Writing Strategy: Explain Results

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

Explain Results is a common Strategy used in most disciplines to ground the discussion in the D/C section by offering various interpretations of the study results. When utilizing this Strategy, it is important to emphasize the positive. One of the biggest errors scientific writers make in their Discussion is to exaggerate the findings. Speculation is fine as long as you acknowledge that you are speculating and you do not over-interpret your data. Otherwise, you may come across as sounding arrogant, condescending, or patronizing. So, avoid language that implies causality when your study can only make relational conclusions. Try to use language like “may” “could” “is likely” when there is a shadow of a doubt.

Additionally, you should consider alternative explanations of the findings. Despite efforts to remain objective, it is easy to consider only those explanations that fit your bias. It is important to remember that the purpose of research is to discover and not to prove. When writing the Discussion section, it is important to carefully consider all possible explanations for the study results, rather than just those that fit your hypotheses or biases.

Finally, avoid over-interpretation and unwarranted speculation. It is easy to inflate the interpretation of the results. Be careful that your interpretation of the results does not go beyond what is supported by the data. The data are the data: nothing more, nothing less. The Discussion should remain focused on your data and the participants and/or instruments in your study.

To thus utilize this Strategy effectively, you may consider a set of Sub-strategies to explain your results:

• Account for Results explains why the results occurred;
• Explicate Results explains what the results mean; and
• Relate to Expectations explains how the results were anticipated or unanticipated .

Let’s consider a couple of examples that illustrate how commenting in Discussion sections is different from commenting in Results only sections. These first examples are used to Account for Results. Note that Account for Results is a Sub-strategy used to determine the nature of results (i.e., accounting for why the results occurred…. ). Which do you think is accounting in the Results section and which is accounting in the Discussion section?

1. “These findings may be because of decreases in mental health and may be explained by those with lower intelligence not receiving accurate diagnosis.”
2. “The statistically significant increase is likely due to students’ initial level of motivation at the start of class.” 

While both sentences have a chance of making their way into a Results section, Example 1 is more general, representing these findings or the findings as a whole. Example 2 is more specific to a single result—The statistically significant increase. Thus, the first example is more common in Discussions and the second is more typically used in the Results.

Here are two more examples associated with Explicate Results, which is the Sub-strategy used to provide an interpretation of what the results mean. Which sentence is more likely to be found in the Results section and which is more likely to be found in the Discussion section?

1. “Only 10% of students failed to submit a final manuscript for publication, suggesting that the course was successful in helping them publish faster.”
2. “The experimental results indicate that practice may be essential for heightening language awareness.”

We see that in Example 1, the bolded parts are used to explain the meaning of the specific results highlighted at the beginning of the sentence, thus being better fit for the Results section. Example 2 is more general, referring to the experimental results as a whole.

The final Sub-strategy is Relate to Expectations. Expectations should be grounded in theoretical and/or empirical knowledge, and oftentimes these expectations are the foundation for research hypotheses. Results that match or contradict these expectations may be worthy of discussion or commentary on whether or not the results were anticipated. If appropriate, note any unusual or unanticipated patterns or trends that emerged from your results. In case you reach unexpected results or patterns, you should explain them and clarify their significance (or new avenues for future research) in connection to the research issue.

If you obtain unexpected results that change your study’s value or contributions, you may need to revisit your entire research argument, starting in the Introduction section, and revise so that those new contributions are noted. Sometimes, unexpected results can drive new research agendas, so they will not require you to revise your argument. Instead, consider segueing into a discussion of future research.  

The following examples illustrate this Sub-strategy—Relate to Expectations.

1. “Not surprisingly, secondary school children enjoyed more mobility licenses and were more independent in their school travel and weekend activities.”
2. “Unexpectedly, test content (i.e., the competences measured in the tests) did not moderate the gender effect.”
3. “In this respect, our data support the hypothesis that imprinting-like phenomena in human facial attraction may be built on associative experiences which affect preferences from childhood onwards.”

Example 1 and 2 illustrate how a simple transition can indicate whether a result was expected (Example 1) or unexpected (Example 2). Example 3 related the findings to expectations laid out in the research hypothesis, which is usually disclosed early on in the manuscript.

Here are some additional Language Use features that will help in discovering additional patterns:

Remember that sophisticated argumentation combines multiple Goals and Strategies to achieve an overall aim for a section. Re-establish the Territory (BLUE) is therefore best integrated into your D/C section when coupled with Strategies in Frame Principle Findings (RED). For example, you might summarize a principal finding (Restate Study Specifics) and then discuss why the result occurred (Explain Results-Account for Results).