writing discussion paper research paper

racism and hate crimes essay

This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. To learn more visit our Privacy Policy. Cover letter filetype doc, you might want to jump right into our resume builder and have your resume and cover letter ready in a snap. Want to write your cover letter fast? Use our cover letter builder. See actionable examples and get expert tips along the way. Create your cover letter now.

Writing discussion paper research paper punishments for missing homework

Writing discussion paper research paper

ERINN BUCKLAN MASTERS THESIS

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.

For the placement of references use of software programs detailed in other sections is a rational approach. 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. 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 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.

Before submission of the manuscript to the target journal the opinions of internal, and external referees should be taken. Expert internal reviewers have a profound knowledge about the subject, and they can provide guidance about the writing process of the manuscript ie. 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. In line with the opinions of the referees, the manuscript can be critically reviewed, and perfected. 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.

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.

If you always get clear-cut answers whenever you ask this question, then the study is proceeding towards the right direction. Besides application of a template which contains the intended clear-cut messages to be followed will contribute to the communication of net messages.

One of the important mistakes is refraining from critical review of the manuscript as a whole after completion of the writing process. Therefore, the authors should go over the manuscript for at least three times after finalization of the manuscript based on joint decision. The first control should concentrate on the evaluation of the appropriateness of the logic of the manuscript, and its organization, and whether desired messages have been delivered or not.

Secondly, syutax, and grammar of the manuscript should be controlled. It is appropriate to review the manuscript for the third time 1 or 2 weeks after completion of its writing process. Other erroneous issues consist of superfluousness of the manuscript with unnecessary repetitions, undue, and recurrent references to the problems adressed in the manuscript or their solution methods, overcriticizing or overpraising other studies, and use of a pompous literary language overlooking the main objective of sharing information.

Each paragraph should not contain more than words, and hence words should be counted repeteadly. The introductory paragraph contains the main idea of performing the study in question. The introductory paragraph starts with an undebatable sentence, and proceeds with a part addressing the following questions as 1 On what issue we have to concentrate, discuss or elaborate?

However summarizing the basic findings of the experimental studies in the first paragraph is generally recommended by the editors of the journal. Indicating limitations of the study will reflect objectivity of the authors, and provide answers to the questions which will be directed by the reviewers of the journal. On the other hand in the last paragraph, future directions or potential clinical applications may be emphasized.

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. Accordingly, the findings of the study are determined in order of their importance, and a paragraph is constructed for each finding Figure 1.

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. 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. 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. 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.

The other important mistake is to give too much references, and irrelevancy between the references, and the section with these cited references. Abstracts should not be referred, and review articles should not be cited unless required very much. 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.

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. 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. 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 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. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Journal List Turk J Urol v. Turk J Urol.

Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Received Feb 12; Accepted Apr 2. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Interpretation is a subjective exercise. Therefore, be careful that you do not read more into the findings than can be supported by the evidence you've gathered.

Remember that the data are the data: nothing more, nothing less. 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 interpretion of those results, not just the data itself.

Azar, Beth. Discussing Your Findings. Avoid Unwarranted Speculation! The discussion section should remain focused on the findings of your study. For example, if you studied the impact of foreign aid on increasing levels of education among the poor in Bangladesh, it's generally not appropriate to speculate about how your findings might apply to populations in other countries without drawing from existing studies to support your claim.

If you feel compelled to speculate, be certain that you clearly identify your comments as speculation or as a suggestion for where further research is needed. It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

The Discussion Search this Group Search. Organizing Academic Research Papers: 8. The Discussion. The Conclusion Toggle Dropdown Appendices Definition The purpose of the discussion is to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in light of what was already known about the research problem being investigated, and to explain any new understanding or fresh insights about the problem after you've taken the findings into consideration.

Importance of a Good Discussion This section is often considered the most important part of a 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 on the findings, and to formulate a deeper, more profound understanding of the research problem you are studying. 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 using jargon. Follow a logical stream of thought. Use the present verb tense, especially for established facts; however, refer to specific works and references in the past tense. If needed, use subheadings to help organize your presentation or to group your interpretations into themes. 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 and present explanations for the results; go into greater depth when explaining 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. References to previous research : 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 than being part of the general research you cited to provide context and background information.

