11 Although our hypotheses were supported statistically, the sample was not reassessed once the programme was over. 12 Future work should therefore include follow-up work designed to evaluate whether the skills are retained in the long term and also whether they continue to be used to improve QoL. 11______________ 12_______________ 4.3.2 Key Why should I begin the Discussion by revisiting previous research? Th e start of a subsection should provide an easy entry to that subsection, and two conventional ways of doing this were discussed in the unit on Results: off ering an overview of the section by previewing the content of that subsection with some general statements and referring back to something from the previous sections to link it with the new one. In the Results section, we saw that the writer may begin by summarising or referring to the method or materials used. However, it is almost impossible to give an overview of the Discussion. Th is is because, unlike the Methodology or Results, the Discussion covers a range of areas. As a result, many Discussions/Conclusions begin by referring back to something from the previous sections. Th is can consist of: • revisiting the Introduction to restate the aims of the paper, important background factual information, the original prediction/theory/ assumption or the problem the study was designed to solve
Discussion/Conclusion — Writing Task 171 • revisiting the Methodology for a reminder of the rationale for the procedures followed or a summary of the procedures themselves • revisiting the Results for a summary of the results obtained by others or by the author Which should I choose? One option is to begin by revisiting the most signifi cant aspects of your work. If the most important aspect of your paper is that it provides a strong response to the gap or problem that you set up in the Introduction, fulfi ls your aim and/or actually solves the problem, begin by recalling that gap, aim or problem from the Introduction. If the choice of soft ware you used or the procedure you followed or the modifi cations you made to existing procedures is the most important aspect of your work, begin by revisiting the Methodology. If your results are the most signifi cant aspect of the paper because they provide confi rmation of a theory or reveal something new, begin by revisiting the Results. Th e fi rst sentence should not be a random choice. You can use similar language — even similar sentences — to those in the section you have chosen to revisit. Th is will provide an 'echo' for the reader, and will help them recall that section. Here, the writer has responded strongly to the claims made in the literature and so uses language which is similar to the words and phrases used to state those claims in the Introduction. In Sentence 2 'However, these studies have either been short-term studies or have not focused on patients whose disorder was stress- related.' the writer revisits the Introduction to recall specifi c weakness in the methodology used in previous studies. Since the contribution of this paper is the diff erence between the methodology in previous research and that used here, the writer fi rst revisits the gap/problem in the Introduction to recall the weaknesses in previous methodology which have been addressed in the present work, and then moves on to the specifi c diff erences between the methodology in the present work and that of previous work.
172 Science Research Writing It is also very common to include a repeat of important background factual information at this stage in the Discussion in order to re- establish the rationale or motivation for the research. In fact background factual information is a surprisingly common feature throughout the Discussion. In Sentence 3 'In this study we tested the extent to which an extended three-month stress management programme improved QoL among a group of patients being treated for stress-related skin disorders such as eczema.' the writer revisits the methodology used in this study. If I revisit the Methodology here, how much detail do I need to provide? Using the same language as in the Methodology will help the reader to remember the principles of your method, and it is common to recall signifi cant features of your method here. However, although you can explore details of your method here, do not add new information. If information about your method is important enough to include in your research paper, it should fi rst be given where it belongs, in the Methodology, and just recalled here. What tense should I use to describe my methodology? You can use the Past Simple, the Present Simple or the Present Perfect to recall your methodology or results (In the current case HI is used/has been used/was used to defi ne the size and shape of the turbulent structures). If you add a short Conclusion, the Present Perfect or Present Simple are common: We use/have used holographic data to reconstruct the three-dimensional structure. In Sentence 4 'We found that in virtually all cases, participation in our three-month stress management programme was associated with substantial increases in the skills needed to improve QoL.' the writer revisits and summarises the results.
