these may be flaws in your method, many may be due to factors you couldn’t predict.

Examples include time constraints or small sample sizes. Pointing this out will help future researchers avoid or address these issues. This part of the discussion can also include any attempts you have made to reduce the impact of these limitations, as in this study .

How limitations add to a researcher's credibility

Pointing out the limitations of your study demonstrates transparency. It also shows that you know your methods well and can conduct a critical assessment of them.  

Implications and significance

The final paragraph of the discussion section should contain the take-home messages for your study. It can also cite the “strong points” of your study, to contrast with the limitations section.

Restate your hypothesis

Remind the reader what your hypothesis was before you conducted the study. 

How was it proven or disproven?

Identify your main findings and describe how they relate to your hypothesis.

How your results contribute to the literature

Were you able to answer your research question? Or address a gap in the literature?

Future implications of your research

Describe the impact that your results may have on the topic of study. Your results may show, for instance, that there are still limitations in the literature for future studies to address. There may be a need for studies that extend your findings in a specific way. You also may need additional research to corroborate your findings. 

Sample discussion section

This fictitious example covers all the aspects discussed above. Your actual discussion section will probably be much longer, but you can read this to get an idea of everything your discussion should cover.

Our results showed that the presence of cats in a household is associated with higher levels of perceived happiness by its human occupants. These findings support our hypothesis and demonstrate the association between pet ownership and well-being. 

The present findings align with those of Bao and Schreer (2016) and Hardie et al. (2023), who observed greater life satisfaction in pet owners relative to non-owners. Although the present study did not directly evaluate life satisfaction, this factor may explain the association between happiness and cat ownership observed in our sample.

Our findings must be interpreted in light of some limitations, such as the focus on cat ownership only rather than pets as a whole. This may limit the generalizability of our results.

Nevertheless, this study had several strengths. These include its strict exclusion criteria and use of a standardized assessment instrument to investigate the relationships between pets and owners. These attributes bolster the accuracy of our results and reduce the influence of confounding factors, increasing the strength of our conclusions. Future studies may examine the factors that mediate the association between pet ownership and happiness to better comprehend this phenomenon.

This brief discussion begins with a quick summary of the results and hypothesis. The next paragraph cites previous research and compares its findings to those of this study. Information from previous studies is also used to help interpret the findings. After discussing the results of the study, some limitations are pointed out. The paper also explains why these limitations may influence the interpretation of results. Then, final conclusions are drawn based on the study, and directions for future research are suggested.

How to make your discussion flow naturally

If you find writing in scientific English challenging, the discussion and conclusions are often the hardest parts of the paper to write. That’s because you’re not just listing up studies, methods, and outcomes. You’re actually expressing your thoughts and interpretations in words.

• How formal should it be?
• What words should you use, or not use?
• How do you meet strict word limits, or make it longer and more informative?

Always give it your best, but sometimes a helping hand can, well, help. Getting a professional edit can help clarify your work’s importance while improving the English used to explain it. When readers know the value of your work, they’ll cite it. We’ll assign your study to an expert editor knowledgeable in your area of research. Their work will clarify your discussion, helping it to tell your story. Find out more about AJE Editing.

Adam Goulston, PsyD, MS, MBA, MISD, ELS

Science Marketing Consultant

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

Pair your Premium Editing with our add-on service Presubmission Review for an overall assessment of your manuscript.

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write a Discussion Section for a Research Paper

We’ve talked about several useful writing tips that authors should consider while drafting or editing their research papers. In particular, we’ve focused on  figures and legends , as well as the Introduction ,  Methods , and  Results . Now that we’ve addressed the more technical portions of your journal manuscript, let’s turn to the analytical segments of your research article. In this article, we’ll provide tips on how to write a strong Discussion section that best portrays the significance of your research contributions.

What is the Discussion section of a research paper?

In a nutshell,  your Discussion fulfills the promise you made to readers in your Introduction . At the beginning of your paper, you tell us why we should care about your research. You then guide us through a series of intricate images and graphs that capture all the relevant data you collected during your research. We may be dazzled and impressed at first, but none of that matters if you deliver an anti-climactic conclusion in the Discussion section!

Are you feeling pressured? Don’t worry. To be honest, you will edit the Discussion section of your manuscript numerous times. After all, in as little as one to two paragraphs ( Nature ‘s suggestion  based on their 3,000-word main body text limit), you have to explain how your research moves us from point A (issues you raise in the Introduction) to point B (our new understanding of these matters). You must also recommend how we might get to point C (i.e., identify what you think is the next direction for research in this field). That’s a lot to say in two paragraphs!

So, how do you do that? Let’s take a closer look.

What should I include in the Discussion section?

As we stated above, the goal of your Discussion section is to  answer the questions you raise in your Introduction by using the results you collected during your research . The content you include in the Discussions segment should include the following information:

• Remind us why we should be interested in this research project.
• Describe the nature of the knowledge gap you were trying to fill using the results of your study.
• Don’t repeat your Introduction. Instead, focus on why  this  particular study was needed to fill the gap you noticed and why that gap needed filling in the first place.
• Mainly, you want to remind us of how your research will increase our knowledge base and inspire others to conduct further research.
• Clearly tell us what that piece of missing knowledge was.
• Answer each of the questions you asked in your Introduction and explain how your results support those conclusions.
• Make sure to factor in all results relevant to the questions (even if those results were not statistically significant).
• Focus on the significance of the most noteworthy results.
• If conflicting inferences can be drawn from your results, evaluate the merits of all of them.
• Don’t rehash what you said earlier in the Results section. Rather, discuss your findings in the context of answering your hypothesis. Instead of making statements like “[The first result] was this…,” say, “[The first result] suggests [conclusion].”
• Do your conclusions line up with existing literature?
• Discuss whether your findings agree with current knowledge and expectations.
• Keep in mind good persuasive argument skills, such as explaining the strengths of your arguments and highlighting the weaknesses of contrary opinions.
• If you discovered something unexpected, offer reasons. If your conclusions aren’t aligned with current literature, explain.
• Address any limitations of your study and how relevant they are to interpreting your results and validating your findings.
• Make sure to acknowledge any weaknesses in your conclusions and suggest room for further research concerning that aspect of your analysis.
• Make sure your suggestions aren’t ones that should have been conducted during your research! Doing so might raise questions about your initial research design and protocols.
• Similarly, maintain a critical but unapologetic tone. You want to instill confidence in your readers that you have thoroughly examined your results and have objectively assessed them in a way that would benefit the scientific community’s desire to expand our knowledge base.
• Recommend next steps.
• Your suggestions should inspire other researchers to conduct follow-up studies to build upon the knowledge you have shared with them.
• Keep the list short (no more than two).

How to Write the Discussion Section

The above list of what to include in the Discussion section gives an overall idea of what you need to focus on throughout the section. Below are some tips and general suggestions about the technical aspects of writing and organization that you might find useful as you draft or revise the contents we’ve outlined above.

Technical writing elements

• Embrace active voice because it eliminates the awkward phrasing and wordiness that accompanies passive voice.
• Use the present tense, which should also be employed in the Introduction.
• Sprinkle with first person pronouns if needed, but generally, avoid it. We want to focus on your findings.
• Maintain an objective and analytical tone.

Discussion section organization

• Keep the same flow across the Results, Methods, and Discussion sections.
• We develop a rhythm as we read and parallel structures facilitate our comprehension. When you organize information the same way in each of these related parts of your journal manuscript, we can quickly see how a certain result was interpreted and quickly verify the particular methods used to produce that result.
• Notice how using parallel structure will eliminate extra narration in the Discussion part since we can anticipate the flow of your ideas based on what we read in the Results segment. Reducing wordiness is important when you only have a few paragraphs to devote to the Discussion section!
• Within each subpart of a Discussion, the information should flow as follows: (A) conclusion first, (B) relevant results and how they relate to that conclusion and (C) relevant literature.
• End with a concise summary explaining the big-picture impact of your study on our understanding of the subject matter. At the beginning of your Discussion section, you stated why  this  particular study was needed to fill the gap you noticed and why that gap needed filling in the first place. Now, it is time to end with “how your research filled that gap.”

Discussion Part 1: Summarizing Key Findings

Begin the Discussion section by restating your  statement of the problem  and briefly summarizing the major results. Do not simply repeat your findings. Rather, try to create a concise statement of the main results that directly answer the central research question that you stated in the Introduction section . This content should not be longer than one paragraph in length.

Many researchers struggle with understanding the precise differences between a Discussion section and a Results section . The most important thing to remember here is that your Discussion section should subjectively evaluate the findings presented in the Results section, and in relatively the same order. Keep these sections distinct by making sure that you do not repeat the findings without providing an interpretation.

Phrase examples: Summarizing the results

• The findings indicate that …
• These results suggest a correlation between A and B …
• The data present here suggest that …
• An interpretation of the findings reveals a connection between…

Discussion Part 2: Interpreting the Findings

What do the results mean? It may seem obvious to you, but simply looking at the figures in the Results section will not necessarily convey to readers the importance of the findings in answering your research questions.

The exact structure of interpretations depends on the type of research being conducted. Here are some common approaches to interpreting data:

• Identifying correlations and relationships in the findings
• Explaining whether the results confirm or undermine your research hypothesis
• Giving the findings context within the history of similar research studies
• Discussing unexpected results and analyzing their significance to your study or general research
• Offering alternative explanations and arguing for your position

Organize the Discussion section around key arguments, themes, hypotheses, or research questions or problems. Again, make sure to follow the same order as you did in the Results section.

Discussion Part 3: Discussing the Implications

In addition to providing your own interpretations, show how your results fit into the wider scholarly literature you surveyed in the  literature review section. This section is called the implications of the study . Show where and how these results fit into existing knowledge, what additional insights they contribute, and any possible consequences that might arise from this knowledge, both in the specific research topic and in the wider scientific domain.

Questions to ask yourself when dealing with potential implications:

• Do your findings fall in line with existing theories, or do they challenge these theories or findings? What new information do they contribute to the literature, if any? How exactly do these findings impact or conflict with existing theories or models?
• What are the practical implications on actual subjects or demographics?
• What are the methodological implications for similar studies conducted either in the past or future?

Your purpose in giving the implications is to spell out exactly what your study has contributed and why researchers and other readers should be interested.

Phrase examples: Discussing the implications of the research

• These results confirm the existing evidence in X studies…
• The results are not in line with the foregoing theory that…
• This experiment provides new insights into the connection between…
• These findings present a more nuanced understanding of…
• While previous studies have focused on X, these results demonstrate that Y.

Step 4: Acknowledging the limitations

All research has study limitations of one sort or another. Acknowledging limitations in methodology or approach helps strengthen your credibility as a researcher. Study limitations are not simply a list of mistakes made in the study. Rather, limitations help provide a more detailed picture of what can or cannot be concluded from your findings. In essence, they help temper and qualify the study implications you listed previously.

Study limitations can relate to research design, specific methodological or material choices, or unexpected issues that emerged while you conducted the research. Mention only those limitations directly relate to your research questions, and explain what impact these limitations had on how your study was conducted and the validity of any interpretations.

Possible types of study limitations:

• Insufficient sample size for statistical measurements
• Lack of previous research studies on the topic
• Methods/instruments/techniques used to collect the data
• Limited access to data
• Time constraints in properly preparing and executing the study

After discussing the study limitations, you can also stress that your results are still valid. Give some specific reasons why the limitations do not necessarily handicap your study or narrow its scope.

Phrase examples: Limitations sentence beginners

• “There may be some possible limitations in this study.”
• “The findings of this study have to be seen in light of some limitations.”
•  “The first limitation is the…The second limitation concerns the…”
•  “The empirical results reported herein should be considered in the light of some limitations.”
• “This research, however, is subject to several limitations.”
• “The primary limitation to the generalization of these results is…”
• “Nonetheless, these results must be interpreted with caution and a number of limitations should be borne in mind.”

Discussion Part 5: Giving Recommendations for Further Research

Based on your interpretation and discussion of the findings, your recommendations can include practical changes to the study or specific further research to be conducted to clarify the research questions. Recommendations are often listed in a separate Conclusion section , but often this is just the final paragraph of the Discussion section.

Suggestions for further research often stem directly from the limitations outlined. Rather than simply stating that “further research should be conducted,” provide concrete specifics for how future can help answer questions that your research could not.

Phrase examples: Recommendation sentence beginners

• Further research is needed to establish …
• There is abundant space for further progress in analyzing…
• A further study with more focus on X should be done to investigate…
• Further studies of X that account for these variables must be undertaken.

Consider Receiving Professional Language Editing

As you edit or draft your research manuscript, we hope that you implement these guidelines to produce a more effective Discussion section. And after completing your draft, don’t forget to submit your work to a professional proofreading and English editing service like Wordvice, including our manuscript editing service for  paper editing , cover letter editing , SOP editing , and personal statement proofreading services. Language editors not only proofread and correct errors in grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and formatting but also improve terms and revise phrases so they read more naturally. Wordvice is an industry leader in providing high-quality revision for all types of academic documents.

For additional information about how to write a strong research paper, make sure to check out our full  research writing series !

Wordvice Writing Resources

• How to Write a Research Paper Introduction 
• Which Verb Tenses to Use in a Research Paper
• How to Write an Abstract for a Research Paper
• How to Write a Research Paper Title
• Useful Phrases for Academic Writing
• Common Transition Terms in Academic Papers
• Active and Passive Voice in Research Papers
• 100+ Verbs That Will Make Your Research Writing Amazing
• Tips for Paraphrasing in Research Papers

Additional Academic Resources

•   Guide for Authors.  (Elsevier)
•  How to Write the Results Section of a Research Paper.  (Bates College)
•   Structure of a Research Paper.  (University of Minnesota Biomedical Library)
•   How to Choose a Target Journal  (Springer)
•   How to Write Figures and Tables  (UNC Writing Center)

• Langson Library
• Science Library
• Grunigen Medical Library
• Law Library
• Connect From Off-Campus
• Accessibility
• Gateway Study Center

Email this link

Writing a scientific paper.

• Writing a lab report
• INTRODUCTION

Writing a "good" discussion section

"discussion and conclusions checklist" from: how to write a good scientific paper. chris a. mack. spie. 2018., peer review.

• LITERATURE CITED
• Bibliography of guides to scientific writing and presenting
• Presentations
• Lab Report Writing Guides on the Web

This is is usually the hardest section to write. You are trying to bring out the true meaning of your data without being too long. Do not use words to conceal your facts or reasoning. Also do not repeat your results, this is a discussion.

• Present principles, relationships and generalizations shown by the results
• Point out exceptions or lack of correlations. Define why you think this is so.
• Show how your results agree or disagree with previously published works
• Discuss the theoretical implications of your work as well as practical applications
• State your conclusions clearly. Summarize your evidence for each conclusion.
• Discuss the significance of the results
•  Evidence does not explain itself; the results must be presented and then explained.
• Typical stages in the discussion: summarizing the results, discussing whether results are expected or unexpected, comparing these results to previous work, interpreting and explaining the results (often by comparison to a theory or model), and hypothesizing about their generality.
• Discuss any problems or shortcomings encountered during the course of the work.
• Discuss possible alternate explanations for the results.
• Avoid: presenting results that are never discussed; presenting discussion that does not relate to any of the results; presenting results and discussion in chronological order rather than logical order; ignoring results that do not support the conclusions; drawing conclusions from results without logical arguments to back them up. 

CONCLUSIONS

• Provide a very brief summary of the Results and Discussion.
• Emphasize the implications of the findings, explaining how the work is significant and providing the key message(s) the author wishes to convey.
• Provide the most general claims that can be supported by the evidence.
• Provide a future perspective on the work.
• Avoid: repeating the abstract; repeating background information from the Introduction; introducing new evidence or new arguments not found in the Results and Discussion; repeating the arguments made in the Results and Discussion; failing to address all of the research questions set out in the Introduction. 

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER I COMPLETE MY PAPER?

 The peer review process is the quality control step in the publication of ideas.  Papers that are submitted to a journal for publication are sent out to several scientists (peers) who look carefully at the paper to see if it is "good science".  These reviewers then recommend to the editor of a journal whether or not a paper should be published. Most journals have publication guidelines. Ask for them and follow them exactly.    Peer reviewers examine the soundness of the materials and methods section.  Are the materials and methods used written clearly enough for another scientist to reproduce the experiment?  Other areas they look at are: originality of research, significance of research question studied, soundness of the discussion and interpretation, correct spelling and use of technical terms, and length of the article.

• << Previous: RESULTS
• Next: LITERATURE CITED >>
• Last Updated: Aug 4, 2023 9:33 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uci.edu/scientificwriting

Off-campus? Please use the Software VPN and choose the group UCIFull to access licensed content. For more information, please Click here

Software VPN is not available for guests, so they may not have access to some content when connecting from off-campus.

• Research Paper Guides
• Basics of Research Paper Writing

How to Write a Discussion Section: Writing Guide

• Speech Topics
• Basics of Essay Writing
• Essay Topics
• Other Essays
• Main Academic Essays
• Research Paper Topics
• Miscellaneous
• Chicago/ Turabian
• Data & Statistics
• Methodology
• Admission Writing Tips
• Admission Advice
• Other Guides
• Student Life
• Studying Tips
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Academic Writing Tips
• Basics of Dissertation & Thesis Writing

• Essay Guides
• Formatting Guides
• Basics of Research Process
• Admission Guides
• Dissertation & Thesis Guides

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

The discussion section of a research paper is where the author analyzes and explains the importance of the study's results. It presents the conclusions drawn from the study, compares them to previous research, and addresses any potential limitations or weaknesses. The discussion section should also suggest areas for future research.

Everything is not that complicated if you know where to find the required information. We’ll tell you everything there is to know about writing your discussion. Our easy guide covers all important bits, including research questions and your research results. Do you know how all enumerated events are connected? Well, you will after reading this guide we’ve prepared for you!

