Page 334 - English for Writing Research Papers

323

18.13 What typical problems do researchers
in the humanities have when writing the Discussion?

Below is an extract from a reviewer’s comments on a social sciences paper. The
words in italics are mine.

The authors overstate the findings , making large leaps to what the implications of the study

are which really only show that knowledge influences attitudes and behaviour infl uences

willingness to behave. … In fact, most of what is included in the discussion is an overstate-
ment of the results with no support from the literature , and thus should be deleted with a

new discussion written that focuses on the actual findings and what they mean. Another
issue I have with this paper is that there is no presentation in the results of what was actually
found. … If this had been explored in this paper, I believe the paper would have been
strengthened and then the authors would have had more ability to draw conclusions about
what programs or policies would be useful for …
In sciences such as chemistry, physics and biology, researchers usually have rela-
tively clear findings that they can present and explain, and for which they can

hypothesize implications.

In the humanities, findings are not so clear and are often based on subjective ques-
tionnaires and the impressions of the researchers in relation to these questionnaires.
Don’t fall into the trap of drawing bigger conclusions than are in fact reasonable.

The reviewer above is suggesting the following approach:

• state your findings clearly, i.e. what you really found and not what ideally you
would have liked to have found

• on the basis of these findings, discuss what you believe the implications of

these findings are (for example, for policy makers, managers, and others who

might be doing research in a similar fi eld)
• support your discussion by making comparisons with the literature (i.e. the
literature that you presented in the Introduction) – and not just the literature
that supports your views!