In a recent Twitter poll, I asked which major
section of a scientific paper is most difficult
to write.
As you can see, of the 241 respondents, 57
percent voted for the discussion and 33 percent
for the Introduction.
And only a handful voted for methods or results.
I've already talked about how to write an
introduction in another video.
So in this video, I'm going to tackle the
Discussion.
First, let me emphasize the importance of
taking time to read the literature to get
a clear picture of your topic before attempting
to write your discussion.
This may seem obvious, but if you are having
trouble getting started, it may be a sign
that you need to do some more preparation.
Your goal in writing the discussion is to
explain to the reader your results and how
they
agree with or deviate from work previously
reported in the literature.
Don't just restate the results with a few
references to the literature sprinkled here
and there.
You must interpret the results and back up
that interpretation with a reasoned argument
and relevant citations.
Let's now consider how the discussion is structured
and look at an example.
Similar to the Introduction, there is a general
formula for writing the discussion.
There can be variations on this formula, but
the discussion should contain three basic
parts.
A brief overview section to reorient the reader,
a critical and detailed analysis of the findings,
and implications or significance of the work.
Let's look at an example.
This is a paper I wrote about how herbaceous
coastal plants facilitate mangrove reestablishment
in a clearcut forest.
In this particular paper, I began the discussion
by pointing out that facilitative interactions
occur in a variety of plant communities, which
quickly reorients the reader to the main topic.
I then explained why a manipulative experimental
approach was necessary to demonstrate plant
facilitation and provided examples from the
literature.
You also want to remind the reader of the
main finding, which in this example came in
the second paragraph:
In our investigation, herbaceous vegetation
clearly facilitated recolonization of mangroves
in a disturbed forest.
The next paragraph summarized three mechanisms
whereby such facilitation may operate.
Trapping propagules.
Promoting rooting.
And ameliorating soil factors.
That list foreshadowed how the remaining discussion
would be structured.
The second section of the discussion should
provide an in-depth interpretation of the
findings.
Depending on the complexity of your study,
this part of the discussion may be divided
into subsections, each focused on a different
experiment or process studied.
If you conducted three experiments, for example,
you could create a subsection to discuss each
one in turn.
Or, you could divide the discussion according
to three processes studied.
In my example, I divided this part of the
discussion into an examination of the three
mechanisms mentioned in the opening section.
I combined the first two mechanisms and titled
the first subsection accordingly.
Facilitation of seedling establishment through
propagule trapping and structural support.
The next subsection focused on the third mechanism,
amelioration of physicochemical conditions,
which was discussed in detail and in relation
to what others have found.
The number and arrangement of such subsections
will obviously vary from paper to paper.
And some discussions have no subheadings,
but should still be organized in a logical
sequence.
No matter how you organize these subsections,
the idea is to interpret your main results
and compare them with what other investigators
have found.
Typically, there will be other work that agrees
with your findings.
However, you should also acknowledge work
that disagrees with yours and discuss why
you think there is a difference.
The reason might be methodological or perhaps
the systems studied differ in some fundamental
way.
For example, I pointed out a difference between
our findings and those reported for another
location and suggested several reasons why.
Doing so helps the reader see how your work
fits in with what is known, but also suggests
potential areas for future research.
Let me mention one more important component
of your critical analysis section, and that
is the limitations of your study.
All studies have limitations.
Was your study conducted in a single geographic
location?
Did the experiment last long enough to detect
an effect of the treatment?
How did your sample size affect the outcome?
You must carefully and honestly assess such
limitations and discuss them.
Some authors discuss limitations in a separate
section of the discussion.
Others point out specific limitations and
strengths as they arise in the discussion.
The decision is made based on the specifics
of your study as well as the traditional approach
used in your particular field.
In my example, I talked about limitations
to assessing plant facilitation in the opening
section of the discussion.
Normally, you do not want to start off your
discussion by listing the study's limitations,
but in this case, I did so to explain the
tradeoffs involved in different approaches
so that the reader could better understand
the interpretation of the results.
The final section of the discussion should
wrap things up, for example, by pointing out
the implications of the work or any applications.
In my example, I ended the discussion with
a section called implications for mangrove
restoration in which I pointed out how future
work could build on ours.
In deciding on a structure for your discussion,
it helps to look at other papers published
in your target journal.
Spend some time reverse-engineering their
discussions.
You can easily do this by outlining each one,
which will reveal the hidden structure.
To summarize, a good discussion should follow
a basic three-part formula:
an opening segment putting the work into the
big picture,
a critical analysis of the study findings,
and
potential consequences or applications.
Of course, there are multiple ways to structure
a discussion.
I've presented one way that has worked for
me.
If you are having trouble getting started,
my formula may help.
Once you get some experience, you can develop
your own writing formula
But by following a logical formula, you can
write a compelling and informative discussion
for your paper.
Thanks for listening and please like my video
if you found it helpful.
.