What Is in the Discussion Section of a Research Paper

The discussion section of a research paper can be viewed as something similar to the conclusion of your paper. But not literal, of course. It’s an ultimate section where you can talk about the findings of your study. Think about these questions when writing:

• Did you answer all of the promised research questions?
• Did you mention why your work matters?
• What are your findings, and why should anyone even care?
• Does your study have a literature review?

So, answer your questions, provide proof, and don’t forget about your promises from the introduction. 

How to Write a Discussion Section in 5 Steps

How to write the discussion section of a research paper is something everyone googles eventually. It's just life. But why not make everything easier? In brief, this section we’re talking about must include all following parts:

• Answers for research questions
• Literature review
• Results of the work
• Limitations of one’s study
• Overall conclusion

Indeed, all those parts may confuse anyone. So by looking at our guide, you'll save yourself some hassle.  P.S. All our steps are easy and explained in detail! But if you are looking for the most efficient solution, consider using professional help. Leave your “ write my research paper for me ” order at StudyCrumb and get a customized study tailored to your requirements.

Step 1. Start Strong: Discussion Section of a Research Paper

First and foremost, how to start the discussion section of a research paper? Here’s what you should definitely consider before settling down to start writing:

• All essays or papers must begin strong. All readers will not wait for any writer to get to the point. We advise summarizing the paper's main findings.
• Moreover, you should relate both discussion and literature review to what you have discovered. Mentioning that would be a plus too.
• Make sure that an introduction or start per se is clear and concise. Word count might be needed for school. But any paper should be understandable and not too diluted.

Step 2. Answer the Questions in Your Discussion Section of a Research Paper

Writing the discussion section of a research paper also involves mentioning your questions. Remember that in your introduction, you have promised your readers to answer certain questions. Well, now it’s a perfect time to finally give the awaited answer. You need to explain all possible correlations between your findings, research questions, and literature proposed. You already had hypotheses. So were they correct, or maybe you want to propose certain corrections? Section’s main goal is to avoid open ends. It’s not a story or a fairytale with an intriguing ending. If you have several questions, you must answer them. As simple as that.

Step 3. Relate Your Results in a Discussion Section

Writing a discussion section of a research paper also requires any writer to explain their results. You will undoubtedly include an impactful literature review. However, your readers should not just try and struggle with understanding what are some specific relationships behind previous studies and your results.  Your results should sound something like: “This guy in their paper discovered that apples are green. Nevertheless, I have proven via experimentation and research that apples are actually red.” Please, don’t take these results directly. It’s just an initial hypothesis. But what you should definitely remember is any practical implications of your study. Why does it matter and how can anyone use it? That’s the most crucial question.

Step 4. Describe the Limitations in Your Discussion Section

Discussion section of a research paper isn’t limitless. What does that mean? Essentially, it means that you also have to discuss any limitations of your study. Maybe you had some methodological inconsistencies. Possibly, there are no particular theories or not enough information for you to be entirely confident in one’s conclusions.  You might say that an available source of literature you have studied does not focus on one’s issue. That’s why one’s main limitation is theoretical. However, keep in mind that your limitations must possess a certain degree of relevancy. You can just say that you haven’t found enough books. Your information must be truthful to research.

Step 5. Conclude Your Discussion Section With Recommendations

Your last step when you write a discussion section in a paper is its conclusion, like in any other academic work. Writer’s conclusion must be as strong as their starting point of the overall work. Check out our brief list of things to know about the conclusion in research paper :

• It must present its scientific relevance and importance of your work.
• It should include different implications of your research.
• It should not, however, discuss anything new or things that you have not mentioned before.
• Leave no open questions and carefully complete the work without them.

Discussion Section of a Research Paper Example

All the best example discussion sections of a research paper will be written according to our brief guide. Don’t forget that you need to state your findings and underline the importance of your work. An undoubtedly big part of one’s discussion will definitely be answering and explaining the research questions. In other words, you’ll already have all the knowledge you have so carefully gathered. Our last step for you is to recollect and wrap up your paper. But we’re sure you’ll succeed!

How to Write a Discussion Section: Final Thoughts

Today we have covered how to write a discussion section. That was quite a brief journey, wasn’t it? Just to remind you to focus on these things:

• Importance of your study.
• Summary of the information you have gathered.
• Main findings and conclusions.
• Answers to all research questions without an open end.
• Correlation between literature review and your results.

But, wait, this guide is not the only thing we can do. Looking for how to write an abstract for a research paper  for example? We have such a blog and much more on our platform.

Our academic writing service is just a click away. We are proud to say that our writers are professionals in their fields. Buy a research paper and our experts can provide prompt solutions without compromising the quality.

Discussion Section of a Research Paper: Frequently Asked Questions

1. how long should the discussion section of a research paper be.

Our discussion section of a research paper should not be longer than other sections. So try to keep it short but as informative as possible. It usually contains around 6-7 paragraphs in length. It is enough to briefly summarize all the important data and not to drag it.

2. What's the difference between the discussion and the results?

The difference between discussion and results is very simple and easy to understand. The results only report your main findings. You stated what you have found and how you have done that. In contrast, one’s discussion mentions your findings and explains how they relate to other literature, research questions, and one’s hypothesis. Therefore, it is not only a report but an efficient as well as proper explanation.

3. What's the difference between a discussion and a conclusion?

The difference between discussion and conclusion is also quite easy. Conclusion is a brief summary of all the findings and results. Still, our favorite discussion section interprets and explains your main results. It is an important but more lengthy and wordy part. Besides, it uses extra literature for references.

4. What is the purpose of the discussion section?

The primary purpose of a discussion section is to interpret and describe all your interesting findings. Therefore, you should state what you have learned, whether your hypothesis was correct and how your results can be explained using other sources. If this section is clear to readers, our congratulations as you have succeeded.

Joe Eckel is an expert on Dissertations writing. He makes sure that each student gets precious insights on composing A-grade academic writing.

You may also like

Guide to Writing the Results and Discussion Sections of a Scientific Article

A quality research paper has both the qualities of in-depth research and good writing ( Bordage, 2001 ). In addition, a research paper must be clear, concise, and effective when presenting the information in an organized structure with a logical manner ( Sandercock, 2013 ).

In this article, we will take a closer look at the results and discussion section. Composing each of these carefully with sufficient data and well-constructed arguments can help improve your paper overall.

The results section of your research paper contains a description about the main findings of your research, whereas the discussion section interprets the results for readers and provides the significance of the findings. The discussion should not repeat the results.

Let’s dive in a little deeper about how to properly, and clearly organize each part.

How to Organize the Results Section

Since your results follow your methods, you’ll want to provide information about what you discovered from the methods you used, such as your research data. In other words, what were the outcomes of the methods you used?

You may also include information about the measurement of your data, variables, treatments, and statistical analyses.

To start, organize your research data based on how important those are in relation to your research questions. This section should focus on showing major results that support or reject your research hypothesis. Include your least important data as supplemental materials when submitting to the journal.

The next step is to prioritize your research data based on importance – focusing heavily on the information that directly relates to your research questions using the subheadings.

The organization of the subheadings for the results section usually mirrors the methods section. It should follow a logical and chronological order.

Subheading organization

Subheadings within your results section are primarily going to detail major findings within each important experiment. And the first paragraph of your results section should be dedicated to your main findings (findings that answer your overall research question and lead to your conclusion) (Hofmann, 2013).

In the book “Writing in the Biological Sciences,” author Angelika Hofmann recommends you structure your results subsection paragraphs as follows:

• Experimental purpose
• Interpretation

Each subheading may contain a combination of ( Bahadoran, 2019 ; Hofmann, 2013, pg. 62-63):

• Text: to explain about the research data
• Figures: to display the research data and to show trends or relationships, for examples using graphs or gel pictures.
• Tables: to represent a large data and exact value

Decide on the best way to present your data — in the form of text, figures or tables (Hofmann, 2013).

Data or Results?

Sometimes we get confused about how to differentiate between data and results . Data are information (facts or numbers) that you collected from your research ( Bahadoran, 2019 ).

Whereas, results are the texts presenting the meaning of your research data ( Bahadoran, 2019 ).

One mistake that some authors often make is to use text to direct the reader to find a specific table or figure without further explanation. This can confuse readers when they interpret data completely different from what the authors had in mind. So, you should briefly explain your data to make your information clear for the readers.

Common Elements in Figures and Tables

Figures and tables present information about your research data visually. The use of these visual elements is necessary so readers can summarize, compare, and interpret large data at a glance. You can use graphs or figures to compare groups or patterns. Whereas, tables are ideal to present large quantities of data and exact values.

Several components are needed to create your figures and tables. These elements are important to sort your data based on groups (or treatments). It will be easier for the readers to see the similarities and differences among the groups.

When presenting your research data in the form of figures and tables, organize your data based on the steps of the research leading you into a conclusion.

Common elements of the figures (Bahadoran, 2019):

• Figure number
• Figure title
• Figure legend (for example a brief title, experimental/statistical information, or definition of symbols).

Tables in the result section may contain several elements (Bahadoran, 2019):

• Table number
• Table title
• Row headings (for example groups)
• Column headings
• Row subheadings (for example categories or groups)
• Column subheadings (for example categories or variables)
• Footnotes (for example statistical analyses)

Tips to Write the Results Section

• Direct the reader to the research data and explain the meaning of the data.
• Avoid using a repetitive sentence structure to explain a new set of data.
• Write and highlight important findings in your results.
• Use the same order as the subheadings of the methods section.
• Match the results with the research questions from the introduction. Your results should answer your research questions.
• Be sure to mention the figures and tables in the body of your text.
• Make sure there is no mismatch between the table number or the figure number in text and in figure/tables.
• Only present data that support the significance of your study. You can provide additional data in tables and figures as supplementary material.

How to Organize the Discussion Section

It’s not enough to use figures and tables in your results section to convince your readers about the importance of your findings. You need to support your results section by providing more explanation in the discussion section about what you found.

In the discussion section, based on your findings, you defend the answers to your research questions and create arguments to support your conclusions.

Below is a list of questions to guide you when organizing the structure of your discussion section ( Viera et al ., 2018 ):

• What experiments did you conduct and what were the results?
• What do the results mean?
• What were the important results from your study?
• How did the results answer your research questions?
• Did your results support your hypothesis or reject your hypothesis?
• What are the variables or factors that might affect your results?
• What were the strengths and limitations of your study?
• What other published works support your findings?
• What other published works contradict your findings?
• What possible factors might cause your findings different from other findings?
• What is the significance of your research?
• What are new research questions to explore based on your findings?

Organizing the Discussion Section

The structure of the discussion section may be different from one paper to another, but it commonly has a beginning, middle-, and end- to the section.

One way to organize the structure of the discussion section is by dividing it into three parts (Ghasemi, 2019):

• The beginning: The first sentence of the first paragraph should state the importance and the new findings of your research. The first paragraph may also include answers to your research questions mentioned in your introduction section.
• The middle: The middle should contain the interpretations of the results to defend your answers, the strength of the study, the limitations of the study, and an update literature review that validates your findings.
• The end: The end concludes the study and the significance of your research.

Another possible way to organize the discussion section was proposed by Michael Docherty in British Medical Journal: is by using this structure ( Docherty, 1999 ):

• Discussion of important findings
• Comparison of your results with other published works
• Include the strengths and limitations of the study
• Conclusion and possible implications of your study, including the significance of your study – address why and how is it meaningful
• Future research questions based on your findings

Finally, a last option is structuring your discussion this way (Hofmann, 2013, pg. 104):

• First Paragraph: Provide an interpretation based on your key findings. Then support your interpretation with evidence.
• Secondary results
• Limitations
• Unexpected findings
• Comparisons to previous publications
• Last Paragraph: The last paragraph should provide a summarization (conclusion) along with detailing the significance, implications and potential next steps.

Remember, at the heart of the discussion section is presenting an interpretation of your major findings.

Tips to Write the Discussion Section

• Highlight the significance of your findings
• Mention how the study will fill a gap in knowledge.
• Indicate the implication of your research.
• Avoid generalizing, misinterpreting your results, drawing a conclusion with no supportive findings from your results.

Aggarwal, R., & Sahni, P. (2018). The Results Section. In Reporting and Publishing Research in the Biomedical Sciences (pp. 21-38): Springer.

Bahadoran, Z., Mirmiran, P., Zadeh-Vakili, A., Hosseinpanah, F., & Ghasemi, A. (2019). The principles of biomedical scientific writing: Results. International journal of endocrinology and metabolism, 17(2).

Bordage, G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Academic medicine, 76(9), 889-896.

Cals, J. W., & Kotz, D. (2013). Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part VI: discussion. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 66(10), 1064.

Docherty, M., & Smith, R. (1999). The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers: Much the same as that for structuring abstracts. In: British Medical Journal Publishing Group.

Faber, J. (2017). Writing scientific manuscripts: most common mistakes. Dental press journal of orthodontics, 22(5), 113-117.

Fletcher, R. H., & Fletcher, S. W. (2018). The discussion section. In Reporting and Publishing Research in the Biomedical Sciences (pp. 39-48): Springer.

Ghasemi, A., Bahadoran, Z., Mirmiran, P., Hosseinpanah, F., Shiva, N., & Zadeh-Vakili, A. (2019). The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Discussion. International journal of endocrinology and metabolism, 17(3).

Hofmann, A. H. (2013). Writing in the biological sciences: a comprehensive resource for scientific communication . New York: Oxford University Press.

Kotz, D., & Cals, J. W. (2013). Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part V: results. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 66(9), 945.

Mack, C. (2014). How to Write a Good Scientific Paper: Structure and Organization. Journal of Micro/ Nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS, 13. doi:10.1117/1.JMM.13.4.040101

Moore, A. (2016). What's in a Discussion section? Exploiting 2‐dimensionality in the online world…. Bioessays, 38(12), 1185-1185.

Peat, J., Elliott, E., Baur, L., & Keena, V. (2013). Scientific writing: easy when you know how: John Wiley & Sons.

Sandercock, P. M. L. (2012). How to write and publish a scientific article. Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, 45(1), 1-5.

Teo, E. K. (2016). Effective Medical Writing: The Write Way to Get Published. Singapore Medical Journal, 57(9), 523-523. doi:10.11622/smedj.2016156

Van Way III, C. W. (2007). Writing a scientific paper. Nutrition in Clinical Practice, 22(6), 636-640.

Vieira, R. F., Lima, R. C. d., & Mizubuti, E. S. G. (2019). How to write the discussion section of a scientific article. Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, 41.

Related Articles

A quality research paper has both the qualities of in-depth research and good writing (Bordage, 200...

How to Survive and Complete a Thesis or a Dissertation

Writing a thesis or a dissertation can be a challenging process for many graduate students. There ar...

15 Laboratory Notebook Tips to Help with your Research Manuscript

Your lab notebook is a foundation to your research manuscript. It serves almost as a rudimentary dra...

What is a Good Way to Read a Scientific Paper?

Have you wished you could read a scientific article like reading a newspaper article? More often, it...

Join our list to receive promos and articles.

• Competent Cells
• Lab Startup
• Z')" data-type="collection" title="Products A->Z" target="_self" href="/collection/products-a-to-z">Products A->Z
• GoldBio Resources
• GoldBio Sales Team
• GoldBio Distributors
• Duchefa Direct
• Sign up for Promos
• Terms & Conditions
• ISO Certification
• Agarose Resins
• Antibiotics & Selection
• Biochemical Reagents
• Bioluminescence
• Buffers & Reagents
• Cell Culture
• Cloning & Induction
• Competent Cells and Transformation
• Detergents & Membrane Agents
• DNA Amplification
• Enzymes, Inhibitors & Substrates
• Growth Factors and Cytokines
• Lab Tools & Accessories
• Plant Research and Reagents
• Protein Research & Analysis
• Protein Expression & Purification
• Reducing Agents

How To Write The Discussion Chapter

A Simple Explainer With Examples + Free Template

By: Jenna Crossley (PhD) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | August 2021

If you’re reading this, chances are you’ve reached the discussion chapter of your thesis or dissertation and are looking for a bit of guidance. Well, you’ve come to the right place ! In this post, we’ll unpack and demystify the typical discussion chapter in straightforward, easy to understand language, with loads of examples .

Overview: The Discussion Chapter

• What  the discussion chapter is
• What to include in your discussion
• How to write up your discussion
• A few tips and tricks to help you along the way
• Free discussion template

What (exactly) is the discussion chapter?

The discussion chapter is where you interpret and explain your results within your thesis or dissertation. This contrasts with the results chapter, where you merely present and describe the analysis findings (whether qualitative or quantitative ). In the discussion chapter, you elaborate on and evaluate your research findings, and discuss the significance and implications of your results .

In this chapter, you’ll situate your research findings in terms of your research questions or hypotheses and tie them back to previous studies and literature (which you would have covered in your literature review chapter). You’ll also have a look at how relevant and/or significant your findings are to your field of research, and you’ll argue for the conclusions that you draw from your analysis. Simply put, the discussion chapter is there for you to interact with and explain your research findings in a thorough and coherent manner.

What should I include in the discussion chapter?

First things first: in some studies, the results and discussion chapter are combined into one chapter .  This depends on the type of study you conducted (i.e., the nature of the study and methodology adopted), as well as the standards set by the university.  So, check in with your university regarding their norms and expectations before getting started. In this post, we’ll treat the two chapters as separate, as this is most common.

Basically, your discussion chapter should analyse , explore the meaning and identify the importance of the data you presented in your results chapter. In the discussion chapter, you’ll give your results some form of meaning by evaluating and interpreting them. This will help answer your research questions, achieve your research aims and support your overall conclusion (s). Therefore, you discussion chapter should focus on findings that are directly connected to your research aims and questions. Don’t waste precious time and word count on findings that are not central to the purpose of your research project.

As this chapter is a reflection of your results chapter, it’s vital that you don’t report any new findings . In other words, you can’t present claims here if you didn’t present the relevant data in the results chapter first.  So, make sure that for every discussion point you raise in this chapter, you’ve covered the respective data analysis in the results chapter. If you haven’t, you’ll need to go back and adjust your results chapter accordingly.

