discussion section research proposal

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections
• How to Write Discussions and Conclusions

The discussion section contains the results and outcomes of a study. An effective discussion informs readers what can be learned from your experiment and provides context for the results.

What makes an effective discussion?

When you’re ready to write your discussion, you’ve already introduced the purpose of your study and provided an in-depth description of the methodology. The discussion informs readers about the larger implications of your study based on the results. Highlighting these implications while not overstating the findings can be challenging, especially when you’re submitting to a journal that selects articles based on novelty or potential impact. Regardless of what journal you are submitting to, the discussion section always serves the same purpose: concluding what your study results actually mean.

A successful discussion section puts your findings in context. It should include:

• the results of your research,
• a discussion of related research, and
• a comparison between your results and initial hypothesis.

Tip: Not all journals share the same naming conventions.

You can apply the advice in this article to the conclusion, results or discussion sections of your manuscript.

Our Early Career Researcher community tells us that the conclusion is often considered the most difficult aspect of a manuscript to write. To help, this guide provides questions to ask yourself, a basic structure to model your discussion off of and examples from published manuscripts. 

Questions to ask yourself:

• Was my hypothesis correct?
• If my hypothesis is partially correct or entirely different, what can be learned from the results? 
• How do the conclusions reshape or add onto the existing knowledge in the field? What does previous research say about the topic? 
• Why are the results important or relevant to your audience? Do they add further evidence to a scientific consensus or disprove prior studies? 
• How can future research build on these observations? What are the key experiments that must be done? 
• What is the “take-home” message you want your reader to leave with?

How to structure a discussion

Trying to fit a complete discussion into a single paragraph can add unnecessary stress to the writing process. If possible, you’ll want to give yourself two or three paragraphs to give the reader a comprehensive understanding of your study as a whole. Here’s one way to structure an effective discussion:

Writing Tips

While the above sections can help you brainstorm and structure your discussion, there are many common mistakes that writers revert to when having difficulties with their paper. Writing a discussion can be a delicate balance between summarizing your results, providing proper context for your research and avoiding introducing new information. Remember that your paper should be both confident and honest about the results! 

• Read the journal’s guidelines on the discussion and conclusion sections. If possible, learn about the guidelines before writing the discussion to ensure you’re writing to meet their expectations. 
• Begin with a clear statement of the principal findings. This will reinforce the main take-away for the reader and set up the rest of the discussion. 
• Explain why the outcomes of your study are important to the reader. Discuss the implications of your findings realistically based on previous literature, highlighting both the strengths and limitations of the research. 
• State whether the results prove or disprove your hypothesis. If your hypothesis was disproved, what might be the reasons? 
• Introduce new or expanded ways to think about the research question. Indicate what next steps can be taken to further pursue any unresolved questions. 
• If dealing with a contemporary or ongoing problem, such as climate change, discuss possible consequences if the problem is avoided. 
• Be concise. Adding unnecessary detail can distract from the main findings. 

Don’t

• Rewrite your abstract. Statements with “we investigated” or “we studied” generally do not belong in the discussion. 
• Include new arguments or evidence not previously discussed. Necessary information and evidence should be introduced in the main body of the paper. 
• Apologize. Even if your research contains significant limitations, don’t undermine your authority by including statements that doubt your methodology or execution. 
• Shy away from speaking on limitations or negative results. Including limitations and negative results will give readers a complete understanding of the presented research. Potential limitations include sources of potential bias, threats to internal or external validity, barriers to implementing an intervention and other issues inherent to the study design. 
• Overstate the importance of your findings. Making grand statements about how a study will fully resolve large questions can lead readers to doubt the success of the research. 

Snippets of Effective Discussions:

Consumer-based actions to reduce plastic pollution in rivers: A multi-criteria decision analysis approach

Identifying reliable indicators of fitness in polar bears

• How to Write a Great Title
• How to Write an Abstract
• How to Write Your Methods
• How to Report Statistics
• How to Edit Your Work

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write a Discussion Section for a Research Paper

We’ve talked about several useful writing tips that authors should consider while drafting or editing their research papers. In particular, we’ve focused on  figures and legends , as well as the Introduction ,  Methods , and  Results . Now that we’ve addressed the more technical portions of your journal manuscript, let’s turn to the analytical segments of your research article. In this article, we’ll provide tips on how to write a strong Discussion section that best portrays the significance of your research contributions.

What is the Discussion section of a research paper?

In a nutshell,  your Discussion fulfills the promise you made to readers in your Introduction . At the beginning of your paper, you tell us why we should care about your research. You then guide us through a series of intricate images and graphs that capture all the relevant data you collected during your research. We may be dazzled and impressed at first, but none of that matters if you deliver an anti-climactic conclusion in the Discussion section!

Are you feeling pressured? Don’t worry. To be honest, you will edit the Discussion section of your manuscript numerous times. After all, in as little as one to two paragraphs ( Nature ‘s suggestion  based on their 3,000-word main body text limit), you have to explain how your research moves us from point A (issues you raise in the Introduction) to point B (our new understanding of these matters). You must also recommend how we might get to point C (i.e., identify what you think is the next direction for research in this field). That’s a lot to say in two paragraphs!

So, how do you do that? Let’s take a closer look.

What should I include in the Discussion section?

As we stated above, the goal of your Discussion section is to  answer the questions you raise in your Introduction by using the results you collected during your research . The content you include in the Discussions segment should include the following information:

• Remind us why we should be interested in this research project.
• Describe the nature of the knowledge gap you were trying to fill using the results of your study.
• Don’t repeat your Introduction. Instead, focus on why  this  particular study was needed to fill the gap you noticed and why that gap needed filling in the first place.
• Mainly, you want to remind us of how your research will increase our knowledge base and inspire others to conduct further research.
• Clearly tell us what that piece of missing knowledge was.
• Answer each of the questions you asked in your Introduction and explain how your results support those conclusions.
• Make sure to factor in all results relevant to the questions (even if those results were not statistically significant).
• Focus on the significance of the most noteworthy results.
• If conflicting inferences can be drawn from your results, evaluate the merits of all of them.
• Don’t rehash what you said earlier in the Results section. Rather, discuss your findings in the context of answering your hypothesis. Instead of making statements like “[The first result] was this…,” say, “[The first result] suggests [conclusion].”
• Do your conclusions line up with existing literature?
• Discuss whether your findings agree with current knowledge and expectations.
• Keep in mind good persuasive argument skills, such as explaining the strengths of your arguments and highlighting the weaknesses of contrary opinions.
• If you discovered something unexpected, offer reasons. If your conclusions aren’t aligned with current literature, explain.
• Address any limitations of your study and how relevant they are to interpreting your results and validating your findings.
• Make sure to acknowledge any weaknesses in your conclusions and suggest room for further research concerning that aspect of your analysis.
• Make sure your suggestions aren’t ones that should have been conducted during your research! Doing so might raise questions about your initial research design and protocols.
• Similarly, maintain a critical but unapologetic tone. You want to instill confidence in your readers that you have thoroughly examined your results and have objectively assessed them in a way that would benefit the scientific community’s desire to expand our knowledge base.
• Recommend next steps.
• Your suggestions should inspire other researchers to conduct follow-up studies to build upon the knowledge you have shared with them.
• Keep the list short (no more than two).

How to Write the Discussion Section

The above list of what to include in the Discussion section gives an overall idea of what you need to focus on throughout the section. Below are some tips and general suggestions about the technical aspects of writing and organization that you might find useful as you draft or revise the contents we’ve outlined above.

Technical writing elements

• Embrace active voice because it eliminates the awkward phrasing and wordiness that accompanies passive voice.
• Use the present tense, which should also be employed in the Introduction.
• Sprinkle with first person pronouns if needed, but generally, avoid it. We want to focus on your findings.
• Maintain an objective and analytical tone.

Discussion section organization

• Keep the same flow across the Results, Methods, and Discussion sections.
• We develop a rhythm as we read and parallel structures facilitate our comprehension. When you organize information the same way in each of these related parts of your journal manuscript, we can quickly see how a certain result was interpreted and quickly verify the particular methods used to produce that result.
• Notice how using parallel structure will eliminate extra narration in the Discussion part since we can anticipate the flow of your ideas based on what we read in the Results segment. Reducing wordiness is important when you only have a few paragraphs to devote to the Discussion section!
• Within each subpart of a Discussion, the information should flow as follows: (A) conclusion first, (B) relevant results and how they relate to that conclusion and (C) relevant literature.
• End with a concise summary explaining the big-picture impact of your study on our understanding of the subject matter. At the beginning of your Discussion section, you stated why  this  particular study was needed to fill the gap you noticed and why that gap needed filling in the first place. Now, it is time to end with “how your research filled that gap.”

Discussion Part 1: Summarizing Key Findings

Begin the Discussion section by restating your  statement of the problem  and briefly summarizing the major results. Do not simply repeat your findings. Rather, try to create a concise statement of the main results that directly answer the central research question that you stated in the Introduction section . This content should not be longer than one paragraph in length.

Many researchers struggle with understanding the precise differences between a Discussion section and a Results section . The most important thing to remember here is that your Discussion section should subjectively evaluate the findings presented in the Results section, and in relatively the same order. Keep these sections distinct by making sure that you do not repeat the findings without providing an interpretation.

Phrase examples: Summarizing the results

• The findings indicate that …
• These results suggest a correlation between A and B …
• The data present here suggest that …
• An interpretation of the findings reveals a connection between…

Discussion Part 2: Interpreting the Findings

What do the results mean? It may seem obvious to you, but simply looking at the figures in the Results section will not necessarily convey to readers the importance of the findings in answering your research questions.

The exact structure of interpretations depends on the type of research being conducted. Here are some common approaches to interpreting data:

• Identifying correlations and relationships in the findings
• Explaining whether the results confirm or undermine your research hypothesis
• Giving the findings context within the history of similar research studies
• Discussing unexpected results and analyzing their significance to your study or general research
• Offering alternative explanations and arguing for your position

Organize the Discussion section around key arguments, themes, hypotheses, or research questions or problems. Again, make sure to follow the same order as you did in the Results section.

Discussion Part 3: Discussing the Implications

In addition to providing your own interpretations, show how your results fit into the wider scholarly literature you surveyed in the  literature review section. This section is called the implications of the study . Show where and how these results fit into existing knowledge, what additional insights they contribute, and any possible consequences that might arise from this knowledge, both in the specific research topic and in the wider scientific domain.

Questions to ask yourself when dealing with potential implications:

• Do your findings fall in line with existing theories, or do they challenge these theories or findings? What new information do they contribute to the literature, if any? How exactly do these findings impact or conflict with existing theories or models?
• What are the practical implications on actual subjects or demographics?
• What are the methodological implications for similar studies conducted either in the past or future?

Your purpose in giving the implications is to spell out exactly what your study has contributed and why researchers and other readers should be interested.

Phrase examples: Discussing the implications of the research

• These results confirm the existing evidence in X studies…
• The results are not in line with the foregoing theory that…
• This experiment provides new insights into the connection between…
• These findings present a more nuanced understanding of…
• While previous studies have focused on X, these results demonstrate that Y.

Step 4: Acknowledging the limitations

All research has study limitations of one sort or another. Acknowledging limitations in methodology or approach helps strengthen your credibility as a researcher. Study limitations are not simply a list of mistakes made in the study. Rather, limitations help provide a more detailed picture of what can or cannot be concluded from your findings. In essence, they help temper and qualify the study implications you listed previously.

Study limitations can relate to research design, specific methodological or material choices, or unexpected issues that emerged while you conducted the research. Mention only those limitations directly relate to your research questions, and explain what impact these limitations had on how your study was conducted and the validity of any interpretations.

Possible types of study limitations:

• Insufficient sample size for statistical measurements
• Lack of previous research studies on the topic
• Methods/instruments/techniques used to collect the data
• Limited access to data
• Time constraints in properly preparing and executing the study

After discussing the study limitations, you can also stress that your results are still valid. Give some specific reasons why the limitations do not necessarily handicap your study or narrow its scope.

Phrase examples: Limitations sentence beginners

• “There may be some possible limitations in this study.”
• “The findings of this study have to be seen in light of some limitations.”
•  “The first limitation is the…The second limitation concerns the…”
•  “The empirical results reported herein should be considered in the light of some limitations.”
• “This research, however, is subject to several limitations.”
• “The primary limitation to the generalization of these results is…”
• “Nonetheless, these results must be interpreted with caution and a number of limitations should be borne in mind.”

Discussion Part 5: Giving Recommendations for Further Research

Based on your interpretation and discussion of the findings, your recommendations can include practical changes to the study or specific further research to be conducted to clarify the research questions. Recommendations are often listed in a separate Conclusion section , but often this is just the final paragraph of the Discussion section.

Suggestions for further research often stem directly from the limitations outlined. Rather than simply stating that “further research should be conducted,” provide concrete specifics for how future can help answer questions that your research could not.

Phrase examples: Recommendation sentence beginners

• Further research is needed to establish …
• There is abundant space for further progress in analyzing…
• A further study with more focus on X should be done to investigate…
• Further studies of X that account for these variables must be undertaken.

Consider Receiving Professional Language Editing

As you edit or draft your research manuscript, we hope that you implement these guidelines to produce a more effective Discussion section. And after completing your draft, don’t forget to submit your work to a professional proofreading and English editing service like Wordvice, including our manuscript editing service for  paper editing , cover letter editing , SOP editing , and personal statement proofreading services. Language editors not only proofread and correct errors in grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and formatting but also improve terms and revise phrases so they read more naturally. Wordvice is an industry leader in providing high-quality revision for all types of academic documents.

For additional information about how to write a strong research paper, make sure to check out our full  research writing series !

Wordvice Writing Resources

• How to Write a Research Paper Introduction 
• Which Verb Tenses to Use in a Research Paper
• How to Write an Abstract for a Research Paper
• How to Write a Research Paper Title
• Useful Phrases for Academic Writing
• Common Transition Terms in Academic Papers
• Active and Passive Voice in Research Papers
• 100+ Verbs That Will Make Your Research Writing Amazing
• Tips for Paraphrasing in Research Papers

Additional Academic Resources

•   Guide for Authors.  (Elsevier)
•  How to Write the Results Section of a Research Paper.  (Bates College)
•   Structure of a Research Paper.  (University of Minnesota Biomedical Library)
•   How to Choose a Target Journal  (Springer)
•   How to Write Figures and Tables  (UNC Writing Center)

How to Write the Discussion Section of a Research Paper

The discussion section of a research paper analyzes and interprets the findings, provides context, compares them with previous studies, identifies limitations, and suggests future research directions.

Updated on September 15, 2023

Structure your discussion section right, and you’ll be cited more often while doing a greater service to the scientific community. So, what actually goes into the discussion section? And how do you write it?

The discussion section of your research paper is where you let the reader know how your study is positioned in the literature, what to take away from your paper, and how your work helps them. It can also include your conclusions and suggestions for future studies.

First, we’ll define all the parts of your discussion paper, and then look into how to write a strong, effective discussion section for your paper or manuscript.

Discussion section: what is it, what it does

The discussion section comes later in your paper, following the introduction, methods, and results. The discussion sets up your study’s conclusions. Its main goals are to present, interpret, and provide a context for your results.

What is it?

The discussion section provides an analysis and interpretation of the findings, compares them with previous studies, identifies limitations, and suggests future directions for research.

This section combines information from the preceding parts of your paper into a coherent story. By this point, the reader already knows why you did your study (introduction), how you did it (methods), and what happened (results). In the discussion, you’ll help the reader connect the ideas from these sections.

Why is it necessary?

The discussion provides context and interpretations for the results. It also answers the questions posed in the introduction. While the results section describes your findings, the discussion explains what they say. This is also where you can describe the impact or implications of your research.

Adds context for your results

Most research studies aim to answer a question, replicate a finding, or address limitations in the literature. These goals are first described in the introduction. However, in the discussion section, the author can refer back to them to explain how the study's objective was achieved. 

Shows what your results actually mean and real-world implications

The discussion can also describe the effect of your findings on research or practice. How are your results significant for readers, other researchers, or policymakers?

What to include in your discussion (in the correct order)

A complete and effective discussion section should at least touch on the points described below.

Summary of key findings

The discussion should begin with a brief factual summary of the results. Concisely overview the main results you obtained.

Begin with key findings with supporting evidence

Your results section described a list of findings, but what message do they send when you look at them all together?

Your findings were detailed in the results section, so there’s no need to repeat them here, but do provide at least a few highlights. This will help refresh the reader’s memory and help them focus on the big picture.

Read the first paragraph of the discussion section in this article (PDF) for an example of how to start this part of your paper. Notice how the authors break down their results and follow each description sentence with an explanation of why each finding is relevant. 

State clearly and concisely

Following a clear and direct writing style is especially important in the discussion section. After all, this is where you will make some of the most impactful points in your paper. While the results section often contains technical vocabulary, such as statistical terms, the discussion section lets you describe your findings more clearly. 

Interpretation of results

Once you’ve given your reader an overview of your results, you need to interpret those results. In other words, what do your results mean? Discuss the findings’ implications and significance in relation to your research question or hypothesis.

Analyze and interpret your findings

Look into your findings and explore what’s behind them or what may have caused them. If your introduction cited theories or studies that could explain your findings, use these sources as a basis to discuss your results.

For example, look at the second paragraph in the discussion section of this article on waggling honey bees. Here, the authors explore their results based on information from the literature.

Unexpected or contradictory results

Sometimes, your findings are not what you expect. Here’s where you describe this and try to find a reason for it. Could it be because of the method you used? Does it have something to do with the variables analyzed? Comparing your methods with those of other similar studies can help with this task.

Context and comparison with previous work

Refer to related studies to place your research in a larger context and the literature. Compare and contrast your findings with existing literature, highlighting similarities, differences, and/or contradictions.

How your work compares or contrasts with previous work

Studies with similar findings to yours can be cited to show the strength of your findings. Information from these studies can also be used to help explain your results. Differences between your findings and others in the literature can also be discussed here. 

How to divide this section into subsections

If you have more than one objective in your study or many key findings, you can dedicate a separate section to each of these. Here’s an example of this approach. You can see that the discussion section is divided into topics and even has a separate heading for each of them. 

Limitations

Many journals require you to include the limitations of your study in the discussion. Even if they don’t, there are good reasons to mention these in your paper.

Why limitations don’t have a negative connotation

A study’s limitations are points to be improved upon in future research. While some of these may be flaws in your method, many may be due to factors you couldn’t predict.

Examples include time constraints or small sample sizes. Pointing this out will help future researchers avoid or address these issues. This part of the discussion can also include any attempts you have made to reduce the impact of these limitations, as in this study .

How limitations add to a researcher's credibility

Pointing out the limitations of your study demonstrates transparency. It also shows that you know your methods well and can conduct a critical assessment of them.  

Implications and significance

The final paragraph of the discussion section should contain the take-home messages for your study. It can also cite the “strong points” of your study, to contrast with the limitations section.

Restate your hypothesis

Remind the reader what your hypothesis was before you conducted the study. 

How was it proven or disproven?

Identify your main findings and describe how they relate to your hypothesis.

How your results contribute to the literature

Were you able to answer your research question? Or address a gap in the literature?

Future implications of your research

Describe the impact that your results may have on the topic of study. Your results may show, for instance, that there are still limitations in the literature for future studies to address. There may be a need for studies that extend your findings in a specific way. You also may need additional research to corroborate your findings. 

Sample discussion section

This fictitious example covers all the aspects discussed above. Your actual discussion section will probably be much longer, but you can read this to get an idea of everything your discussion should cover.

Our results showed that the presence of cats in a household is associated with higher levels of perceived happiness by its human occupants. These findings support our hypothesis and demonstrate the association between pet ownership and well-being. 

The present findings align with those of Bao and Schreer (2016) and Hardie et al. (2023), who observed greater life satisfaction in pet owners relative to non-owners. Although the present study did not directly evaluate life satisfaction, this factor may explain the association between happiness and cat ownership observed in our sample.

Our findings must be interpreted in light of some limitations, such as the focus on cat ownership only rather than pets as a whole. This may limit the generalizability of our results.

Nevertheless, this study had several strengths. These include its strict exclusion criteria and use of a standardized assessment instrument to investigate the relationships between pets and owners. These attributes bolster the accuracy of our results and reduce the influence of confounding factors, increasing the strength of our conclusions. Future studies may examine the factors that mediate the association between pet ownership and happiness to better comprehend this phenomenon.

This brief discussion begins with a quick summary of the results and hypothesis. The next paragraph cites previous research and compares its findings to those of this study. Information from previous studies is also used to help interpret the findings. After discussing the results of the study, some limitations are pointed out. The paper also explains why these limitations may influence the interpretation of results. Then, final conclusions are drawn based on the study, and directions for future research are suggested.

How to make your discussion flow naturally

If you find writing in scientific English challenging, the discussion and conclusions are often the hardest parts of the paper to write. That’s because you’re not just listing up studies, methods, and outcomes. You’re actually expressing your thoughts and interpretations in words.

• How formal should it be?
• What words should you use, or not use?
• How do you meet strict word limits, or make it longer and more informative?

Always give it your best, but sometimes a helping hand can, well, help. Getting a professional edit can help clarify your work’s importance while improving the English used to explain it. When readers know the value of your work, they’ll cite it. We’ll assign your study to an expert editor knowledgeable in your area of research. Their work will clarify your discussion, helping it to tell your story. Find out more about AJE Editing.

Adam Goulston, PsyD, MS, MBA, MISD, ELS

Science Marketing Consultant

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

Pair your Premium Editing with our add-on service Presubmission Review for an overall assessment of your manuscript.

How to Start a Discussion Section in Research? [with Examples]

The examples below are from 72,017 full-text PubMed research papers that I analyzed in order to explore common ways to start writing the Discussion section.

Research papers included in this analysis were selected at random from those uploaded to PubMed Central between the years 2016 and 2021. Note that I used the BioC API to download the data (see the References section below).

Examples of how to start writing the Discussion section

In the Discussion section, you should explain the meaning of your results, their importance, and implications. [for more information, see: How to Write & Publish a Research Paper: Step-by-Step Guide ]

The Discussion section can:

1. Start by restating the study objective

“ The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between muscle synergies and motion primitives of the upper limb motions.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

“ The main objective of this study was to identify trajectories of autonomy.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

“ In the present study, we investigated the whole brain regional homogeneity in patients with melancholic MDD and non-melancholic MDD at rest . “ Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

2. Start by mentioning the main finding

“ We found that autocracy and democracy have acted as peaks in an evolutionary landscape of possible modes of institutional arrangements.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

“ In this study, we demonstrated that the neural mechanisms of rhythmic movements and skilled movements are similar.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

“ The results of this study show that older adults are a diverse group concerning their activities on the Internet.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

3. Start by pointing out the strength of the study

“ To our knowledge, this investigation is by far the largest epidemiological study employing real-time PCR to study periodontal pathogens in subgingival plaque.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

“ This is the first human subject research using the endoscopic hemoglobin oxygen saturation imaging technology for patients with aero-digestive tract cancers or adenomas.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

“ In this work, we introduced a new real-time flow imaging method and systematically demonstrated its effectiveness with both flow phantom experiments and in vivo experiments.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

Most used words at the start of the Discussion

Here are the top 10 phrases used to start a discussion section in our dataset:

• Comeau DC, Wei CH, Islamaj Doğan R, and Lu Z. PMC text mining subset in BioC: about 3 million full text articles and growing,  Bioinformatics , btz070, 2019.

Further reading

• How Long Should the Discussion Section Be? Data from 61,517 Examples
• How to Write & Publish a Research Paper: Step-by-Step Guide
• “I” & “We” in Academic Writing: Examples from 9,830 Studies

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Turk J Urol
• v.39(Suppl 1); 2013 Sep

How to write a discussion section?

Writing manuscripts to describe study outcomes, although not easy, is the main task of an academician. The aim of the present review is to outline the main aspects of writing the discussion section of a manuscript. Additionally, we address various issues regarding manuscripts in general. It is advisable to work on a manuscript regularly to avoid losing familiarity with the article. On principle, simple, clear and effective language should be used throughout the text. In addition, a pre-peer review process is recommended to obtain feedback on the manuscript. The discussion section can be written in 3 parts: an introductory paragraph, intermediate paragraphs and a conclusion paragraph. For intermediate paragraphs, a “divide and conquer” approach, meaning a full paragraph describing each of the study endpoints, can be used. In conclusion, academic writing is similar to other skills, and practice makes perfect.

