Discussion

What the Discussion does

The Discussion is where you move from what you found to what it means. As Goldberg and Allen (2015, p. 15) put it, the Discussion “provides the opportunity to interpret the novelty and transferability of the findings, both for the readers and for future research directions.” The APA manual is direct about the task: “Evaluate and interpret their implications, especially with respect to your original hypotheses … Emphasize any theoretical or practical consequences of the results” (APA, 2010, p. 35).

From narrow to broad

The Discussion mirrors the Introduction in reverse. “The Introduction presents information from broad to narrow (from the larger picture to the specific question). The Discussion presents information from narrow to broad (from the answer to a specific question to the larger picture)” (Annesley, 2010, p. 1674). Open with the answer to your research question; widen outward to its meaning for the field.

General components of a Discussion

A complete Discussion typically contains (Skelton & Edwards, 2000, p. 1269):

• a statement of principal findings;
• the strengths and weaknesses of the study;
• strengths and weaknesses in relation to other studies, addressing any differences in results;
• the meaning of the study — possible mechanisms and implications for practitioners or policymakers; and
• unanswered questions and future research.

Within that, Annesley (2010, p. 1674) lists the kinds of information a Discussion should supply: the answer to the question; how the answer is supported by your results; how your results relate to other studies (where they agree, where they differ, and how yours extend them); any limitations; and any alternative explanations for the results.

Interpreting your results

“The purpose of the Discussion section is to explain what your results mean and what contribution your paper makes to the field of study” (Annesley, 2010, p. 1671). Interpretation means more than restating numbers or themes: name what each key finding means, why it may have occurred, and how it fits — or fails to fit — what was already known.

The theoretical contribution

This is the heart of a strong Discussion: state plainly what we now understand that we did not before, and which prior claims your work extends, modifies, or challenges (Reio, 2023). Tie the claim directly to the literature and framework you built earlier. A contribution usually takes one of three forms (Lee, 2025):

• A new construct, category, or framework your work introduces or consolidates.
• An extension or modification of an existing framework, applied to a new context or population.
• A challenge or correction to an existing claim your work shows to be incomplete or unsupported.

Implications for research and practice

Separate the two. For research, state what scholars should pursue or do differently in light of your findings. For practice, state what practitioners should do — being specific about what and how, and for whom, rather than offering generic advice. As Annesley (2010, p. 1674) notes, a good Discussion ends by restating the answer and “indicating the importance of the work by stating implications, applications, or recommendations.”

Limitations

Acknowledge limitations honestly and specifically, tied to the actual decisions you made — sample, scope, measures, design — rather than generic boilerplate. Note alternative explanations for your results, and distinguish clearly between conclusions your design unambiguously supports and those that remain tentative.

Future research

Turn your unanswered questions into a concrete agenda. Name what should be tested next, with whom, and in what context, so that the agenda could actually guide a subsequent study — rather than a vague call for “more research.”

Recommendations for writing the Discussion

Höfler, Venz, Trautmann, and Miller (2018) offer eleven recommendations — especially valuable for quantitative and causal work:

1. Start the discussion with the conclusion your design and results unambiguously allow.
2. Mention the conclusion(s) that researchers would like to draw.
3. Specify all assumptions needed to interpret the observed result in the desired (causal) way.
4. Otherwise, avoid causal language.
5. Reflect critically on how deviations from the assumptions would have influenced the results.
6. Comment on all main types of bias and the inferential consequences they putatively have.
7. Propose a specific study design that requires fewer and weaker assumptions for a conclusion.
8. Do not mistake the absence of evidence for evidence of absence.
9. Strictly distinguish between pre-specified hypotheses and new hypotheses from post-hoc analyses.
10. Do not over-interpret small findings; statistical significance is not practical significance.
11. Avoid claims that are not statistically well-founded.

Useful phrasing

Summarizing results (APA, n.d.):

• The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of…
• The results of the present study support the hypothesis that…
• The results of this research provide supporting evidence that…
• There are three key findings of the present research. First… Second… Third…

Linking findings to previous studies (APA, n.d.):

• This pattern of results is consistent with the previous literature… (citation).
• These results are consistent with the claim that…
• The present results are consistent with Author et al.’s (year) work that deals with…
• Whereas past researchers have found… (citation), the present study has shown…
• These results represent the first direct demonstration of…

Before you finalize — a self-check

• Does each paragraph interpret findings rather than restate them?
• Have I stated my theoretical contribution explicitly?
• Are my implications for research and practice distinct and specific?
• Have I situated my findings against prior studies — where they agree and where they differ?
• Are my limitations specific to my study rather than boilerplate?
• Does my future-research agenda name concrete next studies?
• Have I avoided claiming more than the data support (Höfler et al., 2018)?

References

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Discussion phrases guide. APA Style. https://apastyle.apa.org/instructional-aids/discussion-phrases-guide.pdf

Annesley, T. M. (2010). The discussion section: Your closing argument. Clinical Chemistry, 56(11), 1671–1674. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2010.155358

Goldberg, A. E., & Allen, K. R. (2015). Communicating qualitative research: Some practical guideposts for scholars. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12153

Höfler, M., Venz, J., Trautmann, S., & Miller, R. (2018). Writing a discussion section: How to integrate substantive and statistical expertise. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18, 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0490-1

Lee, J. (2025). So, what is theory? Human Resource Development Review, 24(2), 225–241.

Reio, T. G., Jr. (2023). An editor’s learning journey: Lessons for moving the field forward. Human Resource Development Review, 22(3), 321–332.

Skelton, J. R., & Edwards, S. J. L. (2000). The function of the discussion section in academic medical writing. BMJ, 320(7244), 1269–1270. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7244.1269

Turner, J. R. (2019). What implications came from your study: An overview of the discussion and conclusion sections. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 32(1), 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21303