If you’re struggling to get started, try writing down a bullet point list everything you found in your results chapter. From this, you can make a list of everything you need to cover in your discussion chapter. Also, make sure you revisit your research questions or hypotheses and incorporate the relevant discussion to address these.  This will also help you to see how you can structure your chapter logically.

Need a helping hand?

How to write the discussion chapter

Now that you’ve got a clear idea of what the discussion chapter is and what it needs to include, let’s look at how you can go about structuring this critically important chapter. Broadly speaking, there are six core components that need to be included, and these can be treated as steps in the chapter writing process.

Step 1: Restate your research problem and research questions

The first step in writing up your discussion chapter is to remind your reader of your research problem , as well as your research aim(s) and research questions . If you have hypotheses, you can also briefly mention these. This “reminder” is very important because, after reading dozens of pages, the reader may have forgotten the original point of your research or been swayed in another direction. It’s also likely that some readers skip straight to your discussion chapter from the introduction chapter , so make sure that your research aims and research questions are clear.

Step 2: Summarise your key findings

Next, you’ll want to summarise your key findings from your results chapter. This may look different for qualitative and quantitative research , where qualitative research may report on themes and relationships, whereas quantitative research may touch on correlations and causal relationships. Regardless of the methodology, in this section you need to highlight the overall key findings in relation to your research questions.

Typically, this section only requires one or two paragraphs , depending on how many research questions you have. Aim to be concise here, as you will unpack these findings in more detail later in the chapter. For now, a few lines that directly address your research questions are all that you need.

Some examples of the kind of language you’d use here include:

• The data suggest that…
• The data support/oppose the theory that…
• The analysis identifies…

These are purely examples. What you present here will be completely dependent on your original research questions, so make sure that you are led by them .

Step 3: Interpret your results

Once you’ve restated your research problem and research question(s) and briefly presented your key findings, you can unpack your findings by interpreting your results. Remember: only include what you reported in your results section – don’t introduce new information.

From a structural perspective, it can be a wise approach to follow a similar structure in this chapter as you did in your results chapter. This would help improve readability and make it easier for your reader to follow your arguments. For example, if you structured you results discussion by qualitative themes, it may make sense to do the same here.

Alternatively, you may structure this chapter by research questions, or based on an overarching theoretical framework that your study revolved around. Every study is different, so you’ll need to assess what structure works best for you.

When interpreting your results, you’ll want to assess how your findings compare to those of the existing research (from your literature review chapter). Even if your findings contrast with the existing research, you need to include these in your discussion. In fact, those contrasts are often the most interesting findings . In this case, you’d want to think about why you didn’t find what you were expecting in your data and what the significance of this contrast is.

Here are a few questions to help guide your discussion:

• How do your results relate with those of previous studies ?
• If you get results that differ from those of previous studies, why may this be the case?
• What do your results contribute to your field of research?
• What other explanations could there be for your findings?

When interpreting your findings, be careful not to draw conclusions that aren’t substantiated . Every claim you make needs to be backed up with evidence or findings from the data (and that data needs to be presented in the previous chapter – results). This can look different for different studies; qualitative data may require quotes as evidence, whereas quantitative data would use statistical methods and tests. Whatever the case, every claim you make needs to be strongly backed up.

Step 4: Acknowledge the limitations of your study

The fourth step in writing up your discussion chapter is to acknowledge the limitations of the study. These limitations can cover any part of your study , from the scope or theoretical basis to the analysis method(s) or sample. For example, you may find that you collected data from a very small sample with unique characteristics, which would mean that you are unable to generalise your results to the broader population.

For some students, discussing the limitations of their work can feel a little bit self-defeating . This is a misconception, as a core indicator of high-quality research is its ability to accurately identify its weaknesses. In other words, accurately stating the limitations of your work is a strength, not a weakness . All that said, be careful not to undermine your own research. Tell the reader what limitations exist and what improvements could be made, but also remind them of the value of your study despite its limitations.

Step 5: Make recommendations for implementation and future research

Now that you’ve unpacked your findings and acknowledge the limitations thereof, the next thing you’ll need to do is reflect on your study in terms of two factors:

• The practical application of your findings
• Suggestions for future research

The first thing to discuss is how your findings can be used in the real world – in other words, what contribution can they make to the field or industry? Where are these contributions applicable, how and why? For example, if your research is on communication in health settings, in what ways can your findings be applied to the context of a hospital or medical clinic? Make sure that you spell this out for your reader in practical terms, but also be realistic and make sure that any applications are feasible.

The next discussion point is the opportunity for future research . In other words, how can other studies build on what you’ve found and also improve the findings by overcoming some of the limitations in your study (which you discussed a little earlier). In doing this, you’ll want to investigate whether your results fit in with findings of previous research, and if not, why this may be the case. For example, are there any factors that you didn’t consider in your study? What future research can be done to remedy this? When you write up your suggestions, make sure that you don’t just say that more research is needed on the topic, also comment on how the research can build on your study.

Step 6: Provide a concluding summary

Finally, you’ve reached your final stretch. In this section, you’ll want to provide a brief recap of the key findings – in other words, the findings that directly address your research questions . Basically, your conclusion should tell the reader what your study has found, and what they need to take away from reading your report.

When writing up your concluding summary, bear in mind that some readers may skip straight to this section from the beginning of the chapter.  So, make sure that this section flows well from and has a strong connection to the opening section of the chapter.

Tips and tricks for an A-grade discussion chapter

Now that you know what the discussion chapter is , what to include and exclude , and how to structure it , here are some tips and suggestions to help you craft a quality discussion chapter.

• When you write up your discussion chapter, make sure that you keep it consistent with your introduction chapter , as some readers will skip from the introduction chapter directly to the discussion chapter. Your discussion should use the same tense as your introduction, and it should also make use of the same key terms.
• Don’t make assumptions about your readers. As a writer, you have hands-on experience with the data and so it can be easy to present it in an over-simplified manner. Make sure that you spell out your findings and interpretations for the intelligent layman.
• Have a look at other theses and dissertations from your institution, especially the discussion sections. This will help you to understand the standards and conventions of your university, and you’ll also get a good idea of how others have structured their discussion chapters. You can also check out our chapter template .
• Avoid using absolute terms such as “These results prove that…”, rather make use of terms such as “suggest” or “indicate”, where you could say, “These results suggest that…” or “These results indicate…”. It is highly unlikely that a dissertation or thesis will scientifically prove something (due to a variety of resource constraints), so be humble in your language.
• Use well-structured and consistently formatted headings to ensure that your reader can easily navigate between sections, and so that your chapter flows logically and coherently.

If you have any questions or thoughts regarding this post, feel free to leave a comment below. Also, if you’re looking for one-on-one help with your discussion chapter (or thesis in general), consider booking a free consultation with one of our highly experienced Grad Coaches to discuss how we can help you.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

38 Comments

Thank you this is helpful!

This is very helpful to me… Thanks a lot for sharing this with us 😊

This has been very helpful indeed. Thank you.

This is actually really helpful, I just stumbled upon it. Very happy that I found it, thank you.

Me too! I was kinda lost on how to approach my discussion chapter. How helpful! Thanks a lot!

This is really good and explicit. Thanks

Thank you, this blog has been such a help.

Thank you. This is very helpful.

Dear sir/madame

Thanks a lot for this helpful blog. Really, it supported me in writing my discussion chapter while I was totally unaware about its structure and method of writing.

With regards

Syed Firoz Ahmad PhD, Research Scholar

I agree so much. This blog was god sent. It assisted me so much while I was totally clueless about the context and the know-how. Now I am fully aware of what I am to do and how I am to do it.

Thanks! This is helpful!

thanks alot for this informative website

Dear Sir/Madam,

Truly, your article was much benefited when i structured my discussion chapter.

Thank you very much!!!

This is helpful for me in writing my research discussion component. I have to copy this text on Microsoft word cause of my weakness that I cannot be able to read the text on screen a long time. So many thanks for this articles.

This was helpful

Thanks Jenna, well explained.

Thank you! This is super helpful.

Thanks very much. I have appreciated the six steps on writing the Discussion chapter which are (i) Restating the research problem and questions (ii) Summarising the key findings (iii) Interpreting the results linked to relating to previous results in positive and negative ways; explaining whay different or same and contribution to field of research and expalnation of findings (iv) Acknowledgeing limitations (v) Recommendations for implementation and future resaerch and finally (vi) Providing a conscluding summary

My two questions are: 1. On step 1 and 2 can it be the overall or you restate and sumamrise on each findings based on the reaerch question? 2. On 4 and 5 do you do the acknowlledgement , recommendations on each research finding or overall. This is not clear from your expalanattion.

Please respond.

This post is very useful. I’m wondering whether practical implications must be introduced in the Discussion section or in the Conclusion section?

This is very instructive and educative

Sigh, I never knew a 20 min video could have literally save my life like this. I found this at the right time!!!! Everything I need to know in one video thanks a mil ! OMGG and that 6 step!!!!!! was the cherry on top the cake!!!!!!!!!

Thanks alot.., I have gained much

This piece is very helpful on how to go about my discussion section. I can always recommend GradCoach research guides for colleagues.

Many thanks for this resource. It has been very helpful to me. I was finding it hard to even write the first sentence. Much appreciated.

Thanks so much. Very helpful to know what is included in the discussion section

this was a very helpful and useful information

This is very helpful. Very very helpful. Thanks for sharing this online!

it is very helpfull article, and i will recommend it to my fellow students. Thank you.

Superlative! More grease to your elbows.

Powerful, thank you for sharing.

Wow! Just wow! God bless the day I stumbled upon you guys’ YouTube videos! It’s been truly life changing and anxiety about my report that is due in less than a month has subsided significantly!

Simplified explanation. Well done.

The presentation is enlightening. Thank you very much.

Thanks for the support and guidance

This has been a great help to me and thank you do much

I second that “it is highly unlikely that a dissertation or thesis will scientifically prove something”; although, could you enlighten us on that comment and elaborate more please?

Sure, no problem.

Scientific proof is generally considered a very strong assertion that something is definitively and universally true. In most scientific disciplines, especially within the realms of natural and social sciences, absolute proof is very rare. Instead, researchers aim to provide evidence that supports or rejects hypotheses. This evidence increases or decreases the likelihood that a particular theory is correct, but it rarely proves something in the absolute sense.

Dissertations and theses, as substantial as they are, typically focus on exploring a specific question or problem within a larger field of study. They contribute to a broader conversation and body of knowledge. The aim is often to provide detailed insight, extend understanding, and suggest directions for further research rather than to offer definitive proof. These academic works are part of a cumulative process of knowledge building where each piece of research connects with others to gradually enhance our understanding of complex phenomena.

Furthermore, the rigorous nature of scientific inquiry involves continuous testing, validation, and potential refutation of ideas. What might be considered a “proof” at one point can later be challenged by new evidence or alternative interpretations. Therefore, the language of “proof” is cautiously used in academic circles to maintain scientific integrity and humility.

This was very helpful, thank you!

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

How to Start a Discussion Section in Research? [with Examples]

The examples below are from 72,017 full-text PubMed research papers that I analyzed in order to explore common ways to start writing the Discussion section.

Research papers included in this analysis were selected at random from those uploaded to PubMed Central between the years 2016 and 2021. Note that I used the BioC API to download the data (see the References section below).

Examples of how to start writing the Discussion section

In the Discussion section, you should explain the meaning of your results, their importance, and implications. [for more information, see: How to Write & Publish a Research Paper: Step-by-Step Guide ]

The Discussion section can:

1. Start by restating the study objective

“ The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between muscle synergies and motion primitives of the upper limb motions.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

“ The main objective of this study was to identify trajectories of autonomy.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

“ In the present study, we investigated the whole brain regional homogeneity in patients with melancholic MDD and non-melancholic MDD at rest . “ Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

2. Start by mentioning the main finding

“ We found that autocracy and democracy have acted as peaks in an evolutionary landscape of possible modes of institutional arrangements.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

“ In this study, we demonstrated that the neural mechanisms of rhythmic movements and skilled movements are similar.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

“ The results of this study show that older adults are a diverse group concerning their activities on the Internet.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

3. Start by pointing out the strength of the study

“ To our knowledge, this investigation is by far the largest epidemiological study employing real-time PCR to study periodontal pathogens in subgingival plaque.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

“ This is the first human subject research using the endoscopic hemoglobin oxygen saturation imaging technology for patients with aero-digestive tract cancers or adenomas.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

“ In this work, we introduced a new real-time flow imaging method and systematically demonstrated its effectiveness with both flow phantom experiments and in vivo experiments.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

Most used words at the start of the Discussion

Here are the top 10 phrases used to start a discussion section in our dataset:

• Comeau DC, Wei CH, Islamaj Doğan R, and Lu Z. PMC text mining subset in BioC: about 3 million full text articles and growing,  Bioinformatics , btz070, 2019.

Further reading

• How Long Should the Discussion Section Be? Data from 61,517 Examples
• How to Write & Publish a Research Paper: Step-by-Step Guide
• “I” & “We” in Academic Writing: Examples from 9,830 Studies

Welcome to the new OASIS website! We have academic skills, library skills, math and statistics support, and writing resources all together in one new home.

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

General Research Paper Guidelines: Discussion

Discussion section.

The overall purpose of a research paper’s discussion section is to evaluate and interpret results, while explaining both the implications and limitations of your findings. Per APA (2020) guidelines, this section requires you to “examine, interpret, and qualify the results and draw inferences and conclusions from them” (p. 89). Discussion sections also require you to detail any new insights, think through areas for future research, highlight the work that still needs to be done to further your topic, and provide a clear conclusion to your research paper. In a good discussion section, you should do the following:

• Clearly connect the discussion of your results to your introduction, including your central argument, thesis, or problem statement.
• Provide readers with a critical thinking through of your results, answering the “so what?” question about each of your findings. In other words, why is this finding important?
• Detail how your research findings might address critical gaps or problems in your field
• Compare your results to similar studies’ findings
• Provide the possibility of alternative interpretations, as your goal as a researcher is to “discover” and “examine” and not to “prove” or “disprove.” Instead of trying to fit your results into your hypothesis, critically engage with alternative interpretations to your results.

For more specific details on your Discussion section, be sure to review Sections 3.8 (pp. 89-90) and 3.16 (pp. 103-104) of your 7 th edition APA manual

*Box content adapted from:

University of Southern California (n.d.). Organizing your social sciences research paper: 8 the discussion . https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/discussion

Limitations

Limitations of generalizability or utility of findings, often over which the researcher has no control, should be detailed in your Discussion section. Including limitations for your reader allows you to demonstrate you have thought critically about your given topic, understood relevant literature addressing your topic, and chosen the methodology most appropriate for your research. It also allows you an opportunity to suggest avenues for future research on your topic. An effective limitations section will include the following:

• Detail (a) sources of potential bias, (b) possible imprecision of measures, (c) other limitations or weaknesses of the study, including any methodological or researcher limitations.
• Sample size: In quantitative research, if a sample size is too small, it is more difficult to generalize results.
• Lack of available/reliable data : In some cases, data might not be available or reliable, which will ultimately affect the overall scope of your research. Use this as an opportunity to explain areas for future study.
• Lack of prior research on your study topic: In some cases, you might find that there is very little or no similar research on your study topic, which hinders the credibility and scope of your own research. If this is the case, use this limitation as an opportunity to call for future research. However, make sure you have done a thorough search of the available literature before making this claim.
• Flaws in measurement of data: Hindsight is 20/20, and you might realize after you have completed your research that the data tool you used actually limited the scope or results of your study in some way. Again, acknowledge the weakness and use it as an opportunity to highlight areas for future study.
• Limits of self-reported data: In your research, you are assuming that any participants will be honest and forthcoming with responses or information they provide to you. Simply acknowledging this assumption as a possible limitation is important in your research.
• Access: Most research requires that you have access to people, documents, organizations, etc.. However, for various reasons, access is sometimes limited or denied altogether. If this is the case, you will want to acknowledge access as a limitation to your research.
• Time: Choosing a research focus that is narrow enough in scope to finish in a given time period is important. If such limitations of time prevent you from certain forms of research, access, or study designs, acknowledging this time restraint is important. Acknowledging such limitations is important, as they can point other researchers to areas that require future study.
• Potential Bias: All researchers have some biases, so when reading and revising your draft, pay special attention to the possibilities for bias in your own work. Such bias could be in the form you organized people, places, participants, or events. They might also exist in the method you selected or the interpretation of your results. Acknowledging such bias is an important part of the research process.
• Language Fluency: On occasion, researchers or research participants might have language fluency issues, which could potentially hinder results or how effectively you interpret results. If this is an issue in your research, make sure to acknowledge it in your limitations section.

University of Southern California (n.d.). Organizing your social sciences research paper: Limitations of the study . https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/limitations

In many research papers, the conclusion, like the limitations section, is folded into the larger discussion section. If you are unsure whether to include the conclusion as part of your discussion or as a separate section, be sure to defer to the assignment instructions or ask your instructor.

The conclusion is important, as it is specifically designed to highlight your research’s larger importance outside of the specific results of your study. Your conclusion section allows you to reiterate the main findings of your study, highlight their importance, and point out areas for future research. Based on the scope of your paper, your conclusion could be anywhere from one to three paragraphs long. An effective conclusion section should include the following:

• Describe the possibilities for continued research on your topic, including what might be improved, adapted, or added to ensure useful and informed future research.
• Provide a detailed account of the importance of your findings
• Reiterate why your problem is important, detail how your interpretation of results impacts the subfield of study, and what larger issues both within and outside of your field might be affected from such results

University of Southern California (n.d.). Organizing your social sciences research paper: 9. the conclusion . https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/conclusion

• Previous Page: Results
• Next Page: References
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Cost of Attendance
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

• How to Order

Research Paper Guide

Research Paper Discussion Section

How To Write A Discussion For A Research Paper | Examples & Tips

People also read

Research Paper Writing - A Step by Step Guide

Research Paper Examples - Free Sample Papers for Different Formats!

