In my last column, the results section was reviewed. Included in this portion of a research report are the findings from the data analysis. Mention was made that if data can be represented with tables or graphs, it should be. These tables and graphs should be numbered sequentially and referred to in the text. Too many tables and/or graphs will dilute the interpretation of the most significant results. For the sake of clarity, descriptive statistics usually appear first in the results, and then each of the research aims or questions should appear in the same order as they were presented in the introduction and methods. This order makes it easier for the reader to determine that the investigator has addressed each of their study aims.
The results section is not the place for the interpretation of the data or to wax eloquently on the significance of your findings. Even if your data analyses resulted in no statistically significant findings, that does not mean that your study has no significance. Do not feel that your work was a waste of time or that it is unpublishable. Although there seems to exist a bias in nursing journals to print only those studies with significant findings, it may be that researchers do not submit their work unless their analysis has been significant or the effect is positive. This is unfortunate because it is as important that other researchers know what did not work as it is to know what seemed to. Perhaps, through the course of the study, you had identified certain barriers or design problems. If another researcher were to replicate the study, by having read your manuscript, they would know either not to bother or what design issues you had encountered to refine their study to avoid similar threats to validity.
Whether significant or not, it is in the discussion section that the researcher has an opportunity to explore their findings, to put them in the context of the existing research literature by comparing and contrasting their work with previous studies, to describe any limitations, to suggest potential future research, and to briefly synthesize key their findings. Some journals' guidelines may require the writer to separate the discussion, limitations, and conclusion under their own headings in the manuscript. The Journal for Nurses in Professional Development seems to publish papers in either format, as long as the relevant information is included. Before submitting your work to any journal, go to their web site and follow their guidelines.
One purpose of the discussion section is to provide for the reader an interpretation of the study's findings. This thoughtful interpretation should be supported with evidence from the literature (Polit & Beck, 2017, p. 683). After highlighting the principal findings, the researcher then elucidates how their research agrees or differs from previous studies. Those studies chosen for comparison should have similarities to the current study, and they should be current, that is, published in the previous 5 years (unless an important landmark study). This literature should be used to support and explain your results. Or, if the previous research did not produce the same results, this is the place to identify why you think they differed. Don't read into or overinterpret your findings.
Also, the discussion is not the place to bring up irrelevant findings that, though you may find them interesting, were not part of the study purpose. Otherwise, you may only obscure your important findings. On the other hand, do not discuss only your favorable results. Do not GUSH! Every researcher is entitled to pride in their accomplishment; however, let the reader come to appreciate the thought, work, care, and time the researcher invested in performing and now reporting their findings. As with all sections of a research report, be clear and concise. Unlike Charles Dickens, you are not paid by the word. In fact, most journals have page limits so convey your message in as few words as needed. If you've done solid research, when you find your work is cited by other researchers, you'll get your deserved acknowledgement.
In addition to stressing the key points supported from the literature, the discussion should include the study's limitations. This can be done either, as mentioned previously, under the discussion heading or as a separate heading. Explain how these limitations may have affected the results. Be honest; every study has some limitations. However, don't belabor them; otherwise, the reader will come away wondering if you had given any consideration to identifying and mitigating potential threats to the validity of your research prior to its initiation.
Next, either address some suggestions for future research within the discussion section or, as some others prefer, include them under the conclusion. If there is clinical applicability to your findings, mention that as well. Although only a paragraph or two, the final component of your discussion, the conclusion, should reemphasize your key point and its relationship to the study's purpose. Leave the reader understanding why your study is important.
Finally, these are the two pointers I've shared with my former students to improve the clarity of their writing: One, read your work aloud to yourself or an audience if you can recruit one, and two, have a trusted colleague, friend, or family member read your work. Write tight, omit flowery language, every sentence should have a verb, and don't use big words when an everyday one will serve. Do all this editing before you submit for publication.
Reference