Introduction

Sharing knowledge produced during academic life is achieved through writing manuscripts. However writing manuscripts is a challenging endeavour in that we physicians have a heavy workload, and English which is common language used for the dissemination of scientific knowledge is not our mother tongue.

The objective of this review is to summarize the method of writing ‘Discussion’ section which is the most important, but probably at the same time the most unlikable part of a manuscript, and demonstrate the easy ways we applied in our practice, and finally share the frequently made relevant mistakes. During this procedure, inevitably some issues which concerns general concept of manuscript writing process are dealt with. Therefore in this review we will deal with topics related to the general aspects of manuscript writing process, and specifically issues concerning only the ‘Discussion’ section.

A) Approaches to general aspects of manuscript writing process:

1. what should be the strategy of sparing time for manuscript writing be.

Two different approaches can be formulated on this issue? One of them is to allocate at least 30 minutes a day for writing a manuscript which amounts to 3.5 hours a week. This period of time is adequate for completion of a manuscript within a few weeks which can be generally considered as a long time interval. Fundamental advantage of this approach is to gain a habit of making academic researches if one complies with the designated time schedule, and to keep the manuscript writing motivation at persistently high levels. Another approach concerning this issue is to accomplish manuscript writing process within a week. With the latter approach, the target is rapidly attained. However longer time periods spent in order to concentrate on the subject matter can be boring, and lead to loss of motivation. Daily working requirements unrelated to the manuscript writing might intervene, and prolong manuscript writing process. Alienation periods can cause loss of time because of need for recurrent literature reviews. The most optimal approach to manuscript writing process is daily writing strategy where higher levels of motivation are persistently maintained.

Especially before writing the manuscript, the most important step at the start is to construct a draft, and completion of the manuscript on a theoretical basis. Therefore, during construction of a draft, attention distracting environment should be avoided, and this step should be completed within 1–2 hours. On the other hand, manuscript writing process should begin before the completion of the study (even the during project stage). The justification of this approach is to see the missing aspects of the study and the manuscript writing methodology, and try to solve the relevant problems before completion of the study. Generally, after completion of the study, it is very difficult to solve the problems which might be discerned during the writing process. Herein, at least drafts of the ‘Introduction’, and ‘Material and Methods’ can be written, and even tables containing numerical data can be constructed. These tables can be written down in the ‘Results’ section. [ 1 ]

2. How should the manuscript be written?

The most important principle to be remembered on this issue is to obey the criteria of simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness. [ 2 ] Herein, do not forget that, the objective should be to share our findings with the readers in an easily comprehensible format. Our approach on this subject is to write all structured parts of the manuscript at the same time, and start writing the manuscript while reading the first literature. Thus newly arisen connotations, and self-brain gyms will be promptly written down. However during this process your outcomes should be revealed fully, and roughly the message of the manuscript which be delivered. Thus with this so-called ‘hunter’s approach’ the target can be achieved directly, and rapidly. Another approach is ‘collectioner’s approach. [ 3 ] In this approach, firstly, potential data, and literature studies are gathered, read, and then selected ones are used. Since this approach suits with surgical point of view, probably ‘hunter’s approach’ serves our purposes more appropriately. However, in parallel with academic development, our novice colleague ‘manuscripters’ can prefer ‘collectioner’s approach.’

On the other hand, we think that research team consisting of different age groups has some advantages. Indeed young colleagues have the enthusiasm, and energy required for the conduction of the study, while middle-aged researchers have the knowledge to manage the research, and manuscript writing. Experienced researchers make guiding contributions to the manuscript. However working together in harmony requires assignment of a chief researcher, and periodically organizing advancement meetings. Besides, talents, skills, and experiences of the researchers in different fields (ie. research methods, contact with patients, preparation of a project, fund-raising, statistical analysis etc.) will determine task sharing, and make a favourable contribution to the perfection of the manuscript. Achievement of the shared duties within a predetermined time frame will sustain the motivation of the researchers, and prevent wearing out of updated data.

According to our point of view, ‘Abstract’ section of the manuscript should be written after completion of the manuscript. The reason for this is that during writing process of the main text, the significant study outcomes might become insignificant or vice versa. However, generally, before onset of the writing process of the manuscript, its abstract might be already presented in various congresses. During writing process, this abstract might be a useful guide which prevents deviation from the main objective of the manuscript.

On the other hand references should be promptly put in place while writing the manuscript, Sorting, and placement of the references should not be left to the last moment. Indeed, it might be very difficult to remember relevant references to be placed in the ‘Discussion’ section. For the placement of references use of software programs detailed in other sections is a rational approach.

3. Which target journal should be selected?

In essence, the methodology to be followed in writing the ‘Discussion’ section is directly related to the selection of the target journal. Indeed, in compliance with the writing rules of the target journal, limitations made on the number of words after onset of the writing process, effects mostly the ‘Discussion’ section. Proper matching of the manuscript with the appropriate journal requires clear, and complete comprehension of the available data from scientific point of view. Previously, similar articles might have been published, however innovative messages, and new perspectives on the relevant subject will facilitate acceptance of the article for publication. Nowadays, articles questioning available information, rather than confirmatory ones attract attention. However during this process, classical information should not be questioned except for special circumstances. For example manuscripts which lead to the conclusions as “laparoscopic surgery is more painful than open surgery” or “laparoscopic surgery can be performed without prior training” will not be accepted or they will be returned by the editor of the target journal to the authors with the request of critical review. Besides the target journal to be selected should be ready to accept articles with similar concept. In fact editors of the journal will not reserve the limited space in their journal for articles yielding similar conclusions.

The title of the manuscript is as important as the structured sections * of the manuscript. The title can be the most striking or the newest outcome among results obtained.

Before writing down the manuscript, determination of 2–3 titles increases the motivation of the authors towards the manuscript. During writing process of the manuscript one of these can be selected based on the intensity of the discussion. However the suitability of the title to the agenda of the target journal should be investigated beforehand. For example an article bearing the title “Use of barbed sutures in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy shortens warm ischemia time” should not be sent to “Original Investigations and Seminars in Urologic Oncology” Indeed the topic of the manuscript is out of the agenda of this journal.

4. Do we have to get a pre-peer review about the written manuscript?

Before submission of the manuscript to the target journal the opinions of internal, and external referees should be taken. [ 1 ] Internal referees can be considered in 2 categories as “General internal referees” and “expert internal referees” General internal referees (ie. our colleagues from other medical disciplines) are not directly concerned with your subject matter but as mentioned above they critically review the manuscript as for simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness of its writing style. Expert internal reviewers have a profound knowledge about the subject, and they can provide guidance about the writing process of the manuscript (ie. our senior colleagues more experienced than us). External referees are our colleagues who did not contribute to data collection of our study in any way, but we can request their opinions about the subject matter of the manuscript. Since they are unrelated both to the author(s), and subject matter of the manuscript, these referees can review our manuscript more objectively. Before sending the manuscript to internal, and external referees, we should contact with them, and ask them if they have time to review our manuscript. We should also give information about our subject matter. Otherwise pre-peer review process can delay publication of the manuscript, and decrease motivation of the authors. In conclusion, whoever the preferred referee will be, these internal, and external referees should respond the following questions objectively. 1) Does the manuscript contribute to the literature?; 2) Does it persuasive? 3) Is it suitable for the publication in the selected journal? 4) Has a simple, clear, and effective language been used throughout the manuscript? In line with the opinions of the referees, the manuscript can be critically reviewed, and perfected. [ 1 ]**

Following receival of the opinions of internal, and external referees, one should concentrate priorly on indicated problems, and their solutions. Comments coming from the reviewers should be criticized, but a defensive attitude should not be assumed during this evaluation process. During this “incubation” period where the comments of the internal, and external referees are awaited, literature should be reviewed once more. Indeed during this time interval a new article which you should consider in the ‘Discussion’ section can be cited in the literature.

5. What are the common mistakes made related to the writing process of a manuscript?

Probably the most important mistakes made related to the writing process of a manuscript include lack of a clear message of the manuscript , inclusion of more than one main idea in the same text or provision of numerous unrelated results at the same time so as to reinforce the assertions of the manuscript. This approach can be termed roughly as “loss of the focus of the study” In conclusion, the author(s) should ask themselves the following question at every stage of the writing process:. “What is the objective of the study? If you always get clear-cut answers whenever you ask this question, then the study is proceeding towards the right direction. Besides application of a template which contains the intended clear-cut messages to be followed will contribute to the communication of net messages.

One of the important mistakes is refraining from critical review of the manuscript as a whole after completion of the writing process. Therefore, the authors should go over the manuscript for at least three times after finalization of the manuscript based on joint decision. The first control should concentrate on the evaluation of the appropriateness of the logic of the manuscript, and its organization, and whether desired messages have been delivered or not. Secondly, syutax, and grammar of the manuscript should be controlled. It is appropriate to review the manuscript for the third time 1 or 2 weeks after completion of its writing process. Thus, evaluation of the “cooled” manuscript will be made from a more objective perspective, and assessment process of its integrity will be facilitated.

Other erroneous issues consist of superfluousness of the manuscript with unnecessary repetitions, undue, and recurrent references to the problems adressed in the manuscript or their solution methods, overcriticizing or overpraising other studies, and use of a pompous literary language overlooking the main objective of sharing information. [ 4 ]

B) Approaches to the writing process of the ‘Discussion’ section:

1. how should the main points of ‘discussion’ section be constructed.

Generally the length of the ‘Discussion ‘ section should not exceed the sum of other sections (ıntroduction, material and methods, and results), and it should be completed within 6–7 paragraphs.. Each paragraph should not contain more than 200 words, and hence words should be counted repeteadly. The ‘Discussion’ section can be generally divided into 3 separate paragraphs as. 1) Introductory paragraph, 2) Intermediate paragraphs, 3) Concluding paragraph.

The introductory paragraph contains the main idea of performing the study in question. Without repeating ‘Introduction’ section of the manuscript, the problem to be addressed, and its updateness are analysed. The introductory paragraph starts with an undebatable sentence, and proceeds with a part addressing the following questions as 1) On what issue we have to concentrate, discuss or elaborate? 2) What solutions can be recommended to solve this problem? 3) What will be the new, different, and innovative issue? 4) How will our study contribute to the solution of this problem An introductory paragraph in this format is helpful to accomodate reader to the rest of the Discussion section. However summarizing the basic findings of the experimental studies in the first paragraph is generally recommended by the editors of the journal. [ 5 ]

In the last paragraph of the Discussion section “strong points” of the study should be mentioned using “constrained”, and “not too strongly assertive” statements. Indicating limitations of the study will reflect objectivity of the authors, and provide answers to the questions which will be directed by the reviewers of the journal. On the other hand in the last paragraph, future directions or potential clinical applications may be emphasized.

2. How should the intermediate paragraphs of the Discussion section be formulated?

The reader passes through a test of boredom while reading paragraphs of the Discussion section apart from the introductory, and the last paragraphs. Herein your findings rather than those of the other researchers are discussed. The previous studies can be an explanation or reinforcement of your findings. Each paragraph should contain opinions in favour or against the topic discussed, critical evaluations, and learning points.

Our management approach for intermediate paragraphs is “divide and conquer” tactics. Accordingly, the findings of the study are determined in order of their importance, and a paragraph is constructed for each finding ( Figure 1 ). Each paragraph begins with an “indisputable” introductory sentence about the topic to be discussed. This sentence basically can be the answer to the question “What have we found?” Then a sentence associated with the subject matter to be discussed is written. Subsequently, in the light of the current literature this finding is discussed, new ideas on this subject are revealed, and the paragraph ends with a concluding remark.

Divide and Conquer tactics

In this paragraph, main topic should be emphasized without going into much detail. Its place, and importance among other studies should be indicated. However during this procedure studies should be presented in a logical sequence (ie. from past to present, from a few to many cases), and aspects of the study contradictory to other studies should be underlined. Results without any supportive evidence or equivocal results should not be written. Besides numerical values presented in the Results section should not be repeated unless required.

Besides, asking the following questions, and searching their answers in the same paragraph will facilitate writing process of the paragraph. [ 1 ] 1) Can the discussed result be false or inadequate? 2) Why is it false? (inadequate blinding, protocol contamination, lost to follow-up, lower statistical power of the study etc.), 3) What meaning does this outcome convey?

3. What are the common mistakes made in writing the Discussion section?:

Probably the most important mistake made while writing the Discussion section is the need for mentioning all literature references. One point to remember is that we are not writing a review article, and only the results related to this paragraph should be discussed. Meanwhile, each word of the paragraphs should be counted, and placed carefully. Each word whose removal will not change the meaning should be taken out from the text.” Writing a saga with “word salads” *** is one of the reasons for prompt rejection. Indeed, if the reviewer thinks that it is difficult to correct the Discussion section, he/she use her/ his vote in the direction of rejection to save time (Uniform requirements for manuscripts: International Comittee of Medical Journal Editors [ http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf ])

The other important mistake is to give too much references, and irrelevancy between the references, and the section with these cited references. [ 3 ] While referring these studies, (excl. introductory sentences linking indisputable sentences or paragraphs) original articles should be cited. Abstracts should not be referred, and review articles should not be cited unless required very much.

4. What points should be paid attention about writing rules, and grammar?

As is the case with the whole article, text of the Discussion section should be written with a simple language, as if we are talking with our colleague. [ 2 ] Each sentence should indicate a single point, and it should not exceed 25–30 words. The priorly mentioned information which linked the previous sentence should be placed at the beginning of the sentence, while the new information should be located at the end of the sentence. During construction of the sentences, avoid unnecessary words, and active voice rather than passive voice should be used.**** Since conventionally passive voice is used in the scientific manuscripts written in the Turkish language, the above statement contradicts our writing habits. However, one should not refrain from beginning the sentences with the word “we”. Indeed, editors of the journal recommend use of active voice so as to increase the intelligibility of the manuscript.

In conclusion, the major point to remember is that the manuscript should be written complying with principles of simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness. In the light of these principles, as is the case in our daily practice, all components of the manuscript (IMRAD) can be written concurrently. In the ‘Discussion’ section ‘divide and conquer’ tactics remarkably facilitates writing process of the discussion. On the other hand, relevant or irrelevant feedbacks received from our colleagues can contribute to the perfection of the manuscript. Do not forget that none of the manuscripts is perfect, and one should not refrain from writing because of language problems, and related lack of experience.

Instead of structured sections of a manuscript (IMRAD): Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, and Discussion

Instead of in the Istanbul University Faculty of Medicine posters to be submitted in congresses are time to time discussed in Wednesday meetings, and opinions of the internal referees are obtained about the weak, and strong points of the study

Instead of a writing style which uses words or sentences with a weak logical meaning that do not lead the reader to any conclusion

Instead of “white color”; “proven”; nstead of “history”; “to”. should be used instead of “white in color”, “definitely proven”, “past history”, and “in order to”, respectively ( ref. 2 )

Instead of “No instances of either postoperative death or major complications occurred during the early post-operative period” use “There were no deaths or major complications occurred during the early post-operative period.

Instead of “Measurements were performed to evaluate the levels of CEA in the serum” use “We measured serum CEA levels”

Dissertations and research projects

• Sessions and recordings
• Skill guide
• Finding the gap
• Developing research questions
• Epistemology
• Ethical approval
• Methodology and Methods
• Recruiting participants
• Planning your analysis
• Writing your research proposal
• Hypothesis testing
• Reliability and validity
• Approaches to quantitative research
• Developing a theoretical framework
• Reflecting on your position
• Extended literature reviews
• Presenting qualitative data
• Introduction
• Literature review
• Methodology
• Conclusions
• 5) Working with a supervisor
• e-learning and books
• Quick resources
• SkillsCheck This link opens in a new window
• Review this resource

What should I include in the discussion section?

The purpose of the discussion section is to interpret your findings and discuss these against the context of the wider literature. This section should also highlight how your research has contributed to the understanding of a phenomenon or problem: this can be achieved by responding to your research questions.

Although the structure of discussion sections can vary, a relatively common structure is offered below:

• State your major findings – this can be a brief opening paragraph that restates the research problem, the methods you used to attempt to address this, and the major findings of your research.
• Address your research questions - detail your findings in relation to each of your research questions to help demonstrate how you have attempted to address the research problem. Answer each research question in turn by interpreting the relevant results: this may involve highlighting patterns, relationships or statistically significant differences depending on the design of your research and how you analysed your data.
• Discuss your findings against the wider literature - this will involve comparing and contrasting your findings against those of others and using key literature to support the interpretation of your results; often, this will involve revisiting key studies from your literature review and discussing where your findings fit in the pre-existing literature. This process can help to highlight the importance of your research through demonstrating what is novel about your findings and how this contributes to the wider understanding of your research area.
• Address any unexpected findings in your study - begin with by stating the unexpected finding and then offer your interpretation as to why this might have occurred. You may relate unexpected findings to other research literature and you should also consider how any unexpected findings relate to your overall study – especially if you think this is significant in terms of what your findings contribute to the understanding of your research problem!
• Discuss alternative interpretations - it’s important to remember that in research we find evidence to support ideas, theories and understanding; nothing is ever proven. Consequently, you should discuss possible alternative interpretations of your data – not just those that neatly answer your research questions and confirm your hypotheses.
• Limitations/weaknesses of your research – acknowledge any factors that might have affected your findings and discuss how this relates to your interpretation of the data. This might include detailing problems with your data collection method, or unanticipated factors that you had not accounted for in your original research plan. Likewise, detail any questions that your findings could not answer and explain why this was the case.
• Future directions (this part of your discussion could also be included in your conclusion) – this section should address what questions remain unanswered about your research problem. For example, it may be that your findings have answered some questions but raised new ones; this can often occur as a result of unanticipated findings. Likewise, some of the limitations of your research may necessitate further work to address a methodological confound or weakness in a tool of measurement. Whatever these future directions are, remember you’re not writing a proposal for this further research; a brief suggestion of what the research should do and how this would address one of the new problems/limitations you have identified is enough.

Here are some final top tips for writing your discussion section:

• Don’t simply repeat your results section – remember your goal is to interpret and explain how your findings address the research problem.
• Be clear about what you have found, how this has addressed a gap in the literature and how it changes our understanding of your research problem.
• Structure your discussion in a logical way that highlights your most important/interesting findings first.
• Be careful about how you interpret your data: be wary over-interpreting to confirm a hypothesis. Remember, we can still learn from non-significant research findings.
• Avoid being apologetic or too critical when discussing the limitations of your research. Be concise and analytical. 
• << Previous: Results
• Next: Conclusions >>

Adsetts Library

Collegiate library, sheffield hallam university, city campus, howard street, sheffield s1 1wb, contact us / live chat, +44 (0)114 225 2222, [email protected], accessibility, legal information, privacy and gdpr, login to libapps.

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

07 Easy Steps for Writing Discussion Section of a Research Paper

In my role as a journal reviewer, I’ve had the privilege (and sometimes the frustration) of reviewing numerous research papers.

I’ve encountered papers where authors neglect to discuss how their results benefit the problem at hand, the domain they are working in, and society at large. This oversight often fails to make a lasting impression on reviewers

One recurring issue that I’ve noticed, time and again, is the challenge of properly delineating the boundaries of the discussion section in research papers. It’s not uncommon to come across papers where authors blur the lines between various crucial sections in a research paper.

Some authors mistakenly present their results within the discussion section, failing to provide a clear delineation between the findings of their study and their interpretation. Even if the journal allows to combine the results and discussion section, adopting a structured approach, such as dedicating a paragraph for results and a paragraph for discussing the results, can enhance the flow and readability of the paper, ensuring that readers can easily follow the progression of the study and its implications.

I vividly recall one instance where an author proceeded to rehash the entire methodology, complete with block diagrams, within the discussion section—without ever drawing any substantive conclusions. It felt like wading through familiar territory, only to find myself back at square one.

And then there are those authors who seem more interested in speculating about future directions than analyzing the outcomes of their current work in the discussion section. While it’s important to consider the implications of one’s research, it shouldn’t overshadow the critical analysis of the results at hand.

In another instance, a researcher concealed all failures or limitations in their work, presenting only the best-case scenarios, which created doubts about the validity of their findings. As a reviewer, I promptly sent it back for a relook and suggested adding various scenarios to reflect the true behaviour of the experiment.

In this post, I’ll delve into practical strategies for crafting the discussion section of a research paper. Drawing from my experiences as a reviewer and researcher, I’ll explore the nuances of the discussion section and provide insights into how to engage in critical discussion.

Introduction

I. focus on the relevance.

• II. Highlight  the Limitations 
• III. Introduce  New Discoveries

IV. Highlight the Observations

V. compare and relate with other research works.

• VI. Provide  Alternate View Points

A. Future Directions

B. conclusion, how to validate the claims i made in the discussion section of my research paper, phrases that can be used in the discussion section of a research paper, phrases that can be used in the analysis part of the discussion section of a research paper.

• Your Next Move...

Whether charts and graphs are allowed in discussion section of my Research Paper?

Can i add citations in discussion section of my research paper, can i combine results and discussion section in my research paper, what is the weightage of discussion section in a research paper in terms of selection to a journal, whether literature survey paper has a discussion section.

The Discussion section of a research paper is where authors interpret their findings, contextualize their research, and propose future directions. It is a crucial section that provides the reader with insights into the significance and implications of the study.

Writing an effective discussion section is a crucial aspect of any research paper, as it allows researchers to delve into the significance of their findings and explore their implications. A well-crafted discussion section not only summarizes the key observations and limitations of the study but also establishes connections with existing research and opens avenues for future exploration. In this article, we will present a comprehensive guide to help you structure your discussion section in seven simple steps.

By following these steps, you’ll be able to write a compelling Discussion section that enhances the reader’s understanding of your research and contributes to the broader scientific community.

Please note, the discussion section usually follows after the Results Section. I have written a comprehensive article on ” How to Write Results Section of your Research Paper “. Please visit the article to enhance your write-up on the results section.

Which are these 07 steps for writing an Effective Discussion Section of a Research Paper?

Step 1: Focus on the Relevance : In the first step, we will discuss the importance of emphasizing the relevance of your research findings to the broader scientific context. By clearly articulating the significance of your study, you can help readers understand how your work contributes to the existing body of knowledge and why it matters.

Step 2: Highlight the Limitations : Every research study has its limitations, and it is essential to address them honestly and transparently. We will explore how to identify and describe the limitations of your study, demonstrating a thorough understanding of potential weaknesses and areas for improvement.

Step 3: Highlight the Observations : In this step, we will delve into the core findings of your study. We will discuss the key observations and results, focusing on their relevance to your research objectives. By providing a concise summary of your findings, you can guide readers through the main outcomes of your study.

Step 4: Compare and Relate with Other Research Works : Research is a collaborative and cumulative process, and it is vital to establish connections between your study and previous research. We will explore strategies to compare and relate your findings to existing literature, highlighting similarities, differences, and gaps in knowledge.

Step 5: Provide Alternate Viewpoints: Science thrives on the diversity of perspectives. Acknowledging different viewpoints and interpretations of your results fosters a more comprehensive understanding of the research topic. We will discuss how to incorporate alternative viewpoints into your discussion, encouraging a balanced and nuanced analysis.

Step 6: Show Future Directions : A well-crafted discussion section not only summarizes the present but also points towards the future. We will explore techniques to suggest future research directions based on the implications of your study, providing a roadmap for further investigations in the field.

Step 7: Concluding Thoughts : In the final step, we will wrap up the discussion section by summarizing the key points and emphasizing the overall implications of your research. We will discuss the significance of your study’s contributions and offer some closing thoughts to leave a lasting impression on your readers.

By following these seven steps, you can craft a comprehensive and insightful discussion section that not only synthesizes your findings but also engages readers in a thought-provoking dialogue about the broader implications and future directions of your research. Let’s delve into each step in detail to enhance the quality and impact of your discussion section.

The purpose of every research is to implement the results for the positive development of the relevant subject. In research, it is crucial to emphasize the relevance of your study to the field and its potential impact. Before delving into the details of how the research was conceived and the sequence of developments that took place, consider highlighting the following factors to establish the relevance of your work:

• Identifying a pressing problem or research gap: Example: “This research addresses the critical problem of network security in wireless communication systems. With the widespread adoption of wireless networks, the vulnerability to security threats has increased significantly. Existing security mechanisms have limitations in effectively mitigating these threats. Therefore, there is a pressing need to develop novel approaches that enhance the security of wireless communication systems.”
• Explaining the significance and potential impact of the research: Example: “By developing an intelligent intrusion detection system using machine learning algorithms, this research aims to significantly enhance the security of wireless networks. The successful implementation of such a system would not only protect sensitive data and communication but also ensure the reliability and integrity of wireless networks in various applications, including Internet of Things (IoT), smart cities, and critical infrastructure.”
• Establishing connections with previous research and advancements in the field: Example: “This study builds upon previous research on intrusion detection systems and machine learning techniques. By leveraging recent advancements in deep learning algorithms and anomaly detection methods, we aim to overcome the limitations of traditional rule-based intrusion detection systems and achieve higher detection accuracy and efficiency.”