Guide to Creating Effective Research Paper Outline

Interesting Research Paper Topics for 2024

Research Proposal Writing - A Step-by-Step Guide

How to Start a Research Paper - 7 Easy Steps

How to Write an Abstract for a Research Paper - A Step by Step Guide

Writing a Literature Review For a Research Paper - A Comprehensive Guide

Qualitative Research - Methods, Types, and Examples

8 Types of Qualitative Research - Overview & Examples

Qualitative vs Quantitative Research - Learning the Basics

200+ Engaging Psychology Research Paper Topics for Students in 2024

Learn How to Write a Hypothesis in a Research Paper: Examples and Tips!

20+ Types of Research With Examples - A Detailed Guide

Understanding Quantitative Research - Types & Data Collection Techniques

230+ Sociology Research Topics & Ideas for Students

How to Cite a Research Paper - A Complete Guide

Excellent History Research Paper Topics- 300+ Ideas

A Guide on Writing the Method Section of a Research Paper - Examples & Tips

How To Write an Introduction Paragraph For a Research Paper: Learn with Examples

Crafting a Winning Research Paper Title: A Complete Guide

Writing a Research Paper Conclusion - Step-by-Step Guide

Writing a Thesis For a Research Paper - A Comprehensive Guide

How To Write The Results Section of A Research Paper | Steps & Examples

Writing a Problem Statement for a Research Paper - A Comprehensive Guide

Finding Sources For a Research Paper: A Complete Guide

A Guide on How to Edit a Research Paper

200+ Ethical Research Paper Topics to Begin With (2024)

300+ Controversial Research Paper Topics & Ideas - 2024 Edition

150+ Argumentative Research Paper Topics For You - 2024

How to Write a Research Methodology for a Research Paper

Ever find yourself stuck when trying to write the discussion part of your research paper? Don't worry, it happens to a lot of people. 

The discussion section is super important in your research paper . It's where you explain what your results mean. But turning all that data into a clear and meaningful story? That's not easy.

Guess what? MyPerfectWords.com has come up with a solution. 

This blog is your guide to writing an outstanding discussion section. We'll guide you step by step with useful tips to make sure your research stands out.

So, let’s get started!

• 1. What Exactly is a Discussion Section in the Research Paper?
• 2. How to Write the Discussion Section of a Research Paper?
• 3. Examples of Good Discussion for a Research Paper
• 4. Mistakes to Avoid in Your Research Paper's Discussion 

What Exactly is a Discussion Section in the Research Paper?

In a research paper, the discussion section is where you explain what your results really mean. It's like answering the questions, "So what?" and "What's the big picture?" 

The discussion section is your chance to help your readers understand why your findings are important and how they fit into the larger context. It's more than just summarizing; it's about making your research understandable and meaningful to others.

Importance of the Discussion Section

The discussion section isn't just a formality; it's the heart of your research paper. This is where your findings transform from data into knowledge. 

Let's break down why it's so crucial:

• Interpretation of Results : The discussion is where you get to tell readers what your results really mean. You go into the details, helping them understand the story behind the numbers or findings.
• Connecting the Dots : You connect different parts of your research, showing how they relate. This helps your readers see the bigger picture.
• Relevance to the Big Picture : You get to highlight why your research matters. How does it contribute to the broader understanding of the topic? This is your time to make your research significant.
• Addressing Limitations : In the discussion, you can acknowledge any limitations in your study and discuss how they might impact your results.
• Suggestions for Further Research : The discussion is where you suggest areas for future exploration. It's like passing the baton to the next researcher, indicating where more work could be done.

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

How to Write the Discussion Section of a Research Paper?

The Discussion section in a research paper plays a vital role in interpreting findings and formulating a conclusion . Given below are the main components of the discussion section:

• Quick Summary: A brief recap of your main findings.
• Interpretation: Significance and meaning of your results in relation to your research question.
• Literature Review : Connecting your findings with previous research or similar studies.
• Limitations: Discussing any study limitations, addressing potential concerns.
• Implications: Broader implications of your findings, considering practical and theoretical aspects.
• Alternative Explanations: Evaluating alternative interpretations, demonstrating a comprehensive analysis.
• Connecting to Hypotheses : Summarizing how your result section aligns or diverges from your initial hypotheses.

Now let’s explore the steps to write an effective discussion section that will effectively communicate the significance of your research:

Step 1: Get Started with a Quick Summary

Start by quickly telling your readers the main things you found in your research. Don't explain them in detail just yet; just give a simple overview. 

This helps your readers get the big picture before diving into the details.

Step 2: Interpret Your Results

In the next step, talk about what your findings really mean. Share why the information you gathered is important. Connect each result to the questions you were trying to answer and the goals you set for your research.

Step 3: Relate to Existing Literature

In this step, link up your discoveries with what other researchers have already figured out. 

Share if your results are similar to or different from what's been found before. This helps give more background to your study and shows you know what other scientists have been up to.

Step 4: Address Limitations Honestly

Every study has its limitations. Acknowledge them openly in your discussion. This not only shows transparency but also helps readers interpret your results more accurately.

Step 5: Discuss the Implications

Explore the implications of your findings. How do they contribute to the field? What real-world applications or changes might they suggest?

Dig into why your discoveries are important. How do they help the subject you studied? 

This step is like looking at the bigger picture and asking, "So, what can we do with this information?"

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Step 6: Consider Alternative Explanations

After discussing the implications, challenge yourself by exploring alternative explanations for your results. 

Discuss different perspectives and show that you've considered multiple angles.

Step 7: Connect to Your Hypotheses or Research Questions

For the last step, revisit your initial hypotheses or research questions. Explain whether your results support what you thought might happen or if they surprised you. 

Examples of Good Discussion for a Research Paper

Learning from well-crafted discussions can significantly enhance your own writing. Given below are some examples to help you understand how to write your own.

Discussion for a Research Paper Example Pdf

Discussion for a Medical Research Paper

Discussion Section for a Qualitative Research Paper

Mistakes to Avoid in Your Research Paper's Discussion 

Writing the discussion section of your research paper can be tricky. To make sure you're on the right track, be mindful of these common mistakes:

• Overstating or Overinterpreting Results

Avoid making your findings sound more groundbreaking than they are. Stick to what your data actually shows, and don't exaggerate.

• Neglecting Alternative Explanations 

Failing to consider other possible explanations for your results can weaken your discussion. Always explore alternative perspectives to present a well-rounded view.

• Ignoring Limitations 

Don't sweep limitations under the rug. Acknowledge them openly and discuss how they might affect the validity or generalizability of your results.

• Being Overly Technical or Jargon-laden

Remember that your audience may not be experts in your specific field. Avoid using overly technical language or excessive jargon that could alienate your readers.

• Disregarding the 'So What' Factor

Always explain the significance of your findings. Don't leave your readers wondering why your research matters or how it contributes to the broader understanding of the subject.

• Rushing the Conclusion

The conclusion section of your discussion is critical. Don't rush it. Summarize the key points and leave your readers with a strong understanding of the significance of your research.

So, there you have it —writing a discussion and conclusion section isn't easy, but avoiding some common mistakes can make it much smoother. 

Remember to keep it real with your results, think about what else could explain things, and don't forget about any limits in your study.

But if you're feeling stuck, MyPerfectWords.com is here for you. 

Our team of experts knows their way around discussions. Whether you need some guidance or want someone to handle the writing for you, we've got your back.

Don't let discussion writing stress you out. Let our essay writing service for college  make your academic life easier.

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Dr. Barbara is a highly experienced writer and author who holds a Ph.D. degree in public health from an Ivy League school. She has worked in the medical field for many years, conducting extensive research on various health topics. Her writing has been featured in several top-tier publications.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Turk J Urol
• v.39(Suppl 1); 2013 Sep

How to write a discussion section?

Writing manuscripts to describe study outcomes, although not easy, is the main task of an academician. The aim of the present review is to outline the main aspects of writing the discussion section of a manuscript. Additionally, we address various issues regarding manuscripts in general. It is advisable to work on a manuscript regularly to avoid losing familiarity with the article. On principle, simple, clear and effective language should be used throughout the text. In addition, a pre-peer review process is recommended to obtain feedback on the manuscript. The discussion section can be written in 3 parts: an introductory paragraph, intermediate paragraphs and a conclusion paragraph. For intermediate paragraphs, a “divide and conquer” approach, meaning a full paragraph describing each of the study endpoints, can be used. In conclusion, academic writing is similar to other skills, and practice makes perfect.

Introduction

Sharing knowledge produced during academic life is achieved through writing manuscripts. However writing manuscripts is a challenging endeavour in that we physicians have a heavy workload, and English which is common language used for the dissemination of scientific knowledge is not our mother tongue.

The objective of this review is to summarize the method of writing ‘Discussion’ section which is the most important, but probably at the same time the most unlikable part of a manuscript, and demonstrate the easy ways we applied in our practice, and finally share the frequently made relevant mistakes. During this procedure, inevitably some issues which concerns general concept of manuscript writing process are dealt with. Therefore in this review we will deal with topics related to the general aspects of manuscript writing process, and specifically issues concerning only the ‘Discussion’ section.

A) Approaches to general aspects of manuscript writing process:

1. what should be the strategy of sparing time for manuscript writing be.

Two different approaches can be formulated on this issue? One of them is to allocate at least 30 minutes a day for writing a manuscript which amounts to 3.5 hours a week. This period of time is adequate for completion of a manuscript within a few weeks which can be generally considered as a long time interval. Fundamental advantage of this approach is to gain a habit of making academic researches if one complies with the designated time schedule, and to keep the manuscript writing motivation at persistently high levels. Another approach concerning this issue is to accomplish manuscript writing process within a week. With the latter approach, the target is rapidly attained. However longer time periods spent in order to concentrate on the subject matter can be boring, and lead to loss of motivation. Daily working requirements unrelated to the manuscript writing might intervene, and prolong manuscript writing process. Alienation periods can cause loss of time because of need for recurrent literature reviews. The most optimal approach to manuscript writing process is daily writing strategy where higher levels of motivation are persistently maintained.

Especially before writing the manuscript, the most important step at the start is to construct a draft, and completion of the manuscript on a theoretical basis. Therefore, during construction of a draft, attention distracting environment should be avoided, and this step should be completed within 1–2 hours. On the other hand, manuscript writing process should begin before the completion of the study (even the during project stage). The justification of this approach is to see the missing aspects of the study and the manuscript writing methodology, and try to solve the relevant problems before completion of the study. Generally, after completion of the study, it is very difficult to solve the problems which might be discerned during the writing process. Herein, at least drafts of the ‘Introduction’, and ‘Material and Methods’ can be written, and even tables containing numerical data can be constructed. These tables can be written down in the ‘Results’ section. [ 1 ]

2. How should the manuscript be written?

The most important principle to be remembered on this issue is to obey the criteria of simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness. [ 2 ] Herein, do not forget that, the objective should be to share our findings with the readers in an easily comprehensible format. Our approach on this subject is to write all structured parts of the manuscript at the same time, and start writing the manuscript while reading the first literature. Thus newly arisen connotations, and self-brain gyms will be promptly written down. However during this process your outcomes should be revealed fully, and roughly the message of the manuscript which be delivered. Thus with this so-called ‘hunter’s approach’ the target can be achieved directly, and rapidly. Another approach is ‘collectioner’s approach. [ 3 ] In this approach, firstly, potential data, and literature studies are gathered, read, and then selected ones are used. Since this approach suits with surgical point of view, probably ‘hunter’s approach’ serves our purposes more appropriately. However, in parallel with academic development, our novice colleague ‘manuscripters’ can prefer ‘collectioner’s approach.’

On the other hand, we think that research team consisting of different age groups has some advantages. Indeed young colleagues have the enthusiasm, and energy required for the conduction of the study, while middle-aged researchers have the knowledge to manage the research, and manuscript writing. Experienced researchers make guiding contributions to the manuscript. However working together in harmony requires assignment of a chief researcher, and periodically organizing advancement meetings. Besides, talents, skills, and experiences of the researchers in different fields (ie. research methods, contact with patients, preparation of a project, fund-raising, statistical analysis etc.) will determine task sharing, and make a favourable contribution to the perfection of the manuscript. Achievement of the shared duties within a predetermined time frame will sustain the motivation of the researchers, and prevent wearing out of updated data.

According to our point of view, ‘Abstract’ section of the manuscript should be written after completion of the manuscript. The reason for this is that during writing process of the main text, the significant study outcomes might become insignificant or vice versa. However, generally, before onset of the writing process of the manuscript, its abstract might be already presented in various congresses. During writing process, this abstract might be a useful guide which prevents deviation from the main objective of the manuscript.

On the other hand references should be promptly put in place while writing the manuscript, Sorting, and placement of the references should not be left to the last moment. Indeed, it might be very difficult to remember relevant references to be placed in the ‘Discussion’ section. For the placement of references use of software programs detailed in other sections is a rational approach.

3. Which target journal should be selected?

In essence, the methodology to be followed in writing the ‘Discussion’ section is directly related to the selection of the target journal. Indeed, in compliance with the writing rules of the target journal, limitations made on the number of words after onset of the writing process, effects mostly the ‘Discussion’ section. Proper matching of the manuscript with the appropriate journal requires clear, and complete comprehension of the available data from scientific point of view. Previously, similar articles might have been published, however innovative messages, and new perspectives on the relevant subject will facilitate acceptance of the article for publication. Nowadays, articles questioning available information, rather than confirmatory ones attract attention. However during this process, classical information should not be questioned except for special circumstances. For example manuscripts which lead to the conclusions as “laparoscopic surgery is more painful than open surgery” or “laparoscopic surgery can be performed without prior training” will not be accepted or they will be returned by the editor of the target journal to the authors with the request of critical review. Besides the target journal to be selected should be ready to accept articles with similar concept. In fact editors of the journal will not reserve the limited space in their journal for articles yielding similar conclusions.

The title of the manuscript is as important as the structured sections * of the manuscript. The title can be the most striking or the newest outcome among results obtained.

Before writing down the manuscript, determination of 2–3 titles increases the motivation of the authors towards the manuscript. During writing process of the manuscript one of these can be selected based on the intensity of the discussion. However the suitability of the title to the agenda of the target journal should be investigated beforehand. For example an article bearing the title “Use of barbed sutures in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy shortens warm ischemia time” should not be sent to “Original Investigations and Seminars in Urologic Oncology” Indeed the topic of the manuscript is out of the agenda of this journal.

4. Do we have to get a pre-peer review about the written manuscript?

Before submission of the manuscript to the target journal the opinions of internal, and external referees should be taken. [ 1 ] Internal referees can be considered in 2 categories as “General internal referees” and “expert internal referees” General internal referees (ie. our colleagues from other medical disciplines) are not directly concerned with your subject matter but as mentioned above they critically review the manuscript as for simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness of its writing style. Expert internal reviewers have a profound knowledge about the subject, and they can provide guidance about the writing process of the manuscript (ie. our senior colleagues more experienced than us). External referees are our colleagues who did not contribute to data collection of our study in any way, but we can request their opinions about the subject matter of the manuscript. Since they are unrelated both to the author(s), and subject matter of the manuscript, these referees can review our manuscript more objectively. Before sending the manuscript to internal, and external referees, we should contact with them, and ask them if they have time to review our manuscript. We should also give information about our subject matter. Otherwise pre-peer review process can delay publication of the manuscript, and decrease motivation of the authors. In conclusion, whoever the preferred referee will be, these internal, and external referees should respond the following questions objectively. 1) Does the manuscript contribute to the literature?; 2) Does it persuasive? 3) Is it suitable for the publication in the selected journal? 4) Has a simple, clear, and effective language been used throughout the manuscript? In line with the opinions of the referees, the manuscript can be critically reviewed, and perfected. [ 1 ]**

Following receival of the opinions of internal, and external referees, one should concentrate priorly on indicated problems, and their solutions. Comments coming from the reviewers should be criticized, but a defensive attitude should not be assumed during this evaluation process. During this “incubation” period where the comments of the internal, and external referees are awaited, literature should be reviewed once more. Indeed during this time interval a new article which you should consider in the ‘Discussion’ section can be cited in the literature.

5. What are the common mistakes made related to the writing process of a manuscript?

Probably the most important mistakes made related to the writing process of a manuscript include lack of a clear message of the manuscript , inclusion of more than one main idea in the same text or provision of numerous unrelated results at the same time so as to reinforce the assertions of the manuscript. This approach can be termed roughly as “loss of the focus of the study” In conclusion, the author(s) should ask themselves the following question at every stage of the writing process:. “What is the objective of the study? 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. Thus, evaluation of the “cooled” manuscript will be made from a more objective perspective, and assessment process of its integrity will be facilitated.

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. [ 4 ]

B) Approaches to the writing process of the ‘Discussion’ section:

1. how should the main points of ‘discussion’ section be constructed.

Generally the length of the ‘Discussion ‘ section should not exceed the sum of other sections (ıntroduction, material and methods, and results), and it should be completed within 6–7 paragraphs.. Each paragraph should not contain more than 200 words, and hence words should be counted repeteadly. The ‘Discussion’ section can be generally divided into 3 separate paragraphs as. 1) Introductory paragraph, 2) Intermediate paragraphs, 3) Concluding paragraph.

The introductory paragraph contains the main idea of performing the study in question. Without repeating ‘Introduction’ section of the manuscript, the problem to be addressed, and its updateness are analysed. 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? 2) What solutions can be recommended to solve this problem? 3) What will be the new, different, and innovative issue? 4) How will our study contribute to the solution of this problem An introductory paragraph in this format is helpful to accomodate reader to the rest of the Discussion section. However summarizing the basic findings of the experimental studies in the first paragraph is generally recommended by the editors of the journal. [ 5 ]

In the last paragraph of the Discussion section “strong points” of the study should be mentioned using “constrained”, and “not too strongly assertive” statements. 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.

