Results versus discussion: how to separate findings from interpretation
Decide what belongs in results and discussion, reduce repetition, and keep interpretations within the evidence. Includes a worked revision example.
About 8 min read · Allow extra time for the practical checks
You have described the findings in your results section. Then you begin the discussion and find yourself describing them again. Removing every repeated sentence makes the discussion abrupt; keeping them all leaves the reader wondering what the second section adds.
The useful distinction is the job each passage performs. Results present what the analysis found. Discussion explains what those findings mean in relation to the research question, relevant literature, and the limits of the study.
That distinction helps you revise, but it is not a rigid rule about where every sentence must go. Disciplines and journals organise research reports differently. Some combine results and discussion, and some forms of qualitative reporting integrate evidence and interpretation throughout.
Check the required structure before moving paragraphs
Read your programme guidance or target journal’s instructions, then examine relevant examples of the same kind of study. Do not assume that a format suitable for an experimental paper will suit a qualitative thesis chapter.
George Mason University’s guide to IMRaD results and discussion describes several arrangements, including separate sections and combined results/discussion. The principle is to make the relationship between evidence and interpretation clear within the required structure.
If the sections are separate, the results usually carry the detailed reporting, while the discussion develops the significance and explanation. If they are combined, a section may present a finding and discuss it before moving to the next finding. The reader should still be able to tell which claims come from the study and which are interpretations or comparisons.
Make that structural decision first. Otherwise, you may spend time moving material between sections that your discipline expects to remain together.
Give the results section a clear reporting job
Organise the results around the study’s questions, outcomes, hypotheses, or analytical themes. A reader should be able to locate the evidence that addresses each important part of the study.
Tables and figures can hold detail, while the text identifies patterns worth noticing. There is little value in turning every table cell into a sentence. For medical manuscripts, the ICMJE recommendations explicitly advise authors to emphasise key observations rather than repeat all tabulated data in prose.
At the same time, do not remove the information needed to understand a result. Identify the relevant sample or observations, measures, units, and uncertainty where applicable. Report the analysis you conducted, including findings that do not support the expected pattern. Follow the reporting conventions appropriate to the design.
A results section can contain analytical statements. “The largest difference occurred in the follow-up period” describes a pattern. “The difference occurred because staff became more confident” introduces an explanation that needs separate support. The boundary is about the basis of the claim, not whether the sentence contains a number.
Let the discussion add meaning rather than another tour of the tables
A short reminder of the central finding can orient the reader. After that, ask what the finding contributes to the question the study set out to address.
Useful discussion may compare the result with relevant studies, examine plausible explanations, consider limitations, and identify implications that follow from the evidence. Those functions should connect to particular findings. A paragraph about a limitation is more useful when it explains which interpretation becomes uncertain and why.
For example, if a study records completion times but not the complexity of the work, that omission matters when interpreting differences between teams. It gives you a reason to qualify the comparison. Simply listing “limited variables” near the end of the paper does not make that connection clear.
Do not force every finding into a positive story. An unclear or unexpected result can be reported plainly. Explanation should reflect the evidence available, including reasonable alternatives that the design cannot distinguish.
Worked example: separate the observation from its explanation
The following example is synthetic. The organisations, records, numbers, and sentences are invented for editing practice. They do not report a completed study or client project.
Imagine a descriptive review of administrative requests in two teams during the same observation period:
On a narrow screen, scroll the table sideways to read every column.
| Team | Completed requests in the reviewed records | Median recorded completion time |
|---|---|---|
| Team A | 40 | 3 working days |
| Team B | 40 | 5 working days |
The numbers are stipulated teaching values, not calculated research findings. Assume no inferential comparison has been conducted and that the records do not measure request complexity or staffing levels.
An initial paragraph reads:
Team A completed requests in three days, compared with five days in Team B. This proves that Team A’s training was more effective and should be adopted throughout the organisation.