By emphasizing the relevance of your research and articulating its potential impact, you set the stage for readers to understand the significance of your work in the broader context. This approach ensures that readers grasp the motivations behind your research and the need for further exploration in the field.

II. Highlight  the Limitations 

Many times the research is on a subject that might have legal limitations or restrictions. This limitation might have caused certain imperfections in carrying out research or in results. This issue should be acknowledged by the researcher before the work is criticized by others later in his/her discussion section.

In computer science research, it is important to identify and openly acknowledge the limitations of your study. By doing so, you demonstrate transparency and a thorough understanding of potential weaknesses, allowing readers to interpret the findings in a more informed manner. Here’s an example:

Example: “It is crucial to acknowledge certain limitations and constraints that have affected the outcomes of this research. In the context of privacy-sensitive applications such as facial recognition systems, there are legal limitations and ethical concerns that can impact the accuracy and performance of the developed algorithm. These limitations stem from regulations and policies that impose restrictions on data collection, access, and usage to protect individuals’ privacy rights. As a result, the algorithm developed in this study operates under these legal constraints, which may have introduced certain imperfections.”

In this example, the researcher is working on a facial recognition system and acknowledges the legal limitations and ethical concerns associated with privacy-sensitive applications. By openly addressing these limitations, the researcher demonstrates an understanding of the challenges imposed by regulations and policies. This acknowledgement sets the stage for a more nuanced discussion and prevents others from solely criticizing the work based on these limitations without considering the broader legal context.

By highlighting the limitations, researchers can also offer potential solutions or future directions to mitigate the impact of these constraints. For instance, the researcher may suggest exploring advanced privacy-preserving techniques or collaborating with legal experts to find a balance between privacy protection and system performance.

By acknowledging and addressing the limitations, researchers demonstrate their awareness of potential weaknesses in their study, maintaining credibility, and fostering a more constructive discussion of their findings within the context of legal and ethical considerations.

III. Introduce  New Discoveries

Begin the discussion section by stating all the major findings in the course of the research. The first paragraph should have the findings mentioned, which is expected to be synoptic, naming and briefly describing the analysis of results.

Example: “In this study, several significant discoveries emerged from the analysis of the collected data. The findings revealed compelling insights into the performance of parallel computing architectures for large-scale data processing. Through comprehensive experimentation and analysis, the following key discoveries were made:

• Discovery 1: The proposed parallel computing architecture demonstrated a 30% improvement in processing speed compared to traditional sequential computing methods. This finding highlights the potential of parallel computing for accelerating data-intensive tasks.
• Discovery 2: A direct relationship between the number of processing cores and the overall system throughput was observed. As the number of cores increased, the system exhibited a near-linear scalability, enabling efficient utilization of available computational resources.
• Discovery 3: The analysis revealed a trade-off between processing speed and energy consumption. While parallel computing achieved faster processing times, it also resulted in higher energy consumption. This finding emphasizes the importance of optimizing energy efficiency in parallel computing systems.

These discoveries shed light on the performance characteristics and trade-offs associated with parallel computing architectures for large-scale data processing tasks. The following sections will delve into the implications of these findings, discussing their significance, limitations, and potential applications.”

In this example, the researcher presents a concise overview of the major discoveries made during the research. Each discovery is briefly described, highlighting the key insights obtained from the analysis. By summarizing the findings in a synoptic manner, the reader gains an immediate understanding of the notable contributions and can anticipate the subsequent detailed discussion.

This approach allows the discussion section to begin with a clear and impactful introduction of the major discoveries, capturing the reader’s interest and setting the stage for a comprehensive exploration of each finding in subsequent paragraphs.

Coming to the major part of the findings, the discussion section should interpret the key observations, the analysis of charts, and the analysis of tables. In the field of computer science, presenting and explaining the results in a clear and accessible manner is essential for readers to grasp the significance of the findings. Here are some examples of how to effectively highlight observations in computer science research:

Begin with explaining the objective of the research, followed by what inspired you as a researcher to study the subject:

In a study on machine learning algorithms for sentiment analysis, start by stating the goal of developing an accurate and efficient sentiment analysis model. Share your motivation for choosing this research topic, such as the increasing importance of sentiment analysis in various domains like social media, customer feedback analysis, and market research.

Example: The objective of this research was to develop a sentiment analysis model using machine learning algorithms. As sentiment analysis plays a vital role in understanding public opinion and customer feedback, we were motivated by the need for an accurate and efficient model that could be applied in various domains such as social media analysis, customer reviews, and market research.

Explain the meaning of the findings, as every reader might not understand the analysis of graphs and charts as easily as people who are in the same field as you:

If your research involves analyzing performance metrics of different algorithms, consider presenting the results in a visually intuitive manner, such as line graphs or bar charts. In the discussion section, explain the significance of the trends observed in the graphs. For instance, if a particular algorithm consistently outperforms others in terms of accuracy, explain why this finding is noteworthy and how it aligns with existing knowledge in the field.

Example: To present the performance evaluation of the algorithms, we analyzed multiple metrics, including precision, recall, and F1 score. The line graph in Figure 1 demonstrates the trends observed. It is noteworthy that Algorithm A consistently outperformed the other algorithms across all metrics. This finding indicates that Algorithm A has a higher ability to accurately classify sentiment in comparison to its counterparts. This aligns with previous studies that have also highlighted the robustness of Algorithm A in sentiment analysis tasks.

Ensure the reader can understand the key observations without being forced to go through the whole paper:

In computer science research, it is crucial to present concise summaries of your key observations to facilitate understanding for readers who may not have the time or expertise to go through the entire paper. For example, if your study compares the runtime performance of two programming languages for a specific task, clearly state the observed differences and their implications. Highlight any unexpected or notable findings that may challenge conventional wisdom or open up new avenues for future exploration.

Example: In this study comparing the runtime performance of Python and Java for a specific computational task, we observed notable differences. Python consistently showed faster execution times, averaging 20% less time than Java across varying input sizes. These results challenge the common perception that Java is the superior choice for computationally intensive tasks. The observed performance advantage of Python in this context suggests the need for further investigation into the underlying factors contributing to this discrepancy, such as differences in language design and optimization strategies.

By employing these strategies, researchers can effectively highlight their observations in the discussion section. This enables readers to gain a clear understanding of the significance of the findings and their implications without having to delve into complex technical details.

No one is ever the only person researching a particular subject. A researcher always has companions and competitors. The discussion section should have a detailed comparison of the research. It should present the facts that relate the research to studies done on the same subject.

Example: The table below compares some of the well-known prediction techniques with our fuzzy predictor with MOM defuzzification for response time, relative error and Environmental constraints. Based on the results obtained it can be concluded that the Fuzzy predictor with MOM defuzzification has a less relative error and quick response time as compared to other prediction techniques.  The proposed predictor is more flexible, simple to implement and deals with noisy and uncertain data from real-life situations. The relative error of 5-10% is acceptable for our system as the predicted fuzzy region and the fuzzy region of the actual position remains the same.

Table 1 : Comparison of well-known Robot Motion prediction Techniques

VI. Provide  Alternate View Points

Almost every time, it has been noticed that analysis of charts and graphs shows results that tend to have more than one explanation. The researcher must consider every possible explanation and potential enhancement of the study from alternative viewpoints. It is critically important that this is clearly put out to the readers in the discussion section.

In the discussion section of a research paper, it is important to acknowledge that data analysis often yields results that can be interpreted in multiple ways. By considering different viewpoints and potential enhancements, researchers can provide a more comprehensive and nuanced analysis of their findings. Here are some examples:

Example 1: “The analysis of our experimental data showed a decrease in system performance following the implementation of the proposed optimization technique. While our initial interpretation suggested that the optimization failed to achieve the desired outcome, an alternate viewpoint could be that the decrease in performance was influenced by an external factor, such as the configuration of the hardware setup. Further investigation into the hardware settings and benchmarking protocols is necessary to fully understand the observed results and identify potential enhancements.”

Example 2: “The analysis of user feedback revealed a mixed response to the redesigned user interface. While some participants reported improved usability and satisfaction, others expressed confusion and dissatisfaction. An alternate viewpoint could be that the diverse range of user backgrounds and preferences might have influenced these varied responses. Further research should focus on conducting user studies with a larger and more diverse sample to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying factors contributing to the contrasting user experiences.”

Example 3: “Our study found a positive correlation between the implementation of agile methodologies and project success rates. However, an alternate viewpoint suggests that other factors, such as team dynamics and project complexity, could have influenced the observed correlation. Future research should explore the interactions between agile methodologies and these potential confounding factors to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their impact on project success.”

In these examples, researchers present alternative viewpoints that offer different interpretations or explanations for the observed results. By acknowledging these alternate viewpoints, researchers demonstrate a balanced and comprehensive analysis of their findings. It is crucial to clearly communicate these alternative perspectives to readers in the discussion section, as it encourages critical thinking and highlights the complexity and potential limitations of the research.

By presenting alternate viewpoints, researchers invite further exploration and discussion, fostering a more comprehensive understanding of the research topic. This approach enriches the scientific discourse and promotes a deeper analysis of the findings, contributing to the overall advancement of knowledge in the field.

VII. Future Directions and Conclusion

The section must have suggestions for research that should be done to unanswered questions. These should be suggested at the beginning of the discussion section to avoid questions being asked by critics. Emphasizing the importance of following future directions can lead to new research as well.

Example: ” While this study provides valuable insights into the performance of the proposed algorithm, there are several unanswered questions and avenues for future research that merit attention. By identifying these areas, we aim to stimulate further exploration and contribute to the continuous advancement of the field. The following future directions are suggested:

• Future Direction 1: Investigating the algorithm’s performance under different dataset characteristics and distributions. The current study focused on a specific dataset, but it would be valuable to evaluate the algorithm’s robustness and generalizability across a broader range of datasets, including real-world scenarios and diverse data sources.
• Future Direction 2: Exploring the potential integration of additional machine learning techniques or ensemble methods to further enhance the algorithm’s accuracy and reliability. By combining the strengths of multiple models, it is possible to achieve better performance and handle complex patterns and outliers more effectively.
• Future Direction 3: Extending the evaluation to consider the algorithm’s scalability in large-scale deployment scenarios. As the volume of data continues to grow exponentially, it is crucial to assess the algorithm’s efficiency and scalability in handling big data processing requirements.

By suggesting these future directions, we hope to inspire researchers to explore new avenues and build upon the foundation laid by this study. Addressing these unanswered questions will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the algorithm’s capabilities and limitations, paving the way for further advancements in the field.”

In this example, the researcher presents specific future directions that can guide further research. Each future direction is described concisely, highlighting the specific area of investigation and the potential benefits of pursuing those directions. By suggesting these future directions early in the discussion section, the researcher proactively addresses potential questions or criticisms and demonstrates a proactive approach to knowledge expansion.

By emphasizing the importance of following future directions, researchers not only inspire others to continue the research trajectory but also contribute to the collective growth of the field. This approach encourages ongoing exploration, innovation, and collaboration, ensuring the continuous development and improvement of computer science research.

In the final step, wrap up the discussion section by summarizing the key points and emphasizing the overall implications of your research. We will discuss the significance of your study’s contributions and offer some closing thoughts to leave a lasting impression on your readers. This section serves as a crucial opportunity to reinforce the main findings and highlight the broader impact of your work. Here are some examples:

Example 1: “In conclusion, this research has made significant contributions to the field of natural language processing. By proposing a novel neural network architecture for language generation, we have demonstrated the effectiveness and versatility of the model in generating coherent and contextually relevant sentences. The experimental results indicate a significant improvement in language generation quality compared to existing approaches. The implications of this research extend beyond traditional applications, opening up new possibilities for automated content creation, chatbot systems, and dialogue generation in artificial intelligence.”

Example 2: “In summary, this study has provided valuable insights into the optimization of network routing protocols for wireless sensor networks. By proposing a novel hybrid routing algorithm that combines the advantages of both reactive and proactive protocols, we have demonstrated enhanced network performance in terms of latency, energy efficiency, and scalability. The experimental results validate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm in dynamic and resource-constrained environments. These findings have implications for various applications, including environmental monitoring, industrial automation, and smart city infrastructure.”

Example 3: “In closing, this research sheds light on the security vulnerabilities of blockchain-based smart contracts. By conducting an extensive analysis of existing smart contract platforms and identifying potential attack vectors, we have highlighted the need for robust security measures to mitigate risks and protect user assets. The insights gained from this study can guide the development of more secure and reliable smart contract frameworks, ensuring the integrity and trustworthiness of blockchain-based applications across industries such as finance, supply chain, and decentralized applications.”

In these examples, the concluding thoughts summarize the main contributions and findings of the research. They emphasize the significance of the study’s implications and highlight the potential impact on various domains within computer science. By providing a succinct and impactful summary, the researcher leaves a lasting impression on readers, reinforcing the value and relevance of the research in the field.

Validating claims in the discussion section of a research paper is essential to ensure the credibility and reliability of your findings. Here are some strategies to validate the claims made in the discussion section:

• Referencing supporting evidence: Cite relevant sources from the existing literature that provide evidence or support for your claims. These sources can include peer-reviewed studies, research articles, and authoritative sources in your field. By referencing credible and reputable sources, you establish the validity of your claims and demonstrate that your interpretations are grounded in existing knowledge.
• Relating to the results: Connect your claims to the results presented in the earlier sections of your research paper. Clearly demonstrate how the findings support your claims and provide evidence for your interpretations. Refer to specific data, measurements, statistical analyses, or other evidence from your results section to substantiate your claims.
• Comparing with previous research: Discuss how your findings align with or diverge from previous research in the field. Reference relevant studies and explain how your results compare to or build upon existing knowledge. By contextualizing your claims within the broader research landscape, you provide further validation for your interpretations.
• Addressing limitations and alternative explanations: Acknowledge the limitations of your study and consider alternative explanations for your findings. By addressing potential counterarguments and alternative viewpoints, you demonstrate a thorough evaluation of your claims and increase the robustness of your conclusions.
• Seeking peer feedback: Prior to submitting your research paper, consider seeking feedback from colleagues or experts in your field. They can provide valuable insights and suggestions for further validating your claims or improving the clarity of your arguments.
• Inviting replication and further research: Encourage other researchers to replicate your study or conduct further investigations. By promoting replication and future research, you contribute to the ongoing validation and refinement of your claims.

Remember, the validation of claims in the discussion section is a critical aspect of scientific research. By employing rigorous methods and logical reasoning, you can strengthen the credibility and impact of your findings and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in your field.

Here are some common phrases that can be used in the discussion section of a paper or research article. I’ve included a table with examples to illustrate how these phrases might be used:

Here are some common academic phrases that can be used in the analysis section of a paper or research article. I have included a table with examples to illustrate how these phrases might be used:

Your Next Move…

I believe you will proceed to write conclusion section of your research paper. Conclusion section is the most neglected part of the research paper as many authors feel it is unnecessary but write in a hurry to submit the article to some reputed journal.

Please note, once your paper gets published , the readers decide to read your full paper based only on abstract and conclusion. They decide the relevance of the paper based on only these two sections. If they don’t read then they don’t cite and this in turn affects your citation score. So my sincere advice to you is not to neglect this section.

Visit my article on “How to Write Conclusion Section of Research Paper” for further details.

Please visit my article on “ Importance and Improving of Citation Score for Your Research Paper ” for increasing your visibility in research community and on Google Scholar Citation Score.

The Discussion section of a research paper is an essential part of any study, as it allows the author to interpret their results and contextualize their findings. To write an effective Discussion section, authors should focus on the relevance of their research, highlight the limitations, introduce new discoveries, highlight their observations, compare and relate their findings to other research works, provide alternate viewpoints, and show future directions.

By following these 7 steps, authors can ensure that their Discussion section is comprehensive, informative, and thought-provoking. A well-written Discussion section not only helps the author interpret their results but also provides insights into the implications and applications of their research.

In conclusion, the Discussion section is an integral part of any research paper, and by following these 7 steps, authors can write a compelling and informative discussion section that contributes to the broader scientific community.

Frequently Asked Questions

Yes, charts and graphs are generally allowed in the discussion section of a research paper. While the discussion section is primarily focused on interpreting and discussing the findings, incorporating visual aids such as charts and graphs can be helpful in presenting and supporting the analysis.

Yes, you can add citations in the discussion section of your research paper. In fact, it is highly recommended to support your statements, interpretations, and claims with relevant and credible sources. Citations in the discussion section help to strengthen the validity and reliability of your arguments and demonstrate that your findings are grounded in existing literature.

Combining the results and discussion sections in a research paper is a common practice in certain disciplines, particularly in shorter research papers or those with specific formatting requirements. This approach can help streamline the presentation of your findings and provide a more cohesive narrative. However, it is important to note that the decision to combine these sections should be based on the guidelines of the target journal or publication and the specific requirements of your field.

The weightage of the discussion section in terms of the selection of a research paper for publication in a journal can vary depending on the specific requirements and criteria of the journal. However, it is important to note that the discussion section is a critical component of a research paper as it allows researchers to interpret their findings, contextualize them within the existing literature, and discuss their implications.

In general, literature survey papers typically do not have a separate section explicitly labeled as “Discussion.” However, the content of a literature survey paper often incorporates elements of discussion throughout the paper. The focus of a literature survey paper is to review and summarize existing literature on a specific topic or research question, rather than presenting original research findings.

Upcoming Events

• Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
• Visit for  Research Internships Worldwide

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Posts

• 05 Quick Review, High Impact, Best Research Journals for Submissions for July 2024
• Top Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Research Paper
• Average Stipend for Research/Academic Internships
• These Institutes Offer Remote Research/Academic Internships
• How to Include Your Journal in the UGC-CARE List? A Guide for Publishers
• All Blog Posts
• Research Career
• Research Conference
• Research Internship
• Research Journal
• Research Tools
• Uncategorized
• Research Conferences
• Research Journals
• Research Grants
• Internships
• Research Internships
• Email Templates
• Conferences
• Blog Partners
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on October 12, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on November 21, 2023.

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organized and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research proposals.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

• Example research proposal #1: “A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management”
• Example research proposal #2: “Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use”

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

• Introduce your topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights your research will contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesize prior scholarship

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasize again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

• Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
• Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
• Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

• Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
• Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
• Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement .

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, November 21). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved July 30, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-proposal/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, what is your plagiarism score.

• Methodology
• Research Methodology
• Research Papers

How to Write an Effective Discussion in a Research Paper; a Guide to Writing the Discussion Section of a Research Article

• University Canada West

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Panagiota Xanthopoulou

• Vasiliki Tsipouri

• J Assoc Phys India

• Nafiseh Khakbaz

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

The goal of a research proposal is twofold: to present and justify the need to study a research problem and to present the practical ways in which the proposed study should be conducted. The design elements and procedures for conducting research are governed by standards of the predominant discipline in which the problem resides, therefore, the guidelines for research proposals are more exacting and less formal than a general project proposal. Research proposals contain extensive literature reviews. They must provide persuasive evidence that a need exists for the proposed study. In addition to providing a rationale, a proposal describes detailed methodology for conducting the research consistent with requirements of the professional or academic field and a statement on anticipated outcomes and benefits derived from the study's completion.

Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005.

How to Approach Writing a Research Proposal

Your professor may assign the task of writing a research proposal for the following reasons:

• Develop your skills in thinking about and designing a comprehensive research study;
• Learn how to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature to determine that the research problem has not been adequately addressed or has been answered ineffectively and, in so doing, become better at locating pertinent scholarship related to your topic;
• Improve your general research and writing skills;
• Practice identifying the logical steps that must be taken to accomplish one's research goals;
• Critically review, examine, and consider the use of different methods for gathering and analyzing data related to the research problem; and,
• Nurture a sense of inquisitiveness within yourself and to help see yourself as an active participant in the process of conducting scholarly research.

A proposal should contain all the key elements involved in designing a completed research study, with sufficient information that allows readers to assess the validity and usefulness of your proposed study. The only elements missing from a research proposal are the findings of the study and your analysis of those findings. Finally, an effective proposal is judged on the quality of your writing and, therefore, it is important that your proposal is coherent, clear, and compelling.

Regardless of the research problem you are investigating and the methodology you choose, all research proposals must address the following questions:

• What do you plan to accomplish? Be clear and succinct in defining the research problem and what it is you are proposing to investigate.
• Why do you want to do the research? In addition to detailing your research design, you also must conduct a thorough review of the literature and provide convincing evidence that it is a topic worthy of in-depth study. A successful research proposal must answer the "So What?" question.
• How are you going to conduct the research? Be sure that what you propose is doable. If you're having difficulty formulating a research problem to propose investigating, go here for strategies in developing a problem to study.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Failure to be concise . A research proposal must be focused and not be "all over the map" or diverge into unrelated tangents without a clear sense of purpose.
• Failure to cite landmark works in your literature review . Proposals should be grounded in foundational research that lays a foundation for understanding the development and scope of the the topic and its relevance.
• Failure to delimit the contextual scope of your research [e.g., time, place, people, etc.]. As with any research paper, your proposed study must inform the reader how and in what ways the study will frame the problem.
• Failure to develop a coherent and persuasive argument for the proposed research . This is critical. In many workplace settings, the research proposal is a formal document intended to argue for why a study should be funded.
• Sloppy or imprecise writing, or poor grammar . Although a research proposal does not represent a completed research study, there is still an expectation that it is well-written and follows the style and rules of good academic writing.
• Too much detail on minor issues, but not enough detail on major issues . Your proposal should focus on only a few key research questions in order to support the argument that the research needs to be conducted. Minor issues, even if valid, can be mentioned but they should not dominate the overall narrative.

Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal.  The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sanford, Keith. Information for Students: Writing a Research Proposal. Baylor University; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences, Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Structure and Writing Style

Beginning the Proposal Process

As with writing most college-level academic papers, research proposals are generally organized the same way throughout most social science disciplines. The text of proposals generally vary in length between ten and thirty-five pages, followed by the list of references. However, before you begin, read the assignment carefully and, if anything seems unclear, ask your professor whether there are any specific requirements for organizing and writing the proposal.

A good place to begin is to ask yourself a series of questions:

• What do I want to study?
• Why is the topic important?
• How is it significant within the subject areas covered in my class?
• What problems will it help solve?
• How does it build upon [and hopefully go beyond] research already conducted on the topic?
• What exactly should I plan to do, and can I get it done in the time available?

In general, a compelling research proposal should document your knowledge of the topic and demonstrate your enthusiasm for conducting the study. Approach it with the intention of leaving your readers feeling like, "Wow, that's an exciting idea and I can’t wait to see how it turns out!"

Most proposals should include the following sections:

I.  Introduction

In the real world of higher education, a research proposal is most often written by scholars seeking grant funding for a research project or it's the first step in getting approval to write a doctoral dissertation. Even if this is just a course assignment, treat your introduction as the initial pitch of an idea based on a thorough examination of the significance of a research problem. After reading the introduction, your readers should not only have an understanding of what you want to do, but they should also be able to gain a sense of your passion for the topic and to be excited about the study's possible outcomes. Note that most proposals do not include an abstract [summary] before the introduction.

Think about your introduction as a narrative written in two to four paragraphs that succinctly answers the following four questions :

• What is the central research problem?
• What is the topic of study related to that research problem?
• What methods should be used to analyze the research problem?
• Answer the "So What?" question by explaining why this is important research, what is its significance, and why should someone reading the proposal care about the outcomes of the proposed study?

II.  Background and Significance

This is where you explain the scope and context of your proposal and describe in detail why it's important. It can be melded into your introduction or you can create a separate section to help with the organization and narrative flow of your proposal. Approach writing this section with the thought that you can’t assume your readers will know as much about the research problem as you do. Note that this section is not an essay going over everything you have learned about the topic; instead, you must choose what is most relevant in explaining the aims of your research.

