Session 6MED 6000

Discussion

So what does this all mean?

The place where the researcher can speculate, infer, and reflect

Challenge for the reader: Has the author jumped to

unwarranted conclusions?

Remember your own biases

We are tempted to approach with disdain anything inconsistent with what we already believe and think we know.

Our prior beliefs may have been based on studies with even more design flaws than the one now being read.

Significance

Statistical significance The purview of the Results section. The

difference or effect was unlikely to have occurred by chance alone.

Practical significance How important or useful is the difference

or effect? Theoretical significance

The outcome is consistent with what would have been predicted by theory.

Evaluative Criteria

Is the discussion clearly written? Is the discussion focused on how the

findings are related to the objectives of the study?

Do the conclusions follow logically from the results?

Are implications, limitations, and recommendations for further research included?

Parts of the Discussion

Summary of Findings Restatement of findings from

Results section, typically with some explanation and elaboration

Avoid exaggerated claims

Parts of the Discussion Conclusions

Should flow logically from results May speculate about the ultimate

meaning of results, but stay within “skeptical” bounds

Implications What might the results mean for

other researchers and practitioners?

Parts of the Discussion

Limitations of the Study What cannot be found because of the

research design or other limitations Be frank about design flaws

Need for Further Research What type of additional research

could be conducted that would add to the knowledge base in this area?

Research Paper Workshop