The paragraph changes the meaning of the evidence twice. It presents a median as though it describes every request, then attributes the difference to training even though the example provides no basis for that explanation.
A clearer results sentence would be:
Among the completed requests reviewed, median recorded completion time was three working days in Team A and five in Team B.
That sentence reports the comparison and keeps its scope visible. It does not imply that the full distribution is known from the median or that the difference has been tested statistically.
The discussion could then say:
The reviewed records show a shorter median completion time in Team A. However, the comparison does not establish why the teams differed. Request complexity and staffing were not measured, so the observed difference cannot be attributed to training. Further investigation would be needed before using this comparison to support a change in training policy.
This is not a complete discussion section. A real manuscript would need the study’s broader evidence and relevant literature. The revision demonstrates a narrower point: the interpretation must not outrun the result.
Sort difficult sentences by their function
When a paragraph feels misplaced, label what each sentence does before rewriting it:
On a narrow screen, scroll the table sideways to read every column.
| Sentence function | Likely treatment in a report with separate sections |
|---|---|
| States an observed value, pattern, or analytical theme | Results, with the necessary supporting detail |
| Briefly recalls a central result to begin interpreting it | Discussion; keep the repetition purposeful |
| Compares the study with another source | Usually discussion, unless the reporting format integrates comparison |
| Proposes a mechanism or explanation | Discussion, with evidence and appropriate qualification |
| Identifies a limitation affecting interpretation | Discussion, linked to the affected claim |
| Makes a recommendation unsupported by the study | Reconsider the claim; moving it does not fix it |
Apply this to your own text with a short margin note: “report,” “compare,” “explain,” or “qualify.” You may discover that the problem is a missing connection rather than a misplaced paragraph.
For instance, a discussion paragraph might jump from a reported association to a policy recommendation without explaining the assumptions between them. Adding a cautious verb will not supply that reasoning. Decide whether the implication can actually be supported.
Adapt the distinction for qualitative and combined reporting
Qualitative findings are often already interpretive. A theme is an analytical product, not simply an unprocessed piece of data. Avoid treating the results section as a pile of quotations followed by all the thinking in a later chapter.
Instead, make the analytical claim clear and show how the presented material supports it, in a way consistent with the chosen methodology. In a combined findings/discussion section, you may then relate that interpretation to wider scholarship before introducing the next theme.
A useful paragraph-level check is whether the reader can distinguish a participant’s words, your analysis of those words, and a broader theoretical explanation. Those layers can sit close together without being interchangeable.
Use a reporting guideline relevant to your study where one applies. The EQUATOR Network’s reporting-guideline library includes guidance for different health-research designs, including qualitative studies. Such guidance supports transparent reporting; it does not require every discipline to adopt the same chapter structure.
Remove repetition without removing the link to evidence
Read the first sentence of each discussion paragraph and ask what new work the paragraph performs. If it merely repeats another result, either connect it to an interpretation or consider whether it is needed there.
Do not remove every reference to a finding. The discussion needs enough orientation for the reader to follow the reasoning without constantly searching backwards. A short phrase such as “The difference in completion time…” may be sufficient before explaining its implications.
Where several paragraphs make the same point, group them around the question being answered. Where one paragraph tries to discuss unrelated findings, divide it. The goal is a visible line from finding to interpretation, rather than an arbitrary reduction in word count.
Before finalising the sections, check:
- Can each interpretation be traced to a reported finding or clearly identified external source?
- Are the study’s own findings distinguishable from proposed explanations?
- Do claims about causation, prevalence, or generalisability fit the design?
- Do the text, tables, and figures report the same values and labels?
- Have limitations been connected to the conclusions they affect?
- Does the chosen structure follow the relevant disciplinary or journal requirements?
If the sections need substantial reorganisation, our academic writing development & revision can help you work through their purpose and structure. Once the reasoning is settled, academic editing can help make the connections easier to follow while preserving your interpretation and authorship.