To that end, while there are no prescribed rules for establishing the significance of your proposed study, you should attempt to address some or all of the following:

• State the research problem and give a more detailed explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction. This is particularly important if the problem is complex or multifaceted .
• Present the rationale of your proposed study and clearly indicate why it is worth doing; be sure to answer the "So What? question [i.e., why should anyone care?].
• Describe the major issues or problems examined by your research. This can be in the form of questions to be addressed. Be sure to note how your proposed study builds on previous assumptions about the research problem.
• Explain the methods you plan to use for conducting your research. Clearly identify the key sources you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to your analysis of the topic.
• Describe the boundaries of your proposed research in order to provide a clear focus. Where appropriate, state not only what you plan to study, but what aspects of the research problem will be excluded from the study.
• If necessary, provide definitions of key concepts, theories, or terms.

III.  Literature Review

Connected to the background and significance of your study is a section of your proposal devoted to a more deliberate review and synthesis of prior studies related to the research problem under investigation . The purpose here is to place your project within the larger whole of what is currently being explored, while at the same time, demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methodological approaches they have used, and what is your understanding of their findings and, when stated, their recommendations. Also pay attention to any suggestions for further research.

Since a literature review is information dense, it is crucial that this section is intelligently structured to enable a reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your proposed study in relation to the arguments put forth by other researchers. A good strategy is to break the literature into "conceptual categories" [themes] rather than systematically or chronologically describing groups of materials one at a time. Note that conceptual categories generally reveal themselves after you have read most of the pertinent literature on your topic so adding new categories is an on-going process of discovery as you review more studies. How do you know you've covered the key conceptual categories underlying the research literature? Generally, you can have confidence that all of the significant conceptual categories have been identified if you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations that are being made.

NOTE: Do not shy away from challenging the conclusions made in prior research as a basis for supporting the need for your proposal. Assess what you believe is missing and state how previous research has failed to adequately examine the issue that your study addresses. Highlighting the problematic conclusions strengthens your proposal. For more information on writing literature reviews, GO HERE .

To help frame your proposal's review of prior research, consider the "five C’s" of writing a literature review:

• Cite , so as to keep the primary focus on the literature pertinent to your research problem.
• Compare the various arguments, theories, methodologies, and findings expressed in the literature: what do the authors agree on? Who applies similar approaches to analyzing the research problem?
• Contrast the various arguments, themes, methodologies, approaches, and controversies expressed in the literature: describe what are the major areas of disagreement, controversy, or debate among scholars?
• Critique the literature: Which arguments are more persuasive, and why? Which approaches, findings, and methodologies seem most reliable, valid, or appropriate, and why? Pay attention to the verbs you use to describe what an author says/does [e.g., asserts, demonstrates, argues, etc.].
• Connect the literature to your own area of research and investigation: how does your own work draw upon, depart from, synthesize, or add a new perspective to what has been said in the literature?

IV.  Research Design and Methods

This section must be well-written and logically organized because you are not actually doing the research, yet, your reader must have confidence that you have a plan worth pursuing . The reader will never have a study outcome from which to evaluate whether your methodological choices were the correct ones. Thus, the objective here is to convince the reader that your overall research design and proposed methods of analysis will correctly address the problem and that the methods will provide the means to effectively interpret the potential results. Your design and methods should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

Describe the overall research design by building upon and drawing examples from your review of the literature. Consider not only methods that other researchers have used, but methods of data gathering that have not been used but perhaps could be. Be specific about the methodological approaches you plan to undertake to obtain information, the techniques you would use to analyze the data, and the tests of external validity to which you commit yourself [i.e., the trustworthiness by which you can generalize from your study to other people, places, events, and/or periods of time].

When describing the methods you will use, be sure to cover the following:

• Specify the research process you will undertake and the way you will interpret the results obtained in relation to the research problem. Don't just describe what you intend to achieve from applying the methods you choose, but state how you will spend your time while applying these methods [e.g., coding text from interviews to find statements about the need to change school curriculum; running a regression to determine if there is a relationship between campaign advertising on social media sites and election outcomes in Europe ].
• Keep in mind that the methodology is not just a list of tasks; it is a deliberate argument as to why techniques for gathering information add up to the best way to investigate the research problem. This is an important point because the mere listing of tasks to be performed does not demonstrate that, collectively, they effectively address the research problem. Be sure you clearly explain this.
• Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers and pitfalls in carrying out your research design and explain how you plan to address them. No method applied to research in the social and behavioral sciences is perfect, so you need to describe where you believe challenges may exist in obtaining data or accessing information. It's always better to acknowledge this than to have it brought up by your professor!

V.  Preliminary Suppositions and Implications

Just because you don't have to actually conduct the study and analyze the results, doesn't mean you can skip talking about the analytical process and potential implications . The purpose of this section is to argue how and in what ways you believe your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the subject area under investigation. Depending on the aims and objectives of your study, describe how the anticipated results will impact future scholarly research, theory, practice, forms of interventions, or policy making. Note that such discussions may have either substantive [a potential new policy], theoretical [a potential new understanding], or methodological [a potential new way of analyzing] significance.   When thinking about the potential implications of your study, ask the following questions:

• What might the results mean in regards to challenging the theoretical framework and underlying assumptions that support the study?
• What suggestions for subsequent research could arise from the potential outcomes of the study?
• What will the results mean to practitioners in the natural settings of their workplace, organization, or community?
• Will the results influence programs, methods, and/or forms of intervention?
• How might the results contribute to the solution of social, economic, or other types of problems?
• Will the results influence policy decisions?
• In what way do individuals or groups benefit should your study be pursued?
• What will be improved or changed as a result of the proposed research?
• How will the results of the study be implemented and what innovations or transformative insights could emerge from the process of implementation?

NOTE:   This section should not delve into idle speculation, opinion, or be formulated on the basis of unclear evidence . The purpose is to reflect upon gaps or understudied areas of the current literature and describe how your proposed research contributes to a new understanding of the research problem should the study be implemented as designed.

ANOTHER NOTE : This section is also where you describe any potential limitations to your proposed study. While it is impossible to highlight all potential limitations because the study has yet to be conducted, you still must tell the reader where and in what form impediments may arise and how you plan to address them.

VI.  Conclusion

The conclusion reiterates the importance or significance of your proposal and provides a brief summary of the entire study . This section should be only one or two paragraphs long, emphasizing why the research problem is worth investigating, why your research study is unique, and how it should advance existing knowledge.

Someone reading this section should come away with an understanding of:

• Why the study should be done;
• The specific purpose of the study and the research questions it attempts to answer;
• The decision for why the research design and methods used where chosen over other options;
• The potential implications emerging from your proposed study of the research problem; and
• A sense of how your study fits within the broader scholarship about the research problem.

VII.  Citations

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used . In a standard research proposal, this section can take two forms, so consult with your professor about which one is preferred.

• References -- a list of only the sources you actually used in creating your proposal.
• Bibliography -- a list of everything you used in creating your proposal, along with additional citations to any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem.

In either case, this section should testify to the fact that you did enough preparatory work to ensure the project will complement and not just duplicate the efforts of other researchers. It demonstrates to the reader that you have a thorough understanding of prior research on the topic.

Most proposal formats have you start a new page and use the heading "References" or "Bibliography" centered at the top of the page. Cited works should always use a standard format that follows the writing style advised by the discipline of your course [e.g., education=APA; history=Chicago] or that is preferred by your professor. This section normally does not count towards the total page length of your research proposal.

Develop a Research Proposal: Writing the Proposal. Office of Library Information Services. Baltimore County Public Schools; Heath, M. Teresa Pereira and Caroline Tynan. “Crafting a Research Proposal.” The Marketing Review 10 (Summer 2010): 147-168; Jones, Mark. “Writing a Research Proposal.” In MasterClass in Geography Education: Transforming Teaching and Learning . Graham Butt, editor. (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), pp. 113-127; Juni, Muhamad Hanafiah. “Writing a Research Proposal.” International Journal of Public Health and Clinical Sciences 1 (September/October 2014): 229-240; Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005; Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Punch, Keith and Wayne McGowan. "Developing and Writing a Research Proposal." In From Postgraduate to Social Scientist: A Guide to Key Skills . Nigel Gilbert, ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006), 59-81; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences , Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

• << Previous: Writing a Reflective Paper
• Next: Generative AI and Writing >>
• Last Updated: Jun 3, 2024 9:44 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

Organizing Academic Research Papers: 8. The Discussion

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• How to Manage Group Projects
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Acknowledgements

The purpose of the discussion is to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in light of what was already known about the research problem being investigated, and to explain any new understanding or fresh insights about the problem after you've taken the findings into consideration. The discussion will always connect to the introduction by way of the research questions or hypotheses you posed and the literature you reviewed, but it does not simply repeat or rearrange the introduction; the discussion should always explain how your study has moved the reader's understanding of the research problem forward from where you left them at the end of the introduction.

Importance of a Good Discussion

This section is often considered the most important part of a research paper because it most effectively demonstrates your ability as a researcher to think critically about an issue, to develop creative solutions to problems based on the findings, and to formulate a deeper, more profound understanding of the research problem you are studying.

The discussion section is where you explore the underlying meaning of your research , its possible implications in other areas of study, and the possible improvements that can be made in order to further develop the concerns of your research.

This is the section where you need to present the importance of your study and how it may be able to contribute to and/or fill existing gaps in the field. If appropriate, the discussion section is also where you state how the findings from your study revealed new gaps in the literature that had not been previously exposed or adequately described.

This part of the paper is not strictly governed by objective reporting of information but, rather, it is where you can engage in creative thinking about issues through evidence-based interpretation of findings. This is where you infuse your results with meaning.

Kretchmer, Paul. Fourteen Steps to Writing to Writing an Effective Discussion Section . San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  General Rules

These are the general rules you should adopt when composing your discussion of the results :

• Do not be verbose or repetitive.
• Be concise and make your points clearly.
• Avoid using jargon.
• Follow a logical stream of thought.
• Use the present verb tense, especially for established facts; however, refer to specific works and references in the past tense.
• If needed, use subheadings to help organize your presentation or to group your interpretations into themes.

II.  The Content

The content of the discussion section of your paper most often includes :

• Explanation of results : comment on whether or not the results were expected and present explanations for the results; go into greater depth when explaining findings that were unexpected or especially profound. If appropriate, note any unusual or unanticipated patterns or trends that emerged from your results and explain their meaning.
• References to previous research : compare your results with the findings from other studies, or use the studies to support a claim. This can include re-visiting key sources already cited in your literature review section, or, save them to cite later in the discussion section if they are more important to compare with your results than being part of the general research you cited to provide context and background information.
• Deduction : a claim for how the results can be applied more generally. For example, describing lessons learned, proposing recommendations that can help improve a situation, or recommending best practices.
• Hypothesis : a more general claim or possible conclusion arising from the results [which may be proved or disproved in subsequent research].

III. Organization and Structure

Keep the following sequential points in mind as you organize and write the discussion section of your paper:

• Think of your discussion as an inverted pyramid. Organize the discussion from the general to the specific, linking your findings to the literature, then to theory, then to practice [if appropriate].
• Use the same key terms, mode of narration, and verb tense [present] that you used when when describing the research problem in the introduction.
• Begin by briefly re-stating the research problem you were investigating and answer all of the research questions underpinning the problem that you posed in the introduction.
• Describe the patterns, principles, and relationships shown by each major findings and place them in proper perspective. The sequencing of providing this information is important; first state the answer, then the relevant results, then cite the work of others. If appropriate, refer the reader to a figure or table to help enhance the interpretation of the data. The order of interpreting each major finding should be in the same order as they were described in your results section.
• A good discussion section includes analysis of any unexpected findings. This paragraph should begin with a description of the unexpected finding, followed by a brief interpretation as to why you believe it appeared and, if necessary, its possible significance in relation to the overall study. If more than one unexpected finding emerged during the study, describe each them in the order they appeared as you gathered the data.
• Before concluding the discussion, identify potential limitations and weaknesses. Comment on their relative importance in relation to your overall interpretation of the results and, if necessary, note how they may affect the validity of the findings. Avoid using an apologetic tone; however, be honest and self-critical.
• The discussion section should end with a concise summary of the principal implications of the findings regardless of statistical significance. Give a brief explanation about why you believe the findings and conclusions of your study are important and how they support broader knowledge or understanding of the research problem. This can be followed by any recommendations for further research. However, do not offer recommendations which could have been easily addressed within the study. This demonstrates to the reader you have inadequately examined and interpreted the data.

IV.  Overall Objectives

The objectives of your discussion section should include the following: I.  Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings

Briefly reiterate for your readers the research problem or problems you are investigating and the methods you used to investigate them, then move quickly to describe the major findings of the study. You should write a direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results.

II.  Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important

No one has thought as long and hard about your study as you have. Systematically explain the meaning of the findings and why you believe they are important. After reading the discussion section, you want the reader to think about the results [“why hadn’t I thought of that?”]. You don’t want to force the reader to go through the paper multiple times to figure out what it all means. Begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most important finding first.

III.  Relate the Findings to Similar Studies

No study is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to other previously published research. The discussion section should relate your study findings to those of other studies, particularly if questions raised by previous studies served as the motivation for your study, the findings of other studies support your findings [which strengthens the importance of your study results], and/or they point out how your study differs from other similar studies. IV.  Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings

It is important to remember that the purpose of research is to discover and not to prove . When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations for the study results, rather than just those that fit your prior assumptions or biases.

V.  Acknowledge the Study’s Limitations

It is far better for you to identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor! Describe the generalizability of your results to other situations, if applicable to the method chosen, then describe in detail problems you encountered in the method(s) you used to gather information. Note any unanswered questions or issues your study did not address, and.... VI.  Make Suggestions for Further Research

Although your study may offer important insights about the research problem, other questions related to the problem likely remain unanswered. Moreover, some unanswered questions may have become more focused because of your study. You should make suggestions for further research in the discussion section.

NOTE: Besides the literature review section, the preponderance of references to sources in your research paper are usually found in the discussion section . A few historical references may be helpful for perspective but most of the references should be relatively recent and included to aid in the interpretation of your results and/or linked to similar studies. If a study that you cited disagrees with your findings, don't ignore it--clearly explain why the study's findings differ from yours.

V.  Problems to Avoid

• Do not waste entire sentences restating your results . Should you need to remind the reader of the finding to be discussed, use "bridge sentences" that relate the result to the interpretation. An example would be: “The lack of available housing to single women with children in rural areas of Texas suggests that...[then move to the interpretation of this finding].”
• Recommendations for further research can be included in either the discussion or conclusion of your paper but do not repeat your recommendations in the both sections.
• Do not introduce new results in the discussion. Be wary of mistaking the reiteration of a specific finding for an interpretation.
• Use of the first person is acceptable, but too much use of the first person may actually distract the reader from the main points.

Analyzing vs. Summarizing. Department of English Writing Guide. George Mason University; Discussion . The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Hess, Dean R. How to Write an Effective Discussion. Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004); Kretchmer, Paul. Fourteen Steps to Writing to Writing an Effective Discussion Section . San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008; The Lab Report . University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Summary: Using it Wisely . The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Schafer, Mickey S. Writing the Discussion . Writing in Psychology course syllabus. University of Florida; Yellin, Linda L. A Sociology Writer's Guide. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2009.

Writing Tip

Don’t Overinterpret the Results!

Interpretation is a subjective exercise. Therefore, be careful that you do not read more into the findings than can be supported by the evidence you've gathered. Remember that the data are the data: nothing more, nothing less.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Write Two Results Sections!

One of the most common mistakes that you can make when discussing the results of your study is to present a superficial interpretation of the findings that more or less re-states the results section of your paper. Obviously, you must refer to your results when discussing them, but focus on the interpretion of those results, not just the data itself.

Azar, Beth. Discussing Your Findings.  American Psychological Association gradPSYCH Magazine (January 2006)

Yet Another Writing Tip

Avoid Unwarranted Speculation!

The discussion section should remain focused on the findings of your study. For example, if you studied the impact of foreign aid on increasing levels of education among the poor in Bangladesh, it's generally not appropriate to speculate about how your findings might apply to populations in other countries without drawing from existing studies to support your claim. If you feel compelled to speculate, be certain that you clearly identify your comments as speculation or as a suggestion for where further research is needed. Sometimes your professor will encourage you to expand the discussion in this way, while others don’t care what your opinion is beyond your efforts to interpret the data.

• << Previous: Using Non-Textual Elements
• Next: Limitations of the Study >>
• Last Updated: Jul 18, 2023 11:58 AM
• URL: https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803
• QuickSearch
• Library Catalog
• Databases A-Z
• Publication Finder
• Course Reserves
• Citation Linker
• Digital Commons
• Our Website

Research Support

• Ask a Librarian
• Appointments
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Research Guides
• Databases by Subject
• Citation Help

Using the Library

• Reserve a Group Study Room
• Renew Books
• Honors Study Rooms
• Off-Campus Access
• Library Policies
• Library Technology

User Information

• Grad Students
• Online Students
• COVID-19 Updates
• Staff Directory
• News & Announcements
• Library Newsletter

My Accounts

• Interlibrary Loan
• Staff Site Login

FIND US ON  

How To Write A Research Proposal

A Straightforward How-To Guide (With Examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | August 2019 (Updated April 2023)

Writing up a strong research proposal for a dissertation or thesis is much like a marriage proposal. It’s a task that calls on you to win somebody over and persuade them that what you’re planning is a great idea. An idea they’re happy to say ‘yes’ to. This means that your dissertation proposal needs to be   persuasive ,   attractive   and well-planned. In this post, I’ll show you how to write a winning dissertation proposal, from scratch.

Before you start:

– Understand exactly what a research proposal is – Ask yourself these 4 questions

The 5 essential ingredients:

• The title/topic
• The introduction chapter
• The scope/delimitations
• Preliminary literature review
• Design/ methodology
• Practical considerations and risks 

What Is A Research Proposal?

The research proposal is literally that: a written document that communicates what you propose to research, in a concise format. It’s where you put all that stuff that’s spinning around in your head down on to paper, in a logical, convincing fashion.

Convincing   is the keyword here, as your research proposal needs to convince the assessor that your research is   clearly articulated   (i.e., a clear research question) ,   worth doing   (i.e., is unique and valuable enough to justify the effort), and   doable   within the restrictions you’ll face (time limits, budget, skill limits, etc.). If your proposal does not address these three criteria, your research won’t be approved, no matter how “exciting” the research idea might be.

PS – if you’re completely new to proposal writing, we’ve got a detailed walkthrough video covering two successful research proposals here . 

How do I know I’m ready?

Before starting the writing process, you need to   ask yourself 4 important questions .  If you can’t answer them succinctly and confidently, you’re not ready – you need to go back and think more deeply about your dissertation topic .

You should be able to answer the following 4 questions before starting your dissertation or thesis research proposal:

• WHAT is my main research question? (the topic)
• WHO cares and why is this important? (the justification)
• WHAT data would I need to answer this question, and how will I analyse it? (the research design)
• HOW will I manage the completion of this research, within the given timelines? (project and risk management)

If you can’t answer these questions clearly and concisely,   you’re not yet ready   to write your research proposal – revisit our   post on choosing a topic .

If you can, that’s great – it’s time to start writing up your dissertation proposal. Next, I’ll discuss what needs to go into your research proposal, and how to structure it all into an intuitive, convincing document with a linear narrative.

The 5 Essential Ingredients

Research proposals can vary in style between institutions and disciplines, but here I’ll share with you a   handy 5-section structure   you can use. These 5 sections directly address the core questions we spoke about earlier, ensuring that you present a convincing proposal. If your institution already provides a proposal template, there will likely be substantial overlap with this, so you’ll still get value from reading on.

For each section discussed below, make sure you use headers and sub-headers (ideally, numbered headers) to help the reader navigate through your document, and to support them when they need to revisit a previous section. Don’t just present an endless wall of text, paragraph after paragraph after paragraph…

Top Tip:   Use MS Word Styles to format headings. This will allow you to be clear about whether a sub-heading is level 2, 3, or 4. Additionally, you can view your document in ‘outline view’ which will show you only your headings. This makes it much easier to check your structure, shift things around and make decisions about where a section needs to sit. You can also generate a 100% accurate table of contents using Word’s automatic functionality.

Ingredient #1 – Topic/Title Header

Your research proposal’s title should be your main research question in its simplest form, possibly with a sub-heading providing basic details on the specifics of the study. For example:

“Compliance with equality legislation in the charity sector: a study of the ‘reasonable adjustments’ made in three London care homes”

As you can see, this title provides a clear indication of what the research is about, in broad terms. It paints a high-level picture for the first-time reader, which gives them a taste of what to expect.   Always aim for a clear, concise title . Don’t feel the need to capture every detail of your research in your title – your proposal will fill in the gaps.

Need a helping hand?

Ingredient #2 – Introduction

In this section of your research proposal, you’ll expand on what you’ve communicated in the title, by providing a few paragraphs which offer more detail about your research topic. Importantly, the focus here is the   topic   – what will you research and why is that worth researching? This is not the place to discuss methodology, practicalities, etc. – you’ll do that later.

You should cover the following:

• An overview of the   broad area   you’ll be researching – introduce the reader to key concepts and language
• An explanation of the   specific (narrower) area   you’ll be focusing, and why you’ll be focusing there
• Your research   aims   and   objectives
• Your   research question (s) and sub-questions (if applicable)

Importantly, you should aim to use short sentences and plain language – don’t babble on with extensive jargon, acronyms and complex language. Assume that the reader is an intelligent layman – not a subject area specialist (even if they are). Remember that the   best writing is writing that can be easily understood   and digested. Keep it simple.

Note that some universities may want some extra bits and pieces in your introduction section. For example, personal development objectives, a structural outline, etc. Check your brief to see if there are any other details they expect in your proposal, and make sure you find a place for these.

Ingredient #3 – Scope

Next, you’ll need to specify what the scope of your research will be – this is also known as the delimitations . In other words, you need to make it clear what you will be covering and, more importantly, what you won’t be covering in your research. Simply put, this is about ring fencing your research topic so that you have a laser-sharp focus.

All too often, students feel the need to go broad and try to address as many issues as possible, in the interest of producing comprehensive research. Whilst this is admirable, it’s a mistake. By tightly refining your scope, you’ll enable yourself to   go deep   with your research, which is what you need to earn good marks. If your scope is too broad, you’re likely going to land up with superficial research (which won’t earn marks), so don’t be afraid to narrow things down.

Ingredient #4 – Literature Review

In this section of your research proposal, you need to provide a (relatively) brief discussion of the existing literature. Naturally, this will not be as comprehensive as the literature review in your actual dissertation, but it will lay the foundation for that. In fact, if you put in the effort at this stage, you’ll make your life a lot easier when it’s time to write your actual literature review chapter.

There are a few things you need to achieve in this section:

• Demonstrate that you’ve done your reading and are   familiar with the current state of the research   in your topic area.
• Show that   there’s a clear gap   for your specific research – i.e., show that your topic is sufficiently unique and will add value to the existing research.
• Show how the existing research has shaped your thinking regarding   research design . For example, you might use scales or questionnaires from previous studies.

When you write up your literature review, keep these three objectives front of mind, especially number two (revealing the gap in the literature), so that your literature review has a   clear purpose and direction . Everything you write should be contributing towards one (or more) of these objectives in some way. If it doesn’t, you need to ask yourself whether it’s truly needed.

Top Tip:  Don’t fall into the trap of just describing the main pieces of literature, for example, “A says this, B says that, C also says that…” and so on. Merely describing the literature provides no value. Instead, you need to   synthesise   it, and use it to address the three objectives above.

Ingredient #5 – Research Methodology

Now that you’ve clearly explained both your intended research topic (in the introduction) and the existing research it will draw on (in the literature review section), it’s time to get practical and explain exactly how you’ll be carrying out your own research. In other words, your research methodology.

In this section, you’ll need to   answer two critical questions :

• How   will you design your research? I.e., what research methodology will you adopt, what will your sample be, how will you collect data, etc.
• Why   have you chosen this design? I.e., why does this approach suit your specific research aims, objectives and questions?

In other words, this is not just about explaining WHAT you’ll be doing, it’s also about explaining WHY. In fact, the   justification is the most important part , because that justification is how you demonstrate a good understanding of research design (which is what assessors want to see).

Some essential design choices you need to cover in your research proposal include:

• Your intended research philosophy (e.g., positivism, interpretivism or pragmatism )
• What methodological approach you’ll be taking (e.g., qualitative , quantitative or mixed )
• The details of your sample (e.g., sample size, who they are, who they represent, etc.)
• What data you plan to collect (i.e. data about what, in what form?)
• How you plan to collect it (e.g., surveys , interviews , focus groups, etc.)
• How you plan to analyse it (e.g., regression analysis, thematic analysis , etc.)
• Ethical adherence (i.e., does this research satisfy all ethical requirements of your institution, or does it need further approval?)

