5. Discussion

Function: The function of the Discussion is to interpret your results in light of what was already known about the subject of the investigation, and to explain our new understanding of the problem after taking your results into consideration. The Discussion will always connect to the Introduction by way of the question(s) or hypotheses you posed and the literature you cited, but it does not simply repeat or rearrange the Introduction. Instead, it tells how your study has moved us forward from the place you left us at the end of the Introduction.

Fundamental questions to answer here include:

• Do your results provide answers to your testable hypotheses? If so, how do you interpret your findings?

• Do your findings agree with what others have shown? If not, do they suggest an alternative explanation or perhaps a unforseen design flaw in your experiment (or theirs?)

• Given your conclusions, what is our new understanding of the problem you investigated and outlined in the Introduction?

• If warranted, what would be the next step in your study, e.g., what experiments would you do next?

Style: Use the active voice whenever possible in this section. Watch out for wordy phrases; be concise and make your points clearly. Use of the first person is okay, but too much use of the first person may actually distract the reader from the main points.

Approach: Organize the Discussion to address each of the experiments or studies for which you presented results; discuss each in the same sequence as presented in the Results, providing your interpretation of what they mean in the larger context of the problem.

You must relate your work to the findings of other studies – including previous studies you may have done and those of other investigators. As stated previously, you may find crucial information in someone else's study that helps you interpret your own data, or perhaps you will be able to reinterpret others' findings in light of yours. In either case you should discuss reasons for similarities and differences between yours and others' findings. Consider how the results of other studies may be combined with yours to derive a new or perhaps better substantiated understanding of the problem. Be sure to state the conclusions that can be drawn from your results in light of these considerations.

Do not introduce new results in the Discussion. Although you might occasionally include in this section tables and figures which help explain something you are discussing, they must not contain new data (from your study) that should have been presented earlier.

6. Acknowledgments (include as needed)

If, in your experiment, you received any significant help in thinking up, designing, or carrying out the work, or received materials from someone who did you a favor by supplying them, you must acknowledge their assistance and the service or material provided. Authors always acknowledge outside reviewers of their drafts and any sources of funding that supported the research. Although usual style requirements (e.g., 1st person, objectivity) are relaxed somewhat here, Acknowledgments are always brief and never flowery.

• Place the Acknowledgments between the Discussion and the Literature Cited.