Written by Bess Chan

In academic research papers, the discussion chapter usually comes after the results/findings, or the two chapters can be combined. However, as mentioned in the blog post on writing the results/findings, the two chapters are different. While the results/findings chapter primarily answers the question, “What are the results?”, the discussion focuses on, “What do my findings mean?”

Here are some strategies to help you present your discussion in a compelling way that persuades your reader of your argument in your dissertation:

Mirror the macro structure of the results/findings

As mentioned in the blog post on writing results/findings, you’re advised to structure it according to your research questions, hypotheses, theoretical/conceptual framework, or themes. To create coherence, you’re advised to carry the same structure into the discussion. For example, if you organise your results based on themes, you are recommended to use the same structure, as it makes it easy for your readers to trace each finding through to its interpretation.

Interpret, not repeat, your results

A common trap in the discussion chapter is repeating, rather than interpreting, your results. This can happen in different ways, such as transferring raw data wholesale from the results chapter and/or relabelling a trend or pattern using different words. In both cases, the underlying result is being restated, not explained.

Instead of repetition, interpretation of results is key in the discussion. Here is a list of questions for you to consider:

• What does this finding actually tell me that I didn’t know before?
• Why might this result have occurred? What mechanism, process, or explanation could account for it?
• Is this finding more or less significant than I expected? Why?
• Did this confirm, contradict, or only partially support what I expected or hypothesised?
• If it did not fully align with expectations, what plausible explanations are there? Methodological, contextual, or theoretical?

Here are two examples to show you what interpretation looks like in the discussion:

Results/findings	Discussion
A prominent finding was that students valued feedback most when it provided clear guidance for future assignments.	(What does this finding actually tell me that I didn’t know before?) The finding suggests postgraduate students may define “useful” feedback primarily by its forward-looking function, rather than by how accurately it evaluates past performance. This points to a possible shift toward a developmental, rather than purely evaluative, conception of feedback among this cohort.
One student explained that feedback was only useful when it told them exactly what they could improve next time.	(Why might this result have occurred?) The absolute phrasing, “only useful when”, may reflect students’ prior experiences of feedback that was descriptive or evaluative without being instructive, leaving them unable to translate comments into concrete action. For this student at least, actionability, rather than accuracy or detail, appears to be the decisive factor in what counts as useful feedback.

Engage directly and critically with the literature

Interpreting your results isn’t limited to explaining what they mean in isolation. It also means asking what they mean in relation to what is already known. Therefore, comparing your findings with the existing literature should be considered another form of interpretation, rather than a separate step. Rather than simply citing studies alongside your results, you should use the comparison itself to deepen your explanation. Ask yourself the following questions:

• Does a finding confirm or contradict current research?
• Why are there similarities?
• If they contradict, what’s different about my study (sample, context, method, timing) that might explain that?
• Does this finding extend, refine, or complicate an existing theory or model?

Here is another example that demonstrates how you can engage critically with the literature:

Results/findings	Discussion
Most interviewees emphasised the importance of actionable comments.	(Does the finding confirm or contradict current research?) The consistency of this view across interviewees suggests that actionable feedback may be an important expectation among participants in this context, aligning with Smith’s (2020) conceptualisation of feedback as a mechanism for closing the gap between current and desired performance.

Address unexpected or contradictory findings

Students may think that they shouldn’t discuss anything that doesn’t confirm their hypotheses. However, you should instead treat this as an opportunity to showcase your critical thinking. You should acknowledge these surprising outcomes and explore possible explanations. Can any methodological or contextual factors help to explain these findings? You should also discuss what they might reveal about the phenomenon under study. Remember that unexpected findings can often become some of the most interesting aspects of a dissertation.

Discuss theoretical and practical implications

Within each section of your chosen structure, after interpreting your findings, engaging with the literature, and addressing unexpected findings where relevant, you should discuss theoretical and/or practical implications that emerge from these insights. In relation to theoretical implications, explain how your findings relate to theories or conceptual frameworks. Do they support existing theories, or do they challenge current assumptions? Ask yourself as well whether they extend understanding in a particular area.

In addition to theoretical implications, there can be practical implications for policy, industry, or professional practice. Think about what practitioners should do differently and how organisations might apply these findings. You should also consider what recommendations emerge from the research.

Acknowledge limitations

Let’s face reality: there isn’t any research study that is perfect. There are usually several factors that limit your research, including small sample sizes, a narrow geographical focus, time constraints, self-reported data, and potential researcher bias. State these limitations in a specific way, because generic disclaimers usually don’t apply directly to your research.

In general, depending on disciplinary conventions, limitations may either be integrated into the discussion chapter or presented as a separate section/chapter. You should therefore check the expectations within your discipline.

Suggest directions for future research

It’s not surprising that your research can’t answer some questions, whether due to its scope and design, methodological constraints, or other limitations discussed above. You may also find that your findings generate new questions that go beyond what your study set out to investigate. Therefore, your suggestions for future research should reflect two considerations: the scope and limitations of the current study, as well as the new questions raised by your findings.

---

If you’d like to learn more about the writing the discussion chapter, please access this interactive presentation on discussion sections. Also, if you have any questions about this chapter, I encourage you to book 1-2-1 meetings with me, Bess Chan, your London-based EAP Tutor, via email or the booking form.