This list is not exhaustive – these are just some core attributes of research design. Check with your institution what level of detail they expect. The “ research onion ” by Saunders et al (2009) provides a good summary of the various design choices you ultimately need to make – you can   read more about that here .

Don’t forget the practicalities…

In addition to the technical aspects, you will need to address the   practical   side of the project. In other words, you need to explain   what resources you’ll need   (e.g., time, money, access to equipment or software, etc.) and how you intend to secure these resources. You need to show that your project is feasible, so any “make or break” type resources need to already be secured. The success or failure of your project cannot depend on some resource which you’re not yet sure you have access to.

Another part of the practicalities discussion is   project and risk management . In other words, you need to show that you have a clear project plan to tackle your research with. Some key questions to address:

• What are the timelines for each phase of your project?
• Are the time allocations reasonable?
• What happens if something takes longer than anticipated (risk management)?
• What happens if you don’t get the response rate you expect?

A good way to demonstrate that you’ve thought this through is to include a Gantt chart and a risk register (in the appendix if word count is a problem). With these two tools, you can show that you’ve got a clear, feasible plan, and you’ve thought about and accounted for the potential risks.

Tip – Be honest about the potential difficulties – but show that you are anticipating solutions and workarounds. This is much more impressive to an assessor than an unrealistically optimistic proposal which does not anticipate any challenges whatsoever.

Final Touches: Read And Simplify

The final step is to edit and proofread your proposal – very carefully. It sounds obvious, but all too often poor editing and proofreading ruin a good proposal. Nothing is more off-putting for an assessor than a poorly edited, typo-strewn document. It sends the message that you either do not pay attention to detail, or just don’t care. Neither of these are good messages. Put the effort into editing and proofreading your proposal (or pay someone to do it for you) – it will pay dividends.

When you’re editing, watch out for ‘academese’. Many students can speak simply, passionately and clearly about their dissertation topic – but become incomprehensible the moment they turn the laptop on. You are not required to write in any kind of special, formal, complex language when you write academic work. Sure, there may be technical terms, jargon specific to your discipline, shorthand terms and so on. But, apart from those,   keep your written language very close to natural spoken language   – just as you would speak in the classroom. Imagine that you are explaining your project plans to your classmates or a family member. Remember, write for the intelligent layman, not the subject matter experts. Plain-language, concise writing is what wins hearts and minds – and marks!

Let’s Recap: Research Proposal 101

And there you have it – how to write your dissertation or thesis research proposal, from the title page to the final proof. Here’s a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• The purpose of the research proposal is to   convince   – therefore, you need to make a clear, concise argument of why your research is both worth doing and doable.
• Make sure you can ask the critical what, who, and how questions of your research   before   you put pen to paper.
• Title – provides the first taste of your research, in broad terms
• Introduction – explains what you’ll be researching in more detail
• Scope – explains the boundaries of your research
• Literature review – explains how your research fits into the existing research and why it’s unique and valuable
• Research methodology – explains and justifies how you will carry out your own research

Hopefully, this post has helped you better understand how to write up a winning research proposal. If you enjoyed it, be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach Blog . If your university doesn’t provide any template for your proposal, you might want to try out our free research proposal template .

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

30 Comments

Thank you so much for the valuable insight that you have given, especially on the research proposal. That is what I have managed to cover. I still need to go back to the other parts as I got disturbed while still listening to Derek’s audio on you-tube. I am inspired. I will definitely continue with Grad-coach guidance on You-tube.

Thanks for the kind words :). All the best with your proposal.

First of all, thanks a lot for making such a wonderful presentation. The video was really useful and gave me a very clear insight of how a research proposal has to be written. I shall try implementing these ideas in my RP.

Once again, I thank you for this content.

I found reading your outline on writing research proposal very beneficial. I wish there was a way of submitting my draft proposal to you guys for critiquing before I submit to the institution.

Hi Bonginkosi

Thank you for the kind words. Yes, we do provide a review service. The best starting point is to have a chat with one of our coaches here: https://gradcoach.com/book/new/ .

Hello team GRADCOACH, may God bless you so much. I was totally green in research. Am so happy for your free superb tutorials and resources. Once again thank you so much Derek and his team.

You’re welcome, Erick. Good luck with your research proposal 🙂

thank you for the information. its precise and on point.

Really a remarkable piece of writing and great source of guidance for the researchers. GOD BLESS YOU for your guidance. Regards

Thanks so much for your guidance. It is easy and comprehensive the way you explain the steps for a winning research proposal.

Thank you guys so much for the rich post. I enjoyed and learn from every word in it. My problem now is how to get into your platform wherein I can always seek help on things related to my research work ? Secondly, I wish to find out if there is a way I can send my tentative proposal to you guys for examination before I take to my supervisor Once again thanks very much for the insights

Thanks for your kind words, Desire.

If you are based in a country where Grad Coach’s paid services are available, you can book a consultation by clicking the “Book” button in the top right.

Best of luck with your studies.

May God bless you team for the wonderful work you are doing,

If I have a topic, Can I submit it to you so that you can draft a proposal for me?? As I am expecting to go for masters degree in the near future.

Thanks for your comment. We definitely cannot draft a proposal for you, as that would constitute academic misconduct. The proposal needs to be your own work. We can coach you through the process, but it needs to be your own work and your own writing.

Best of luck with your research!

I found a lot of many essential concepts from your material. it is real a road map to write a research proposal. so thanks a lot. If there is any update material on your hand on MBA please forward to me.

GradCoach is a professional website that presents support and helps for MBA student like me through the useful online information on the page and with my 1-on-1 online coaching with the amazing and professional PhD Kerryen.

Thank you Kerryen so much for the support and help 🙂

I really recommend dealing with such a reliable services provider like Gradcoah and a coach like Kerryen.

Hi, Am happy for your service and effort to help students and researchers, Please, i have been given an assignment on research for strategic development, the task one is to formulate a research proposal to support the strategic development of a business area, my issue here is how to go about it, especially the topic or title and introduction. Please, i would like to know if you could help me and how much is the charge.

This content is practical, valuable, and just great!

Thank you very much!

Hi Derek, Thank you for the valuable presentation. It is very helpful especially for beginners like me. I am just starting my PhD.

This is quite instructive and research proposal made simple. Can I have a research proposal template?

Great! Thanks for rescuing me, because I had no former knowledge in this topic. But with this piece of information, I am now secured. Thank you once more.

I enjoyed listening to your video on how to write a proposal. I think I will be able to write a winning proposal with your advice. I wish you were to be my supervisor.

Dear Derek Jansen,

Thank you for your great content. I couldn’t learn these topics in MBA, but now I learned from GradCoach. Really appreciate your efforts….

From Afghanistan!

I have got very essential inputs for startup of my dissertation proposal. Well organized properly communicated with video presentation. Thank you for the presentation.

Wow, this is absolutely amazing guys. Thank you so much for the fruitful presentation, you’ve made my research much easier.

this helps me a lot. thank you all so much for impacting in us. may god richly bless you all

How I wish I’d learn about Grad Coach earlier. I’ve been stumbling around writing and rewriting! Now I have concise clear directions on how to put this thing together. Thank you!

Fantastic!! Thank You for this very concise yet comprehensive guidance.

Even if I am poor in English I would like to thank you very much.

Thank you very much, this is very insightful.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Research Paper Guides
• Basics of Research Paper Writing

How to Write a Discussion Section: Writing Guide

• Speech Topics
• Basics of Essay Writing
• Essay Topics
• Other Essays
• Main Academic Essays
• Research Paper Topics
• Miscellaneous
• Chicago/ Turabian
• Data & Statistics
• Methodology
• Admission Writing Tips
• Admission Advice
• Other Guides
• Student Life
• Studying Tips
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Academic Writing Tips
• Basics of Dissertation & Thesis Writing

• Essay Guides
• Formatting Guides
• Basics of Research Process
• Admission Guides
• Dissertation & Thesis Guides

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

The discussion section of a research paper is where the author analyzes and explains the importance of the study's results. It presents the conclusions drawn from the study, compares them to previous research, and addresses any potential limitations or weaknesses. The discussion section should also suggest areas for future research.

Everything is not that complicated if you know where to find the required information. We’ll tell you everything there is to know about writing your discussion. Our easy guide covers all important bits, including research questions and your research results. Do you know how all enumerated events are connected? Well, you will after reading this guide we’ve prepared for you!

What Is in the Discussion Section of a Research Paper

The discussion section of a research paper can be viewed as something similar to the conclusion of your paper. But not literal, of course. It’s an ultimate section where you can talk about the findings of your study. Think about these questions when writing:

• Did you answer all of the promised research questions?
• Did you mention why your work matters?
• What are your findings, and why should anyone even care?
• Does your study have a literature review?

So, answer your questions, provide proof, and don’t forget about your promises from the introduction. 

How to Write a Discussion Section in 5 Steps

How to write the discussion section of a research paper is something everyone googles eventually. It's just life. But why not make everything easier? In brief, this section we’re talking about must include all following parts:

• Answers for research questions
• Literature review
• Results of the work
• Limitations of one’s study
• Overall conclusion

Indeed, all those parts may confuse anyone. So by looking at our guide, you'll save yourself some hassle.  P.S. All our steps are easy and explained in detail! But if you are looking for the most efficient solution, consider using professional help. Leave your “ write my research paper for me ” order at StudyCrumb and get a customized study tailored to your requirements.

Step 1. Start Strong: Discussion Section of a Research Paper

First and foremost, how to start the discussion section of a research paper? Here’s what you should definitely consider before settling down to start writing:

• All essays or papers must begin strong. All readers will not wait for any writer to get to the point. We advise summarizing the paper's main findings.
• Moreover, you should relate both discussion and literature review to what you have discovered. Mentioning that would be a plus too.
• Make sure that an introduction or start per se is clear and concise. Word count might be needed for school. But any paper should be understandable and not too diluted.

Step 2. Answer the Questions in Your Discussion Section of a Research Paper

Writing the discussion section of a research paper also involves mentioning your questions. Remember that in your introduction, you have promised your readers to answer certain questions. Well, now it’s a perfect time to finally give the awaited answer. You need to explain all possible correlations between your findings, research questions, and literature proposed. You already had hypotheses. So were they correct, or maybe you want to propose certain corrections? Section’s main goal is to avoid open ends. It’s not a story or a fairytale with an intriguing ending. If you have several questions, you must answer them. As simple as that.

Step 3. Relate Your Results in a Discussion Section

Writing a discussion section of a research paper also requires any writer to explain their results. You will undoubtedly include an impactful literature review. However, your readers should not just try and struggle with understanding what are some specific relationships behind previous studies and your results.  Your results should sound something like: “This guy in their paper discovered that apples are green. Nevertheless, I have proven via experimentation and research that apples are actually red.” Please, don’t take these results directly. It’s just an initial hypothesis. But what you should definitely remember is any practical implications of your study. Why does it matter and how can anyone use it? That’s the most crucial question.

Step 4. Describe the Limitations in Your Discussion Section

Discussion section of a research paper isn’t limitless. What does that mean? Essentially, it means that you also have to discuss any limitations of your study. Maybe you had some methodological inconsistencies. Possibly, there are no particular theories or not enough information for you to be entirely confident in one’s conclusions.  You might say that an available source of literature you have studied does not focus on one’s issue. That’s why one’s main limitation is theoretical. However, keep in mind that your limitations must possess a certain degree of relevancy. You can just say that you haven’t found enough books. Your information must be truthful to research.

Step 5. Conclude Your Discussion Section With Recommendations

Your last step when you write a discussion section in a paper is its conclusion, like in any other academic work. Writer’s conclusion must be as strong as their starting point of the overall work. Check out our brief list of things to know about the conclusion in research paper :

• It must present its scientific relevance and importance of your work.
• It should include different implications of your research.
• It should not, however, discuss anything new or things that you have not mentioned before.
• Leave no open questions and carefully complete the work without them.

Discussion Section of a Research Paper Example

All the best example discussion sections of a research paper will be written according to our brief guide. Don’t forget that you need to state your findings and underline the importance of your work. An undoubtedly big part of one’s discussion will definitely be answering and explaining the research questions. In other words, you’ll already have all the knowledge you have so carefully gathered. Our last step for you is to recollect and wrap up your paper. But we’re sure you’ll succeed!

How to Write a Discussion Section: Final Thoughts

Today we have covered how to write a discussion section. That was quite a brief journey, wasn’t it? Just to remind you to focus on these things:

• Importance of your study.
• Summary of the information you have gathered.
• Main findings and conclusions.
• Answers to all research questions without an open end.
• Correlation between literature review and your results.

But, wait, this guide is not the only thing we can do. Looking for how to write an abstract for a research paper  for example? We have such a blog and much more on our platform.

Our academic writing service is just a click away. We are proud to say that our writers are professionals in their fields. Buy a research paper and our experts can provide prompt solutions without compromising the quality.

Joe Eckel is an expert on Dissertations writing. He makes sure that each student gets precious insights on composing A-grade academic writing.

You may also like

Discussion Section of a Research Paper: Frequently Asked Questions

1. how long should the discussion section of a research paper be.

Our discussion section of a research paper should not be longer than other sections. So try to keep it short but as informative as possible. It usually contains around 6-7 paragraphs in length. It is enough to briefly summarize all the important data and not to drag it.

2. What's the difference between the discussion and the results?

The difference between discussion and results is very simple and easy to understand. The results only report your main findings. You stated what you have found and how you have done that. In contrast, one’s discussion mentions your findings and explains how they relate to other literature, research questions, and one’s hypothesis. Therefore, it is not only a report but an efficient as well as proper explanation.

3. What's the difference between a discussion and a conclusion?

The difference between discussion and conclusion is also quite easy. Conclusion is a brief summary of all the findings and results. Still, our favorite discussion section interprets and explains your main results. It is an important but more lengthy and wordy part. Besides, it uses extra literature for references.

4. What is the purpose of the discussion section?

The primary purpose of a discussion section is to interpret and describe all your interesting findings. Therefore, you should state what you have learned, whether your hypothesis was correct and how your results can be explained using other sources. If this section is clear to readers, our congratulations as you have succeeded.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples

How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples

Published on 21 August 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 25 October 2022.

The discussion section is where you delve into the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results .

It should focus on explaining and evaluating what you found, showing how it relates to your literature review , and making an argument in support of your overall conclusion . It should not be a second results section .

There are different ways to write this section, but you can focus your writing around these key elements:

• Summary: A brief recap of your key results
• Interpretations: What do your results mean?
• Implications: Why do your results matter?
• Limitations: What can’t your results tell us?
• Recommendations: Avenues for further studies or analyses

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

What not to include in your discussion section, step 1: summarise your key findings, step 2: give your interpretations, step 3: discuss the implications, step 4: acknowledge the limitations, step 5: share your recommendations, discussion section example.

There are a few common mistakes to avoid when writing the discussion section of your paper.

• Don’t introduce new results: You should only discuss the data that you have already reported in your results section .
• Don’t make inflated claims: Avoid overinterpretation and speculation that isn’t directly supported by your data.
• Don’t undermine your research: The discussion of limitations should aim to strengthen your credibility, not emphasise weaknesses or failures.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

Start this section by reiterating your research problem  and concisely summarising your major findings. Don’t just repeat all the data you have already reported – aim for a clear statement of the overall result that directly answers your main  research question . This should be no more than one paragraph.

Many students struggle with the differences between a discussion section and a results section . The crux of the matter is that your results sections should present your results, and your discussion section should subjectively evaluate them. Try not to blend elements of these two sections, in order to keep your paper sharp.

• The results indicate that …
• The study demonstrates a correlation between …
• This analysis supports the theory that …
• The data suggest  that …

The meaning of your results may seem obvious to you, but it’s important to spell out their significance for your reader, showing exactly how they answer your research question.

The form of your interpretations will depend on the type of research, but some typical approaches to interpreting the data include:

• Identifying correlations , patterns, and relationships among the data
• Discussing whether the results met your expectations or supported your hypotheses
• Contextualising your findings within previous research and theory
• Explaining unexpected results and evaluating their significance
• Considering possible alternative explanations and making an argument for your position

You can organise your discussion around key themes, hypotheses, or research questions, following the same structure as your results section. Alternatively, you can also begin by highlighting the most significant or unexpected results.

• In line with the hypothesis …
• Contrary to the hypothesised association …
• The results contradict the claims of Smith (2007) that …
• The results might suggest that x . However, based on the findings of similar studies, a more plausible explanation is x .

As well as giving your own interpretations, make sure to relate your results back to the scholarly work that you surveyed in the literature review . The discussion should show how your findings fit with existing knowledge, what new insights they contribute, and what consequences they have for theory or practice.

Ask yourself these questions:

• Do your results support or challenge existing theories? If they support existing theories, what new information do they contribute? If they challenge existing theories, why do you think that is?
• Are there any practical implications?

Your overall aim is to show the reader exactly what your research has contributed, and why they should care.

• These results build on existing evidence of …
• The results do not fit with the theory that …
• The experiment provides a new insight into the relationship between …
• These results should be taken into account when considering how to …
• The data contribute a clearer understanding of …
• While previous research has focused on  x , these results demonstrate that y .

Even the best research has its limitations. Acknowledging these is important to demonstrate your credibility. Limitations aren’t about listing your errors, but about providing an accurate picture of what can and cannot be concluded from your study.

Limitations might be due to your overall research design, specific methodological choices , or unanticipated obstacles that emerged during your research process.

Here are a few common possibilities:

• If your sample size was small or limited to a specific group of people, explain how generalisability is limited.
• If you encountered problems when gathering or analysing data, explain how these influenced the results.
• If there are potential confounding variables that you were unable to control, acknowledge the effect these may have had.

After noting the limitations, you can reiterate why the results are nonetheless valid for the purpose of answering your research question.

• The generalisability of the results is limited by …
• The reliability of these data is impacted by …
• Due to the lack of data on x , the results cannot confirm …
• The methodological choices were constrained by …
• It is beyond the scope of this study to …

Based on the discussion of your results, you can make recommendations for practical implementation or further research. Sometimes, the recommendations are saved for the conclusion .

Suggestions for further research can lead directly from the limitations. Don’t just state that more studies should be done – give concrete ideas for how future work can build on areas that your own research was unable to address.

• Further research is needed to establish …
• Future studies should take into account …
• Avenues for future research include …

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, October 25). How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 30 July 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/discussion/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a results section | tips & examples, research paper appendix | example & templates, how to write a thesis or dissertation introduction.

How to Write a Research Proposal: (with Examples & Templates)

Table of Contents

Before conducting a study, a research proposal should be created that outlines researchers’ plans and methodology and is submitted to the concerned evaluating organization or person. Creating a research proposal is an important step to ensure that researchers are on track and are moving forward as intended. A research proposal can be defined as a detailed plan or blueprint for the proposed research that you intend to undertake. It provides readers with a snapshot of your project by describing what you will investigate, why it is needed, and how you will conduct the research.  

Your research proposal should aim to explain to the readers why your research is relevant and original, that you understand the context and current scenario in the field, have the appropriate resources to conduct the research, and that the research is feasible given the usual constraints.  

This article will describe in detail the purpose and typical structure of a research proposal , along with examples and templates to help you ace this step in your research journey.  

What is a Research Proposal ?  

A research proposal¹ ,²  can be defined as a formal report that describes your proposed research, its objectives, methodology, implications, and other important details. Research proposals are the framework of your research and are used to obtain approvals or grants to conduct the study from various committees or organizations. Consequently, research proposals should convince readers of your study’s credibility, accuracy, achievability, practicality, and reproducibility.   

With research proposals , researchers usually aim to persuade the readers, funding agencies, educational institutions, and supervisors to approve the proposal. To achieve this, the report should be well structured with the objectives written in clear, understandable language devoid of jargon. A well-organized research proposal conveys to the readers or evaluators that the writer has thought out the research plan meticulously and has the resources to ensure timely completion.  

Purpose of Research Proposals  

A research proposal is a sales pitch and therefore should be detailed enough to convince your readers, who could be supervisors, ethics committees, universities, etc., that what you’re proposing has merit and is feasible . Research proposals can help students discuss their dissertation with their faculty or fulfill course requirements and also help researchers obtain funding. A well-structured proposal instills confidence among readers about your ability to conduct and complete the study as proposed.  

Research proposals can be written for several reasons:³  

• To describe the importance of research in the specific topic  
• Address any potential challenges you may encounter  
• Showcase knowledge in the field and your ability to conduct a study  
• Apply for a role at a research institute  
• Convince a research supervisor or university that your research can satisfy the requirements of a degree program  
• Highlight the importance of your research to organizations that may sponsor your project  
• Identify implications of your project and how it can benefit the audience  

What Goes in a Research Proposal?    

Research proposals should aim to answer the three basic questions—what, why, and how.  

The What question should be answered by describing the specific subject being researched. It should typically include the objectives, the cohort details, and the location or setting.  

The Why question should be answered by describing the existing scenario of the subject, listing unanswered questions, identifying gaps in the existing research, and describing how your study can address these gaps, along with the implications and significance.  

The How question should be answered by describing the proposed research methodology, data analysis tools expected to be used, and other details to describe your proposed methodology.   

Research Proposal Example  

Here is a research proposal sample template (with examples) from the University of Rochester Medical Center. 4 The sections in all research proposals are essentially the same although different terminology and other specific sections may be used depending on the subject.  

Structure of a Research Proposal  

If you want to know how to make a research proposal impactful, include the following components:¹  

1. Introduction  

This section provides a background of the study, including the research topic, what is already known about it and the gaps, and the significance of the proposed research.  

2. Literature review  

This section contains descriptions of all the previous relevant studies pertaining to the research topic. Every study cited should be described in a few sentences, starting with the general studies to the more specific ones. This section builds on the understanding gained by readers in the Introduction section and supports it by citing relevant prior literature, indicating to readers that you have thoroughly researched your subject.  

3. Objectives  

Once the background and gaps in the research topic have been established, authors must now state the aims of the research clearly. Hypotheses should be mentioned here. This section further helps readers understand what your study’s specific goals are.  

4. Research design and methodology  

Here, authors should clearly describe the methods they intend to use to achieve their proposed objectives. Important components of this section include the population and sample size, data collection and analysis methods and duration, statistical analysis software, measures to avoid bias (randomization, blinding), etc.  

5. Ethical considerations  

This refers to the protection of participants’ rights, such as the right to privacy, right to confidentiality, etc. Researchers need to obtain informed consent and institutional review approval by the required authorities and mention this clearly for transparency.  

6. Budget/funding  

Researchers should prepare their budget and include all expected expenditures. An additional allowance for contingencies such as delays should also be factored in.  

7. Appendices  

This section typically includes information that supports the research proposal and may include informed consent forms, questionnaires, participant information, measurement tools, etc.  

8. Citations  

Important Tips for Writing a Research Proposal  

Writing a research proposal begins much before the actual task of writing. Planning the research proposal structure and content is an important stage, which if done efficiently, can help you seamlessly transition into the writing stage. 3,5  

The Planning Stage  

• Manage your time efficiently. Plan to have the draft version ready at least two weeks before your deadline and the final version at least two to three days before the deadline.
• What is the primary objective of your research?  
• Will your research address any existing gap?  
• What is the impact of your proposed research?  
• Do people outside your field find your research applicable in other areas?  
• If your research is unsuccessful, would there still be other useful research outcomes?  

  The Writing Stage  

• Create an outline with main section headings that are typically used.  
• Focus only on writing and getting your points across without worrying about the format of the research proposal , grammar, punctuation, etc. These can be fixed during the subsequent passes. Add details to each section heading you created in the beginning.   
• Ensure your sentences are concise and use plain language. A research proposal usually contains about 2,000 to 4,000 words or four to seven pages.  
• Don’t use too many technical terms and abbreviations assuming that the readers would know them. Define the abbreviations and technical terms.  
• Ensure that the entire content is readable. Avoid using long paragraphs because they affect the continuity in reading. Break them into shorter paragraphs and introduce some white space for readability.  
• Focus on only the major research issues and cite sources accordingly. Don’t include generic information or their sources in the literature review.  
• Proofread your final document to ensure there are no grammatical errors so readers can enjoy a seamless, uninterrupted read.  
• Use academic, scholarly language because it brings formality into a document.  
• Ensure that your title is created using the keywords in the document and is neither too long and specific nor too short and general.  
• Cite all sources appropriately to avoid plagiarism.  
• Make sure that you follow guidelines, if provided. This includes rules as simple as using a specific font or a hyphen or en dash between numerical ranges.  
• Ensure that you’ve answered all questions requested by the evaluating authority.  