2. How should the intermediate paragraphs of the Discussion section be formulated?

The reader passes through a test of boredom while reading paragraphs of the Discussion section apart from the introductory, and the last paragraphs. Herein your findings rather than those of the other researchers are discussed. The previous studies can be an explanation or reinforcement of your findings. Each paragraph should contain opinions in favour or against the topic discussed, critical evaluations, and learning points.

Our management approach for intermediate paragraphs is “divide and conquer” tactics. Accordingly, the findings of the study are determined in order of their importance, and a paragraph is constructed for each finding ( Figure 1 ). Each paragraph begins with an “indisputable” introductory sentence about the topic to be discussed. This sentence basically can be the answer to the question “What have we found?” Then a sentence associated with the subject matter to be discussed is written. Subsequently, in the light of the current literature this finding is discussed, new ideas on this subject are revealed, and the paragraph ends with a concluding remark.

Divide and Conquer tactics

In this paragraph, main topic should be emphasized without going into much detail. Its place, and importance among other studies should be indicated. However during this procedure studies should be presented in a logical sequence (ie. from past to present, from a few to many cases), and aspects of the study contradictory to other studies should be underlined. Results without any supportive evidence or equivocal results should not be written. Besides numerical values presented in the Results section should not be repeated unless required.

Besides, asking the following questions, and searching their answers in the same paragraph will facilitate writing process of the paragraph. [ 1 ] 1) Can the discussed result be false or inadequate? 2) Why is it false? (inadequate blinding, protocol contamination, lost to follow-up, lower statistical power of the study etc.), 3) What meaning does this outcome convey?

3. What are the common mistakes made in writing the Discussion section?:

Probably the most important mistake made while writing the Discussion section is the need for mentioning all literature references. One point to remember is that we are not writing a review article, and only the results related to this paragraph should be discussed. Meanwhile, each word of the paragraphs should be counted, and placed carefully. Each word whose removal will not change the meaning should be taken out from the text.” Writing a saga with “word salads” *** is one of the reasons for prompt rejection. Indeed, if the reviewer thinks that it is difficult to correct the Discussion section, he/she use her/ his vote in the direction of rejection to save time (Uniform requirements for manuscripts: International Comittee of Medical Journal Editors [ http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf ])

The other important mistake is to give too much references, and irrelevancy between the references, and the section with these cited references. [ 3 ] While referring these studies, (excl. introductory sentences linking indisputable sentences or paragraphs) original articles should be cited. Abstracts should not be referred, and review articles should not be cited unless required very much.

4. What points should be paid attention about writing rules, and grammar?

As is the case with the whole article, text of the Discussion section should be written with a simple language, as if we are talking with our colleague. [ 2 ] Each sentence should indicate a single point, and it should not exceed 25–30 words. The priorly mentioned information which linked the previous sentence should be placed at the beginning of the sentence, while the new information should be located at the end of the sentence. During construction of the sentences, avoid unnecessary words, and active voice rather than passive voice should be used.**** Since conventionally passive voice is used in the scientific manuscripts written in the Turkish language, the above statement contradicts our writing habits. However, one should not refrain from beginning the sentences with the word “we”. Indeed, editors of the journal recommend use of active voice so as to increase the intelligibility of the manuscript.

In conclusion, the major point to remember is that the manuscript should be written complying with principles of simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness. In the light of these principles, as is the case in our daily practice, all components of the manuscript (IMRAD) can be written concurrently. In the ‘Discussion’ section ‘divide and conquer’ tactics remarkably facilitates writing process of the discussion. On the other hand, relevant or irrelevant feedbacks received from our colleagues can contribute to the perfection of the manuscript. Do not forget that none of the manuscripts is perfect, and one should not refrain from writing because of language problems, and related lack of experience.

Instead of structured sections of a manuscript (IMRAD): Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, and Discussion

Instead of in the Istanbul University Faculty of Medicine posters to be submitted in congresses are time to time discussed in Wednesday meetings, and opinions of the internal referees are obtained about the weak, and strong points of the study

Instead of a writing style which uses words or sentences with a weak logical meaning that do not lead the reader to any conclusion

Instead of “white color”; “proven”; nstead of “history”; “to”. should be used instead of “white in color”, “definitely proven”, “past history”, and “in order to”, respectively ( ref. 2 )

Instead of “No instances of either postoperative death or major complications occurred during the early post-operative period” use “There were no deaths or major complications occurred during the early post-operative period.

Instead of “Measurements were performed to evaluate the levels of CEA in the serum” use “We measured serum CEA levels”

How To Write A Research Paper

Research Paper Discussion Section

How to Write a Discussion For a Research Paper | Objectives, Steps & Examples

10 min read

Published on: Mar 6, 2024

Last updated on: Mar 5, 2024

People also read

How to Write a Research Paper Step by Step

How to Write a Proposal For a Research Paper in 10 Steps

A Comprehensive Guide to Creating a Research Paper Outline

Types of Research - Methodologies and Characteristics

300+ Engaging Research Paper Topics to Get You Started

Interesting Psychology Research Topics & Ideas

Qualitative Research - Types, Methods & Examples

Understanding Quantitative Research - Definition, Types, Examples, And More

Research Paper Example - Examples for Different Formats

How To Start A Research Paper - Steps With Examples

How To Write a Literature Review for a Research Paper | Steps & Examples

Types of Qualitative Research Methods - An Overview

Understanding Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research - A Complete Guide

How to Cite a Research Paper in Different Citation Styles

Easy Sociology Research Topics for Your Next Project

200+ Outstanding History Research Paper Topics With Expert Tips

How To Write a Hypothesis in a Research Paper | Steps & Examples

How to Write an Introduction for a Research Paper - A Step-by-Step Guide

How to Write a Good Research Paper Title

How to Write a Conclusion for a Research Paper in 3 Simple Steps

How to Write an Abstract For a Research Paper with Examples

How To Write a Thesis For a Research Paper Step by Step

How to Write the Results Section of a Research Paper - Structure and Tips

How to Write a Problem Statement for a Research Paper in 6 Steps

How To Write The Methods Section of a Research Paper Step-by-Step

How to Find Sources For a Research Paper | A Guide

Share this article

As a critical component of scholarly writing, the discussion serves as the intellectual heart of your work. It provides a platform to interpret findings, draw conclusions, and engage with existing literature. 

In this guide, we will cover the primary objectives of the discussion, outline the essential steps for writing, and provide insightful examples. Learning how to write a discussion is key to elevating the impact of your research conclusion.

Follow along as we break down the complexities and offer valuable insights to ensure your discussion section meets the highest standards!

On This Page On This Page -->

What is the Discussion Section in Research?

The discussion section is where the author interprets the results, contextualizes findings within the existing literature and engages in thoughtful analysis. 

According to the American Psychological Association (APA), the discussion is the space for reflection, providing a bridge between the results and the overall conclusion.  

The discussion section typically follows the results section but precedes the conclusion. 

People may sometimes confuse discussions and conclusions sections. While the conclusion summarizes key points, the discussion section interprets and analyzes the results in detail. The discussion goes beyond summarization, offering a deeper understanding of the study's implications and contributing to the scholarly conversation.

Elements of Discussion Section

The discussion section in a research paper comprises the following key elements:

• Summary : What are the main findings in a nutshell?
• Interpretations : How do you explain your results?
• Implications : Why are your findings important in the broader context?
• Limitations : What are the constraints in your methodology or data?
• Recommendations : What future studies or improvements arise from your outcomes?

Main Objectives of Discussion Section

The primary objectives of the discussion section include:

• To interpret the research findings accurately and comprehensively.
• To place the study in the broader context of existing literature.
• To engage in critical thinking and analysis of the results.
• To communicate the significance and implications of the study effectively.

How To Structure a Discussion

Follow these steps to draft a well-organized and effective discussion:

Now that you have a clear structure of your discussion section let’s move on to the writing phase. 

The steps below will help you write an effective research paper discussion section:

Step 1: Summarize your Results

Start the discussion section by providing a brief reintroduction to your research question or hypothesis. This serves to set the stage for the discussion, reminding readers of the study's primary focus.

Next, proceed to summarize your results. Offer a concise overview of the main findings, highlighting the most relevant outcomes of your research. This lays the groundwork for the subsequent interpretation and analysis.

Step 2: Provide Interpretations

In this step, highlight why your findings matter and how they enhance our understanding of the research area. Use a mix of qualitative and quantitative techniques to comprehensively interpret results.

Here are some key points to keep in mind:

• Explain the correlation, patterns, and relationships in your data. 
• Quantify these relations and clarify how they contribute to your study's understanding.
• Assess if your results align with expectations and whether they support or challenge existing theories.
• Relate your interpretations to past research and established theories, showcasing their challenges to existing knowledge. 
• If there are unexpected results, thoroughly explain them, explore reasons, and discuss their implications for the topic.

Organize your interpretations around themes, hypotheses, or research questions for a focused and structured discussion. Structure your interpretations based on the significance of findings or unexpected results to guide the reader through the crucial aspects of your study.

Step 3: Unpack the Implications

Unpacking the implications involves relating your findings to scholarly work. Discuss how your study aligns with or deviates from previous research from your literature review. It will showcase the academic context of your contributions.

Answer these questions:

• Do your results confirm or contest existing theories? If supporting, what fresh insights do they bring? If challenging, what could be the reasons?
• Are there practical applications of your findings?

Step 4: Discuss the Limitation

Limitations refer to factors that could potentially impact the accuracy, reliability, or scope of your study. They are aspects that were beyond your control or constraints within the research design.

Common Sources of Limitations

Limitations may arise due to various factors, such as the study's methodology, sample size, data collection tools, or external influences. Identifying these limitations is a crucial aspect of maintaining transparency in research.

How to Mention Limitations in the Discussion Section 

Even the most well-conducted studies have limitations. Mentioning these limitations will enhance your research paper's credibility: 

• Clearly and honestly state the limitations of your study. Transparency builds credibility and demonstrates a thoughtful approach to the research process.
• If there were limitations in your methodology (e.g., small sample size, survey design), discuss how these constraints might have affected the study's outcomes.
• If data collection presented challenges (e.g., limited access, response bias), explain how these issues might have impacted the reliability of your results.
• Acknowledge external factors beyond your control that might have influenced the study. This could include unforeseen events, changing societal norms, or evolving technologies.

Highlight limitations directly influencing your research problem or question for a concise and relevant discussion.

Step 5: Offer Recommendations

Having discussed the findings and limitations, it's now time to provide recommendations. These suggestions should arise from the insights gained during the study and serve as a guide for future studies.

How to Offer Recommendations

To offer recommendations keep in view the following points: 

• Base your recommendations on the insights discussed earlier. Consider what gaps or unanswered questions remain.
• If applicable, recommend ways to address the limitations discussed in the study. Propose methodologies or approaches that could enhance future research.
• Relate recommendations to practical applications whenever possible. Consider how future studies could provide actionable insights for real-world scenarios.
• Offer tangible suggestions for further research. Provide clear directions and highlight specific variables, populations, or contexts that warrant exploration.

Discussion Writing Tips - DO'S &  DONT'S

Here are some important tips to consider and some common mistakes to avoid when writing a discussion section for your research paper: 

• DO ensure that every point in your discussion directly relates back to your research questions or hypotheses. This maintains focus and relevance.
• DO prioritize clarity in your writing. Use concise and straightforward language to communicate complex ideas, making them accessible to a broad audience.
• DO acknowledge potential counterarguments or alternative explanations. This demonstrates a nuanced understanding of the topic and adds depth to your discussion.
• DO use concrete examples to illustrate your points. This helps readers grasp the practical implications of your findings and enhances the overall understanding.
• DO provide actionable recommendations for future studies. Give researchers clear directions and ideas for expanding on your work, contributing to the advancement of the field.
• DON'T introduce new information in the discussion. Stick to summarizing, interpreting, and discussing the results obtained in the study without adding fresh data or concepts.
• DON'T overgeneralize your findings. Be cautious not to make sweeping statements beyond the scope of your study or without sufficient evidence.
• DON'T ignore or downplay limitations. Be transparent about the constraints of your study, acknowledging potential biases or areas where improvements could be made.
• DON'T use jargon unnecessarily. While some field-specific terminology is essential, avoid excessive technical language that might confuse readers who are not familiar with the subject.
• DON'T rush the conclusion of your discussion. Take the time to craft a thoughtful and conclusive summary that encapsulates the key takeaways and implications of your study.

Discussion Section Examples

If you're new to crafting research paper discussions, seeking examples can serve as a helpful guide to tailor your approach according to your paper's style and type.

Discussion For A Scientific Paper

Discussion For A Medical Research Paper

Example of Result And Discussion In Research Paper

Discussion in A Report

Qualitative Research Discussion Example

Wrapping up, 

In this guide, we've explored the essential elements, steps, and provided examples to demystify the process.

By adhering to the outlined steps you ensure a well-rounded and insightful discussion. Always keep your research questions in focus, maintaining clarity and relevance.

Remember, discussions are not merely an endpoint but a springboard for future research. But if you find yourself struggling with the right syllables or structure for your discussion section, professional assistance is just a step away. 

Our reliable writing service is here to support you with your academic writing needs. With our experienced team, you can navigate the complexities of crafting a stellar discussion with confidence. 

Don't hesitate to reach out to our research paper writing service today!

Cathy A. (Marketing, Literature)

For more than five years now, Cathy has been one of our most hardworking authors on the platform. With a Masters degree in mass communication, she knows the ins and outs of professional writing. Clients often leave her glowing reviews for being an amazing writer who takes her work very seriously.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Legal & Policies

• Privacy Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Terms of Use
• Refunds & Cancellations
• Our Writers
• Success Stories
• Our Guarantees
• Affiliate Program
• Referral Program
• AI Essay Writer

Disclaimer: All client orders are completed by our team of highly qualified human writers. The essays and papers provided by us are not to be used for submission but rather as learning models only.

Personalised content for

You're viewing this site as a domestic an international student

You're an international student if you are:

• intending to study on a student visa
• not a citizen of Australia or New Zealand
• not an Australian permanent resident
• not a holder of an Australian humanitarian visa.

You're a domestic student if you are:

• a citizen of Australia or New Zealand
• an Australian permanent resident
• a holder of an Australian humanitarian visa.
• Alumni & Giving
• Current students

Search Charles Darwin University

Study Skills

Writing a discussion section

In the discussion section, you will draw connections between your findings, existing theory and other research. You will have an opportunity to tell the story arising from your findings. 

This page will help you to: 

understand the purpose of the discussion section 

follow the steps required to plan your discussion section 

structure your discussion  

enhance the depth of your discussion 

use appropriate language to discuss your findings.  

Introduction to the discussion section

When you have reached this stage, you might be thinking “All I have to do now is to sum up what I have done, and then make a few remarks about what I did” (as cited in Swales & Feak, 2012, p.263). However, writing a discussion section is not that simple. Read on to learn more.

  Before you continue, reflect on your earlier writing experiences and the feedback you have received. How would you rate your ability in the following skills? Rate your ability from ‘good’ to ‘needs development’. 

Reflect on your answers. Congratulations if you feel confident about your skills. You may find it helpful to review the materials on this page to confirm your knowledge and possibly learn more. Don't worry if you don't feel confident. Work through these materials to build your skills. 

A discussion critically analyses and interprets the results of a scientific study, placing the results in the context of published literature and explaining how they affect the field . 

In this section, you will relate the specific findings of your research to the wider scientific field. This is the opposite of the introduction section, which starts with the broader context and narrows to focus on your specific research topic.  

The discussion will: 

review the findings  

put the findings into the context of the overall research  

tell readers why the research results are important and where they fit in with the current literature 

acknowledge the limitations of the study 

make recommendations for future research.

Let's review your understanding of the discussion section by identifying what makes a strong discussion.

Planning for a discussion section

Planning for a discussion section starts with analysing your data. For some kinds of research, the analysis cannot be done until your data has been collected. For others, analysing data can happen early as the data already exists in literary texts, archival documents or similar.  

Before starting to write the discussion section, it is important to:  

analyse your data (usually reported in the Results or Findings section) 

select the key issues that are the substance of your research  

relate the findings to the literature and 

plan for the process of going from your specific findings to the broader scientific field.  

Your analysis of the results will inform the Findings or Results section of your thesis or publication. It is the stage where you organise and visualise your data, and identify trends, patterns and causal relationships in the themes.

As the section discusses the key findings without restating the results, it is important to identify the key issues. For example, you should focus on four or five issues that agree or do not agree with your hypothesis or with previously published work. It is also important to include and discuss any unexpected results.

You refer to previous research in your discussion section for explaining your results, confirming how your results support the theories and previous studies, comparing your results with similar studies, or showing how your results contradict similar studies. 

Therefore, papers that you are likely to refer to in your discussion are those that led to: 

your hypothesis  

your experimental design 

your results.

In writing the discussion section, you will start with your research and then broaden your focus to the field or scientific community. This means you will go from narrowest (your specific findings) to broadest (the wider scientific community). You do this by following the six moves: 

As you can see, your discussion may follow six moves (stages) which broadens the scope of your discussion section. Watch this video to learn how to apply these moves.

Structuring your discussion

This section reviews how a discussion section can be organised.

A discussion section usually includes five parts or steps, which are illustrated in the image below. 

In some disciplines, the researcher's argument determines the structure of the presentation and discussion of findings. In other disciplines, the structure follows established conventions. Therefore, it is important for you to investigate the conventions of your own discipline, by looking at theses in your discipline and articles published in your target journals. The discussion section may be: 

in a combined section called Results and Discussion 

in a combined section called Discussion and Conclusion 

in a separate section. 

