Discussion of results in original research: Rhetorical moves and their implementation

The Discussion section in the manuscript of an original empirical study is the most creative and challenging part to construct. Incorrect discussion of results in many manuscripts submitted to scientific journals often leads to their rejection, even if the results themselves hold potential significance for the scientific community. The absence or poor quality of interpretation of results by the authors can negatively affect the overall perception of the study by readers. The most complete functional implementation of the Discussion section is achieved by adhering to its rhetorical structure. The purpose of this article is to analyze the functions, content, and rhetorical organization of the Discussion section of an original empirical study. The main function of the Discussion section is to interpret and explain the significance of the study’s results, highlight the current state of knowledge on the stated problem, and explain new aspects arising from the results obtained. Authors also need to specify the external validity of the data and demonstrate how these data can be generalized. The most effective way to implement the stated function is by relying on a model of the interdisciplinary rhetorical structure of the Discussion section, which can be modified according to the conventions of the discipline and the characteristics of the specific study. Depending on the study’s logic, certain rhetorical moves or steps of the structure may be omitted; however, a more comprehensive list of moves provides a more thorough interpretation of the results. Understanding the content of each move and its steps allows authors to present all necessary information regarding the obtained results in a way that ensures their objective and unambiguous perception by readers.

1. Irawati L. Potential factors influencing the rhetorical patterns of research article discussion sections. Studies in English Language and Education. 2022;9(1):115–131. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v9i1.21267

2. Cargill M., O’Connor P. Writing scientific research articles: Strategy and steps. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009. 173 p.

3. Tikhonova E. V. Interpersonal strategies in academic writing: the significance of acknowledging research limitations and recommendations for future studies in scientific discourse. Storage and Processing of Farm Products. 2023;(4):8–15. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.36107/spfp.2023.526

4. Tikhonova E. V., Kosycheva M. A. Discussion section in research articles: content and structure. Health, Food & Biotechnology. 2021;3(3):7–16. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.36107/hfb.2021.i3.s127

5. Martinez I. A. Aspects of theme in the method and discussion sections of biology journal articles in English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2003;2(2):103–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00003-1

6. Parkinson J. The Discussion section as argument: The language used to prove knowledge claims. English for Specific Purposes. 2011;30(3):164–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.001

7. Tikhonova E. V., Kosycheva M. A., Golechkova T. Yu. Establishing rapport with the reader: Engagement markers in the discussion section of a research article. Integration of Education. 2023;27(3):354–372. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.112.027.202303.354-372

8. Yang R., Desmond A. Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes. 2003;22(4):365–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1

9. Mauranen A., Hynninen N., Ranta E. English as an academic lingua franca: The ELFA project. English for Specific Purposes. 2010;29(3):183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.10.001

10. Tessuto G. Generic structure and rhetorical moves in English-language empirical law research articles: Sites of interdisciplinary and interdiscursive cross-over. English for Specific Purposes. 2015;37:13–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESP.2014.06.002

11. Iruskieta M., Cunha I., Taboada M. A qualitative comparison method for rhetorical structures: identifying different discourse structures in multilingual corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation. 2015;49(2):263–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10579-014-9271-6

12. Cunha I., Iruskieta M. Comparing rhetorical structures in different languages: The influence of translation strategies. Discourse Studies. 2010;12(5):563–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610371054

13. Al-Shujairi Y. B. J., Tan H., Abdullah A. N., Nimehchisalem V., Imm L. G. Moving in the right direction in the discussion section of research articles. Journal of Language and Communication. 2019;6(2):165–180.

14. Cotos E., Link S., Huffman S. R. Studying disciplinary corpora to teach the craft of Discussion. Writing and Pedagogy. 2016;8(1):33–64. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v8i1.27661

15. Day R. A., Gastel B. How to write and publish a scientific paper. 6 th ed. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press; 2006. 302 p.

16. Glasman-Deal H. Science research writing for non-native speakers of English. London, UK: Imperial College Press; 2010. 257 p.

17. Foote M. The proof of the pudding: How to report results and write a good discussion. Chest. 2009;135(3):866–868. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.08-2613

18. Zeiger M. Essentials of writing biomedical research papers. Canadian Journal for Studies in Discourse and Writing. 1993;11(1):33–36. https://doi.org/10.31468/cjsdwr.342

19. Annesley T. M. The discussion section: your closing argument. Clinical Chemistry. 2010;56(11):1671–1674. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2010.155358

20. Ghasemi A., Bahadoran Z., Mirmiran P., Hosseinpanah F., Shiva N., Zadeh-Vakili A. The principles of biomedical scientific writing: discussion. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2019;17(3):e95415. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.95415

21. Hofmann A. H. Scientific writing and communication: Papers, proposals, and presentations. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2014. 728 p.

22. Kearney M. H. The discussion section tells us where we are. Research in Nursing & Health. 2017;40(4):289–291. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21803

23. Docherty M., Smith R. The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers: much the same as that for structuring abstracts. British Medical Journal. 1999;318(7193):1224–1225. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7193.1224

24. Wallwork A. English for writing research papers. 2 nd ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2016. 384 p.

