Describing Data Effectively: Results, Discussion, and Conclusion Sections

The following advice applies to combined RESULTS and DISCUSSION sections and can apply to separate CONCLUSION SECTIONS. The first paragraph of the DISCUSSION may summarize the purpose of the paper or the most significant findings. Papers that have a combined RESULTS and DISCUSSION section may have a similar pattern but some characteristics from 3-8 may be repeated as each major finding or sections is presented, especially in life sciences. The framework below can generally be found in all fields where an experimental design is used: Introduction, method, results and discussion. Other types of studies such as case studies or papers from applied fields that make recommendations may not follow this pattern but instead may have a separate CONCLUSION section with an emphasis on numbers 1-2-3-4 with only the most important result of the study mentioned and 8- 10 below.

2009 HYU CTL English Writing Lab and Adam Turner http://www.hanyangowl.org

8.1. Framework 1 for combined Results &

Discussion/Conclusion sections

1. Opening

A. Review of the purpose/methodology of the paper OR summary of the major findings

of the paper

B. Background (background about theory/research aims/methodology used, may

include references)

2. Describing a Data Cycle

C. Result (with or without reference to specific figure or table data).

+

D. Claim (opinion of the researcher based on the data).

+

E. Expected or unexpected outcome or outcome that is not understood (OPTIONAL)

(are the results surprising or not?).

F. Explanation (OPTIONAL) (reasons for expected or unexpected results or

differences with previous findings).

G. Comparison (OPTIONAL) with previous research including references or other

results in the paper.

3. Concluding statements

H. Limitations of the study (OPTIONAL) (small sample size, limited variables, only

simulation, etc.).

I. Recommendations (OPTIONAL) (policy suggestions; changes to business or

teaching practices; implications for the field).

J. Future work (OPTIONAL) by the researcher or future work needed in the field.

Note that these characteristics are often combined in distinct patterns even in a single

sentence, such as D Claim + G Comparison to previous research.

8.2. Discussion/conclusion structure examples

Examples of Results and Discussion/Conclusion sections. Different types of papers in Engineering and other scientific fields have different structures. Some papers may have a results and discussion section clearly labeled while others may have a long conclusion section after describing a new design. The following examples are taken from engineering papers to show the common combinations found by applying the discussion/conclusion structure framework. Not all of the eleven functions may be found in every paper. Think of them of the choices available to you. Pick and choose what is important. However, almost all Discussion or Conclusion sections start with a review of the purpose or main results of the paper.

2009 HYU CTL English Writing Lab and Adam Turner http://www.hanyangowl.org

A. Review of the purpose/methodology of the paper OR summary of the major

findings of the paper

B. Background (about theory/research aims/methodology used, may

include references)

The following example is from a paper that describes a “virtual walkthrough environment,” a system that allows you to walk through virtual spaces. First it reviews what was done in the paper and then the importance of simulation in general is explained. In all the examples below the table is just to help the analysis. The examples are continuous paragraphs.

EXAMPLE

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We have conducted extensive experiments to quantify the performance of our multiresolution scheme with MRM cache

replacement and the effectiveness of various prefetching schemes via simulation as well as on the prototype.

A. Review

This is a typical start to a results and discussion section which first reviews the

purpose of the paper. The purpose of simulation is a proof of concept, allowing us to

experiment the behavior of the mechanisms under diverse situations easily. The prototype provides a study under a real situation. Due to page limit, we present only a representative subset of experiments in this section. We first present a simulated experiment to illustrate the general behavior of the caching and prefetching schemes, followed by a more detail analysis of the performance of the mechanisms using our prototype.

B. Background

This next section gives additional background to explain the purpose of the paper and to help the reader judge the results.

Source: Chim et al. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, Vol. 5, No. 4. ©IEEE 2003

Here we have a full discussion of a Result and its outcome.

C. Result (with or without a reference to a figure or table)

E. Expected or unexpected result or outcome that is not understood by

the researcher

In some papers, especially those related to chemistry or biology, the results may be broken down into sections for each major experiment or result. These cycles follow the overall structure of discussion/conclusion sections.

The following example is from a chemical engineering paper that separates the results and the discussion of the results into separate cyles of data description.

2009 HYU CTL English Writing Lab and Adam Turner http://www.hanyangowl.org

EXAMPLE

Deprotonation of N-Lithio-N-(tert-butyl)allylamide 1 inTHF Solvent with

Explicit Ethereal Solvation. A Review of the purpose

B Background of the methodology

Experimentally, the deprotonation of 1 was carried out in THF solvent, and consequently this should be accounted for in the calculations. B To model the THF solvent, 2 molecules of Me2O were coordinated to the ground state and transition state structures previously geometry optimized in the gas phase. A These structures were now reoptimized to the corresponding micro-solvated ground state and the transition state structures (Figure 5).

Only small structural changes occurred during the reoptimization of the solvated ground state where both lithium ions are coordinated by three ligands (the methyl anion, the amideoxygen or nitrogen, and one Me2O molecule in a trigonal plan ararrangement). The transition structure leading to cis-vinylicdeprotonation is shown as the top left structure in Figure 5. The transition structure leading to allylic deprotonation is depicted as the top right structure. The structural changes going from the gas phase to the solvated transition structures are also small. The

computed activation barriers are 23.1 kcal/mol(allylic) and 31.8 kcal/mol (cis-vinylic) (Table 1).

C Results with reference to a figure and table

We do not know how many THF molecules bind to 1 in the ground state; E however, our calculations show that the relative rate of deprotonation at the allylic and the cis-vinylic positions is only dependent on the solvation to a small degree F (9.5 kcal/mol allylic preference in the gas phase and 8.7 kcal/mol allylic preferencein Me2O micro-solvation).

E Outcome that is not fully understood by the

researcher F Explanation Further solvation of these complexes may reduce the activation barrier

somewhat. J

Source: Haeffner et al.: J. AM. CHEM. SOC. 9 Vol. 126, No. 51, 2004 p.17035 ©2004

J Recommendation for further research or implications of the results

G. Comparison to other research including references or other results

in the paper

F. Explanation of expected or unexpected results

EXAMPLE

The measurements of the metrics are depicted in Fig. 12.

C Result For the moving pattern, the general behavior of the performance from the

prototype is similar to that from the simulation. The only difference is a G Comparison of results slight increase in hit ratios and visual perception by a few percent in the

experiment, across all prefetching schemes.

For other moving patterns, the improvement in hit ratios seems to be

smaller than that brought about by simulation. This is perhaps due to the F Explanation of results

2009 HYU CTL English Writing Lab and Adam Turner http://www.hanyangowl.org

object distribution in the experimental environment.

We are currently investigating this issue. We hope to be able to report our

findings in the future. J Future research projects

The impact on visual perception is similar to that on hit ratios, but at a smaller scale.

Source: Chim et al.: IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, Vol. 5, No. 4 p.513 © IEEE 2003