Results and Discussion
Results and Discussion can be presented either as an integrated section or as a separate section. In this chapter, we will provide the main functions of each section using the move-and-step models similar to those introduced in the previous chapter.
The Results section may be one of the most straightforward sections of the researcher paper as its main purpose is to report the results obtained. When reporting results it is not necessary to report all results. Sometimes a single study produces results for a number of publications and it is impossible (or not advisable) to try to publish all of them in a single study. Instead, you can pick your ‘stars’, i.e. most relevant results to answer your question. However, when picking the results to report on, you need to make sure you are not ‘cherry picking’, i.e. reporting on results that are in line with your hypothesis and excluding results that go against it.
Results can be presented as a separate section or as an integrated Results & Discussion section. Both options have their advantages and disadvantages and there is no straightforward answer to which model should be preferred. The decision whether or not to separate Results and Discussion depends on disciplinary conventions, the guidelines provided by the journal, and finally yet importantly – what makes sense the most for your study.
For example, some authors[1] suggest presenting Results and Discussion as separate sections because the readers might not be equally interested in all sections of your paper. Some might just want to see the numbers and some might be more interested in what they mean. In addition, research papers are seldom read from top to bottom and separate sections make it easier for the reader to find what they are looking for.
However, sometimes presenting pure results is not appropriate and some commentary is needed. Especially when reporting on a result that is contradictory, ambiguous, or unexpected in some other way[2]. In this case, the author might already anticipate the question(s) the readers might have and might not want to wait until later sections to comment on the results.[3] Thus, the decision of whether or not to separate Results and Discussion also depends on how much immediate commentary is needed when reporting your results.
However, commenting on results does not automatically mean that you have opted for an integrated Results & Discussion section. It is possible to include various degrees of commentary on your results. The extent of commentary in the Results section can range from straightforward descriptions of results with no commentary at all to heavy use of commentary. Whatever the choice, it is important that as an author, you differentiate between what you found (i.e. your actual results) and what you think (i.e. what can be inferred from the results).
The moves and steps typical of the Results (& Discussion) section are captured in a model by Yang and Allison[4] (see Figure 1).
[1] Heard, S. B. (2016). The scientist’s guide to writing: How to write more easily and effectively throughout your scientific career. Princeton University Press.
[2] Björk, L. A., & Räisänen, C. (1997). Academic writing: A university writing course. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
[3] Swales, J., & Feak, C. (1994). Academic Writing for Graduate Students.
[4]Yang, R, & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for specific purposes, 22(4), 365-385.
Discussion
Discussion is one of the most challenging parts of the research article because it is highly argumentative in nature, requires the author to take a stance on the results, and underline the worth of the contribution the study makes[1]. The purpose of the Discussion section is to interpret the results obtained in the study to show the contribution of the study to scientific knowledge.
Immediately following the Results, the Discussion section starts out as narrow (see Figure 2) and gradually widens its scope as the topic develops from the interpretation of the results to discuss them in relation to other research.
As the Discussion section mirrors the Introduction section, Discussion and Introduction share a number of rhetorical moves. The three main moves in the Introduction section [LINK if possible] are Establishing the Territory, Establishing a Niche, and Occupying the Niche[2]. The main moves in the Discussion section are Re-Establishing the territory, Framing the New Knowledge, Re-shaping the Territory, and Establishing additional territory5.
By making these moves, the author first grounds the discussion, by making a thematic connection with the previous sections, i.e. Introduction and Methods. Then moves on to comment on the results to take a stance and attempt to convince readers of their position. After this, the results are discussed in light of relevant previous literature that either supports or conflicts with the results obtained in the present study. As the last step, the author expands on the results by further comments on the value and/or implications of the study or by suggesting future research.
The moves and steps model, based on a sample of Discussion sections from 900 research articles, covering 30 disciplines proposed by Cotos, Link and Huffman is presented in Figure 3:
[1]Cotos, E., Link, S., & Huffman, S. R. (2016). Studying disciplinary corpora to teach the craft of Discussion. Writing and Pedagogy, 87(1), 33.
[2]Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