25. Tikhonova E. V., Kosycheva M. A., Golechkova T. Yu. Research article discussion moves and steps in papers on medicine: Academic literacy and respect for readers. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. 2023;9(2):97–128. https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2023-9-2-0-6

26. Swales J. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990. 260 p.

27. Swales J. Research genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004. 314 p.

28. Pho P. D. An evaluation of three different approaches to the analysis of research article abstracts. Monash University Linguistics Papers. 2009;6(2):11–16.

29. Smith D. E. A. Medical discourse: Aspects of author’s comment. The ESP Journal. 1984;3(1):25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-2380(84)90004-0

30. Hopkins A., Dudley-Evans T. A Genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes. 1988;7(2):113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(88)90029-4

31. Al-Shujairi Y. B. J. Review of the discussion section of research articles: Rhetorical structure and move. LSP International Journal. 2021;8(2):9–25. https://doi.org/10.11113/lspi.v8.17099

32. Dudley-Evans T. Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis for ESP. Advances in Written Text Analysis. 1994;219:223–242.

33. Nwogu K. N. The Medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes. 1997;16(2):119–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)85388-4

34. Peacock M. Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System. 2002;30(4):479–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00050-7

35. Ruiying Y., Allison D. Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes. 2003;22(4):365–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1

36. Darabad A. M. Move analysis of research article abstracts: A cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Linguistics. 2016;8(2):125–140. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v8i2.9379

37. Alhuqbani M. N. Genre-based analysis of Arabic research article abstracts across four disciplines. Journal of Educational and Social Research. 2013;3(3):371–382. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2013.v4n3p371

38. Musa N. F., Khamis N., Zanariah J. The structure of method section in engineering research articles. Asian Social Science. 2015;11(17):74–82. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n17p74

39. Tawalbeh A. Genre analysis of accounts of methodology in Arabic educational research articles. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literatures. 2021;13(2):281–301. https://doi.org/10.47012/jjmll.13.2.6

40. Brett P. A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes. 1994;13(1):47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90024-8

41. Berkenkotter C., Huckin T. Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1995. 208 p.

42. Nundy S., Kakar A., Bhutta Z. A. How to write the discussion? In: How to Practice Academic Medicine and Publish from Developing Countries? Singapore: Springer; 2022, pp. 225–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5248-6_21

43. Bavdekar S. B. Writing the discussion section: Describing the significance of the study findings. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India. 2015;63(11):40–42. Available at: https://www.feg.unesp.br/Home/Pos-Graduacao20/pgproducao-mestradoacademico/06_aow_writing_the_discussion-1.pdf (accessed: 02.07.2024).

44. Şanlı Ö., Erdem S., Tefik T. How to write a discussion section? Turkish Journal of Urology. 2013;39(Suppl 1):20–24. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2013.049

45. Alexandrov A. V. How to write a research paper. Cerebrovascular Diseases. 2004;18(2):135–138. https://doi.org/10.1159/000079266

46. Barusch A. S. Causality conundrums and advice to authors. Journal of Gerontological Social Work. 2011;54(2):135–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2011.550512

47. Tikhonova E. V., Kosycheva M. A., Mezentseva D. A. Ineffective strategies in scientific communication: Textual wordiness vs. clarity of thought in thesis conclusion section. Integration of Education. 2024;28(2):249–265. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.115.028.202402.249-265

48. Conn V. S. How to craft a strong discussion section. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 2017;39(5):607–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945916650196

49. Walsh K. Discussing discursive discussions. Medical Education. 2016;50(12):1269–1270. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13103

50. Bagga A. Discussion: The heart of the paper. Indian Pediatrics. 2016;53(10):901–904.

51. Moore A. What’s in a discussion section? Exploiting 2-dimensionality in the online world. BioEssays. 2016;38(12):1185. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201600242

52. Coverdale J. H., Roberts L. W., Balon R., Beresin E. V. Writing for academia: Getting your research into print: AMEE guide No. 74. Medical Teacher. 2013;35(2):e926–e934. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.742494

53. Ioannidis J. P. Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientific literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2007;60(4):324–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.011

54. Masic I. How to write an efficient discussion? Medicinski Arhiv. 2018;72(4):306–307. https://doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2018.72.306-307

55. Vieira R. F., Lima R. C., Mizubuti E. S. G. How to write the discussion section of a scientific article. Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy. 2019;41(1):e42621. https://doi.org/10.4025/actasciagron.v41i1.42621

56. Tikhonova E. V., Kirillova O. V. Citation culture: Citing authors behaviour vs trust in research results. Science Editor and Publisher. 2022;7(2):166–181. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-22-58

57. Кириллова О. В. Редакционная подготовка научных журналов по международным стандартам: рекомендации эксперта БД Scopus. М.: Нобель пресс, 2013. 90 с. Режим доступа: https://rassep.ru/academy/biblioteka/106592/ (дата обращения: 22.06.2024).

58. Masic I. How to search write, prepare and publish the scientific papers in the biomedical journals. Acta Informatica Medica. 2011;19(2):68–79. Available at: https://ease.org.uk/sites/default/files/how-to-search-acta-inform-med-2011-i-masic.pdf (accessed: 02.07.2024).