Your discussion section may be an independent chapter or it might be combined with the Findings chapter. Common chapter headings include:  

Discussion chapter 

Findings and Discussion chapter  

Discussion, Recommendations and Conclusion chapter

Discussion and Conclusion chapter 

It is important to have a good understanding of the expected content of each chapter.  Below is an example of a chapter in which discussion, recommendations and conclusion are combined.

Click on the hotspots to learn more.

This section focuses on useful language for writing your discussion.

Boosters and hedges should be used to demonstrate your confidence in your interpretation of the results. They help you to distinguish between clear and strong results and those that you feel less confident about or that may be open to different interpretations.

 Read both sentences. Which one shows more confidence in the results? 

The Dutch supervisors reported using different types of questions more frequently and deliberately than the Chinese supervisors. This difference may have its roots in the underlying educational philosophies. (Adapted from Hu, Rijst, Veen, & Verloop, 2016)  

The findings clearly demonstrate that psychological capital had considerable influence on the 10 employability skills included in the study, and especially on those related to teamwork, self-knowledge and self-management (Adapted from Harper, Bregta & Rundle, 2021) 

The writers of sentence two are more confident in the interpretation of their results.  

Test your knowledge of hedges and boosters by doing the task below. 

It is important to make it clear in your discussion: 

which research has been done by you 

which research has been done by other people 

how they complement each other.

Image 2: Note that present perfect is also used to refer to other studies when you want to emphasise that an area of research is still current and ongoing. Take a look at the example below which uses present perfect to refer to other studies 

Like other studies (e.g., Larcombe et al., 2021; Naylor, 2020) that have shown a strong connection between course experience and wellbeing, our study shows that a significant portion of international students believe that aspects of their immediate environment could be improved to better support their wellbeing.  

More information on tenses in the Discussion section is presented in Language Tip 4 below.  

Below are some useful discussion phrases that were adapted from Paltridge & Starfield (2020) and the APA Discussion phrases guide (7th edition).

You can download this APA discussion phrase guide here and visit the Academic Phrasebank for further phrases and examples. 

Let's look at these extracts and identify the functions of the paragraphs.  

Past, present and present perfect tenses are commonly used in the discussion section.  

• Past tense is used to summarise the key findings and to refer to the work of previous researchers  
• Present perfect is used to refer to the work of previous researchers (usually an area of research that is current and on-going rather than one single study) 
• Present tense is used to interpret the results or describe the significance of the findings  
• Future  is used to make recommendations for further research or providing future direction 

Below is an example of some paragraphs in a discussion section in which different tenses are used.

Test your knowledge of using the right tenses in the discussion section by doing the task below. 

Use this template to plan your discussion.  

The template is an example of a planning tool that will help you develop an overview of the key content that you are going to include in your section. You can download the draft and save it as a Word document once you have finished. 

You may have more or less than 3 key findings that you would like to discuss in your section.  

If you would like more support, visit the Language and Learning Advisors page. 

Butler, K. (2020, 7 April). Breakdown of an ideal discussion of scientific research paper. Scientific Communications . https://butlerscicomm.com/breakdown-of-ideal-discussion-section-research-paper  

Calvo, J. C. A & García, G. M. (2021). The influence of psychological capital on graduates’ perception of employability: the mediating role of employability skills. Higher Education Research & Development , 40(2), 293-308, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1738350   

Cenamor, J. (2022) To teach or not to teach? Junior academics and the teaching-research relationship. Higher Education Research & Development , 41(5), 1417-1435. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2021.1933395  

Harper, R.,  Bretag, T & Rundle, K. (2021) Detecting contract cheating: examining the role of assessment type. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(2), 263-278, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1724899   

Hu, Y., Rijst, R. M., Veen, K & N Verloop, N. (2016) The purposes and processes of master's thesis supervision: a comparison of Chinese and Dutch supervisors. Higher Education Research & Development , 35(5), 910-924, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2016.1139550  

Humphrey, P. (2015). English language proficiency in higher education: student conceptualisations and outcomes . [Doctoral dissertation, Griffith University]  

Marangell, S., & Baik, C. (2022). International students’ suggestions for what universities can do to better support their mental wellbeing. Journal of International Students, 12(4), 933-954.  

Merga, M., & Mason, S. (2021) Early career researchers’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of sharing research with academic and non-academic end-users, Higher Education Research & Development , 40(7), 1482-1496, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1815662  

Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2019). Thesis and Dissertation Writing in a Second Language: A Handbook for Students and their Supervisors (2nd ed.). Routledge.  

Rendle-Short, J. (2009). The Address Term Mate in Australian English: Is it Still a Masculine Term?. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 29(2), 245-268, DOI: 10.1080/07268600902823110  

Did you know CDU Language and Learning Advisors offer a range of study support options?

https://www.cdu.edu.au/library/language-and-learning-support

Cookie compliance notice

We use cookies to improve our service. By continuing you agree to our privacy statement . EU/EA members can update your cookie settings here .

• Foundations
• Write Paper

Search form

• Experiments
• Anthropology
• Self-Esteem
• Social Anxiety

• Research Paper >

Writing a Discussion Section

Writing a discussion section is where you really begin to add your interpretations to the work.

This article is a part of the guide:

• Outline Examples
• Example of a Paper
• Write a Hypothesis
• Introduction

Browse Full Outline

• 1 Write a Research Paper
• 2 Writing a Paper
• 3.1 Write an Outline
• 3.2 Outline Examples
• 4.1 Thesis Statement
• 4.2 Write a Hypothesis
• 5.2 Abstract
• 5.3 Introduction
• 5.4 Methods
• 5.5 Results
• 5.6 Discussion
• 5.7 Conclusion
• 5.8 Bibliography
• 6.1 Table of Contents
• 6.2 Acknowledgements
• 6.3 Appendix
• 7.1 In Text Citations
• 7.2 Footnotes
• 7.3.1 Floating Blocks
• 7.4 Example of a Paper
• 7.5 Example of a Paper 2
• 7.6.1 Citations
• 7.7.1 Writing Style
• 7.7.2 Citations
• 8.1.1 Sham Peer Review
• 8.1.2 Advantages
• 8.1.3 Disadvantages
• 8.2 Publication Bias
• 8.3.1 Journal Rejection
• 9.1 Article Writing
• 9.2 Ideas for Topics

In this critical part of the research paper, you start the process of explaining any links and correlations apparent in your data.

If you left few interesting leads and open questions in the results section , the discussion is simply a matter of building upon those and expanding them.

The Difficulties of Writing a Discussion Section

In an ideal world, you could simply reject your null or alternative hypotheses according to the significance levels found by the statistics.

That is the main point of your discussion section, but the process is usually a lot more complex than that. It is rarely clear-cut, and you will need to interpret your findings.

For example, one of your graphs may show a distinct trend, but not enough to reach an acceptable significance level.

Remember that no significance is not the same as no difference, and you can begin to explain this in your discussion section.

Whilst your results may not be enough to reject the null hypothesis , they may show a trend that later researchers may wish to explore, perhaps by refining the experiment .

Self-Criticism at the Heart of Writing a Discussion Section

For this purpose, you should criticize the experiment, and be honest about whether your design was good enough. If not, suggest any modifications and improvements that could be made to the design.

Maybe the reason that you did not find a significant correlation is because your sampling was not random , or you did not use sensitive enough equipment.

The discussion section is not always about what you found, but what you did not find, and how you deal with that. Stating that the results are inconclusive is the easy way out, and you must always try to pick out something of value.

Using the Discussion Section to Expand Knowledge

You should always put your findings into the context of the previous research that you found during your literature review . Do your results agree or disagree with previous research?

Do the results of the previous research help you to interpret your own findings? If your results are very different, why? Either you have uncovered something new, or you may have made a major flaw with the design of the experiment .

Finally, after saying all of this, you can make a statement about whether the experiment has contributed to knowledge in the field, or not.

Unless you made so many errors that the results are completely unreliable, you will; certainly have learned something. Try not to be too broad in your generalizations to the wider world - it is a small experiment and is unlikely to change the world.

Once writing the discussion section is complete, you can move onto the next stage, wrapping up the paper with a focused conclusion .

• Psychology 101
• Flags and Countries
• Capitals and Countries

Martyn Shuttleworth (Mar 6, 2009). Writing a Discussion Section. Retrieved Sep 03, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/writing-a-discussion-section

You Are Allowed To Copy The Text

The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .

This means you're free to copy, share and adapt any parts (or all) of the text in the article, as long as you give appropriate credit and provide a link/reference to this page.

That is it. You don't need our permission to copy the article; just include a link/reference back to this page. You can use it freely (with some kind of link), and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations (with clear attribution).

Want to stay up to date? Follow us!

Check out the official book.

Learn how to construct, style and format an Academic paper and take your skills to the next level.

(also available as ebook )

Save this course for later

Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.

Footer bottom

• Privacy Policy

• Subscribe to our RSS Feed
• Like us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter

Journal Article: Discussion

Criteria for success.

A strong Discussion section:

• Tells the main conclusion of the paper in one or two sentences.
• Tells how the paper’s results contribute to answering the big questions posed in the Introduction.
• Explains how (and why) this work agrees or disagrees with other, similar work.
• Explains how the limitations of this study leave the big questions unanswered.
• Tells how extensions of this paper’s results will be useful for answering the big questions.

Structure Diagram

The Discussion is the part of your paper where you can share what you think your results mean with respect to the big questions you posed in your Introduction. The Introduction and Discussion are natural partners: the Introduction tells the reader what question you are working on and why you did this experiment to investigate it; the Discussion tells the reader what the results of that experiment have to say about the bigger question.

Imagine you explained the results in the paper to a labmate who looks confused and asks you, “Sure, but so what? Why was this cool or interesting?” Your response to your labmate should be similar to the content in the Discussion.

Analyze Your Audience

Different kinds of readers will expect different things from your Discussion. Readers who are not experts in your field might read your Discussion before your Results in the hopes that they can learn what your Results mean and why your paper is important without having to learn how to interpret your experimental results. They might also be interested to know what you think the future of your field is. Readers who are more familiar with your field will generally understand what the results of your experiments say, but they will be curious about how you interpreted confusing, conflicting, or complicated results.

As you write your Discussion, decide who will find each paragraph interesting and what you want them to take away from it. Successful Discussions can simultaneously provide the specific, nuanced information that experts want to read and the broader, more general statements that non-experts can appreciate.

The balance between expert and non-expert readers in your target audience will depend on the journal to which you submit. High-profile, general readership journals will have more non-expert readers, while more technical, field-specific journals have almost exclusively expert readers.

Tell how your paper is special

Weak Discussions begin with a summary of the results or a repetition of the main points of the Introduction. Strong Discussions immediately carve out a place for themselves in the large universe of papers by saying what makes this one interesting or special. One way to do this is to start the Discussion with one or two sentences that state the main finding from the results and what that finding means for the field.

Relate your results to existing results

In the Introduction, you probably helped motivate your study by citing previous results in your field. Now that you’ve laid out your results, you should tell whether your results agree or disagree with prior work and why. You might have extended previous work, showed how apparently conflicting results are actually harmonious, or exposed a contradiction that currently has no explanation.

Tell how your study’s limitations leave open the big questions

Every study is finite: you did some things and not others, and you used methods that can explain some phenomena but not others. How do the limitations of your study leave open the bigger questions? Do you just need to do more of the same kind of work? Have you shown that current methods are inadequate for answering the big question?

Every paper is a contribution to a larger scientific conversation. Hopefully, you think your contribution is somehow useful to that conversation: it provides new information or tools that will help you or other researchers move toward answers to the big questions. To explain this contribution, many Discussions end with a forward-looking statement that tries to place the paper in an expected future of research in that field.

This content was adapted from from an article originally created by the  MIT Biological Engineering Communication Lab .

Resources and Annotated Examples

Annotated example 1.

This is the discussion for an article published in Science Translational Medicine . 6 MB

Annotated Example 2

This is the discussion for an article published in Cell . 325 KB

We Trust in Human Precision

20,000+ Professional Language Experts Ready to Help. Expertise in a variety of Niches.

API Solutions

• API Pricing
• Cost estimate
• Customer loyalty program
• Educational Discount
• Non-Profit Discount
• Green Initiative Discount1

Value-Driven Pricing

Unmatched expertise at affordable rates tailored for your needs. Our services empower you to boost your productivity.

• Special Discounts
• Enterprise transcription solutions
• Enterprise translation solutions
• Transcription/Caption API
• AI Transcription Proofreading API

Trusted by Global Leaders

GoTranscript is the chosen service for top media organizations, universities, and Fortune 50 companies.

GoTranscript

One of the Largest Online Transcription and Translation Agencies in the World. Founded in 2005.

Speaker 1: Hello, William Levesque here from the Rehabilitation Teaching and Research Unit, RTRU, at the Wellington campus for the University of Otago. This presentation is a short introduction to how to write a discussion section. I've targeted this at PhD and Master's thesis students, so I'll be talking a bit about how to write a discussion chapter for a thesis, but also it's relevant to writing your first paper for publication in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. So to begin with, here is a broad overview about what to include in your discussion section. You want to cover what you did, what you found, what it means, and these things can be summed up to refer to why your research is important. You want to talk about the strengths and limitations of your research and make recommendations for future research. If your research is to do with health science work, then you should also be talking about the implications from your research in terms of clinical practice. Specific journals do have more explicit requirements in terms of the structure of your discussion section sometimes, so do follow those of course if you're submitting a paper for publication. But in general, these are the things that need to be covered in a discussion chapter. In terms of what you did and found, you need to be declarative, direct, and succinct. You want to cover this in a paragraph or two, or if you're writing for publication, a short journal article, this might need to be only a sentence or two in your paper. You don't want to reproduce your results in entirety in your discussion section. Just concentrate on the major findings, the stuff that is most important from your work. In terms of what your research findings mean, you want to interpret your findings rather than just report them descriptively. Reference to existing theory can be useful here. Your research findings may either expand on existing theory or be used to further substantiate existing theory. You want to talk about why your research findings are important and to link your findings to prior research. Highlight the parts of your research that are new. This may be that you have explored a new research question that other people haven't explored before, or it might be that you have found something new or produced new ideas or perspectives through your research, or it might be that your research findings provide important new evidence for existing theory, strengthening existing ideas on a particular topic. So here's an example of a paper that I published last year with my colleagues on research, reporting on some research, some qualitative research, exploring cultural issues around the barriers and facilitators for Māori people accessing pulmonary rehabilitation, which is an exercise and education programme for people with chronic lung disease. I'm just going to scroll down to the results section here, and you'll see at the beginning of the results section I have a summary of our main research findings which have been linked to the prior research in this area. So our work was about barriers and facilitators of accessing pulmonary rehabilitation, so we talk about the findings that relate to, that have previously been identified in other people's work, and we highlight other findings that arose from our work with Māori individuals where these findings are more specific to that population and present new perspectives. Right at the beginning of this discussion section we make an assertive statement that, to our knowledge, this is the first study that has explored these cultural issues regarding the influence of cultural issues on uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation, so we're highlighting what is new. So what are some of the strategies for you to use in order to identify things that you should be talking about in your discussion section in more detail? One idea is to start early. While you are analysing your results, or even during the process of conducting your studies, start jotting ideas down about what sorts of things might be important arising from your work, and you can refer back to these when you're writing your research section. It's also a really good idea to have a clear picture in your head of who your audience is for your work. Write for your audience. What are the key take-home messages that you want people to take from your research, and who are you writing for? If you're writing to a specific journal, it is useful to know who the readership of that journal is, and who the editorship of that journal is, and you want to write for that for those people as well. Consider alternative interpretations of your data. Try and think what other ways you could interpret your research findings, and either use this to strengthen your own ideas or to adapt your own ideas in terms of how to interpret your research findings. Make sure you justify your ideas either way. Another strategy might be to list all the things that you didn't know when you began your research that you have subsequently discovered for yourself. It's easy, particularly for a three-year PhD process, to forget how far you've come in terms of the development of your knowledge, and so it's useful to reflect on the things you didn't know prior to undertaking a study. Develop each of these points in your list as a discrete section in your PhD or Master's thesis discussion chapter, or as discrete paragraphs in the results section of a published article. It can be also useful to treat the background section of your thesis or your published article as the setup to your discussion, and I'll just illustrate this with this paper that I've been referring to here. So if I go back to the introduction, there is reference in here to what other people have written about barriers and facilitators of access to pulmonary rehabilitation, but how little information exists on cultural factors related to the delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation. So, right at the beginning of this paper, I have foreshadowed this discussion that we would have later on in the discussion section of this paper around the importance of considering these things and the implication they might have. So this highlights what's new, again, for this research that we were undertaking. When discussing the limitations of your research, you want to remember that all research has limitations. Examiners expect PhD and Master's theses to have limitations, they expect graduate students to have faced difficulties and problems with their method, and so examiners of theses are more concerned with how problems were dealt with than whether or not they occurred. So it's important, both in writing a thesis and in presenting research for a published article, to be frank and candid about the limitations of your research, but don't be overly apologetic because limitations are inevitable. You want to discuss the implications of the limitations rather than just highlight them. You've got to talk about why the limitations are relevant in terms of interpreting the results of your work. Some limitations are just errors and others are considerations regarding the scope of the work, but both of these things are worth discussing. Discussion of the limitations also provides you with an opportunity to identify future areas of research. You want to make general statements about future areas of research, but also provide specific recommendations about what needs to happen next, what study is needed next, what methods should be employed, what is needed to do these types of studies. And again, to come back to this paper here in the discussion section, at the end we talk about how research on indigenous healthcare is sorely lacking and there's a great need for it, and make a specific recommendation here drawing on other people's work to put out a call for an urgent need for further cost-effectiveness studies to be conducted involving indigenous healthcare interventions in order to better understand the value and to further develop these models. So you can see we've made a general recommendation and some more specific recommendations in terms of the type of research that needs to be conducted. Things to avoid in the discussion section. Avoid repeating too much of your findings without interpretation. Don't just repeat verbatim. You want to take things a little bit further in your discussion section. Avoid presenting new data in your discussion. If you feel like you want to present data that you didn't present in your results section, you might want to go back and revise your results section rather than add it to your discussion section. Avoid over-inflating the importance of your findings. As a scientist, you need to be appropriately conservative in terms of how far you can develop arguments from the data that you have. And similarly, avoid over-extending your arguments. Don't interpret beyond what can be justifiably inferred from the data. One thing to look out for is long strings of inferences, if this, then this, then this, then this, when you've moved a long way away from your original data to reach some hypothetical conclusion. Avoid raising too many tangential issues. However, this can be okay in a chapter section of a PhD thesis or a master's thesis, and that's one of the luxuries of writing a thesis. You do have a bit more room to expand on some of the more fringe ideas in your work. One more consideration. It's useful to use the discussion section of your work to publish arguments that you might want to cite later. So by cite later, I mean in terms of future research grants. It's useful to have arguments presented in a paper to justify future research ideas. But also, use your discussion section to put messages out there that you want in the world. So these could be messages for clinicians or policy makers or for students. In conclusion, you want to write a conclusion and be conclusive. The conclusion might be a separate section in your thesis or in your journal article, or it might be integrated in your discussion at the end. But regardless, conclusions should be tight and to the point. They should follow clearly from your research question. Don't introduce any new citations in your conclusion statements, but make sure that there's a nice flow of logic from your research question to your methods, to your results, to your discussion, to the things you pull out in your conclusion. Be assertive in your conclusions, but be balanced. So that's it from me on writing a discussion section for your PhD thesis, master's thesis or journal article. If you want to follow my work on a more ongoing basis, you can follow me on Twitter at DrLivac.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Insights from 20 years (2004–2023) of supply chain disruption research: trends and future directions based on a bibliometric analysis.

