Overall, that's how I distinguish Discussion from Results (linkage to broader works/debates).
Piece extracted from: https://t.co/m O4b N6Vr BI pic.twitter.com/IQUz HNr3Pk — Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) April 10, 2019 I am an Assistant Professor in the Public Administration Division of the Centre for Economic Research and Teaching, CIDE (Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economicas, CIDE, AC) based out of CIDE Region Centro in Aguascalientes, Mexico.
As I said on Twitter, I read engineering, natural science and social science literatures.
Thusly, the Discussion sections that I read vary QUITE A LOT.
Personally, I neither like, nor do I often write this type of journal article.
Even when I was a chemical engineer, I can’t recall that I read many papers in the IMRAD model, as they all had a variation (merging Discussion with Results, or Results with Conclusion, or Discussion with Conclusion).
https://t.co/cg B82k YXla This is common, and I personally have no objection to doing this.
As for Ph D dissertation and discussion chapters: this is challenging — Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) April 9, 2019 If you notice how these authors start their Discussion section, you'll see that they bring back their empirical results to the broader debates.
The study also discovers that patients treated with a stent tend to develop asthma at slightly higher rates than those who receive no such treatment.
Which sentence would you choose to begin your discussion?