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 recommending best practices. Hypothesis : a more general claim or possible conclusion arising from the results [which may be proved or disproved in subsequent research].

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, mode of narration, and verb tense [present] that you used when when describing the research problem in the 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 sequencing of providing 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.

The order of interpreting each major finding should be in the same order as they were described in your results section. A good discussion section includes analysis of any unexpected findings. This paragraph should begin with a description of the unexpected 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 them in the order they appeared as you gathered the data. Before concluding the discussion, identify potential limitations and weaknesses. 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 the findings.

Avoid using an apologetic tone; however, be honest and self-critical. The discussion section should end with a concise summary of the principal implications of the findings regardless of statistical 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 demonstrates to the reader you have inadequately examined and interpreted the data.

Overall Objectives The objectives of your discussion section should include the following: I.

Sorry, that persuasive essay idea and domestic violence advise you

MacCoun, Robert J. 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. 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 the poor 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. The Discussion. Search this Guide Search. Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper Offers detailed guidance on how to develop, organize, and write a college-level research paper in the social and behavioral sciences.

The Abstract Executive Summary 4. The Introduction The C. The Discussion Limitations of the Study 9. The Conclusion Appendices Definition The purpose of the discussion is to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in light of 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 study of the problem.

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 finding in order to 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 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 result of your analysis. 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. The discussion section should end with a concise summary of the principal implications of the findings regardless of their significance. Give a brief explanation about why you believe the findings and conclusions of your study are important and how they support broader knowledge or understanding of the research problem.

This can be followed by any recommendations for further research. However, do not offer recommendations which could have been easily addressed within the study. This would demonstrate to the reader that you have inadequately examined and interpreted the data. Overall Objectives The objectives of your discussion section should include the following: I. Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important Consider the likelihood that no one has thought as long and hard about your study as you have.

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. 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.

Make Suggestions for Further Research You may choose to conclude the discussion section by making suggestions for further research [this can be done in the overall conclusion of your paper]. 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. 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] and the interpretation of their significance [discussion] should be distinct sections 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.

Write clearly and concisely, using direct and declarative statements. There is no other person who has thought about your research study more so than you have. This is why you are in a unique position to write an excellent discussion research paper. Explain why you believe the findings are important and what they mean towards the research problem at hand. No matter how original you believe your study is, there are likely dozens of related studies that answer similar questions or present different findings.

The discussion in a research paper is your opportunity to implant yourself as a contributor to the field. Make a connection with other studies, especially if questions in other studies served to inspire your current research study. One of the most important aspects of a research paper discussion is that it presents alternative explanations for the results you came up with. Your goal should be not to prove a point but to discover information that can be used in future studies.

By thinking about different possible interpretations of the information in your findings, you open yourself up to unbiased reporting and a much better research paper. Imagine having to sit in a room full of students when your professor calls you out on errors in your presentation.

It is to your advantage to acknowledge the limitations of your study before anyone reviews your work. Address any problems you encountered when you gathered your information. This is one of the most effective ways on how to write a discussion section of a research paper and make it credible. Your discussion in research paper might fully explore the research question or problem you intended to focus on, but there is always room to reach out toward other areas.

Make suggestions for further research. There are dozens of questions that may spring from your work and by acknowledging them you validate the importance of your work. Make sure you reiterate your research questions and summarize your key findings. Instead, make a clear statement about the overall results related to the questions you brought up in the introduction and are the focus of your research study.

When you look at the results from your study you might think that they are self-explanatory. What is obvious to you is not obvious to everyone else. You must point out the significance of the results to others. Throughout your research you were likely inspired by the work of other scholars.

You should make certain to relate to the work you referenced in your literature review. Your discussion section in a research paper should show how the results from your study fit with prior knowledge in the field. No matter how well you have conducted your study, you are bound to have run into one or more limitations. This happens to the best scholars and researchers.

Depending on the results and ensuing discussion, you should end this section with recommendations for further studies. These can also be made in the conclusion of your research paper, but if you want to achieve a sense of cohesion, then placing recommendations in the discussion section is preferable.

The discussion and conclusion in research paper serve different purposes, so you must know what those are.