Key Takeaways   

Here’s a summary of the main points about research proposals discussed in the previous sections:  

• A research proposal is a document that outlines the details of a proposed study and is created by researchers to submit to evaluators who could be research institutions, universities, faculty, etc.  
• Research proposals are usually about 2,000-4,000 words long, but this depends on the evaluating authority’s guidelines.  
• A good research proposal ensures that you’ve done your background research and assessed the feasibility of the research.  
• Research proposals have the following main sections—introduction, literature review, objectives, methodology, ethical considerations, and budget.  

Frequently Asked Questions  

Q1. How is a research proposal evaluated?  

A1. In general, most evaluators, including universities, broadly use the following criteria to evaluate research proposals . 6  

• Significance —Does the research address any important subject or issue, which may or may not be specific to the evaluator or university?  
• Content and design —Is the proposed methodology appropriate to answer the research question? Are the objectives clear and well aligned with the proposed methodology?  
• Sample size and selection —Is the target population or cohort size clearly mentioned? Is the sampling process used to select participants randomized, appropriate, and free of bias?  
• Timing —Are the proposed data collection dates mentioned clearly? Is the project feasible given the specified resources and timeline?  
• Data management and dissemination —Who will have access to the data? What is the plan for data analysis?  

Q2. What is the difference between the Introduction and Literature Review sections in a research proposal ?  

A2. The Introduction or Background section in a research proposal sets the context of the study by describing the current scenario of the subject and identifying the gaps and need for the research. A Literature Review, on the other hand, provides references to all prior relevant literature to help corroborate the gaps identified and the research need.  

Q3. How long should a research proposal be?  

A3. Research proposal lengths vary with the evaluating authority like universities or committees and also the subject. Here’s a table that lists the typical research proposal lengths for a few universities.  

Q4. What are the common mistakes to avoid in a research proposal ?  

A4. Here are a few common mistakes that you must avoid while writing a research proposal . 7  

• No clear objectives: Objectives should be clear, specific, and measurable for the easy understanding among readers.  
• Incomplete or unconvincing background research: Background research usually includes a review of the current scenario of the particular industry and also a review of the previous literature on the subject. This helps readers understand your reasons for undertaking this research because you identified gaps in the existing research.  
• Overlooking project feasibility: The project scope and estimates should be realistic considering the resources and time available.   
• Neglecting the impact and significance of the study: In a research proposal , readers and evaluators look for the implications or significance of your research and how it contributes to the existing research. This information should always be included.  
• Unstructured format of a research proposal : A well-structured document gives confidence to evaluators that you have read the guidelines carefully and are well organized in your approach, consequently affirming that you will be able to undertake the research as mentioned in your proposal.  
• Ineffective writing style: The language used should be formal and grammatically correct. If required, editors could be consulted, including AI-based tools such as Paperpal , to refine the research proposal structure and language.  

Thus, a research proposal is an essential document that can help you promote your research and secure funds and grants for conducting your research. Consequently, it should be well written in clear language and include all essential details to convince the evaluators of your ability to conduct the research as proposed.  

This article has described all the important components of a research proposal and has also provided tips to improve your writing style. We hope all these tips will help you write a well-structured research proposal to ensure receipt of grants or any other purpose.  

References  

• Sudheesh K, Duggappa DR, Nethra SS. How to write a research proposal? Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60(9):631-634. Accessed July 15, 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5037942/  
• Writing research proposals. Harvard College Office of Undergraduate Research and Fellowships. Harvard University. Accessed July 14, 2024. https://uraf.harvard.edu/apply-opportunities/app-components/essays/research-proposals  
• What is a research proposal? Plus how to write one. Indeed website. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/research-proposal  
• Research proposal template. University of Rochester Medical Center. Accessed July 16, 2024. https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/MediaLibraries/URMCMedia/pediatrics/research/documents/Research-proposal-Template.pdf  
• Tips for successful proposal writing. Johns Hopkins University. Accessed July 17, 2024. https://research.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Tips-for-Successful-Proposal-Writing.pdf  
• Formal review of research proposals. Cornell University. Accessed July 18, 2024. https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/surveys/survey-assessment-review-group/research-proposals  
• 7 Mistakes you must avoid in your research proposal. Aveksana (via LinkedIn). Accessed July 17, 2024. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-mistakes-you-must-avoid-your-research-proposal-aveksana-cmtwf/  

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• How to Paraphrase Research Papers Effectively
• How to Cite Social Media Sources in Academic Writing? 
• What is the Importance of a Concept Paper and How to Write It 

APA format: Basic Guide for Researchers

You may also like, how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), five things authors need to know when using..., 7 best referencing tools and citation management software..., maintaining academic integrity with paperpal’s generative ai writing..., research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements.

Verify originality of an essay

Get ideas for your paper

Find top study documents

Discover How to Write a Discussion Section of a Research Paper

Updated 25 Jul 2024

When working on a research paper, one of the most important parts you must include is the discussion or the analytical section where you outline your findings. While it is almost the final part of an academic research paper, learning how to use it correctly without keeping things cluttered is essential. This article will help you understand the specifics regarding the discussion section of a research paper. You will learn why this section must be implemented, what to consider, and what things to avoid. This guide shall provide you with the structure and the basic rules. 

What is the discussion section of a research paper?

Speaking of an academic definition, a good discussion section in a research paper should provide a comprehensive analysis of any findings that you have encountered , especially when it's something unexpected. Since the talk is about the final part of your research, you must keep things condensed and realize that your target audience already knows the subject. It means that you have to analyze and interpret your findings. Once done, you must provide a brief significance of what you have discussed by bringing things back to the primary research objectives. In a certain sense, you must show the importance of what you have studied or an issue that has been brought up. 

What is the purpose of a discussion section? 

Your discussion must represent a brief review, so you must analyze and evaluate your research paper first. If you are not finished with your exploration yet, do not start with the discussion section because the purpose is to provide a clear context by discussing what’s already done. The purpose is to take each part of the preceding sections and make it easier for your target audience to connect the dots.

You have to provide at least three parts in your discussion section of a research paper, where you include an interpretation , an analytical part , and an explanation . It means you have to talk to your readers and provide a review by showing why your outcome is important and how it fits within the science. At the same time, you must remain self-critical and mention the limitations that you have encountered. If you require assistance, consider getting professional  research paper help for valuable guidance.

How long should the discussion section of a research paper be? 

The length aspect is tricky because your general requirements may differ depending on your subject and the total length of your research paper. The common rule is that your "Discussion" part should not be longer than the sum of other sections. You have to keep it within 6-7 paragraphs. The median discussion length is usually between 1100 and 2200 words. 

In a certain sense, your length will always relate to the number of your findings. Do not repeat your findings word after word because the purpose is to include a concise statement by dividing your total amount of words for three vital sections. 

Structure of discussion section of a research paper 

The most challenging part for college and university students is the structure of the discussion part of the research paper. As we have already learned, three sub-sections must be included. As an author, starting with a discussion in a research paper, you have to provide three main objectives, or contact someone to write my discussion post for you. 

• Discussion of your research paper. You have to start with the main objectives and answers that explain your research and the brief background of the methodology you have taken. It should be up to five sentences. Include your main thesis and remind your target audience about the key elements of your study. 
• Analysis of your findings. The middle part of your "Discussion" section should provide analytical writing. It should include a brief comparison with the previous research papers with references. The purpose is to support your study and the methods you have taken. This is where you start with interpreting your results and defend the answers as the introduction to your findings. 
• Interpretation of the research results. In the final section of your discussion, you must discuss your study's strengths and limitations by interpreting the results in greater depth. Discuss how your findings relate to the objectives that you have taken before. The tone of your structure must show that the research has been completed. Talk about the conclusion of your study and discuss the significance of your research paper. If it fills the gap in a certain field of study, mention it as well. 

When you are done with your structure and the notes, you have to understand that it is not the conclusion section because you have to talk and do a short review. It means that you have to learn how to write a research summary and always take all the key points as you explain things in writing. It is exactly what you must do when you think over your structure, where you go step by step to make your research paper or essay sound clear. 

How to write the discussion section of a research paper: 7 steps 

Step 1:  Read your research and always take notes. Start by reading through the previous sections of your research by taking notes of all the important elements. 

For example, if your research paper focuses on children’s literature and the interest among the kids, set your objectives to remind what you will discuss. It may start with: “The importance of studying young authors and the classics of children’s literature has been supported by the children’s book shows and social initiatives. The statistical data and research surveys have shown that the social campaigns boost the interest among the young readers”. 

Step 2:  Outline your main thesis objectives. Feel free to provide your thesis in a different, more condensed way. Once again, if we are dealing with a certain subject, it has to be related to the main problem. 

Suppose we are dealing with Digital Marketing and logistics in the post-Covid world. In that case, it has to be something like that: “The digital marketing in 2023 has been based on the lessons that we have learned during the pandemic times, which shows that the future of digital sales will relate to what we already know”. 

Step 3: Introduce your findings. Once you have introduced your main research subject, you should discuss what you could learn. It should not be a carbon copy of the results because you have to interpret them clearly, as if you are talking to a good friend. 

If you are studying autistic children, your example of discussion in the research paper can be like that: “The methodology used has shown that the use of technology apps helps the autistic children learn with the help of AI-based tools and seek the safe methods of communication. Based on statistical data, we can see that virtual classrooms have increased the learning time by at least 67%”. 

Step 4: Provide an analysis of the process. You should offer an analytical tone next as you discuss your research paper. It is one of the most challenging aspects that must be done. 

Suppose you are studying ER Nursing and the burnout problem. In that case, your discussion part of a research paper will be this way: “While the research methods used have been mostly limited to surveys and questionnaires, the majority of the nurses have also kept to journaling and the diaries. It has shown that most ER nursing personnel wish to join free Psychology courses to manage the stress”. 

Step 5:  Interpret the pros and cons of research. Do not pick only the good or the bad parts as you provide an interpretation. It means that you must include all sides of your research as you look at the findings. 

An example of this part in the field of Education would be this way: “ The Learning Management Systems that have been researched have shown that while they are flexible and accessible, there are still mental aspects like an emotional bonding. It shows that the physical presence of a teacher will never replace the virtual assistants”.  

Step 6:  Limitations and the results. It is where you should talk about the limitations and the challenges you have faced. 

For example, when you research Modern Fashion, your limitations may look this way: “Since there was a small sample of the customers that could visit the shops in person, it creates a specific group that differs from the online customers who could see the items differently. It shows that the sample group used has been quite biased”. 

Step 7: The place of your research in the scientific realm. In other words, it should show how your results fit within the local scientific community and/or the world. 

A discussion section of a research paper example for the field of Legal Studies will look this way: “It shows that the Freedom of Speech in practice is not the same aspect as the theoretical paradigm one studies during the academic course. The practical side of freedom done in this research shows why it is important to conduct field sessions based on the actual case studies”. 

What to avoid in a discussion section? 

The majority of modern students often need help understanding what must be done. When you explore your notes and look back at the previous sections, it is important to ensure that you are not missing something important or do not repeat aspects that have already been discussed. Keeping all the challenges on how to write the discussion section of a research paper in mind, our experts developed a basic checklist regarding things you must avoid as you work on your discussion section. Furthermore, you can find cheap research papers here, ensuring you can overcome any problems while staying within your budget.

• Don't copy your research results section! Although you should provide information about your research results, there are other objectives than this! You have to interpret the results and not only state them repeatedly. Your tone must be analytical, as you do not have to keep things up to a simple summary. Explain your results and discuss as you evaluate the pros and cons of the findings by staying unbiased and honest. 
• Make arguments with at least one piece of evidence! When you talk about your findings, you have to offer support and examples that relate to your research. It can be a case study or a research reference. A quote or statistical data should back up your explanations. At the same time, do just what is necessary and ensure you stay within your scientific field. Only make assumptions or start with an interdisciplinary approach if it is absolutely necessary! 
• Connect the dots with your target audience! Remember to provide information in a special way that would connect all of the previous sections. If there is some important statistical data, mention it again and point out why it’s essential for your research results. 
• Only introduce information that has been included before! Your discussion should talk about what has been mentioned in the previous sections. Only add information that could make things clear. The purpose of discussion in a research paper is to base things on what you already have! If you have a new idea, incorporate it in the past parts and discuss it in your following section. Do not forget to include anything new in the "Results" section to ensure that everything remains equal. 
• Only pick some of the essential and positive aspects. Since you have to interpret your findings, pick some crucial facts that make your research sound good. Even if your work could not address the problem or an issue that has been researched, say so! It is absolutely fine to provide an honest answer as you have to discuss your limitations. Discuss and explain why something has happened or why your research did not work by explaining. 

Making your discussion section inspiring 

Now, what is the discussion section of a research paper to sum things up? It is a piece of writing that should motivate your readers and even make a call to action as you talk about your take's advantages and the limitations you have faced. When you discuss something, it should briefly explain your research. If a person starts reading your research from this section, it should represent an executive plan that instantly explains every single bit. Always start with a research paper thesis statement because it will remind the readers about your main goals and show how it has been achieved and what barriers have been encountered. The golden rule of research writing will help you narrow things down and keep your writing condensed, inspiring, and clear! 

What is the main focus of the discussion section? 

It is to provide your readers with a clear explanation, analysis, and interpretation of what you could find as a researcher. Create a small review of your research to showcase all the advantages achieved. If a certain section provides the summary, it should be included in your discussion. Do not explain your methodology at greater length or repeat your thesis alone because you have to discuss and explain why your research is helpful. Most importantly, always show how your research findings fit within the main scientific field. 

What to include in the discussion section of a research paper? 

Let us assume a simple example: when you are writing a research paper on domestic abuse in Chile. Your discussion section should pose a thesis statement in the beginning and discuss why it is important and what objectives have been set. In the next part, you should explain your findings as to the reasons why domestic abuse happens and what solutions have been used. It must be based on the thesis and methodology without getting too deep. Once done, talk about the strong and the weak parts by analyzing your take on the problem. Offer an interpretation of how your research paper will help to address the problem not only in Chile but globally as well.

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

Written by Meredith Anderson

Meredith, a dedicated editor at EduBirdie, specializes in academic writing. Her keen eye for grammar and structure ensures flawless papers, while her insightful feedback helps students improve their writing skills and achieve higher grades.

Related Blog Posts

Guide on how to write an abstract for a research paper with examples.

An Abstract in a Research Paper: Definition The chances are high that you have already seen an abstract section in a research paper as you brow...

What is qualitative research? Approaches, methods, and examples

Students in social sciences frequently seek to understand how people feel, think, and behave in specific situations or relationships that evolve ov...

Delimitations in research: meaning, types, and examples

Working on academic papers can make it easy to feel overwhelmed by the huge amount of available data and information. One of the most crucial consi...

Join our 150K of happy users

• Get original papers written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Writing a Research Proposal

• Purpose of Guide
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• The Research Problem/Question
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Evaluating Sources
• Reading Research Effectively
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Is it Peer-Reviewed?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism [linked guide]
• Annotated Bibliography
• Grading Someone Else's Paper

The goal of a research proposal is to present and justify the need to study a research problem and to present the practical ways in which the proposed study should be conducted. The design elements and procedures for conducting the research are governed by standards within the predominant discipline in which the problem resides, so guidelines for research proposals are more exacting and less formal than a general project proposal. Research proposals contain extensive literature reviews. They must provide persuasive evidence that a need exists for the proposed study. In addition to providing a rationale, a proposal describes detailed methodology for conducting the research consistent with requirements of the professional or academic field and a statement on anticipated outcomes and/or benefits derived from the study's completion.

Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005.

How to Approach Writing a Research Proposal

Your professor may assign the task of writing a research proposal for the following reasons:

• Develop your skills in thinking about and designing a comprehensive research study;
• Learn how to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature to ensure a research problem has not already been answered [or you may determine the problem has been answered ineffectively] and, in so doing, become better at locating scholarship related to your topic;
• Improve your general research and writing skills;
• Practice identifying the logical steps that must be taken to accomplish one's research goals;
• Critically review, examine, and consider the use of different methods for gathering and analyzing data related to the research problem; and,
• Nurture a sense of inquisitiveness within yourself and to help see yourself as an active participant in the process of doing scholarly research.

A proposal should contain all the key elements involved in designing a completed research study, with sufficient information that allows readers to assess the validity and usefulness of your proposed study. The only elements missing from a research proposal are the findings of the study and your analysis of those results. Finally, an effective proposal is judged on the quality of your writing and, therefore, it is important that your writing is coherent, clear, and compelling.

Regardless of the research problem you are investigating and the methodology you choose, all research proposals must address the following questions:

• What do you plan to accomplish? Be clear and succinct in defining the research problem and what it is you are proposing to research.
• Why do you want to do it? In addition to detailing your research design, you also must conduct a thorough review of the literature and provide convincing evidence that it is a topic worthy of study. Be sure to answer the "So What?" question.
• How are you going to do it? Be sure that what you propose is doable. If you're having trouble formulating a research problem to propose investigating, go here .

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Failure to be concise; being "all over the map" without a clear sense of purpose.
• Failure to cite landmark works in your literature review.
• Failure to delimit the contextual boundaries of your research [e.g., time, place, people, etc.].
• Failure to develop a coherent and persuasive argument for the proposed research.
• Failure to stay focused on the research problem; going off on unrelated tangents.
• Sloppy or imprecise writing, or poor grammar.
• Too much detail on minor issues, but not enough detail on major issues.

Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal .  The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sanford, Keith. Information for Students: Writing a Research Proposal . Baylor University; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal . International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences, Articles, and Books . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal . University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Structure and Writing Style

Beginning the Proposal Process

As with writing a regular academic paper, research proposals are generally organized the same way throughout most social science disciplines. Proposals vary between ten and twenty-five pages in length. However, before you begin, read the assignment carefully and, if anything seems unclear, ask your professor whether there are any specific requirements for organizing and writing the proposal.

A good place to begin is to ask yourself a series of questions:

• What do I want to study?
• Why is the topic important?
• How is it significant within the subject areas covered in my class?
• What problems will it help solve?
• How does it build upon [and hopefully go beyond] research already conducted on the topic?
• What exactly should I plan to do, and can I get it done in the time available?

In general, a compelling research proposal should document your knowledge of the topic and demonstrate your enthusiasm for conducting the study. Approach it with the intention of leaving your readers feeling like--"Wow, that's an exciting idea and I can’t wait to see how it turns out!"

In general your proposal should include the following sections:

I.  Introduction

In the real world of higher education, a research proposal is most often written by scholars seeking grant funding for a research project or it's the first step in getting approval to write a doctoral dissertation. Even if this is just a course assignment, treat your introduction as the initial pitch of an idea or a thorough examination of the significance of a research problem. After reading the introduction, your readers should not only have an understanding of what you want to do, but they should also be able to gain a sense of your passion for the topic and be excited about the study's possible outcomes. Note that most proposals do not include an abstract [summary] before the introduction.

Think about your introduction as a narrative written in one to three paragraphs that succinctly answers the following four questions :

• What is the central research problem?
• What is the topic of study related to that problem?
• What methods should be used to analyze the research problem?
• Why is this important research, what is its significance, and why should someone reading the proposal care about the outcomes of the proposed study?

II.  Background and Significance

This section can be melded into your introduction or you can create a separate section to help with the organization and narrative flow of your proposal. This is where you explain the context of your proposal and describe in detail why it's important. Approach writing this section with the thought that you can’t assume your readers will know as much about the research problem as you do. Note that this section is not an essay going over everything you have learned about the topic; instead, you must choose what is relevant to help explain the goals for your study.

To that end, while there are no hard and fast rules, you should attempt to address some or all of the following key points:

• State the research problem and give a more detailed explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction. This is particularly important if the problem is complex or multifaceted .
• Present the rationale of your proposed study and clearly indicate why it is worth doing. Answer the "So What? question [i.e., why should anyone care].
• Describe the major issues or problems to be addressed by your research. Be sure to note how your proposed study builds on previous assumptions about the research problem.
• Explain how you plan to go about conducting your research. Clearly identify the key sources you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to your analysis of the topic.
• Set the boundaries of your proposed research in order to provide a clear focus. Where appropriate, state not only what you will study, but what is excluded from the study.
• If necessary, provide definitions of key concepts or terms.

III.  Literature Review

Connected to the background and significance of your study is a section of your proposal devoted to a more deliberate review and synthesis of prior studies related to the research problem under investigation . The purpose here is to place your project within the larger whole of what is currently being explored, while demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methods they have used, and what is your understanding of their findings and, where stated, their recommendations. Do not be afraid to challenge the conclusions of prior research. Assess what you believe is missing and state how previous research has failed to adequately examine the issue that your study addresses. For more information on writing literature reviews, GO HERE .

Since a literature review is information dense, it is crucial that this section is intelligently structured to enable a reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your study in relation to that of other researchers. A good strategy is to break the literature into "conceptual categories" [themes] rather than systematically describing groups of materials one at a time. Note that conceptual categories generally reveal themselves after you have read most of the pertinent literature on your topic so adding new categories is an on-going process of discovery as you read more studies. How do you know you've covered the key conceptual categories underlying the research literature? Generally, you can have confidence that all of the significant conceptual categories have been identified if you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations that are being made.

To help frame your proposal's literature review, here are the "five C’s" of writing a literature review:

• Cite , so as to keep the primary focus on the literature pertinent to your research problem.
• Compare the various arguments, theories, methodologies, and findings expressed in the literature: what do the authors agree on? Who applies similar approaches to analyzing the research problem?
• Contrast the various arguments, themes, methodologies, approaches, and controversies expressed in the literature: what are the major areas of disagreement, controversy, or debate?
• Critique the literature: Which arguments are more persuasive, and why? Which approaches, findings, methodologies seem most reliable, valid, or appropriate, and why? Pay attention to the verbs you use to describe what an author says/does [e.g., asserts, demonstrates, argues, etc.] .
• Connect the literature to your own area of research and investigation: how does your own work draw upon, depart from, synthesize, or add a new perspective to what has been said in the literature?

IV.  Research Design and Methods

This section must be well-written and logically organized because you are not actually doing the research, yet, your reader must have confidence that it is worth pursuing . The reader will never have a study outcome from which to evaluate whether your methodological choices were the correct ones. Thus, the objective here is to convince the reader that your overall research design and methods of analysis will correctly address the problem and that the methods will provide the means to effectively interpret the potential results. Your design and methods should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

Describe the overall research design by building upon and drawing examples from your review of the literature. Consider not only methods that other researchers have used but methods of data gathering that have not been used but perhaps could be. Be specific about the methodological approaches you plan to undertake to obtain information, the techniques you would use to analyze the data, and the tests of external validity to which you commit yourself [i.e., the trustworthiness by which you can generalize from your study to other people, places, events, and/or periods of time].

When describing the methods you will use, be sure to cover the following:

• Specify the research operations you will undertake and the way you will interpret the results of these operations in relation to the research problem. Don't just describe what you intend to achieve from applying the methods you choose, but state how you will spend your time while applying these methods [e.g., coding text from interviews to find statements about the need to change school curriculum; running a regression to determine if there is a relationship between campaign advertising on social media sites and election outcomes in Europe ].
• Keep in mind that a methodology is not just a list of tasks; it is an argument as to why these tasks add up to the best way to investigate the research problem. This is an important point because the mere listing of tasks to be performed does not demonstrate that, collectively, they effectively address the research problem. Be sure you explain this.
• Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers and pitfalls in carrying out your research design and explain how you plan to address them. No method is perfect so you need to describe where you believe challenges may exist in obtaining data or accessing information. It's always better to acknowledge this than to have it brought up by your reader.

Develop a Research Proposal: Writing the Proposal . Office of Library Information Services. Baltimore County Public Schools; Heath, M. Teresa Pereira and Caroline Tynan. “Crafting a Research Proposal.” The Marketing Review 10 (Summer 2010): 147-168; Jones, Mark. “Writing a Research Proposal.” In MasterClass in Geography Education: Transforming Teaching and Learning . Graham Butt, editor. (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), pp. 113-127; Juni, Muhamad Hanafiah. “Writing a Research Proposal.” International Journal of Public Health and Clinical Sciences 1 (September/October 2014): 229-240; Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005; Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal . The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Punch, Keith and Wayne McGowan. "Developing and Writing a Research Proposal." In From Postgraduate to Social Scientist: A Guide to Key Skills . Nigel Gilbert, ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006), 59-81; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal . International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences, Articles, and Books . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal . University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

• << Previous: Purpose of Guide
• Next: Types of Research Designs >>
• Last Updated: Sep 8, 2023 12:19 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.txstate.edu/socialscienceresearch

Writing a Research Proposal

Parts of a research proposal, prosana model, introduction, research question, methodology.

