Results Section
George Mason University’s IMRaD guidance separates Results as systematic reporting of findings from Discussion as interpretation of those findings. Some disciplines and journals combine Results and Discussion or organize them differently; follow the target venue rather than treating one structure as universal.
A Results section reports the study’s findings clearly and systematically; interpretation normally belongs in Discussion unless the target venue combines the sections.
Key details
Important caveats
Scope Boundary
Some disciplines and journals combine Results and Discussion or organize them differently; follow the target venue rather than treating one structure as universal.
Further guidance
Content
Report what the study found so readers can see the evidence before interpretation.
Practical Application
Report findings in a clear sequence tied to the research questions or analysis plan, and keep interpretation in the Discussion unless the target venue explicitly combines the sections.
Purpose
Present the relevant findings in a logical sequence and use tables/figures where they improve clarity.
Reader Check
Can the reader distinguish what the data showed from what the author thinks the findings mean?
Worked Example
Results: Participants completed 204 of 300 eligible surveys. Table 2 reports response patterns by recruitment channel; interpretation of those differences appears in the Discussion.
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