Discussion Section
George Mason University’s IMRaD guidance describes Discussion as the place to interpret findings, compare them with prior research, and explain what the results mean. Results, Discussion, and Conclusion may be separate or combined depending on discipline, journal, and study design.
A Discussion section interprets the most important findings, relates them to the research questions and prior work, and explains their implications and limitations.
Key details
Important caveats
Scope Boundary
Results, Discussion, and Conclusion may be separate or combined depending on discipline, journal, and study design.
Further guidance
Content
Explain what the results mean and why they matter rather than simply repeating the Results section.
Practical Application
Use the Discussion to interpret the most important findings in relation to the research questions and prior work, then explain implications and limitations. Avoid merely repeating the Results section or introducing unsupported conclusions.
Purpose
Prioritize the most important findings, explain plausible interpretations, connect them to earlier research, and address limitations or future directions when appropriate.
Reader Check
Does each major claim in the Discussion connect back to a reported finding, research question, or clearly identified limitation?
Worked Example
Instead of repeating “Group A scored higher,” explain what that result may mean for the research question, how it compares with prior work, and what limitation affects the interpretation.
Sources and evidence
Sources are shown with the role they play in this guide. Historical or style-sensitive claims are kept within the evidence boundary described above.
- Scientific (IMRaD) Research Reports — Results and Discussion Sections (opens in a new tab)George Mason University Writing Center · University writing-center guidance separating reporting findings in Results from interpreting findings in Discussion, with organization varying by discipline and journal