• Structure of a Research Proposal
• Common Proposal Writing Mistakes
• Proposal Writing Resources

A research proposal's purpose is to capture the evaluator's attention, demonstrate the study's potential benefits, and prove that it is a logical and consistent approach (Van Ekelenburg, 2010).  To ensure that your research proposal contains these elements, there are several aspects to include in your proposal (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• Objective(s)
• Variables (independent and dependent)
• Research Question and/or hypothesis

Details about what to include in each element are included in the boxes below.  Depending on the topic of your study, some parts may not apply to your proposal.  You can also watch the video below for a brief overview about writing a successful research proposal.

Van Ekelenburg (2010) uses the PROSANA Model to guide researchers in developing rationale and justification for their research projects.  It is an acronym that connects the problem, solution, and benefits of a particular research project.  It is an easy way to remember the critical parts of a research proposal and how they relate to one another.  It includes the following letters (Van Ekelenburg, 2010):

• Problem: Describing the main problem that the researcher is trying to solve.
• Root causes: Describing what is causing the problem.  Why is the topic an issue?
• fOcus: Narrowing down one of the underlying causes on which the researcher will focus for their research project.
• Solutions: Listing potential solutions or approaches to fix to the problem.  There could be more than one.
• Approach: Selecting the solution that the researcher will want to focus on.
• Novelty: Describing how the solution will address or solve the problem.
• Arguments: Explaining how the proposed solution will benefit the problem.

Research proposal titles should be concise and to the point, but informative.  The title of your proposal may be different from the title of your final research project, but that is completely normal!  Your findings may help you come up with a title that is more fitting for the final project.  Characteristics of good proposal titles are (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• Catchy: It catches the reader's attention by peaking their interest.
• Positive: It spins your project in a positive way towards the reader.
• Transparent: It identifies the independent and dependent variables.

It is also common for proposal titles to be very similar to your research question, hypothesis, or thesis statement (Locke et al., 2007).

An abstract is a brief summary (about 300 words) of the study you are proposing.  It includes the following elements (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• Your primary research question(s).
• Hypothesis or main argument.
• Method you will use to complete the study.  This may include the design, sample population, or measuring instruments that you plan to use.

Our guide on writing summaries may help you with this step.

• Writing a Summary by Luann Edwards Last Updated May 22, 2023 2568 views this year

The purpose of the introduction is to give readers background information about your topic.  it gives the readers a basic understanding of your topic so that they can further understand the significance of your proposal.  A good introduction will explain (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• How it relates to other research done on the topic
• Why your research is significant to the field
• The relevance of your study

Your research objectives are the desired outcomes that you will achieve from the research project.  Depending on your research design, these may be generic or very specific.  You may also have more than one objective (Al-Riyami, 2008).

• General objectives are what the research project will accomplish
• Specific objectives relate to the research questions that the researcher aims to answer through the study.

Be careful not to have too many objectives in your proposal, as having too many can make your project lose focus.  Plus, it may not be possible to achieve several objectives in one study.

This section describes the different types of variables that you plan to have in your study and how you will measure them.  According to Al-Riyami (2008), there are four types of research variables:

• Independent:  The person, object, or idea that is manipulated by the researcher.
• Dependent:  The person, object, or idea whose changes are dependent upon the independent variable.  Typically, it is the item that the researcher is measuring for the study.
• Confounding/Intervening:  Factors that may influence the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable.  These include physical and mental barriers.  Not every study will have intervening variables, but they should be studied if applicable.
• Background:   Factors that are relevant to the study's data and how it can be generalized.  Examples include demographic information such as age, sex, and ethnicity.

Your research proposal should describe each of your variables and how they relate to one another.  Depending on your study, you may not have all four types of variables present.  However, there will always be an independent and dependent variable.

A research question is the main piece of your research project because it explains what your study will discover to the reader.  It is the question that fuels the study, so it is important for it to be precise and unique.  You do not want it to be too broad, and it should identify a relationship between two variables (an independent and a dependent) (Al-Riyami, 2008).  There are six types of research questions (Academic Writer, n.d.):

• Example: "Do people get nervous before speaking in front of an audience?"
• Example: "What are the study habits of college freshmen at Tiffin University?"
• Example: "What primary traits create a successful romantic relationship?"
• Example: "Is there a relationship between a child's performance in school and their parents' socioeconomic status?"
• Example: "Are high school seniors more motivated than high school freshmen?"
• Example: "Do news media outlets impact a person's political opinions?"

For more information on the different types of research questions, you can view the "Research Questions and Hypotheses" tutorial on Academic Writer, located below.  If you are unfamiliar with Academic Writer, we also have a tutorial on using the database located below.

Compose papers in pre-formatted APA templates. Manage references in forms that help craft APA citations. Learn the rules of APA style through tutorials and practice quizzes.

Academic Writer will continue to use the 6th edition guidelines until August 2020. A preview of the 7th edition is available in the footer of the resource's site. Previously known as APA Style Central.

• Academic Writer Tutorial by Pfeiffer Library Last Updated May 22, 2023 34065 views this year

If you know enough about your research topic that you believe a particular outcome may occur as a result of the study, you can include a hypothesis (thesis statement) in your proposal.  A hypothesis is a prediction that you believe will be the outcome of your study.  It explains what you think the relationship will be between the independent and dependent variable (Al-Riyami, 2008).  It is ok if the hypothesis in your proposal turns out to be incorrect, because it is only a prediction!  If you are writing a proposal in the humanities, you may be writing a thesis statement instead of a hypothesis.  A thesis presents the main argument of your research project and leads to corresponding evidence to support your argument.

Hypotheses vs. Theories

Hypotheses are different from theories in that theories represent general principles and sets of rules that explain different phenomena.  They typically represent large areas of study because they are applicable to anything in a particular field.  Hypotheses focus on specific areas within a field and are educated guesses, meaning that they have the potential to be proven wrong (Academic Writer, n.d.).  Because of this, hypotheses can also be formed from theories.

For more information on writing effective thesis statements, you can view our guide on writing thesis statements below.

• Writing Effective Thesis Statements by Luann Edwards Last Updated May 23, 2023 474 views this year

In a research proposal, you must thoroughly explain how you will conduct your study.  This includes things such as (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• Research design:  What research approach will your study take?  Will it be quantitative or qualitative?
• Research subjects/participants:  Who will be participating in your study?  Does your study require human participants?  How will you determine who to study?
• Sample size:  How many participants will your study require?  If you are not using human participants, how much of the sample will you be studying?
• Timeline:  A proposed list of the general tasks and events that you plan to complete the study.  This will include a time frame for each task/event and the order in which they will be completed.
• Interventions:  If you plan on using anything on human participants for the study, you must include information it here.  This is especially important if you plan on using any substances on human subjects.
• Ethical issues:  Are there any potential ethical issues surrounding this study?
• Potential limitations:  Are there any limitations that could skew the data and findings from your study?
• Appendixes:  If you need to present any consent forms, interview questions, surveys, questionnaires, or other items that will be used in your study, you should include samples of each item with an appendix to reference them.  If you are using a copyrighted document, you may need written permission from the original creator to use it in your study.  A copy of the written permission should be included in your proposal.
• Setting:  Where will you be conducting the study?
• Study instruments:  What measuring tools or computer software will you be using to collect data?  How will you collect the data?
• How you will analyze the data:  What strategies or tools will you use to analyze the data you collect?
• Quality control:  Will you have precautions in place to ensure that the study is conducted consistently and that outside factors will not skew the data?
• Budget:  What type of funding will you need for your study?  This will include the funds needed to afford measuring tools, software, etc.
• How you will share the study's findings:  What will you plan to do with the findings?
• Significance of the study: How will your study expand on existing knowledge of the subject area?

For more information on research methodologies, you can view our guide on research methods and methodologies below.

• Research Methodologies by Pfeiffer Library Last Updated Aug 2, 2022 40625 views this year
• << Previous: Welcome
• Next: Structure of a Research Proposal >>
• Last Updated: May 22, 2023 10:46 AM
• URL: https://library.tiffin.edu/writingaresearchproposal

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Consensus Statement
• Published: 19 July 2024

Reporting guidelines for precision medicine research of clinical relevance: the BePRECISE checklist

• Siew S. Lim 1 ,
• Zhila Semnani-Azad   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7822-5072 2 ,
• Mario L. Morieri   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6864-0547 3 , 4 ,
• Ashley H. Ng 5 , 6 , 7 ,
• Abrar Ahmad 8 ,
• Hugo Fitipaldi 8 ,
• Jacqueline Boyle 1 ,
• Christian Collin 9 ,
• John M. Dennis   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7171-732X 10 ,
• Claudia Langenberg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5017-7344 7 , 11 ,
• Ruth J. F. Loos 12 , 13 ,
• Melinda Morrison 14 ,
• Michele Ramsay   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4156-4801 15 ,
• Arun J. Sanyal   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8682-5748 16 ,
• Naveed Sattar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1604-2593 17 ,
• Marie-France Hivert   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7752-2585 18 ,
• Maria F. Gomez   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6210-3142 8 ,
• Jordi Merino   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8312-1438 12 , 19 , 20 , 21 ,
• Deirdre K. Tobias 2 , 22 ,
• Michael I. Trenell 23 ,
• Stephen S. Rich   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3872-7793 24 ,
• Jennifer L. Sargent 25 &
• Paul W. Franks   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0520-7604 2 , 26  

Nature Medicine volume  30 ,  pages 1874–1881 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

3898 Accesses

98 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Medical research
• Translational research

Precision medicine should aspire to reduce error and improve accuracy in medical and health recommendations by comparison with contemporary practice, while maintaining safety and cost-effectiveness. The etiology, clinical manifestation and prognosis of diseases such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease and fatty liver disease are heterogeneous. Without standardized reporting, this heterogeneity, combined with the diversity of research tools used in precision medicine studies, makes comparisons across studies and implementation of the findings challenging. Specific recommendations for reporting precision medicine research do not currently exist. The BePRECISE (Better Precision-data Reporting of Evidence from Clinical Intervention Studies & Epidemiology) consortium, comprising 23 experts in precision medicine, cardiometabolic diseases, statistics, editorial and lived experience, conducted a scoping review and participated in a modified Delphi and nominal group technique process to develop guidelines for reporting precision medicine research. The BePRECISE checklist comprises 23 items organized into 5 sections that align with typical sections of a scientific publication. A specific section about health equity serves to encourage precision medicine research to be inclusive of individuals and communities that are traditionally under-represented in clinical research and/or underserved by health systems. Adoption of BePRECISE by investigators, reviewers and editors will facilitate and accelerate equitable clinical implementation of precision medicine.

Similar content being viewed by others

Translating evidence into practice: eligibility criteria fail to eliminate clinically significant differences between real-world and study populations

The Burden of Proof studies: assessing the evidence of risk

Constructing a finer-grained representation of clinical trial results from ClinicalTrials.gov

Precision medicine represents an evolution in the long history of evidence-based medicine and healthcare. Spanning disease classifications and risk factor boundaries, precision medicine is underpinned by four key ‘pillars’ (prevention, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis) 1 , 2 . The overarching objective of precision medicine is to reduce error and improve accuracy in medical and health recommendations compared with contemporary approaches 3 . Precision medicine solutions should meet or improve on existing standards for safety. They should also be compatible with the individual’s preferences, capabilities and needs and tailored to the cultural and societal conditions of the population. Furthermore, precision medicine should be cost-effective and enhance health equity by increasing access to better medical and healthcare practices for the people most in need.

Cardiometabolic diseases are the leading causes of mortality globally 4 . With this burden projected to worsen over the coming decades 5 , innovative approaches to disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment are urgently needed. A plethora of precision medicine approaches are being explored in translational and clinical research. However, translating, scaling and implementing these findings for clinical practice have proved difficult. The heterogeneous nature of disease presentation and the etiology of cardiometabolic diseases contribute to these challenges, as does the range and diversity of clinical information, molecular data types and computational analyses used in precision medicine research.

The ability to synthesize data and reproduce research findings are tenets of the modern scientific process, which help maximize progress in evidence-based healthcare and medicine. The ‘Second international consensus report on gaps and opportunities for the clinical translation of precision diabetes medicine’ 3 was supported by a series of systematic evidence reviews 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 . The report focused on key dimensions of precision diabetes medicine, including evidence for prevention, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis in monogenic forms of diabetes, gestational diabetes, and type 1 and type 2 diabetes. A key finding from the report and the systematic evidence reviews underpinning it is that the published literature on precision diabetes medicine lacks evidence standardization or benchmarking against contemporary standards and often overlooks under-represented populations, who tend to bear the greatest burden of diabetes and its complications.

In the present report, we present reporting guidelines for clinically relevant precision medicine research, using common cardiometabolic diseases as the example. We first evaluated a representative sample of the literature on precision medicine in cardiometabolic diseases, determining that the quality of evidence reporting is low, akin to the level previously observed for precision diabetes medicine 3 . We then generated consensus guidelines and a corresponding checklist for reporting of research germane to precision medicine. The purpose of these guidelines is to improve reporting standards so that: (1) evidence can be combined and synthesized in a way that yields meaningful insights from collective efforts; (2) claims of clinical utility can be benchmarked against contemporary standards; and (3) end-user engagement and health equity will be strengthened.

Scoping review

The literature search focused on identifying precision medicine publications using the term ‘precision medicine’ and associated proxy nomenclature, among other keywords and phrases ( Supplementary Methods ). The search identified 2,679 publications, of which 13 were excluded owing to duplication. The remaining 2,666 papers were screened, of which 47 were randomly selected (through computer-generated, random-number sequence) for full text review and quality assessment. The summary (count and percentage) of each quality assessment item across all papers and the quality assessment results for each paper are shown in Supplementary Tables 2 and 3 . This quality assessment yielded a median score of 6 (interquartile range = 4–7) with none of the papers achieving a positive quality evaluation across all 11 items (Fig. 1 ).

Median scores of 47 published precision medicine manuscripts randomly selected for full text review and quality assessment through computer-generated, random-number sequence. IQR, Interquartile range.

A summary of the itemized evidence reporting quality is shown in Supplementary Table 2 . Most abstracts (81%) reported findings relevant to the four pillars of precision medicine (prevention, diagnosis, treatment and/or prognosis) and provided sufficient detail in the methods sections to determine whether the study was designed to test hypotheses on precision medicine (77%), details about participant eligibility (75%) and descriptions of standard reporting definitions (70%). The items that were less frequently reported were the description of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in determining the impact and utility of precision medicine (15%), the inclusion of the term ‘precision medicine’ in the title or abstract (17%), the reporting of measures of discriminative or predictive accuracy (23%), the description of the approach used to control risk of false-positive reporting (28%), the reporting of effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals and units underlying effect estimates (57%) and the reporting of a statistical test for comparisons of subgroups (for example, interaction test) (60%).

Stakeholder survey

Delphi panel demographics.

Of the 23 Delphi panelists, 22 (96%) completed Delphi survey 1, 18 (78%) and attended the full-panel consensus meeting and 22 (96%) completed Delphi survey 2. All panelists engaged in further extensive dialog around key topics through online communication.

Delphi results

The initial checklist in Delphi survey 1 contained 68 items. After Delphi survey 1 and the full-panel consensus meeting, 2 items were added, resulting in 70 items in Delphi survey 2. At the Consensus meeting, it was determined that the checklist should be used together with existing relevant checklists. These include the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 17 and STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) 18 checklists for interventional trials and observational studies, respectively. This led to a recommendation to remove items covered in established checklists (Supplementary Fig. 1 ). The scoring from Delphi survey 1, Delphi survey 2 and notes from the Consensus meetings are as shown in Supplementary Table 4 . After Delphi survey 2, the consensus was to retain 25 items across 6 core categories.

Guidelines finalization

The executive oversight committee reviewed the panel scores and free-text comments from all the rounds of Delphi surveys to determine the final checklist items and wording. The group discussed five items with inconsistent consensus (between 70% and 80% consensus), resulting in the removal of one item because it overlapped conceptually with another item (17b and 17g in Supplementary Table 4 ). It was also determined that ‘health equity’ should be included as an overarching theme, thereby encouraging users of the checklist to consider this topic more broadly when describing precision medicine research. This resulted in removal of two items.

The final checklist comprised 23 items that the executive oversight committee concluded are unique and essential for reporting standards in precision medicine. The final BePRECISE checklist is presented in Table 1 , with a downloadable version of the checklist available online ( https://www.be-precise.org , and https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/ ).

Explanation of checklist Items

The checklist and the explanation of each item are presented in Table 1 . The BePRECISE checklist is intended to complement existing guidelines such as CONSORT 17 , STROBE 18 and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting System for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 19 .

These reporting guidelines use the terms ‘precision medicine’ and ‘personalized medicine’ as defined in the ‘Second international consensus report on gaps and opportunities for the clinical translation of precision diabetes medicine’ 3 , as follows:

‘Precision medicine focuses on minimizing errors and improving accuracy in medical decisions and health recommendations. It seeks to maximize efficacy, cost-effectiveness, safety, access for those in need and compliance compared with contemporary evidence-based medicine. Precision medicine emphasizes tailoring diagnostics or therapeutics (prevention or treatment) to subgroups of populations sharing similar characteristics.’

Personalized medicine refers to ‘the use of a person’s own data to objectively gauge the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of therapeutics, and, subjectively, to tailor health recommendations and/or medical decisions to the individual’s preferences, circumstances, and capabilities’.

Accordingly, personalized medicine can be viewed as being nested within the broader concept of precision medicine.

Equity and PPIE (E1–E4)

Equity, diversity and inclusivity considerations and the involvement of patients and public is a crosscutting theme in this checklist. Where relevant, papers should include a description of how equity has been considered, including diversity and inclusivity of study participants, and whether there was PPIE. Cohort selection biases and probable risks when extrapolating the study’s results to other populations should be clearly described.

The selection of participants should consider racial, ethnic, ancestral, geographic and sociodemographic characteristics 20 , and include an explanation for the inclusion or exclusion of groups that are typically under-represented in clinical research (E1 and E2). Race and ethnicity are social constructs but, as they are categories recognized by some government and health authorities in contexts that are relevant to precision medicine, we have elected to retain inclusion of these somewhat controversial terms here.

PPIE in any part of the study should be described, including but not limited to design, conduct and reporting (E3).

Where possible, and ideally with guidance from those with lived experience, the potential impact of the research findings on the target population(s) should be discussed (E4). Consider co-writing these aspects with PPIE representatives.

Title and abstract (1.1–1.4)

In the title and/or abstract, the term ‘precision medicine’ should be included to highlight that the research is relevant to precision medicine (1.1). Given that precision medicine is an approach that can be used in several research contexts, the study design (for example, randomized clinical trial (RCT), retrospective observational) and the research question should be stated clearly (1.2). Use of the terms ‘prevention’, ‘diagnostics’, ‘treatment’ or ‘prognostics’ is needed to highlight which pillar of precision medicine the study concerns 3 (1.3). To ensure transparency about generalizability and/or applicability of the findings to a specific population or subgroup, the study population must be described (1.4).

Background and objectives (2.1–2.2)

The background should clearly describe the rationale for the chosen precision medicine approach, including the context and prior work that led to it and the specific hypothesis being tested (2.1). To provide the reader with greater context, papers should also state the nature and objective of the precision medicine study as ‘etiological’, ‘discovery’, ‘predictive’ and/or ‘confirmatory’ (2.2).

Methods (general)

Although this reporting guide focuses on clarifying elements of papers that are germane to precision medicine, authors are strongly encouraged to ensure that methods also adhere to other appropriate reporting guidelines (for example, CONSORT and STROBE), with the overarching goal of ensuring that the study protocol described therein could, in principle, be accurately reproduced by third-party investigators.

Methods (3.1–3.7)

Methods should describe the aspects of a study design relating to precision medicine in such detail that the design can be understood and replicated (3.1). The rationale for the choice of primary outcome should be clearly stated (3.2).

To enable readers to assess bias and interpret the study findings, this section should state how the participants were identified and enrolled in the study (4.1) and (if applicable) how a subset of a broader group of participants was selected from an existing study (3.3). Any markers used for stratification or prediction should be explicitly stated with an explanation of how the marker(s) was(were) chosen (3.4).

The sample size and how it was derived should be described, for example, following a priori power calculations, or if the sample size was limited primarily by availability or cost, and any implications that this might have for type 2 error (3.5). Authors should also describe attempts to minimize false-positive discovery, especially when multiple testing has occurred (3.5).

If any replication and/or validation analyses were undertaken, a clear description should be given of the approach, including whether these analyses were planned and relevant datasets identified before or after conclusion of primary analyses (3.6), in addition to justification for the sample size and choice of replication cohort (3.7).

Results (4.1–4.4)

The number of participants in the study should be provided, along with a table of baseline characteristics (4.1). If the analysis involves comparison (rather than discovery) of subgroups, the baseline characteristics and numbers of participants should be provided by the subgroup.

Results from any statistical tests done should be reported. Any comparisons of subgroups should include appropriate test statistics, which may include tests of interaction and heterogeneity, and in cluster analyses tests of probability for cluster assignment (for example, relative entropy statistic) (4.2).

Key findings should be benchmarked against current reference standards or practice, if they exist, so that the reader can determine the likely benefit of translating the study’s findings into clinical practice. This may include, for example, the comparison of the new and existing approaches using tests of discriminative (cross-sectional) or predictive (prospective) accuracy, or estimation of net reclassification or changes in numbers needed to treat. If benchmarking has not been done, a clear explanation should be given (4.3).

If validation and/or replication analyses were undertaken, the results of all such attempts at analyses should be clearly described (4.4).

Discussion (5.1–5.2)

The paper should include a balanced and nuanced discussion of any limitations to the interpretation and/or implementation of the reported findings. The limitations section should consider biases that might prevent fair and equitable generalization of the study’s findings to other populations, particularly to groups that are under-represented within the published literature. Authors are also encouraged to consider other potential biases that might arise with stratified and subgroup analyses (5.1).

If there is a direct clinical implication of the study’s findings, authors should describe how their findings might be applied in clinical practice. This might, for example, include an explanation of how any algorithms, technologies or risk markers that stem directly from the research might benefit clinical practice.

The BePRECISE guidelines are intended to enhance publication of research on precision medicine by improving quality and standardization of reporting. In turn, it is anticipated that this will help improve and accelerate the impact of precision medicine research on the health and well-being of target populations and individuals.

BePRECISE was initiated to follow up on recommendations from the ‘Second international consensus report on gaps and opportunities for the clinical translation of precision diabetes medicine’ 3 . The report, founded on 16 systematic evidence reviews summarizing research described in >100,000 published papers, found a low degree of standardization across the published literature, with a broad absence of key information needed for benchmarking against contemporary standards, validation analyses and meaningful interpretation of research findings.

Implementation of the checklist

These reporting guidelines were derived through structured evaluation and consensus processes undertaken by subject-matter experts in precision medicine for complex traits. The report is premised on cardiometabolic disease translational research but is relevant to translation of research in other complex diseases. These guidelines are directed toward authors describing translational research in precision medicine, as well as for journal editors handling submissions in this field. These guidelines may also be of value to funding agencies, policy advisers and health educators.

The BePRECISE guidelines are designed to be used together with existing study-specific checklists such as CONSORT 17 , STROBE 18 and STORMS (Strengthening the Organization and Reporting of Microbiome Studies) 21 . Publications relevant to precision medicine cover diverse topics and study designs; thus, to accommodate this diversity, we recommend that authors elaborate on relevant details related to checklist items to facilitate manuscript evaluations by journal editors and peer reviewers who will determine whether a given paper has addressed the BePRECISE checklist criteria.

Health equity

Precision medicine has the potential to improve health equity by making health advice and medical therapies more accessible to those in most need and by being more effective and acceptable to the recipient than contemporary clinical approaches. Nevertheless, as the ‘inverse care law’ 22 highlights, the best healthcare often reaches those who need it least. We believe that precision medicine research should place emphasis on the development of solutions for people in greatest need, regardless of who or where they are.