1. Introduction

2. literature review, 3. materials and methods, 3.1. sample creation.

• Only papers published in international journals were retrieved, while other types of publications were not considered;
• Similarly, only papers written in English were considered.
• The paper’s metadata: authors, journal, bibliographic data, publication year, document title, and document type (article vs. review);
• The authors’ keywords;
• The publication option (traditional vs. open access);
• Funding information.

3.2. Descriptive Analyses

3.3. keyword analysis and trend.

• Authors often use slightly different terms to express the same concept. This is the case for singular or plural forms, British or American spelling of words, usage of capital letters/lower case letters, usage of hyphenation, or abbreviations (e.g., COVID vs. Coronavirus);
• Acronyms can sometimes be used as keywords instead of the full text.
• Well-established (‘core’), with high frequency and high persistence. They are expected to denote themes that have long been studied by many authors in the field;
• Intermittent, with low frequency and high persistence. Terms in this category denote themes that have been known for many years, but have been studied with low continuity;
• Phantom/emerging, with low frequency and low persistence. These topics could be relatively new to the research field or could describe themes that have progressively disappeared;
• Trendy, with high frequency and low persistence. These topics are relatively new but have already attracted the attention of many researchers.
• The subset of keywords that were observed in all periods of analysis, as these terms are expected to reflect relevant themes to the selected field of research. For those terms, their classification across the four periods was mapped, so as to delineate a trend in the interest toward the specific theme;
• The subset of keywords with a minimum frequency of 30, thus indicating a high recurrence of the related topics in the targeted field of research. These keywords were first grouped by macro-areas; then, their trend in time was evaluated jointly with that of some core topics of the targeted field of research to identify possible correlations.

4.1. Descriptive Analyses

4.2. keyword analysis and trend.

• Query-related terms: as the query settings expressively included terms such as “supply chain” and “disruption”, these terms (and their combination “supply chain disruption”) were grouped in a single query-related category;
• COVID-relates terms: this category includes the terms “COVID-19” and “COVID-19 pandemic”;
• Disruption-related terms: these terms are semantically related to the topic of “disruption”, which, however, is not necessarily used as a keyword. Those terms are supply disruption; pandemic; disruption risk; disruption management; uncertainty; ripple effect; demand disruption; and disaster;
• Risk- or resilience-related terms: this category includes terms that were not used in the query settings but that appear to be related to the more general theme of risk management or resilience, whose relationship with supply chain disruptions is obvious. These terms include (supply chain) resilience, (supply chain) risk management, (supply chain) risk, robustness; resilient supply chain, supply risk, reliability, risk assessment; or vulnerability;
• Supply chain-related terms: as per the classification made previously, these terms do not strictly refer to disruptions, but to more general problems in the area of supply chain or supply chain management. These terms include supply chain management, supplier selection, logistics, supply chain design, supply chain network, global supply chain, supply chain network design, collaboration, supply chain coordination, or inventory management;
• Sustainability-related terms: the sustainability perspective includes four terms, namely sustainability, closed-loop supply chain, climate change, and circular economy;
• Technology-related terms: this category includes terms such as Industry 4.0, artificial intelligence, machine learning, additive manufacturing, or blockchain;
• Tools and methodologies: this group of terms includes typical engineering tools and techniques, such as simulation, game theory, (robust) optimization, stochastic programming, system dynamics, case study, or multi-criteria decision making;
• Interrelated topics: terms in this category do not strictly refer to the area of supply chain disruptions, nor the more general area of risk or supply chain management. Rather, they introduce complementary topics, such as food security, food supply chain, small and medium enterprises, innovation, agility, or systematic review.

5. Discussion

6. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Strazzullo, S.; Shehri, K.A.; Farag, T.; El-Garaihy, W.H. Supply Chain Practices for a Sustainable Value Chain. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 2023 , 51 , 130–147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pirie, N.W. The world food supply. Futures 1976 , 8 , 509–516. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Burns, J.F.; Sivazlian, B.D. Dynamic analysis of multi-echelon supply systems. Comput. Ind. Eng. 1978 , 2 , 181–193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liao, S.H.; Widowati, R. A Supply Chain Management Study: A Review of Theoretical Models from 2014 to 2019. Oper. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2021 , 9 , 173–188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jayarathna, C.P.; Agdas, D.; Dawes, L.; Yigitcanlar, T. Multi-Objective Optimization for Sustainable Supply Chain and Logistics: A Review. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 13617. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seo, Y.; Jung, S.; Hahm, J. Optimal reorder decision utilizing centralized stock information in a two-echelon distribution system. Comput. Oper. Res. 2002 , 29 , 171–193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lysova, N.; Solari, F.; Caccamo, D.; Suppini, C.; Montanari, R. Periodic Review Inventory Management with Budget Constraints: Discrete-Event Simulation and Sensitivity Analysis. In Proceedings of the ECMS 2023 Proceedings edited by Enrico Vicario, Romeo Bandinelli, Virginia Fani, Michele Mastroianni, Florence, Italy, 20–23 June 2023. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, P.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, W. Demand Forecast of Railway Transportation Logistics Supply Chain Based on Machine Learning Model. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Syst. Approach 2023 , 16 , 1–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, F.; Wu, D.; Yu, H.; Shen, H.; Zhao, Y. Understanding the role of big data analytics for coordination of electronic retail service supply chain. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2021 , 35 , 1392–1408. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kazancoglu, I.; Ozbiltekin-Pala, M.; Kumar Mangla, S.; Kazancoglu, Y.; Jabeen, F. Role of flexibility, agility and responsiveness for sustainable supply chain resilience during COVID-19. J. Clean. Prod. 2022 , 362 , 132431. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mcgaughey, R.E.; Gunasekaran, A. The Y2K problem: Manufacturing inputs at risk. Prod. Plan. Control 1999 , 10 , 796–808. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Overby, J.; Rayburn, M.; Hammond, K.; Wyld, D.C. The China Syndrome: The impact of the SARS epidemic in Southeast Asia. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2004 , 16 , 69–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hendry, L.C.; Stevenson, M.; MacBryde, J.; Ball, P.; Sayed, M.; Liu, L. Local food supply chain resilience to constitutional change: The Brexit effect. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2019 , 39 , 429–453. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, J.J. The labour surplus and COVID-19: The outlook for Chinese migrant low-skilled workers. Account. Financ. 2021 , 62 , 577–596. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Naz, F. Impact of Ukraine War on Global Energy and Food Supply Chains: A Case Study of South Asia. Strateg. Stud. 2023 , 42 , 38–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rose, A.; Chen, Z.; Wei, D. The economic impacts of Russia–Ukraine War export disruptions of grain commodities. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2023 , 45 , 645–665. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mostafa, N.A.; Hussein, A.A.; Elsheeta, M.; Romagnoli, G. Impacts of COVID-19 and the Russian–Ukrainian Conflict on Food Supply Chain: A Case Study from Bread Supply Chain in Egypt. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 994. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abdirad, M.; Krishnan, K. Industry 4.0 in Logistics and Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Eng. Manag. J. 2020 , 33 , 187–201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dolgui, A.; Ivanov, D.; Rozhkov, M. Does the ripple effect influence the bullwhip effect? An integrated analysis of structural and operational dynamics in the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019 , 58 , 1285–1301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alvarenga, M.Z.; de Oliveira, M.P.V.; de Oliveira, T.A.G.F. The impact of using digital technologies on supply chain resilience and robustness: The role of memory under the COVID-19 outbreak. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2023 , 28 , 825–842. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bianco, D.; Bueno, A.; Godinho Filho, M.; Latan, H.; Miller Devós Ganga, G.; Frank, A.G.; Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J. The role of Industry 4.0 in developing resilience for manufacturing companies during COVID-19. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2023 , 256 , 108728. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fagundes, M.V.C.; Teles, E.O.; Vieira de Melo, S.A.B.; Freires, F.G.M. Decision-making models and support systems for supply chain risk: Literature mapping and future research agenda. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2020 , 26 , 63–70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Christopher, M.; Peck, H. Building the Resilient Supply Chain. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2004 , 15 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bak, O.; Shaw, S.; Colicchia, C.; Kumar, V. A Systematic Literature Review of Supply Chain Resilience in Small–Medium Enterprises (SMEs): A Call for Further Research. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2023 , 70 , 328–341. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mishra, R.; Singh, R.K. A systematic literature review on supply chain resilience in SMEs: Learnings from COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2022 , 40 , 1172–1202. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Devi, Y.; Srivastava, A. Addressing sustainability during and post-COVID-19 pandemic crisis: A literature review and bibliometric analysis to explore the future avenues. Benchmarking Int. J. 2022 , 30 , 3225–3252. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Agrawal, S.; Kumar, D.; Singh, R.K.; Singh, R.K. Coordination issues in managing the reverse supply chain: A systematic literature review and future research directions. Benchmarking Int. J. 2022 , 30 , 1259–1299. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aamer, A.; Sahara, C.R.; Al-Awlaqi, M.A. Digitalization of the supply chain: Transformation factors. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 2022 , 14 , 713–733. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arji, G.; Ahmadi, H.; Avazpoor, P.; Hemmat, M. Identifying resilience strategies for disruption management in the healthcare supply chain during COVID-19 by digital innovations: A systematic literature review. Inform. Med. Unlocked 2023 , 38 , 101199. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Erboz, G.; Abbas, H.; Nosratabadi, S. Investigating supply chain research trends amid Covid-19: A bibliometric analysis. Manag. Res. Rev. 2022 , 46 , 413–436. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Araujo, R.; Fernandes, J.M.; Reis, L.P.; Beaulieu, M. Purchasing challenges in times of COVID-19: Resilience practices to mitigate disruptions in the health-care supply chain. J. Glob. Oper. Strateg. Sourc. 2022 , 16 , 368–396. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shah, H.M.; Gardas, B.B.; Narwane, V.S.; Mehta, H.S. The contemporary state of big data analytics and artificial intelligence towards intelligent supply chain risk management: A comprehensive review. Kybernetes 2021 , 52 , 1643–1697. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Llaguno, A.; Mula, J.; Campuzano-Bolarin, F. State of the art, conceptual framework and simulation analysis of the ripple effect on supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021 , 60 , 2044–2066. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pujawan, I.N.; Bah, A.U. Supply chains under COVID-19 disruptions: Literature review and research agenda. Supply Chain Forum Int. J. 2021 , 23 , 81–95. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sarkar, P.; Mohamed Ismail, M.W.; Tkachev, T. Bridging the supply chain resilience research and practice gaps: Pre and post COVID-19 perspectives. J. Glob. Oper. Strateg. Sourc. 2022 , 15 , 599–627. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tortorella, G.; Fogliatto, F.S.; Gao, S.; Chan, T.K. Contributions of Industry 4.0 to supply chain resilience. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2021 , 33 , 547–566. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moosavi, J.; Fathollahi-Fard, A.M.; Dulebenets, M.A. Supply chain disruption during the COVID-19 pandemic: Recognizing potential disruption management strategies. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022 , 75 , 102983. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Naghshineh, B.; Carvalho, H. The implications of additive manufacturing technology adoption for supply chain resilience: A systematic search and review. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022 , 247 , 108387. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cardoso, B.; Cunha, L.; Leiras, A.; Gonçalves, P.; Yoshizaki, H.; de Brito Junior, I.; Pedroso, F. Causal Impacts of Epidemics and Pandemics on Food Supply Chains: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 9799. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharifi, A.; Khavarian-Garmsir, A.R.; Kummitha, R.K.R. Contributions of Smart City Solutions and Technologies to Resilience against the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 8018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abu Hatab, A.; Krautscheid, L.; Boqvist, S. COVID-19, Livestock Systems and Food Security in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review of an Emerging Literature. Pathogens 2021 , 10 , 586. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Riera, R.; Bagattini, Â.M.; Pacheco, R.L.; Pachito, D.V.; Roitberg, F.; Ilbawi, A. Delays and Disruptions in Cancer Health Care Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review. JCO Glob. Oncol. 2021 , 7 , 311–323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Abideen, A.Z.; Sundram, V.P.K.; Pyeman, J.; Othman, A.K.; Sorooshian, S. Food Supply Chain Transformation through Technology and Future Research Directions—A Systematic Review. Logistics 2021 , 5 , 83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Etemadi, N.; Borbon-Galvez, Y.; Strozzi, F.; Etemadi, T. Supply Chain Disruption Risk Management with Blockchain: A Dynamic Literature Review. Information 2021 , 12 , 70. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Farooq, M.U.; Hussain, A.; Masood, T.; Habib, M.S. Supply Chain Operations Management in Pandemics: A State-of-the-Art Review Inspired by COVID-19. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 2504. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gurtu, A.; Johny, J. Supply Chain Risk Management: Literature Review. Risks 2021 , 9 , 16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Habibi Rad, M.; Mojtahedi, M.; Ostwald, M.J. The Integration of Lean and Resilience Paradigms: A Systematic Review Identifying Current and Future Research Directions. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 8893. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Svoboda, J.; Minner, S.; Yao, M. Typology and literature review on multiple supplier inventory control models. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2021 , 293 , 1–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bui, T.D.; Tsai, F.M.; Tseng, M.L.; Tan, R.R.; Yu, K.D.S.; Lim, M.K. Sustainable supply chain management towards disruption and organizational ambidexterity: A data driven analysis. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021 , 26 , 373–410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bier, T.; Lange, A.; Glock, C.H. Methods for mitigating disruptions in complex supply chain structures: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019 , 58 , 1835–1856. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, S.; Zhang, X.; Feng, L.; Yang, W. Disruption risks in supply chain management: A literature review based on bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020 , 58 , 3508–3526. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fischer-Preßler, D.; Eismann, K.; Pietrowski, R.; Fischbach, K.; Schoder, D. Information technology and risk management in supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2020 , 50 , 233–254. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Duong, L.N.K.; Chong, J. Supply chain collaboration in the presence of disruptions: A literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2020 , 58 , 3488–3507. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vieira, A.A.C.; Dias, L.M.S.; Santos, M.Y.; Pereira, G.A.B.; Oliveira, J.A. Supply chain data integration: A literature review. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2020 , 19 , 100161. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yuen, K.F.; Wang, X.; Ma, F.; Li, K.X. The Psychological Causes of Panic Buying Following a Health Crisis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020 , 17 , 3513. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Golan, M.S.; Jernegan, L.H.; Linkov, I. Trends and applications of resilience analytics in supply chain modeling: Systematic literature review in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2020 , 40 , 222–243. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Aamer, A.; Eka Yani, L.P.; Alan Priyatna, I.M. Data Analytics in the Supply Chain Management: Review of Machine Learning Applications in Demand Forecasting. Oper. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2020 , 14 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gligor, D.; Bozkurt, S.; Russo, I.; Omar, A. A look into the past and future: Theories within supply chain management, marketing and management. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019 , 24 , 170–186. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gligor, D.; Gligor, N.; Holcomb, M.; Bozkurt, S. Distinguishing between the concepts of supply chain agility and resilience. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2019 , 30 , 467–487. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aboah, J.; Wilson, M.M.J.; Rich, K.M.; Lyne, M.C. Operationalising resilience in tropical agricultural value chains. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019 , 24 , 271–300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Queiroz, M.M.; Telles, R.; Bonilla, S.H. Blockchain and supply chain management integration: A systematic review of the literature. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019 , 25 , 241–254. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghadge, A.; Weiß, M.; Caldwell, N.D.; Wilding, R. Managing cyber risk in supply chains: A review and research agenda. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019 , 25 , 223–240. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aryal, A.; Liao, Y.; Nattuthurai, P.; Li, B. The emerging big data analytics and IoT in supply chain management: A systematic review. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2018 , 25 , 141–156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feak, C.; Swales, J. Telling a Research Story: Writing a Literature Review ; University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2009. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haghani, M. What makes an informative and publication-worthy scientometric analysis of literature: A guide for authors, reviewers and editors. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2023 , 22 , 100956. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bottani, E.; Solari, F.; Lysova, N. Sample of Papers about “Supply Chain” AND Disruption ; Mendeley Data; Università degli Studi di Parma: Parma, Italy, 2024; p. V1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amini, H.; Jabalameli, M.S.; Ramesht, M.H. Development of regional foresight studies between 2000: An overview and co-citation analysis. Eur. J. Futures Res. 2021 , 9 , 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hartley, J. Academic Writing and Publishing ; Routledge: London, UK, 2008. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, J.; Yu, Q.; Zheng, F.; Long, C.; Lu, Z.; Duan, Z. Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: A case study of patient adherence research. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2015 , 67 , 967–972. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fadlalla, A.; Amani, F. A keyword-based organizing framework for ERP intellectual contributions. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2015 , 28 , 637–657. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bigliardi, B.; Casella, G.; Bottani, E. Industry 4.0 in the logistics field: A bibliometric analysis. IET Collab. Intell. Manuf. 2021 , 3 , 4–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, M.; Chai, L. Three new bibliometric indicators/approaches derived from keyword analysis. Scientometrics 2018 , 116 , 721–750. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ivanov, D. Predicting the impacts of epidemic outbreaks on global supply chains: A simulation-based analysis on the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) case. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 2020 , 136 , 101922. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rinaldi, M.; Bottani, E. How did COVID-19 affect logistics and supply chain processes? Immediate, short and medium-term evidence from some industrial fields of Italy. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2023 , 262 , 108915. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bordons, M.; González-Albo, B.; Moreno-Solano, L. Improving our understanding of open access: How it relates to funding, internationality of research and scientific leadership. Scientometrics 2023 , 128 , 4651–4676. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bontekoning, Y.M.; Macharis, C.; Trip, J.J. Is a new applied transportation research field emerging?—A review of intermodal rail–truck freight transport literature. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2004 , 38 , 1–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ngai, E.W.T.; Moon, K.K.L.; Riggins, F.J.; Yi, C.Y. RFID research: An academic literature review (1995–2005) and future research directions. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008 , 112 , 510–520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Casella, G.; Filippelli, S.; Bigliardi, B.; Bottani, E. Radio frequency identification technology in logistics: A review of the literature. Int. J. RF Technol. 2022 , 12 , 69–86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hobbs, J.E. Food supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can. J. Agric. Econ. Rev. Can. D’agroéconomie 2020 , 68 , 171–176. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dolgui, A.; Ivanov, D. Ripple effect and supply chain disruption management: New trends and research directions. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021 , 59 , 102–109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raja Santhi, A.; Muthuswamy, P. Industry 5.0 or industry 4.0S? Introduction to industry 4.0 and a peek into the prospective industry 5.0 technologies. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 2023 , 17 , 947–979. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thilmany, D.; Canales, E.; Low, S.A.; Boys, K. Local Food Supply Chain Dynamics and Resilience during COVID-19. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2020 , 43 , 86–104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Suryawanshi, P.; Dutta, P.; Varun, L.; Deepak, G. Sustainable and resilience planning for the supply chain of online hyperlocal grocery services. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021 , 28 , 496–518. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Solari, F.; Lysova, N.; Romagnoli, G.; Montanari, R.; Bottani, E. Insights from 20 Years (2004–2023) of Supply Chain Disruption Research: Trends and Future Directions Based on a Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177530

