This document provides guidance on writing the results and discussion sections of scientific papers. It discusses how to report results, including using graphs and tables, verbalizing results, and using hedging language. It also covers discussing trends in results by comparing to previous work, acknowledging limitations, implications, and future work. Key parts of the discussion section are outlined such as summarizing findings, comparing to other studies, noting limitations/unexpected findings, implications, and future studies. Examples are provided throughout.

1. 1
Reporting Results &
Discussing Trends
Lecture 11.1: Adapted from Penrose & Katz, Writing in the Sciences , Chapter 4 (2010) and Lesly
Temesvari’s Modules 4 & 5 PowerPoint Slides

2. Reporting Results &
Discussing Trends
Adapted from Penrose & Katz, Writing in the Sciences (2010)
2
Reporting Results
1. While interpretation may change, the results will not change.
2. Plays a critical role in developing the argument.
Not the place to discuss why the experiment was performed
Not the place to discuss how the experiment was performed
Not the place to discuss whether the results were expected,
unexpected etc.
Adapted from Pechenik, 2004

3. Adapted from Penrose & Katz, Writing in the Sciences (2010)
3
Reporting Results &
Discussing Trends
Reporting Results
Why do we use graphs and tables?

4. Adapted from Penrose & Katz, Writing in the Sciences (2010)
4
Reporting Results
Reporting Results &
Discussing Trends
How would you present the following data?
1. Did larger caterpillars eat faster than smaller caterpillars?
(That is, did feeding rate vary with size of caterpillar?)

5. 
Results
1. Did larger caterpillars eat faster than smaller caterpillars?
That is, did feeding rate vary with size of caterpillar?
Adapted from Pechenik, 2004
Legend

6. 
Results
Defining symbols in the graph
Always use
same symbols
for all figures
Adapted from Pechenik, 2004

7. To connect or not connect
Results
Adapted from Pechenik, 2004


8. To connect or not connect-smooth curves
Results
Adapted from Pechenik, 2004


9. Line graphs versus bar graphs
Results
Line graph: When variable along X-axis (independent
variable) is numerical and continuous
Bar graph: When the independent variable is non-
numerical or discontinuous
Adapted from Pechenik, 2004

10. Histograms/Bar graphs
Results
Non-numerical Numerical but discontinuous
Adapted from Pechenik, 2004


11. Tables
Results
Adapted from Pechenik, 2004

12. Audience
B. Expectations
(from Module 3)
t(time)=15’, T(temperature)=32oC; t=0’, T=25oC;
t=6’, T=29oC; t=3’, T=27oC; t=12’, T=32oC; t=9’,
T=31oC
time (min) Temp. (oC)
0 25
3 27
6 29
9 31
12 32
15 32
Temp (oC)time (min)
25 0
27 3
29 6
31 9
32 12
32 15
#1
#2 #3
Adapted from Gopen and Swan, 1990; Gopen, 2004

13. MergeFluorescence
Light
Micrographs
Results

14. Results
Figures and Tables should be self-sufficient
1. Each figure or table must be independent (self-explanatory).
(Remember…”reading the data”)
2. Table titles should be as informative as possible.
×Table 1. Vegetation in Trial Plots
Table 1. Percentage coverage by low vegetation in midsummer by
treatment, year and site.
(Lorimer et al., 1994)
Adapted from Pechenik, 2004

15. Results
Figures and Tables should be self-sufficient
3.Figure legends should be as informative as possible.
×Figure 1. Study area
Figure 1. Location of Georgian Bay study area, sampling sites and
distribution of storm deposit.
Adapted from Pechenik, 2004

16. Results
Verbalizing the results
1. Highlighting key findings from the data.
2. Judging the right strengths of claims.
3. Using location statements.
Adapted from Swales and Feak, 2004

17. Results
1. Highlighting Statements are generalizations that you can draw from the
data.
They are an opportunity for you to demonstrate that…
•you can spot trends in the data,
•you can separate more important findings from less important
findings,
So do not…
simply repeat all the details in words
Adapted from Swales and Feak, 2004

18. Results
Verbalizing the results
Adapted from Pechenik, 2004


19. Results
Verbalizing the results
Adapted from Pechenik, 2004

The second description is better.

20. Results
Examples of presenting data without interpretation
Heart rate was 100 beats per minute after digitalis was added (Fig. 3).
Heart rate increased to 100 beats per minute after digitalis was
added (Fig. 3).
Heart rate increased from 60 to 100 beats per minute after digitalis
was added (Fig. 3).
The sequences for the proteins K309 and K415 were compared (Fig. 4).
When the sequences for the proteins K309 and K415 were compared,
their C-terminal sections were found to be 90% homologous (Fig. 4).
Hofmann, 2010

21. Results
Examples of presenting data without interpretation
Among the 785 HIV positive participants in the study group,
we found 622 men and 163 women (Fig. 5).
We found that 3.8 times as many men (79.2%) than women
(20.8%) tested positive for HIV in our study group (Fig. 5).
×The difference in absorption rates is quite clearly shown in Table 1.
Alcohol is more readily absorbed into the bloodstream from
distilled beverages than from brewed beverages (Table 1).
Adapted from Penrose and Katz, 2004; Pechenik, 2004; Hofmann, 2010

22. Results
Signals for readers:
Purpose/Question ApproachResults Interpretation
To determine… …we did… We found… , indicating that…
To establish if… X was subjected We observed… , consistent with…
to…
Z was tested… by/using… We detected… , which indicates…
For the purpose of X A was Our results This observation
performed… indicate…indicates…
Hofmann, 2010
1. Highlighting Statements-Do not make reader interpret data. Don’t make readers
work harder than necessary.