Discussion/Conclusion — Writing Task 173 Is this the same as an overview of the results? If you provided an overview of the results early in the Results section, the content and even the structure of this sentence can be very similar. A sentence like this which summarises the results may also be needed — again using similar language and structure — in the Abstract (see the next unit on Abstracts). So why do I need to revisit or summarise the results here too? If you look at the diagram at the start of this section and the reasons why it is symmetrical, you can see that one of the central functions of the Discussion is to go beyond the results, to lead the reader away from a direct and narrow focus on your results towards the conclusions and broader implications or generalisations that can be drawn from those results. Summarising the results provides an appropriate starting point for that process. In Sentence 5 'Th ese fi ndings extend those of Kaliom, confi rming that a longer, more intensive period of stress-management training tends to produce more eff ective skills than when those skills are input over a shorter period via information transfer media such as leafl ets and presentations (Kaliom et al., 2003).' the writer shows where and how the present work fi ts into the research 'map' of this fi eld. Th is is a feature of the Discussion that has not occurred anywhere else. In the short literature review in the Introduction, you gave your reader a picture of the current state of research in your fi eld. You now need to show your reader how and where your study fi ts into that picture and in what way it changes or aff ects the research 'map' in this area. In the Discussion, it is your responsibility to make the relationship between your study and other work explicit. What are the possible ways in which my work could fi t into the picture of existing studies? Your work may have used a diff erent method to produce similar results, which would aff ect the perception of existing methods; it may confi rm
174 Science Research Writing the results obtained in a previous study; it may contradict and therefore discredit results obtained in a previous study; it may off er a completely diff erent or new approach or it may, as in this case, extend the results and therefore confi rm the implications of previous studies. Th ere are many ways in which your work may fi t into the current research map, and these may become clearer when you look at the vocabulary for mapping later in this unit. How do I know which studies to map my work onto? Can I mention other studies for the fi rst time in the Discussion? Th roughout the Methodology and Results sections you have been comparing your study to existing work, and these studies are the ones you should focus on here. Although you can mention research that you have not mentioned before, it is not common to refer to a large number of studies for the fi rst time in the Discussion. You should determine exactly which studies are aff ected by your work, and keep these in front of your readers at various points in your paper so that you can refer to them again in the Discussion. In Sentence 6 'In addition, the improvements noted in our study were unrelated to age, gender or ethnic background.' the writer recalls an aspect of the results that represents a positive achievement or contribution of this work. Another very important feature of the Discussion is a clear focus on the achievement or contribution of your work. Specify the nature of your achievements, using positive language that clearly presents the benefi ts or advantages. Don't be shy about stating your achievements. Although you are aware of what is good about the work you have done and the results you have obtained, if you do not state it explicitly, the reader may not realise the value of your achievement. Isn't it the same as mapping? It's similar in intention, but diff erent in content. Mapping shows where the achievement fi ts into the research picture in this fi eld, but the achievement
Discussion/Conclusion — Writing Task 175 itself is oft en stated separately so that the reader can see the value of what has been done and found in this study independently of how it aff ects the current state of knowledge. In Sentence 7 'Th is study therefore indicates that the benefi ts gained from stress-management intervention may address QoL needs across a wide range of patients.' the writer focuses on the meaning and implications of the achievements in this work. If the implications of the results were already mentioned in the Results section, isn't this repetitive? In the unit on Results, we saw that at a late stage implications begin to be drawn from the results. It was noted that the fi rst comment on these implications (phrases such as suggesting that/indicating that) was described as a pivotal move that develops the direction of the research article away from the central 'report' section towards the Discussion/ Conclusion. A common mistake in Discussions is to fail to develop in this direction. It is not suffi cient to present a superfi cial interpretation that simply re-states the results in diff erent language. In the Discussion it is your responsibility to suggest why results occurred as they did and off er an explanation of the mechanisms behind your fi ndings and observations. Th ese suggestions, explanations and implications are refi ned, developed and discussed here. One important diff erence between research writing and report writing is that the aim of research is not simply to obtain and describe results; it is to make sense of those results in the context of existing knowledge and to say something sensible and useful about their implications, i.e. what the results mean in that context. How do the results relate to the original question or problem? Are your results consistent with what other investigators have reported? If your results were unexpected, try to explain why. Is there another way to interpret your results? Readers need to know what they can reliably take away from your study, and it is your job to tell them. Saying what your results are is the central function of the Results section; talking about what they mean is the central function of the Discussion.
176 Science Research Writing What if I'm not sure myself about the implications of my results? If you look at the way implications are stated in the Discussion, you will see that the language is exactly the same as the language used to state implications in the Results. It seems that/suggesting that/indicating that are common here, and there is a strong reliance on modal verbs such as may and could. Th is is because science research never reaches an endpoint where everything is known about a particular topic; the next piece of research will refi ne and develop the preceding one, and so on. As a result, most science writers are careful not to make unqualifi ed generalisations, and as you can see from the words in bold below, this writer is no exception.