Many people have little trouble writing their  methods and results, but falter when they get to   the discussion. In a previous video, I provided  a simple formula for structuring the discussion   section. In this video, I'd like to talk about  more specific methods for discussing your work.    Perhaps you've listed the main results from  your study but don't know how to flesh out   the discussion of those points. Here are four  ways to do this. Compare and contrast with previous work. Compare and contrast with previous work. Drill down to give more detail  about each point. Illustrate your points by   providing examples. And explain your logic.   Let s look at a paper to see how these four   approaches work. In this study, our objective  was to determine if hurricane sedimentation   in a subtropical salt marsh-mangrove community was  influenced by vegetation type. Here s the first   main section of the discussion. It starts out  by restating our objective and reviewing what previous work has found. And we list studies  that found vegetation could influence sediment   deposition during daily tidal action. We expand  upon that overview by giving a couple of examples,   one in China and another in Australia. These  specific examples go beyond just listing citations   to support a point and instead give the reader a  more detailed picture of what other investigators   found. So in this first paragraph, we use  comparison as well as examples to illustrate   what others have reported. In the next few  paragraphs, the discussion is further expanded   by drilling down to consider what is it about  vegetation that might affect sedimentation   in marshes. We review how vegetation may slow  water flow or dissipate wave energy, allowing   sediment particles to settle. Drilling down even  further, we review studies showing which specific   features of the vegetation affect water flow  velocity or wave dissipation. Canopy structure,   stem density, plant height, and so forth. Again,  individual studies are described in more detail   to provide a sharper picture of how plants might  affect sediment deposition.

Then we describe   studies that directly compared salt marsh  and mangrove vegetation and contrast those   studies with ours, in which we found no effect of  vegetation on hurricane sediment deposition.    In other words, we acknowledge all the studies  that had apparently found vegetation effects on   sedimentation in preparation for discussing  why our study found something different.    Such an approach is much stronger than just  listing studies that agreed with our work.    That comprehensive review prepares the  reader for the next part of the discussion,   which is the interpretation of our results.   We list three possible reasons why there was   no effect of vegetation on sedimentation in the  ecosystem we studied. These three explanations   then become the topic sentences for the next three  paragraphs. In each of those paragraphs, we give   those explanations. So, the fourth way to expand  your discussion is through an explanation of your   logic. In other words, explain why you think your  study turned out the way it did. You can do this   by spelling out the logic of your interpretation  and citing any data, yours or others, that support   this interpretation. Novice writers often shy  away from this fourth approach because they either   have not thought deeply about their results or  they lack the confidence to state an opinion.    It s a bit scary to stick your neck out  and say, here s what I think is going on   and this is why I think I m right. But to  become an accomplished writer and publish in   the top journals in your field, you must have  the knowledge and confidence to form an opinion   and the writing skills to articulate that opinion  in a way that is convincing to readers.    In most of my papers, I wrote the discussion in  a way that leads the reader through the steps   I took to form an opinion about  the outcome of my studies.

Doing so typically involved the four approaches I  ve covered in this video. Compare and contrast.    Drill down to give greater detail. Describe  specific examples. And explain your logic.    These approaches can be used in any order or  combination. Whatever works best with your   material. Thanks for watching and please like  my video if you found this information useful.