Discussion

You will write a discussion that answers your research question first, explains what your findings mean against the literature, and states limitations honestly.

Do this first

Draft the first paragraph of your discussion in four sentences: your research question, your direct answer to it, the most important finding behind that answer, and what it means for your field. If you cannot write the second sentence, settle your answer before drafting anything else.

Steps

0 of 6 steps done

Answer the question in the first paragraph
Restate the aim briefly and give your answer directly. Many readers go straight to the discussion, so they should not have to reconstruct your main finding from the results.
Interpret rather than repeat
For each main finding, say what it means and offer the most plausible explanations, ranked by how well your evidence supports them. Refer back to results in a phrase rather than restating the numbers.
Return to the literature
Go back to the debates and gap from your literature review. Say where your findings agree with earlier work, where they differ, and why they might differ (sample, setting, method or period). This is where you show what your study changes in the field.
State limitations honestly and specifically
Name the real limitations, say how each might affect your findings (in which direction and by how much, if you can), and what you did to reduce it. A specific limitation builds trust; a generic list such as “small sample, self-report” with no consequences does not.
Keep implications within your evidence
Separate implications for theory, for method, and for policy or practice, and keep each within what your design can support. Correlational data cannot justify causal recommendations, and a single case cannot support claims about a whole population.
End with the contribution and a next step
Close with a short conclusion that restates what your study adds and names the most useful next study, specifically enough that someone could design it. Do not introduce new results here.

Templates

Discussion outline

1. Answer: This study asked [question]. The findings show that [direct answer].
2. Explanation: [Finding] is most likely explained by [explanation], because [evidence]. An alternative explanation is [explanation], but [why it is less likely].
3. Relation to earlier work: This is consistent with [studies] and extends them by [contribution]. It differs from [studies], possibly because [difference in sample, method or setting].
4. Limitations: [Limitation] may have [overstated / understated / limited the transfer of] [result], because [reason]. We reduced this by [step].
5. Implications: For [theory / method / practice / policy], this suggests [implication within the limits of the design].
6. Conclusion: [Contribution in one sentence]. A useful next study would [specific design, population or question].

Hedging and limitation phrases

These findings suggest that [claim], although [condition].
One possible explanation is [explanation]; another is [explanation].
This result should be interpreted with caution because [specific reason].
Because [limitation], the findings may [overstate / understate / not transfer to] [result or group].
This does not mean that [overclaim a reader might make]; rather, [accurate claim].

Check your draft

0 of 8 done

Does the first paragraph give a direct answer to my research question?
Have I interpreted each main finding rather than restating it?
Do I connect my findings explicitly to the studies and debates in my literature review?
Have I considered alternative explanations and said which is most likely?
Is each limitation specific, with its likely effect on the findings explained?
Do my claims match the strength of my design?
Are my suggestions for future research specific enough to act on?
Have I avoided introducing results that do not appear in the results section?

In your field

Discussions are tightly organised around the main findings, covering mechanisms, comparison with earlier results and limitations, and many journals want a short conclusion or a separate limitations paragraph. Overclaiming causality or generality is a common reason for reviewer pushback.

Common mistakes

Repeating the results in slightly different words instead of interpreting them.
Discussing only the studies that agree with your findings.
Listing limitations as a defensive formality without saying how they affect your conclusions.
Making policy or practice recommendations that your design cannot support.
Ending with a vague call for “more research” instead of a specific next study.

Go further

Academic Phrasebank (University of Manchester): Discussing findingsPhrases for comparing findings with earlier studies, offering explanations, advising cautious interpretation and stating implications.
Academic Phrasebank (University of Manchester): Writing conclusionsPhrases for restating aims, summarising findings, acknowledging limitations and recommending further research.
UNC Writing Center: Scientific ReportsIts discussion guidance covers saying whether results support the hypothesis, handling anomalies and relating findings to earlier work.
Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded, by Joshua SchimelTreats a paper as a story, with useful chapters on structure from the opening question to the resolution.