How to Write the Discussion Section of a Quantitative Research Paper

The discussion section of a research paper can be difficult to write because there’s more to it than simply reporting what’s been done previously (as in the introduction), what was done in the present study (as in the methodology), or what was found in the present study (as in the results).

When writing the discussion, authors need to be a little creative in generating new ideas and presenting new perspectives on their topic.

While they can be difficult to write, these “creative” aspects of a paper are crucial because they clarify why a study matters, both in the academic world and in the real world.

This article explains how to write a meaningful and insightful discussion section by showing you the three main ways authors emphasize the importance of their research:

• Contextualizing the present findings within the literature.

• Suggesting specific theoretical and practical implications.

• Offering clear, actionable directions for future research.

Opening Paragraphs

The opening paragraphs are where you take care of the first purpose of the discussion section, which is to contextualize your findings within the literature.

After quickly reminding readers of the overall result of your study, this part of the discussion explains how the present work fits into the overall body of literature on your topic.

Restate the main result

The opening sentence of the discussion section should concisely restate the main result in general terms.

For example, the discussion of a paper published in Pediatrics begins with this general description of the main result:

Among 2048 fourth- and seventh-grade public school students in Massachusetts, children who slept near a small screen and children with a TV in their sleep environment had shorter weekday sleep durations.

Depending on how complex your study is and how many research objectives/questions you posed, your discussion may start with several sentences like this before you start interpreting the results.

Interpret noteworthy results

After the general results have been summarized, the opening subsection of the discussion should interpret each noteworthy finding in isolation.

This is typically done in three steps:

1. Describe the finding.

2. State whether the finding expands or contrasts with previous findings.

3. Explain how the finding contributes to the literature.

This last step is typically done in one of two ways:

• If the result supports the literature, explain how your finding expands our knowledge of the subject.

• If the result conflicts with previous findings, offer a possible explanation for the discrepancy.

Now that you have a basic idea of what the opening paragraphs of your discussion should do, let’s look at the three steps listed above in more detail:

1. Describe a specific noteworthy finding.

When interpreting a result, you want to first describe the finding in plain language.

Taking another example from the same study published in Pediatrics, the authors report:

TV or DVD viewing and video or computer game playing were associated with shorter weekday sleep duration and perceived insufficient rest or sleep.

2. State whether your finding supports or contrasts with what is already known.

Once you’ve stated the finding, the next step is to tell readers whether the finding aligns or contrasts with the literature.

This can be done with a simple sentence:

This finding supports the extant literature on the effects of screen time on sleep duration.

Or you can combine this step and the previous one into a single sentence:

Our finding that TV or DVD viewing and video or computer game playing were associated with shorter weekday sleep duration and perceived insufficient rest or sleep is consistent with the extant literature.

3. Explain what your finding adds to the literature.

After presenting a result and contextualizing it within the literature, the next step is to highlight something about the finding that was previously unclear or unknown.

Returning to the same example paper, the authors highlight a specific aspect of the finding that was not reported in any previous studies:

Our study also shows that TV presence alone was not associated with these sleep-related factors.

After that, the authors interpret the finding by making an educated guess as to why the outcome occurred.

This could be because not all TV sets in this sample were functional or used. Moreover, TV presence may not guarantee high screen time, especially if parents impose screen limits.

To recap, when interpreting a finding in your discussion section, the three steps are to:

1. Briefly describe the finding.

2. Say whether this finding supports or contrasts with previous studies.

3. Clarify what the findings add to the literature.

To give you a complete picture, I’ve compiled the previous example sentences into a single paragraph as they appear in the journal:

TV or DVD viewing and video or computer game playing were associated with shorter weekday sleep duration and perceived insufficient rest or sleep. Our finding that TV or DVD viewing and video or computer game playing were associated with shorter weekday sleep duration and perceived insufficient rest or sleep is consistent with the extant literature. Our study also shows that TV presence alone was not associated with these sleep-related factors. This could be because not all TV sets in this sample were functional or used. Moreover, TV presence may not guarantee high screen time, especially if parents impose screen limits.

These three steps can be repeated for each finding.

Then, after all the noteworthy findings have been interpreted, you can move on to the study’s implications.

Implications

When writing the implications subsection, your aim is to explain why your findings matter beyond your specific research question and sample.

Implications come in two flavors:

1. Theoretical implications show how the findings contribute to the development of theories, models, frameworks, etc.

2. Practical implications show how the findings could be applied to settings outside the current study’s setting.

Theoretical implications

Strong theoretical implications answer the question: How do the results alter scholars’ understanding of the investigated topic or phenomenon?

