How exactly to write the discussion part of an academic paper

How exactly to write the discussion part of an academic paper

This really is the most questions that are challenging have ever asked me, because after looking through a large number of journal articles in my own Mendeley database, i really could not find many of them who used Discussion sections. In my opinion this notion associated with Discussion part of an journal that is academic (or book chapter, in many cases) comes from the IMRAD style of publishing, this is certainly, papers which have at the least the next five sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, Analysis and Discussion (hence the acronym).

Personally, I neither like, nor do I often write this type of journal article. Even when I happened to be a chemical engineer, I can’t recall that I read many papers in the IMRAD model, because they all had a variation (merging Discussion with Results, or Results with Conclusion, or Discussion with Conclusion). I read engineering, natural science and social science literatures as I said on Twitter. Thusly, the Discussion sections that I read vary QUITE A LOT.

All Discussion sections I’ve read are

  1. analytical, not descriptive,
  2. specific inside their interpretation of research results,
  3. robust within their linkage of research findings with theories, other empirical reports and literatures that are various
  4. great at explaining how a paper’s results may contradict earlier work, extend it, advance our comprehension of X or Y phenomenon and, almost certainly:
  5. NOT in conclusion regarding the paper.

What I think is very important to remember when writing the Discussion area of a paper, would be to really ANALYZE, not describe just. Link theories, methods, data, other work.

Read moreHow exactly to write the discussion part of an academic paper