23. Task 6A:
B (caused)>A>D>C>E>F (might have been a small factor)
Task 7:
Words used by scientists:
Verbs
Suggest
Indicate
Show
Demonstrate
(Penrose and Fennell, 1993)
(Suggest) Hedging Verbs: These conventions allow scientists
to make claims within the established parameters
of knowledge in the field, while at the same time
acknowledging that it is an interpretation of the facts
and not a fact itself (Penrose and Katz, 2004)
Results

24. Task 7
Words used by non-scientists:
Verbs
Prove
Conclude
Hypothesize
(Penrose and Fennell, 1993)
Results

25. Hedging Verbs:
May (not)
Might (not)
Could
Should (not)
Can
Shall
Given its broad temperature and salinity tolerance, this toxic
phytoplankter may be a widespread but undetectable source
of fish mortality….(Burkholder et al., 1992)
Adapted from Penrose and Katz, 2004
Results

26. Hedging Adverbs or Adverbial Phrases:
Possibly
Probably
Very likely
Necessarily
Certainly
Presumably
In all probability
Hypothetically
Maybe
So far as the evidence suggests…
As far as we can determine…
We can not rule out the possibility…
Adapted from Penrose and Katz, 2004
Results

27. Results
2. Strength of Claims
1. Probability:
Sleeping 7-9 hours daily will result in better academic performance.
Sleeping 7-9 hours daily may result in better academic performance.
2. Distance:
Based on the limited data available…
In view of some experts…
According to preliminary studies…
Based on an informal survey of 9 managers…
different employees react to certain situations differently.
Adapted from Swales and Feak, 2004

28. Results
2. Strength of Claims
3. Generalizing:
Children living in poverty have a history of health problems.
Children living in poverty tend to have a history of health problems.
A majority of children living in poverty have a history of health
problems.
Adapted from Swales and Feak, 2004

29. Results
Task 6B
A. According to our results…; our survey data suggest;
is probably...plays some role; may be regretted…
B. …which could…; …it may be possible…;

30. Results
2. Strength of Claims
The word “significant” in science refers to “statistically
significant.”
Flow rate decreased significantly.
The reader expects statistical details to follow this
statement or to be available in the figure/legend.
If you do not have statistical support then words such
as “markedly” or “substantially” are probably more
appropriate.
Hofmann, 2010

31. Results
Social Aspects of These Linguistic Devices
Use of these tentative or hedging words signals to other scientists
that this author is aware of the interpretive nature of scientific
knowledge and that the claim is to be interpreted as “true”
only within the boundaries of current knowledge and conditions
(Hyland, 1996).
In examining research texts in psychology, Madigan et al., (1995)
observed that hedged conclusions may be more convincing than
more strongly worded claims because they convey “proper respect
for the empirical process”. (enhancing author credibility)
Adapted from Penrose and Katz, 2004

32. Results
Location Element Summary
a.Table 5 shows the point of entry for computer
viruses for U.S. businesses.
b. Table 2 provides details of the fertilizer used.
c. Figure 2 demonstrates the 2 series for the last 5 years.
3. Location Statements or Elements (+ summaries)
ACTIVE VOICE
Adapted from Swales and Feak, 2004

33. Results
3. Location Statements or Elements (+ summaries)
PASSIVE VOICE
Summary Location Element
a.The most common mode of
computer infections for U.S businesses are shown in Table 5.
b. The details of the fertilizer used are provided in Table 2.
c. The 2 series for the last 5 years are shown/plotted in
Figure 2.
Adapted from Swales and Feak, 2004

34. Results
3. Location Statements or Elements
Table 5 shows that home disks were the most common
source of computer viruses.
The most common source of computer viruses was
home disks (Table 5).
As can be seen in Table 5, the most common source of
computer viruses was home disks.
As shown in Figure 1, the companies used in this survey
varied significantly in geographical location.
Adapted from Swales and Feak, 2004

35. Results
Use the word “Figure”
Anything and everything, in fact, that is not a “table”
is a “figure”.
Chemistry/Engineering/Pharmaceutical Sciences
“Scheme” is sometimes used (not very common).
Adapted from Pechenik, 2004