Solari F, Lysova N, Romagnoli G, Montanari R, Bottani E. Insights from 20 Years (2004–2023) of Supply Chain Disruption Research: Trends and Future Directions Based on a Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability . 2024; 16(17):7530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177530

Solari, Federico, Natalya Lysova, Giovanni Romagnoli, Roberto Montanari, and Eleonora Bottani. 2024. "Insights from 20 Years (2004–2023) of Supply Chain Disruption Research: Trends and Future Directions Based on a Bibliometric Analysis" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7530. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177530

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Unveiling the deterioration formation process of the rammed earth city wall site of the Ancient City of Pingyao, a World Heritage Site: occurrence, characterizations, and historic environmental implications

• Published: 02 September 2024
• Volume 16 , article number  156 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Xiangling Bai 1 ,
• Bin He 1 , 2 ,
• Diyue Zhang 1 ,
• Yingxin Wang 1 ,
• Xiaohong Bai 1 ,
• Fuli Ma 1 &
• Pengju Han 1  

Large, immovable rammed earth buildings in UNESCO World Cultural Heritage sites are at serious risk of disaster due to environmental changes. In this study, the rammed earth city walls (REWs) located in the Ancient City of Ping Yao, a World Cultural Heritage site, affected by heavy precipitation in early October 2021, were used as the research object. The study aimed to specify the details of deterioration through multiple indicator data collection, semi-quantitatively evaluate the degree of deterioration of REWs, and investigate the causes of typical deterioration in REWs with different spatial distributions under the influence of heavy precipitation. Based on the current research and experimental data, and considering the mode of action and form of deterioration, a classification system for the landslide-like collapses of REWs under the influence of precipitation was constructed. Factors such as the influence of heavy precipitation and the REWs' intrinsic features resulted in significant variations in structural properties and deterioration development of REWs with different spatial distribution characteristics. Finally, based on the research in this paper and the conservation ideology of cultural relics that respects the original and minimizes intervention, we propose protection recommendations for the daily management and conservation of the REWs to provide guidance for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Bao WX, Wang HB, Lai HP et al (2022) Experimental study on strength characteristics and internal mineral changes of Lime-stabilized loess under High-Temperature. Constr Build Mater 351:128945

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Beckett C, Ciancio D (2014) Effect of compaction water content on the strength of cement-stabilized rammed earth materials. Can Geotech J 51:583–590

Article   Google Scholar  

Blanca T, Elena L, David BH et al (2022) Non-destructive techniques (NDT) for the diagnosis of heritage buildings: raditional procedures and futures perspectives. Energ Buildings 263:112029

Blanco-Rotea R, Sanjurjo-Sánchez J, Freire-Lista DM et al (2024) Absolute dating of construction materials and petrological characterisation of mortars from the Santalla de Bóveda Monument (Lugo, Spain). Archaeol Anthropol Sci 16(1):7

Bryk M, Kolodziej B, Slowinska-Jurkiewicz A et al (2017) Evaluation of soil structure and physical properties influenced by weather conditions during autumn-winter-spring season. Soil till Res 170:66–76

Cereda S, Mayrhofer M, Saliari K et al (2023) Absence of evidence or evidence of absence? The microarchaeology of an ‘empty’ square enclosure of the Late Iron Age La Tène Culture. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 15(1):113

Chen WW, Jia BB, Shan XK et al (2023) Preventing the secondary salt deterioration in the repaired area of basal erosion of earthen sites based on capillary barrier effect. Constr Build Mater 366:130168

Ciancio D, Jaquin P, Walker P (2013) Advances on the assessment of soil suitability for rammed earth. Constr Build Mater 42:40–47

Cuccurullo A, Gallipoli D, Bruno AW et al (2021) A comparative study of the effects of particle grading and compaction effort on the strength and stiffness of earth building materials at different humidity levels. Constr Build Mater 306:124770

Cui K, Wu GP, Du YM et al (2019) The coupling effects of freeze-thaw cycles and salinization due to snowfall on the rammed earth used in historical freeze-thaw cycles relics in northwest China. Cold Reg Sci Technol 160:288–299

Eires R, Camões A, Jalali S (2017) Enhancing water resistance of earthen buildings with quicklime and oil. J Clean Prod 142(4):3281–3292

Feng ZB, Luo XL, Wang JQ et al (2022) Energy-efficient preservation environment control for enclosed exhibition hall of earthen relics. Energy Build 256:111713

Fort R, Varas-Muriel MJ, Ergenç D et al (2023) The technology of ancient lime mortars from the Żejtun Roman Villa (Malta). Archaeol Anthropol Sci 15(8):15

Fujii Y, Fodde E, Watanabe K et al (2009) Digital photogrammetry for the documentation of structural damage in earthen archaeological sites: The case of Ajina Tepa, Tajikistan. Eng Geol 105:124–133

Ghorbani A, Chitimbo T, Revil A et al (2023) Water content imaging during capillary rise within a rammed earth structure. Eng Geol 325:107305

Greco F, Lourenco P (2021) Seismic assessment of large historic vernacular adobe buildings in the Andean Region of Peru. Learning from Casa Arones in cusco. J Build Eng 40:102341

Han WC, Gong RM, Liu Y et al (2022) Influence mechanism of salt erosion on the earthen heritage site wall in Pianguan Bastion. Case Stud Constr Mat 17:e01388

Google Scholar  

Hart S, Raymond K, Williams CJ et al (2021) Precipitation impacts on earthen architecture for better implementation of cultural resource management in the US Southwest. Herit Sci 9:143

He Y, Li Z, Wang WF et al (2022) Slope stability analysis considering the strength anisotropy of c-φ soil. Sci Rep-UK 12:18372

Inomata T, Triadan D, Vázquez López VA et al (2020) Monumental architecture at Aguada Fénix and the rise of Maya civilization. Nature 582:530–533

Jiang B, Wu T, Xia WJ et al (2020) Hygrothermal performance of rammed earth wall in Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in Sichuan Province of China. Build Environ 181(15):107128

Kong DQ, Wan R, Chen JX et al (2019) The study on engineering characteristics and compression mechanisms of typical historical earthen site soil. Constr Build Mater 213:386–403

Li J (2006) Yingzao Fashi. China Bookstore Press, Beijing

Li WZ (2017) General annals of Shanxi. Zhonghua Book Company, Beijing

Lin HJ, Zheng S, Lourenco SDN et al (2017) Characterization of coarse soils derived from igneous rocks for rammed earth. Eng Geol 228:137–145

Liu JX, Wang YZ (2024) Performance degradation mechanism of adobe materials under freeze-thaw cycles based on moisture transportation characteristics and microstructural analysis. Constr Build Mater 411:134464

Liu L, Yao Y, Zhang LL et al (2022) Study on the mechanical properties of modified rammed earth and the correlation of influencing factors. J Clean Prod 374:134042

Lou Y, Yin BT, Peng XQ et al (2019) Wind-rain erosion of Fujian Tulou Hakka Earth Buildings. Sustain Cities Soc 50:101666

Lou Y, Zhou PS, Ni PP et al (2021) Degradation of rammed earth under soluble salts attack and drying-wetting cycles: The case of Fujian Tulou, China. Appl Clay Sci 212:106202

Lu K, Li F, Pan JW et al (2021) Using electrical resistivity tomography and surface nuclear magnetic resonance to investigate cultural relic preservation in Leitai. China Eng Geol 285:106042

Luo Y, Yang MQ, Ni PP et al (2020) Degradation of rammed earth under wind-driven rain: the case of Fujian Tulou, China. Constr Build Mater 261:119989

Luo XL, Huang XY, Feng ZB et al (2021) Influence of air inlet/outlet arrangement of displacement ventilation on local environment control for unearthed relics within site museum. Energy Build 246:111116

Morrison TH, Adger WN, Brown K et al (2020) Political dynamics and governance of World Heritage ecosystems. Nat Sustain 3:947–955

Mota-Lopez MI, Maderuelo-Sanz R, Pastor-Valle JD et al (2021) Analytical characterization of the almohad rammed-earth wall of Cáceres, Spain. Constr Build Mater 273:121676

Pan CG, Chen KY, Chen DT et al (2020) Research progress on in-situ protection status and technology of earthen sites in moisty environment. Constr Build Mater 253:119219

Parracha JL, Silva AS, Cotrim M et al (2020) Mineralogical and microstructural characterisation of rammed earth and earthen mortars from 12th century Paderne Castle. J Cult Herit 42:226–239

Parracha JL, Lima J, Freire MT et al (2021) Vernacular earthen buildings from Leiria, Portugal – Architectural survey towards their conservation and retrofitting. J Build Eng 35:102115

Pasquale S (2021) Mapping the susceptibility of UNESCO World Cultural Heritage sites in Europe to ambient (outdoor) air pollution. Sci Total Environ 754:142345

Peerun MI, Ong DEL, Choo CS et al (2020) Effect of interparticle behavior on the development of soil arching in soil-structure interaction. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 106:103610

Pu TB, Chen WW, Du YM et al (2016) Snowfall-related deterioration behavior of the Ming Great Wall in the eastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Nat Hazards 84:1539–1550

Reimann L, Vafeidis AT, Brown S et al (2018) Mediterranean UNESCO World Heritage at risk from coastal flooding and erosion due to sea-level rise. Nat Commun 9:4161

Reyes JC, Yamin LE, Hassan WM et al (2018) Shear behavior of adobe and rammed earth walls of heritage structures. Eng Struct 174:526–537

Richards J, Viles H, Guo QL (2020) The importance of wind as a driver of earthen heritage deterioration in dryland environments. Geomorphology 369:107363

Richards J, Zhao G, Zhang H et al (2019) A controlled field experiment to investigate the deterioration of earthen heritage by wind and rain. Herit Sci 7:51

Saanchi SK, Mariantonieta GS, Rebecca N (2023) Understanding the Performance of Historic Masonry Structures in Mayfield, KY after the 2021 Tornadoes. J Cult Herit 63:120–134

Shelach-Lavi G, Honeychurch W, Chunag A (2020) Does extra-large equal extra-ordinary? The ‘Wall of Chinggis Khan’ from a multidimensional perspective. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 7:22

Srisunthon P, Mueller D, Wilk J et al (2024) Structure and age of ancient walls from the city of Nan, northern Thailand. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 16(5):72

Storozum M, Lu P, Wang S et al (2020) Geoarchaeological evidence of the AD 1642 Yellow River flood that destroyed Kaifeng, a former capital of dynastic China. Sci Rep-UK 10:3765

Su N, Yang B, Chen WW et al (2022) Influence of prevailing wind direction on sapping quantity of rammed earth Great Wall of the Ming Dynasty. Coatings 12(5):707

Taylor P, Luther MB (2004) Evaluating rammed earth walls: a case study. Sol Energy 76(1–3):79–84

Traoré LB, Ouellet-Plamondon C, Fabbri A et al (2021) Experimental assessment of freezing-thawing resistance of rammed earth buildings. Constr Build Mater 274:121917

UNESCO World Heritage Centre (2024) World heritage list. UNESCO World Heritage Convention. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/ . Accessed 06 Jan 2024

Valagussa A, Frattini P, Crosta G et al (2021) Multi-risk analysis on European cultural and natural UNESCO heritage sites. Nat Hazards 105:2659–2676

Vousdoukas MI, Clarke J, Ranasinghe R et al (2022) African heritage sites threatened as sea-level rise accelerates. Nat Clim Change 12:256–262

Wang YD (2008) Pingyao county annals. Shanxi Economy Press, Shanxi

Wang SL, Li XY, Yin SD (2022) Laboratory assessment of capillary rising in cement- and lime-treated engineered loess. Can J Civil Eng 49:1595–1608

Yue JW, Huang XJ, Zhao LM et al (2022) Study on the factors affecting cracking of earthen soil under dry shrinkage and freeze–thaw conditions. Sci Rep-UK 12:1816

Zhang QY, Chen WW, Fan WJ (2020) Protecting earthen sites by soil hydrophobicity under freeze–thaw and dry–wet cycles. Constr Build Mater 262:120089

Zhang S, Xu Q, Hu ZM (2016) Effects of rainwater softening on red mudstone of deep-seated landslide, Southwest China. Eng Geol 204:1–13

Zhang S, Chen WW, Chen HX et al (2022) 3D scanning-based morphological characterization of rammed layer interfaces: a case study of the Ming Great Wall in northwestern China. B Eng Geol Environ 81:478

Zhang X, Nowamooz H (2023) Mechanical degradation of unstabilized rammed earth (URE) wall under salts and rising damp attack effect. Acta Geotech 18(9):5029–5046

Zhao D, Hattab M, Hicher PY et al (2022) Effect of stress level on the microstructural evolution of clay under creep. J Eng Mech-ASCE 148:04021148

Zhou TG, Zhang HY, Zhang ZY et al (2023) Investigation of intralayer and interlayer shear properties of stabilized rammed earth by direct shear tests. Constr Build Mater 367:130320

Zhu F, Li ZC, Dong WZ et al (2019) Geotechnical properties and microstructure of lime-stabilized silt clay. B Eng Geol Environ 78(4):2345–2354

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Culture and Tourism Bureau of Jinzhong City for its assistance in assembling the historical data of the rammed earth walls in this study. We thank the Shanxi Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering Disaster Prevention and Control (202104010910025, Shanxi Key Laboratory Project) and the Geotechnical Engineering Research Centre of the Ancient City of Pingyao (Technology Development Service Project) for the assistance in this study.

The research was supported by the Shanxi Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering Disaster Prevention and Control (202104010910025, Shanxi Key Laboratory Project) and the Geotechnical Engineering Research Centre of the Ancient City of Pingyao (Technology Development Service Project).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Civil Engineering, Taiyuan University of Technology, Yingze West Street, Taiyuan , 030024, Shanxi, People’s Republic of China

Xiangling Bai, Bin He, Diyue Zhang, Yingxin Wang, Hao Li, Xiaohong Bai, Fuli Ma & Pengju Han

Culture and Tourism Bureau of Jinzhong City, Shuncheng Street, Jinzhong, 030699, Shanxi, People’s Republic of China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Xiangling Bai designed the research in close collaboration with Pengju Han and with support from Xiaohong Bai, Bin He and Fuli Ma. Xiangling Bai conducted the analysis and analysed the results in collaboration with Diyue Zhang and Hao Li. Xiangling Bai wrote the manuscript with contributions from Pengju Han, Bin He. and Yingxin Wang. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Bin He or Pengju Han .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 3.13 MB)

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bai, X., He, B., Zhang, D. et al. Unveiling the deterioration formation process of the rammed earth city wall site of the Ancient City of Pingyao, a World Heritage Site: occurrence, characterizations, and historic environmental implications. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 16 , 156 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-024-02058-6

Download citation

Received : 08 January 2024

Accepted : 13 August 2024

Published : 02 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-024-02058-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Heavy precipitation
• Historic rammed earth city wall
• Cultural heritage
• Disaster reconnaissance
• Deterioration evaluation
• Structural properties
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research