This will be perhaps one of the most questions that are challenging have ever asked me, because after looking through a large number of journal articles in my own Mendeley database, I could not find a lot of them who used Discussion sections. In my opinion this idea associated with Discussion part of an journal that is academic (or book chapter, in some cases) comes from the IMRAD model of publishing, this is certainly, papers which have at the least the next five sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, Analysis and Discussion (hence the acronym).
Personally, I neither like, nor do I often write this type of journal article. Even when I was a chemical engineer, I can’t recall that I read many papers into the IMRAD model, as they all had a variation (merging Discussion with Results, or Results with Conclusion, or Discussion with Conclusion). I read engineering, natural science and social science literatures as I said paid essay service on Twitter. Thusly, the Discussion sections that I read vary QUITE A LOT.
All Discussion sections I’ve read are
- analytical, not descriptive,
- specific inside their interpretation of research results,
- robust within their linkage of research findings with theories, other empirical reports and various literatures,
- good at explaining how a paper’s results may contradict earlier work, extend it, advance our understanding of X or Y phenomenon and, most surely:
- NOT the final outcome regarding the paper.