For example, the theoretical implications of a paper published in Asian Social Science Research suggest that cultural factors influence the attachment experiences of sexual minority individuals, thus adding a nuance to how researchers might think about attachment:

The findings show that Chinese cultural factors appear closely relevant to attachment experiences, perhaps because traditional values emphasizing marriage and family continuity create substantial identity-related pressure for sexual minority individuals. It is plausible that this pressure contributes to emotional concealment and relationship conflict, though this pathway awaits empirical verification.

Practical Implications

Useful practical implications generally answer the question: How can the findings be applied in the real world?

These implications tend to express how the findings might inform decisions, practices, policies, interventions, or behaviors.

The example below explains how clinicians could consider a result to improve the design of health-promoting games.

Our findings show that the social benefits of video games may be due to outside factors such as having the money or time to play games for entertainment purposes. Clinicians interested in designing games to promote health should therefore consider developing games that encourage playing in moderation and social, rather than competitive, motivation in all types of video games.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Since no study can answer every question or account for every relevant factor, the final subsection of the discussion needs to do two things:

• Provide the limitations of the study to help readers understand what conclusions cannot be extracted from the current findings.

• Offer suggestions for how future studies could be designed to test these unsupported conclusions.

Typically, each paragraph of this subsection is laid out like this:

1. Name the limitation.

2. Explain why the limitation may have impacted the findings.

3. Suggest how other researchers could avoid the limitation in future studies.

Name the limitation

The first step is simple: Say what the limitation was.

The following example identifies a fairly common limitation, namely, the use of a self-reported measure:

Our study relied on self-reported prosocial tendencies.

Explain how the limitation could have impacted the results

While some readers may be able to see the potential impact of a limitation without the author’s help, it is best to explicitly state how the limitation might have influenced the results.

Building off the previous example sentence, the following example explains why using self-reports of prosocial tendencies may not present a full picture of the examined effect:

While self-reports provide insight into intentions, they may not fully capture real-world actions due to the well-documented intention–behavior gap.

Suggest how future studies could avoid the limitation

Each limitation should be paired with a suggestion for future research that would overcome that limitation.

In other words, the suggestions for further research should lead directly from the limitations.

For instance, because the previous example sentence mentioned “real-world actions,” the corresponding suggestion for future research also pertains to actual behaviors:

Future research could incorporate behavioral measures, such as actual donations, volunteering, or other incentivized prosocial acts, to enhance external validity and directly test the mechanisms identified in our studies.

Conclusion

Whether it’s part of the discussion or its own section, the conclusion should summarize the findings and highlight what they add to the body of knowledge.

The conclusion tends to be very short compared to the other sections. It often comprises only 3–5 sentences.

This is because, at its most basic level, the conclusion only has to do two things, and neither of them requires much detail:

1. Answer the main research question/objective.

2. Highlight the broad contribution of the study to the body of knowledge on the topic.

Answer the research question

Typically, the first sentence of the conclusion provides a broad answer to the main research question. This should be a single-sentence answer to the question: What does the study show? 

Here’s an example from a study whose research question was, “Does Japan’s school lunch program actually reduce childhood overweight/obesity?” Note how the sentence provides a direct answer:

This study revealed the effect of the school lunch program on the reduction of overweight and obesity percentages among junior high school boys in Japan.

In most papers, the authors also add at least one sentence to expand their answer. This sentence answers the question: What does the finding mean?

The next sentence from the same example is:

This finding might partly explain the low prevalence of childhood obesity in Japan.

Highlight the study’s contribution

Authors usually close the conclusion by highlighting the most important takeaway of their study. This sentence answers the question: What is the broader significance of the finding?

For example, the conclusion of the same study on Japan’s school lunch program ends like this:

A school lunch program based on adequately regulated nutrition standards may be an effective way to decrease childhood overweight and obesity.

Summary

A standard discussion section does six essential jobs:

• Restates the main findings from the results section.

• Provides the author’s interpretation of each noteworthy finding.

• Explains the findings’ theoretical and practical implications.

• Mentions the study’s limitations.

• Suggests how future studies can overcome the present study’s limitations.

• Concludes the study (if the conclusion is not its own separate section.

Still unsure if your discussion section is strong enough?

I'd be happy to work with you one-on-one to ensure that every section of your paper clearly communicates the value of your work. Click here to learn more.