How to Restate Your Main Findings in Plain Language

Guide to Writing a Strong Discussion Section

The discussion section of a scientific paper, thesis, or report interprets your results, connects them to broader literature, and highlights implications. It's where you move beyond raw data to explain why your findings matter. I'll guide you step by step, starting with your requested point. This structure assumes a standard empirical study (e.g., in sciences, social sciences, or humanities), but adapt it to your field.

1. Start by Restating Main Findings in Plain Language

Avoid jargon or stats dumps—treat this as a bridge from results to interpretation. Summarize 2–4 key findings concisely, in 1–2 paragraphs, using everyday language to make them accessible. This sets the stage without repeating the results section verbatim.

• Why it works: Readers (especially non-experts) need a clear reminder of what you found before diving into implications. It shows you understand your own work.


• Tips:


• Use active voice and simple sentences.


• Frame positively but objectively: Focus on what supports your hypotheses, not just surprises.


• Example (hypothetical biology study on plant stress): "Our experiments revealed that drought-stressed plants produced 30% fewer seeds than controls, but applying a soil fungus boosted seed output by 25%, suggesting the fungus acts as a natural protector against water scarcity."


• Common pitfalls: Don't introduce new data. If your findings contradict expectations, note it briefly here (e.g., "Contrary to predictions, X did not occur").

2. Interpret the Findings: Explain What They Mean

Now, unpack the "so what?" Link results to your research question, hypotheses, or theory. Discuss mechanisms, patterns, or unexpected outcomes.

• Key elements:


• Support or refute hypotheses: E.g., "This aligns with Hypothesis 1, as the increased enzyme activity explains the observed growth."


• Mechanisms: Speculate reasonably on why (based on evidence, not wild guesses). Cite related studies.


• Unexpected results: Address limitations or alternative explanations without undermining your work.


• Length: 2–4 paragraphs.


• Tips: Use transitional phrases like "These results suggest..." or "This may indicate...". Balance confidence with caution (e.g., "While promising, this requires further validation").

3. Compare to Existing Literature

Situate your work in the field. Show how your findings build on, challenge, or fill gaps in prior research.

• How to do it:


• Cite 5–10 key studies: Agree with some (e.g., "Consistent with Smith's 2020 meta-analysis..."), contrast others (e.g., "Unlike Jones et al., we found no effect of Y due to our larger sample size").


• Highlight novelty: "Our study is the first to examine Z in urban vs. rural contexts, revealing..."


• Tips: Organize chronologically, thematically, or by agreement/disagreement. Avoid a laundry list—synthesize (e.g., "Building on prior work, our results refine the model by adding variable W").


• Pitfall: Don't over-cite or ignore contradictions; address them head-on.

4. Discuss Implications

Explore real-world, theoretical, or practical impacts. This is your chance to argue significance.

• Types:


• Theoretical: How does this advance knowledge? (E.g., "This supports a revised theory of climate adaptation.")


• Practical: Applications? (E.g., "Farmers could use this fungus to improve crop resilience in dry regions.")


• Policy/Societal: Broader effects? (E.g., "Findings urge policy changes in water management.")


• Tips: Be specific but realistic. Limit to 1–2 paragraphs. If interdisciplinary, note cross-field relevance.

5. Address Limitations and Future Directions

Honesty builds credibility. Acknowledge weaknesses, then pivot to opportunities.

• Limitations (1 paragraph): Be brief and non-defensive. E.g., "Sample size limited generalizability; future studies should include diverse populations." Avoid blaming external factors.


• Future research (1 paragraph): Suggest extensions, like "Larger trials or longitudinal designs could test long-term effects."


• Tips: Frame limitations as stepping stones, not flaws. This shows thoughtful science.

6. Conclude Strongly (Optional Wrap-Up)

End with a forward-looking statement reinforcing the study's value. E.g., "Overall, these findings underscore the potential of microbial interventions for sustainable agriculture." Avoid new info or grand claims.

General Best Practices

• Length and Flow: Aim for 20–30% of your paper's total length. Use subheadings if allowed (e.g., "Interpretation," "Implications"). Ensure logical progression.


• Tone: Objective, confident, and concise. Write in past tense for your study, present for general truths.


• Editing: Read aloud for clarity. Get feedback. Check for bias—balance positives and negatives.


• Field variations: In qualitative research, emphasize themes over stats; in reviews, focus more on synthesis.


• Resources: Consult style guides like APA, MLA, or your journal's instructions. Tools like Grammarly or EndNote help with citations.

If you share more details about your study (e.g., field, key findings), I can provide tailored examples or refine this guide!