Ensuring representation of underserved populations, where the disease burden can be high, is important because determining the effectiveness of precision medicine solutions requires data from the target populations. Research in population genetics provides clear evidence of this, where the predictive accuracy of polygenic burden scores can be low when applied outside the data-source population, even when these populations are geographically proximal 23 , 24 . Raising awareness of these challenges by discussing them in the health literature and, ultimately, by addressing them through improved study design could facilitate enhancement of health equity using precision medicine approaches.

Promoting equity through precision medicine requires awareness of the many biases. For this reason, the BePRECISE guidelines place emphasis on equity, diversity and inclusion as an overarching concept throughout the checklist.

As with health equity, the BePRECISE guidelines position PPIE as a crosscutting theme to motivate its consideration in all elements of precision medicine translational research. We encourage those using the BePRECISE checklist to follow existing guidance on PPIE 25 . Ensuring that the eventual recipients of precision medicine solutions are adequately represented in the planning, execution and reporting of precision medicine research will help maximize the translational value of the research. Ideally, research teams should include members of the communities that will eventually benefit from this work, including in leadership roles, although to achieve this will often require long-term capacity strengthening. This engagement will help ensure that the relevance and utility of the research output are maximized. It will also strengthen the potential for target populations to determine their own health trajectories. Where this is not immediately achievable, establishing authentic partnerships with representatives from these target populations should be prioritized. This may involve community consultations, training opportunities and co-creation of research proposals with assigned community members, through dissemination and translation of research findings. Moreover, the selection of study participants should be done equitably and result in study cohorts that are representative of the populations who are the focus of the research 26 . The use of patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures should be considered during the research design and execution phases, and reported in research papers wherever possible following established guidelines 27 , 28 . Doing so will amplify the patient voice and maximize the relevance of the research to the target populations and individuals.

Cost-effectiveness

The translation of precision medicine research into practice will invariably depend on it being cost-effective, affordable and accessible. This initial version of the BePRECISE checklist does not include checklist items pertaining directly to these important factors. The consensus view was that such analyses are sufficiently complex to stand alone and are likely to be outside the scope of most current precision medicine research. This topic may be revisited in subsequent versions of the checklist.

Strengths and limitations

We believe that implementation of the BePRECISE checklist in the context of academic publishing will strengthen standardization of reporting across precision medicine research, ultimately enabling improved and equitable translation of research findings into the clinical and public health settings. The checklist will also encourage investigators to improve study design, particularly with respect to health equity. Other strengths include rigor of our consensus methods and the diverse range of societal backgrounds and expertise of our group.

We acknowledge that precision medicine in many complex diseases is relatively nascent (with the exception of precision oncology), with the needs of the field and stakeholders evolving. We plan to evaluate uptake of the checklist among journals and authors to assess whether items should be added or removed from the checklist as the field matures. An additional limitation is that the BePRECISE consensus group is small by comparison with similar efforts in other fields of research. We will involve a larger group of experts with broader global and technical representation in future efforts, including increased representation from low- and middle-income countries and individuals with more diverse lived experiences. Additional technical expertise may also be needed from other disciplines, including health economics and health systems administration, for example.

We acknowledge that journal formatting requirements and procedures may not always entirely align with the checklist specifications. We removed a checklist item for provision of a plain language summary, for example, because many journal formats are presently unable to accommodate this type of additional material. However, we hope that in the future editors and publishers of medical and scientific journals will include space for this incredibly important component that facilitates scientific communication with the public.

We defer to editorial and reviewer discretion in implementation of the BePRECISE checklist. Although the BePRECISE checklist items are included to support best scientific practices, at least in the short term, some ongoing precision medicine studies will not have addressed the health equity or PPIE considerations in their design. We do not expect that insufficient attention to these items would be a sole reason for not considering a manuscript for review, unless blatant disregard for participant and/or community safety, privacy or respect has occurred in the study design and/or conduct. Over time, however, we hope that health equity and PPIE will be considered as standard practice in precision medicine research and implementation.

Conclusions

The BePRECISE reporting guidelines have been generated through a structured consensus process to address the need for better reporting of clinical translational research in precision medicine in common complex diseases. The burgeoning literature on this topic is reported inconsistently, impeding the assimilation, syntheses and interpretation of evidence. There is a general lack of benchmarking against contemporary standards, a situation that makes it impossible to determine whether new precision medicine approaches might be beneficial, feasible and sustainable. Moreover, very little existing precision medicine research has incorporated PPIE or focused on the groups within societies most in need of innovative precision medicine solutions. These barriers limit the positive impact that precision medicine could have on the health and well-being of those most in need. The BePRECISE reporting guidelines are intended to help address these and other important challenges.

Consortium structure

The BePRECISE Consortium comprised an executive oversight committee (S.S.L., Z.S.-A., M.L.M., A.H.N., S.S.R., J.L.S. and P.W.F.), which oversaw the full process, with representation across key domain areas, and an evidence evaluation group (Z.S.-A., M.L.M., A.A., H.F., M.-F.H., M.F.G., J.M., D.K.T., M.I.T., S.S.R., J.L.S. and P.W.F.), which undertook the scoping review to determine current reporting standards. All consortium members participated in a Delphi consensus process 29 . The Consortium chair and co-chair were P.W.F. and S.S.L., respectively (Supplementary Table 1 ).

Protocols and registrations

A scoping review protocol was developed before initiating the literature review or consensus activities and was registered in the Open Science Framework (http://osf-registrations-nh4g2-v1). The consensus process followed the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and TRansparency of health Research) Network recommendations for reporting guidelines development ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/equator-network-reporting-guideline-manual ) and was registered with EQUATOR as ‘Reporting guidelines under development’ ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs ). The final BePRECISE guidelines are available on the Equator website ( https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/ ).

The purpose of the scoping review was to determine whether the published literature on precision medicine in cardiometabolic diseases met a minimum threshold for reporting quality. We set the minimum expectation as a condition where most (that is, ≥50%) published papers in this domain are adequately reported. To define a study as adequately or inadequately reported (as a binary variable), members of the scoping review committee identified, through consultation, 11 key items (Supplementary Tables 2 and 3 ). Papers that met all 11 reporting criteria were deemed, a priori, to be adequately reported.

The checklist items used to assess the reporting quality of studies captured in the scoping review were determined before the Delphi surveys were undertaken. These scoping review checklist items correspond with some of those used in the Delphi surveys that formed the basis of the final BePRECISE checklist, because both the scoping review and Delphi surveys are, to varying degrees, derived from the findings of the ‘Second international consensus report on gaps and opportunities for the clinical translation of precision diabetes medicine’ 3 . The scoping review was intended to provide a snapshot of the quality of reporting in a subset of literature relating to precision medicine. It was not undertaken to inform the items in the BePRECISE checklist; this purpose was served by the systematic evidence reviews 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 and the Consensus report 3 described above.

Based on the findings of the precision diabetes medicine Consensus report 3 , we hypothesized that no more than 30% of currently published studies are adequately reported. This assumption was tested by full text reviewing a statistically powered, random subsample of published papers on precision medicine across cardiometabolic diseases (ʻSearch strategyʼ and ʻSample size estimationʼ). This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Review guidelines 30 to identify and assess the current literature on precision medicine in cardiometabolic diseases and was completed before the ‘guidelines consensus process’ described below.

Sample size estimation

The literature search was not intended to be a comprehensive evaluation of the published evidence, but instead to provide an unbiased representation of this literature. To determine how many papers should be reviewed as a representative sample of the published literature, an a priori sample size calculation was performed using SAS software v.9.4 (SAS Institute). Given the scenario described, we used a two-sided test with a type 1 error threshold (critical α) of 0.05, assuming a null hypothesis proportion of 0.50, which corresponds to our minimum expectation, an expected number of adequately reported papers of <30% and nominal power of 80%. This calculation determined that 47 randomly selected papers should be full text reviewed to ascertain whether the assumed proportion of adequately reported studies is significantly lower than the prespecified null proportion (that is, to infer that the quality of papers reported in this field is lower than the minimum expectation).

Search strategy

We searched the PubMed database ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ) to identify relevant articles published in the past 5 years (January 2019 to January 2024). The search strategy incorporated keywords and terms ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh ) in human epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials representing: (1) precision medicine, (2) cardiometabolic diseases and (3) clinical translation (see Supplementary Methods for the detailed search strategy). The search was constrained to publications written in English. Conference abstracts, case reports, study protocols, reviews and animal studies were excluded.

Study selection and quality assessment

Covidence software ( https://www.covidence.org ; Veritas Health Innovation) was used to manage the scoping review selection process. Studies were filtered in three stages: (1) removal of duplicate publications; (2) ascertainment of study eligibility based on title and abstract by at least two independent reviewers; and (3) full text review of 47 randomly selected studies, where at least 2 independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of each publication according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each paper was further evaluated to determine whether it met the 11 predetermined quality criteria. Any conflicts were subsequently resolved by an independent reviewer.

Consensus process

The five-step consensus process was based on a modified Delphi and nominal group technique 29 . The consensus process involved: (1) completion of an initial Delphi survey (6–13 February 2024); (2) a consensus meeting (15–16 February 2024); and (3) a second Delphi survey (19–26 February 2024). Finalization of the checklist was conducted at a second consensus meeting by the executive oversight committee (5–6 March 2024), who reviewed the voting of all rounds of the Delphi survey, made final decisions about item inclusion and refined wording of the BePRECISE checklist. The executive oversight committee also evaluated the checklist against two publications on precision medicine determined through the scoping review to be of high and low quality, respectively. The final version of the checklist was circulated to all panel members for consultation and approval (13–19 March 2024).

The items in the first iteration of Delphi survey 1 were derived from existing checklists: CONSORT 17 , STROBE 18 , CONSORT-Equity 2017 extension 31 and STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA)—an extension of the STROBE guidelines 32 . Additional items specific to precision medicine were generated based on the reporting gaps identified from the series of systematic reviews (11 published) that underpinned the ‘Second international consensus report on gaps and opportunities for the clinical translation of precision diabetes medicine’ 3 . The draft of Delphi survey 1 was presented to the full panel at a roundtable discussion followed by co-development with the full panel through an online document-sharing platform. The final items for Delphi survey 1, including the input sources for its development, are shown in Supplementary Table 3 .

The Delphi survey response scale had five options: ‘Completely inappropriate’, ‘Somewhat inappropriate’, ‘Neither appropriate nor inappropriate’, ‘Somewhat appropriate’ and ‘Completely appropriate’. The consensus threshold was defined a priori as at least 80% of the panel voting for ‘Completely appropriate’ or ‘Somewhat appropriate’. Items with voting scores under this consensus threshold were discussed at the Consensus meetings. The Delphi surveys were administered online and were anonymous. Panelists were invited to provide free-text comments to suggest new items (survey 1 only), suggest a change of wording for a given item or justify their voting decision. The voting scores and anonymous comments for each item from the previous consensus round were provided to panelists at the subsequent rounds, such that consensus was reached iteratively.

Delphi panel and executive oversight committee

The BePRECISE checklist panelists cover the core areas of expertise outlined in the EQUATOR Network recommendations for reporting guidelines development ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/equator-network-reporting-guideline-manual ). The panel includes subject-matter experts across relevant disease areas and with expertise in the topics highlighted as gaps in the ‘Second international consensus report on gaps and opportunities for the clinical translation of precision diabetes medicine’. Moreover, the BePRECISE panelist selection focused on ensuring diversity: (1) global representation (Europe, North America, sub-Saharan Africa and Australia); (2) career stages (23% early career researchers within 10 years of research experience, 27% of mid-career researchers of 11–15 years of experience and 50% of senior researchers of >20 years of experience); and (3) gender (55% of authors being female).

Accordingly, the Delphi panel comprised subject-matter experts in key cardiometabolic disorders (diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, fatty liver disease, renal disease), statistics, study design (epidemiologists and clinical trialists), journal editorial, lived experience, benchmarking and technology, education and translation, health equity, community engagement and clinical practice. Several of these experts are based in or have worked extensively with investigators in low- and middle-income countries (M.R., N.S., J.L.S. and P.W.F.).

The executive oversight committee for this report consisted of multidisciplinary experts in cardiometabolic disorders, equity research, medical journal editorial and lived experience (P.W.F., S.S.L., S.S.R., J.L.S., A.H.N., Z.S.A. and M.L.M.).

Chung, W. K. et al. Precision medicine in diabetes: a consensus report from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care 43 , 1617–1635 (2020).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Chung, W. K. et al. Precision medicine in diabetes: a consensus report from the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetologia 63 , 1671–1693 (2020).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Tobias, D. K. et al. Second international consensus report on gaps and opportunities for the clinical translation of precision diabetes medicine. Nat. Med. 29 , 2438–2457 (2023).

GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 396 , 1204–1222 (2020).

Article   Google Scholar  

Sun, H. et al. IDF diabetes atlas: global, regional and country-level diabetes prevalence estimates for 2021 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 183 , 109119 (2022).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ahmad, A. et al. Precision prognostics for cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Commun. Med. 4 , 11 (2024).

Semnani-Azad, Z. et al. Precision stratification of prognostic risk factors associated with outcomes in gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Commun. Med. 4 , 9 (2024).

Francis, E. C. et al. Refining the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Commun. Med. 3 , 185 (2023).

Misra, S. et al. Precision subclassification of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Commun. Med. 3 , 138 (2023).

Benham, J. L. et al. Precision gestational diabetes treatment: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Commun. Med. 3 , 135 (2023).

Felton, J. L. et al. Disease-modifying therapies and features linked to treatment response in type 1 diabetes prevention: a systematic review. Commun. Med. 3 , 130 (2023).

Murphy, R. et al. The use of precision diagnostics for monogenic diabetes: a systematic review and expert opinion. Commun. Med. 3 , 136 (2023).

Lim, S. et al. Participant characteristics in the prevention of gestational diabetes as evidence for precision medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Commun. Med. 3 , 137 (2023).

Jacobsen, L. M. et al. Utility and precision evidence of technology in the treatment of type 1 diabetes: a systematic review. Commun. Med. 3 , 132 (2023).

Semple, R. K., Patel, K. A., Auh, S., Ada/Easd, P. & Brown, R. J. Genotype-stratified treatment for monogenic insulin resistance: a systematic review. Commun. Med. 3 , 134 (2023).

Naylor, R. N. et al. Systematic review of treatment of beta-cell monogenic diabetes. Preprint at medRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.12.23289807 (2023).

Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Moher, D.& the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med. 7 , e1000251 (2010).

Cuschieri, S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J. Anaesth. 13 , S31–S34 (2019).

Page, M. J. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br. Med. J. 372 , n71 (2021).

O’Neill, J. et al. Applying an equity lens to interventions: using PROGRESS ensures consideration of socially stratifying factors to illuminate inequities in health. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 67 , 56–64 (2014).

Mirzayi, C. et al. Reporting guidelines for human microbiome research: the STORMS checklist. Nat. Med. 27 , 1885–1892 (2021).

Hart, J. T. The inverse care law. Lancet i , 405–412 (1971).

Kamiza, A. B. et al. Transferability of genetic risk scores in African populations. Nat. Med. 28 , 1163–1166 (2022).

Choudhury, A. et al. Meta-analysis of sub-Saharan African studies provides insights into genetic architecture of lipid traits. Nat. Commun. 13 , 2578 (2022).

Aiyegbusi, O. L. et al. Considerations for patient and public involvement and engagement in health research. Nat. Med. 29 , 1922–1929 (2023).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Retzer, A. et al. A toolkit for capturing a representative and equitable sample in health research. Nat. Med. 29 , 3259–3267 (2023).

Calvert, M. et al. Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 309 , 814–822 (2013).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Calvert, M. et al. Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols: the SPIRIT-PRO extension. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 319 , 483–494 (2018).

Rankin, N. M. et al. Adapting the nominal group technique for priority setting of evidence-practice gaps in implementation science. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 16 , 110 (2016).

Tricco, A. C. et al. PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 169 , 467–473 (2018).

Welch, V. A. et al. CONSORT-Equity 2017 extension and elaboration for better reporting of health equity in randomised trials. Br. Med. J. 359 , j5085 (2017).

Little, J. et al. STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA)—an extension of the STROBE statement. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 39 , 247–266 (2009).

Download references

Acknowledgements

As a PPIE representative from Australia, A.H.N. was remunerated by the Cardiometabolic Health Implementation Research in Postpartum women (CHIRP) consumer group, Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University according to the Monash Partners Remuneration and Reimbursement Guidelines for Consumer and Community Involvement Activity. The Covidence license was paid for in part by Lund University’s Medical Library (Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden). Z.S.-A. was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Fellowship; M.L.M. by the Italian Ministry of Health Grant ‘Ricerca Finalizzata 2019’ (no. GR-2019-12369702); A.A. by Swedish Heart–Lung Foundation (grant no. 20190470), Swedish Research Council (2018-02837), EU H2020-JTI-lMl2-2015-05 (grant no. 115974—BEAt-DKD) and HORIZON-RIA project (grant no. 101095146—PRIME-CKD); H.F. by EU H2020-JTI-lMl2-2015-05 (grant no. 115974—BEAt-DKD) and HORIZON-RIA project (grant no. 101095146—PRIME-CKD). J.M.D. is a Wellcome Trust Early Career Fellow (no. 227070/Z/23/Z) and is supported by the Medical Research Council (UK) (grant no. MR/N00633X/1) and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), Exeter Biomedical Research Centre. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. R.J.F.L. is employed at the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, which is supported by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (nos. NNF23SA0084103 and NNF18CC0034900), and in addition by personal grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (Laureate award no. NNF20OC0059313) and the Danish National Research Fund (Chair DNRF161). M.R. is a South African Research Chair on the Genomics and Bioinformatics of African Populations, funded by the Department of Science and Innovation. N.S. is Chair of the Obesity Mission for the Office of Life Science, UK Government. M.F.G. is supported by the Swedish Research Council (EXODIAB, no. 2009-1039), Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (LUDC-IRC, no. 15-0067) and EU H2020-JTI-lMl2-2015-05 (grant no. 115974—BEAt-DKD). A.H.N’.s salary is supported by funding from the Medical Research Future Fund and Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation. S.S.R. is supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (no. R01 DK122586), the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (no. 2-SRA-202201260-S-B) and the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust (no. 2204–05134). P.W.F. is supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council (no. 2019-01348), the European Commission (ERC-2015-CoG-681742-NASCENT), and Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (no. LUDC-IRC, 15-0067).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Health Systems and Equity, Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia

Siew S. Lim & Jacqueline Boyle

Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

Zhila Semnani-Azad, Deirdre K. Tobias & Paul W. Franks

Unit of Metabolic Disease, University-Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy

Mario L. Morieri

Department of Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

Monash Centre for Health Research Implementation, Monash University and Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Ashley H. Ng

Monash Partners Academic Health Science Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Precision Healthcare University Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

Ashley H. Ng & Claudia Langenberg

Diabetic Complications Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University Diabetes Centre, Malmo, Sweden

Abrar Ahmad, Hugo Fitipaldi & Maria F. Gomez

Board of Directors, Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen, Denmark

Christian Collin

Department of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK

John M. Dennis

Computational Medicine, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Claudia Langenberg

Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Ruth J. F. Loos & Jordi Merino

Charles Bronfman Institute for Personalized Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

Ruth J. F. Loos

Diabetes Australia, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

Melinda Morrison

Sydney Brenner Institute for Molecular Bioscience, University of the Witwatersrand, Faculty of Health Sciences, Johannesburg, South Africa

Michele Ramsay

Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA

Arun J. Sanyal

School of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Naveed Sattar

Division of Chronic Disease Research Across the Lifecourse, Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute; Diabetes Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

Marie-France Hivert

Diabetes Unit, Endocrine Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

Jordi Merino

Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Genomic Mechanisms of Disease, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA

Division of Preventive Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Deirdre K. Tobias

Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Michael I. Trenell

Center for Public Health Genomics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

Stephen S. Rich

School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK

Jennifer L. Sargent

Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Helsingborg, Sweden

Paul W. Franks

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

S.S.L. (co-chair), Z.S.-A., M.L.M., A.H.N., S.S.R., J.L.S. and P.W.F. (chair) formed the executive oversight committee. Z.S.-A. (lead), M.L.M., A.A., H.F., M.-F.H., M.F.G., J.M., D.K.T., M.I.T., S.S.R., J.L.S. and P.W.F. formed the evidence evaluation group. S.S.L. (lead), Z.S.-A., M.L.M., A.A., H.F., J.B., C.C., J.M.D., C.L., R.J.F.L., M.M., M.R., A.J.S., N.S., M.-F.H., M.F.G., J.M., D.K.T., M.I.T., A.H.N., S.S.R., J.L.S. and P.W.F. formed the consensus review panel. A.H.N. and C.C. were the PPIE representatives. S.S.L., Z.S.-A., M.L.M., A.H.N., S.S.R., J.L.S. and P.W.F. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All the authors edited and approved the final version of the manuscript before submission for journal review.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul W. Franks .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

M.L.M. has consulted for and/or received speaker honoraria from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daichi, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Novartis and Servier. In the past 5 years, A.H.N. has received an investigator-initiated grant from Abbott Diabetes Care and consulting honoraria from Roche Diabetes Care, Australia and the Australian Diabetes Educators Association. There are no perceived conflicts from previous involvements on this work. C.C. is a member of the Board of Directors for the Steno Diabetes Center in Copenhagen, Denmark. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the Steno Center. M.R. is a consultant on the Genentech. ‘One Roche: Race, Ethnicity and Ancestry (“REA”) Initiative’. A.J.S. received research grants (paid to the institution) from: Intercept, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Echosense, Boehringer Ingelhiem, Pfizer, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Hanmi, Madrigal, Galmed, Gilead, Salix and Malinckrodt; was a consultant for Intercept, Gilead, Merck, NGM Bio, Terns, Regeneron, Alnylam, Amgen, Genentech, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Salix, Malinckrodt, Lilly, Histoindex, Path AI, Rivus, Hemoshear, Northsea, 89Bio, Altimmune, Surrozen and Poxel; and had ownership interests in Tiziana, Durect, Exhalenz, GENFIT, Galmed, Northsea and Hemoshear. N.S. has consulted for and/or received speaker honoraria from Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Menarini-Ricerche, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics and Sanofi; and received grant support (paid to the institution) from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis and Roche Diagnostics outside the submitted work. M.F.G. received financial and nonfinancial (in-kind) support (paid to the institution) from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, JDRF International, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Sanofi-Aventis, Astellas, Novo Nordisk, Bayer, within EU grant H2020-JTI-lMl2-2015-05 (grant no. 115974—BEAt-DKD); also received financial and in-kind support from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Follicum, Coegin Pharma, Abcentra, Probi and Johnson & Johnson, within a project funded by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research on precision medicine in diabetes (LUDC-IRC no. 15-0067); and received personal consultancy fees from Lilly and Tribune Therapeutics AB. M.I.T. has, within the past 5 years, received consulting/honoraria from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Abbott Nutrition, Changing Health and DAISER. This work is independent and does not represent the opinions of these organizations. S.S.R. has received consulting honoraria from Westat and investigator-initiated grants from the US National Institutes of Health, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. J.L.S. receives consulting fees from the World Health Organization and the University of Bergen. This work was done outside these roles and the opinions expressed in these guidelines do not necessarily reflect those of the World Health Organization or the University of Bergen. J.L.S. was deputy editor of Nature Medicine until December 2023. She left employment at Springer Nature before any of her work on this Consensus Statement was initiated. P.W.F. was an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation at the time that these guidelines were written, although this work was done entirely within his academic capacity. The opinions expressed in these guidelines do not necessarily reflect those of the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Within the past 5 years, he has received consulting honoraria from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk Foundation, Novo Nordisk, UBS and Zoe, and previously had other financial interests in Zoe. He has also received investigator-initiated grants (paid to the institution) from numerous pharmaceutical companies as part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative of the European Union. The remaining authors declare no competing interests. J.A.B. received royalties from Elsevier as an editor on a medical textbook that does not impact this work. A.J.S. has stock options in Rivus, is a consultant to Boehringer Ingelhiem and Akero, and has grants from Takeda.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Medicine thanks Jose Florez and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Joao Monteiro, in collaboration with the Nature Medicine team.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Lim, S.S., Semnani-Azad, Z., Morieri, M.L. et al. Reporting guidelines for precision medicine research of clinical relevance: the BePRECISE checklist. Nat Med 30 , 1874–1881 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03033-3

Download citation

Received : 21 March 2024

Accepted : 29 April 2024

Published : 19 July 2024

Issue Date : July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03033-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.