36. Discussions
The discussion is the place to:
1. Briefly summarize the major findings, including the magnitude
and direction of the effects observed (compared with what others have found
(see #2) or compared with what was predicted or expected).
2. Compare and contrast your findings to/with previous studies.
3. Acknowledge the advantages and limitations of the methods used in the
research (and comment on how these features may have influenced the
observed effects). Offer explanations and further lines of research for
unexpected results.
4. Explain the implications of the findings for current practice or theory (FIELD
SPECIFIC). Make generalizations if appropriate.
What might be the implications in different fields?
5. Outline the research questions that remain.
Adapted from Penrose and Katz, 2004; Hofmann, 2010

37. Categories are Interdependent:
Ex. When commenting on the magnitude and implications of the findings, it is
important that researchers acknowledge the limitations of their study.
Ex. Future studies = Implication in the field
Adapted from Penrose and Katz, 2004
Discussions

38. (Opening the discussion section)
Journal of Natural History Research (n=15)
(n=5) Review of main findings
“In this study we have shown…”
(n=3) Review of literature
“Food shortages and social stress are causes of dispersal
in… (refs)”
(n=2) General Conclusion
“From this data, it is clear that…”
(n=1) Original purpose
“The objective of this study was…”
Adapted from Swales and Feak, 2004
Discussion
“inside out”
1. Summary of Results
Discussions

39. (n=1) Refer to theory
“The interrelationship between bird populations and
the environment is complex.”
(n=1) Comment on methodology
“There is a bias associated with using either aerial
or ground counts exclusively.”
*(n=1) Highlighting importance of research site
“..is one of the few sites in North America…”
(n=1) Limitations
“The census figure of…is expected to be an underestimate…”
Adapted from Swales and Feak, 2004
(Opening the discussion section)
1. Summary of Results
Discussions

40. (Opening the discussion section)
Journal of Natural History Research (n=15)
(n=5) Review of main findings
“In this study we have shown…”
Adapted from Swales and Feak, 2004
1. Summary of Results
Most common
Discussions

41. 2. Compare/Contrast
-compare and contrast your results with those of others
-explains how your work fits into the field of existing knowledge
-discuss similarities and differences
See Examples 13-3 and 13-4
(page 3)
Adapted from Hofmann, 2010
13-3 “In contrast….”
13-4 “…is considerably higher…”
Discussions

42. 3. Limitations/Unexpected Findings
See Examples 13-5 and 13-6
(page 4)
Adapted from Swales and Feak, 2004; Hofmann, 2010
Expressions of limitation
This study has been primarily concerned with…
This analysis has concentrated on…
The findings of this study are restricted to…
This study has addressed only the question of…
We would like to point out that we have not…
We cannot rule out the possibility…
We cannot preclude the possibility
Expressions of surprise
To our surprise…
Surprisingly,…
Interestingly,…
Unexpectedly,…
Discussions

43. 4. Implications/Generalizations
See Examples 13-7 and 13-8
(pages 4 and 5)
Adapted from
Hofmann, 2010
5. Future Studies (usually near end/concluding paragraph)
See Examples 13-9 and 13-10
(pages 5 and 6)
“In summary…”
13-9: application
13-10: future study
Discussions

44. Task 5 (page 8)
Analyze the discussion section of Graham et al., 1992 and
Fox and Farrow, 2009.
Identify typical parts of the discussion sections.
Adapted from Penrose and Katz, 2004
Discussions

45. Fox and Farrow, 2009
1. (Summarize major finding(s))
To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate a link between weight
status and verbal and physical (but not social) experiences of bullying in male
and female children.
2. (Compare and Contrast)
Most previous research has examined associations between children’s weights
and ‘overt’ and ‘relational’ forms of peer victimization…
3. (Advantages/Limitations)
However, this study is not without its limitations. Firstly, the self-report data
for weight and height may not be reliable due to reporting error by the children;
particularly given that fewer girls chose to provide this data compared to
boys.
Discussions

46. Fox and Farrow, 2009
4. (Implications)
Teachers, parents and practitioners need to be aware of the links between
children’s weight, their psychological health and their risk of being bullied.
5. (Future Studies)
Nevertheless, further research should consider gathering data from different
sources, such as teachers and parents…
Discussions

47. The discussion is also the place to:
6. Anticipate the questions of other researchers
regarding your methodology, findings, and
conclusions and answer them before they are asked
Stephen Toulmin (philosopher and expert in scientific
argumentation), calls these answers to potential
questions, objections or counterarguments “rebuttals”
(Toulmin et al., 1984)
Adapted from Penrose and Katz, 2004
Discussions

48. Find the rebuttals in Graham et al., 1992
What are the rebuttals?
What counterarguments are these rebuttals to?
Adapted from Penrose and Katz, 2004
Discussions

49. Example of Rebuttal (Graham et al., 1992)
Our study was single-blind, with the endoscopist blinded to initial therapy.
Although some may argue that the lack of double-blinding introduced an
important bias into our study, no objective data support such a contention,
and we believe such a scenario extremely unlikely, especially considering
the equipment now available for studying the gastroduodenal mucosa.
Discussions