Discussion

*The main intent of the discussion is to answer your hypothesis/question. Another key to a strong discussion is to interact with other data that have published around your area of study.

It is very easy to write a simple discussion with little impact, but in promoting higher order thinking the discussion becomes a tool to: a) draw conclusions from the results; b) think critically about any errors introduced into the study; and c) suggest improvements to the work and possible links to other studies already conducted or new studies that would probe further into more questions.

A) drawing conclusions
Do not merely repeat your presented results, but rather, you should be referring to your original hypothesis/question to give direction to the discussion. What is the main evidence for your conclusion? What is the importance of this conclusion in regards to your study, but also to other studies and future studies?
Prove it?!
At what point can we accept scientific proof of an idea? When it has been tested once? Three times? What if it was tested to be true 99 times out of a hundred, is the theory proven to be absolutely true? In scientific literature the initial question is the wrong one to begin with. Instead, we as scientists are much better at providing good evidence, or support, for a certain pattern of behaviors or phenomena. Remember that your hypothesis will be either credited or discredited according to your results and your inferences, not proven or dis-proven.

B) thinking critically about errors
Inevitably there will be errors in your particular study, but this does not discount any practical conclusions and it definitely does not give you permission to take the easy way out: blaming partners, lab equipment or experimental design for inconclusive data.
The following sections of discussion were taken from a study in which groups of students collaborated to assess the water quality of several sites around TWU.

Right from the beginning, the above author had no confidence in their work, and so they did not think critically about the particularities of the study. Contrast this with another student on the same study:

The second example clearly communicates the depth of thought and critical understanding of the data rather than passing any conclusion off due to ‘human error’. If you think you might have an idea as to what the problem was but are not sure, offer information on how you might discover if your idea was indeed the problem.

C) Improvements
Often research answers one question, but then leads you to ask further questions. It is good to reflect on your experiment and provide some discussion regarding future experiments that could be performed. This section is best achieved by introducing primary literature like in this example:

Discuss whether or not others have found similar results. If literature differs, what might account for the difference?

*In certain courses your instructor may ask you to answer a few questions within your discussion. Do not merely answer the questions, but attempt to weave your answers into the rest of your discussion. As much as possible relate your answers back to your hypothesis, your discussion on experimental error or future experiments, or your interaction with published literature in the area of study.

• Do not add sentences simply to lengthen your report, every sentence should serve a purpose. The length of the report is not important; however the thoroughness you use to work through your data IS important. You should always discuss all aspects of your results and analysis.