Writing Strategy: Compare Results

This book is running in a long beta. Revisions are currently underway. Check back in January 2025 for updated content.

Compare Results is a way of relating principal methods or findings from the present study to previously reported empirical findings, theoretical beliefs, assumptions, or predictions. This Strategy is especially helpful if previous studies raised questions that motivated your study, if findings of other studies support your findings, or if your study differs from similar studies in any way. Connections to previous works can support existing knowledge to build on what is known in the field or counter that knowledge to potentially identify additional gaps or problems worthy of future investigation. Supporting results of previous works can strengthen credibility of your findings and the findings of other researchers. By identifying similarities, more assumptions and generalizations about the field are possible, thus transcending mere speculation into productive interpretation that holds stronger meaning for the discipline at large. Countering claims in previous work may open new paths to future research, but it is important to avoid what some call “The Bully Pulpit.” The Discussion section is not a place to criticize other studies, attacking investigators and their scholarly research. Although you should contrast your findings to other published studies, this should be done professionally by suggesting the limitations of previous work and demonstrating how your work expands or questions existing knowledge.

When supporting study findings through evidence, statements of similarity, agreement, concurrence, conformity are used frequently. As you may expect, the language of countering with evidence includes statements indicating difference, disagreement, contrast, and divergence. Here are some language patterns found in literature: