CONCLUDING SECTION AND AN ABSTRACT

A well-written set of conclusions brings your main contributions into focus. Many readers will scan only portion of the main body of your paper, but will carefully read the last section – ‘Discussion’ or ‘Abstract’ which briefly preview your report. In this unit you will study:

· information and language conventions of a Discussion section

· types of Abstracts and information elements they include

· some recommendations on proofreading

Information Conventions of the Discussion

The fourth section of the research report usually titled ‘Discussion’ is the last major section of the report, followed by the list of reference. This section moves the reader back from the specific information reported in the methods and the results sections to a more general view of how the findings should be interpreted.

After presenting the results, you are in a position to evaluate and interpret their implications, especially with respect to your original hypothesis "Writing the concluding section can be putting your best foot forward", points out Michaelson (199…) recommending to open the discussion with a clear statement of the support or non-support for your original hypothesis. Similarities and differences between your results and the work of others should clarify and confirm your conclusions. The most effective kind of conclusions serves as a candid critique of your own work, in which you point out what is important, what is significant, and why the results are valid. To make your manuscript most convincing and credible, you may even include some negative aspects, showing the gaps in your work or your design. Many papers also point out directions for future work and applications. You are also expected to discuss trends that seem to be evident and the conclusions you draw from your analysis and interpretation. You may remark on certain limitations of the study, proposing new research or suggesting improvements on your research.

To better understand what information elements are included in this section let us look at the following discussion section from a research report in the field of applied psychology. In this study the productivity of older and younger factory workers was compared. Notice the kinds of information that are included in this example, which is shown in the left-hand column:

AGE, EXPERIENCE, AND PERFORMANCE ON

SPEED AND SKILL JOBS IN AN APPLIED SETTING

Discussion

original hypothesis	The decrement theory of aging led us to infer that older workers in speed jobs would have poorer performance, greater absenteeism, and more accidents compared with other workers.
findings	The findings, however, go against the theory. The older workers generally earned more, were absent less, had fewer accidents, and had less turnover than younger workers.
explanation for findings	One possible ' conclusion is that the requirements of the speed jobs in the light manufacturing industry under study do not make physical demands on the older workers to the limits of their reserve capacity. The competence and experience of the older workers in these specific jobs may have compensated for their reduced stamina . . .
limitations	This study has taken a step in the direction of defining the relationship between age, experience, and productivity in one particular industry. lt is possible of course that other industries with a different complex of speed jobs and skill jobs may produce entirely different results. ln addition, it is important to emphasize that methodological problems in the research design limit our interpretations.
need for further research	The approach outlined in this study should be replicated in other manufacturing plants, as well as in other occupational areas in light, medium, and heavy industries in order to construct a typology of older worker performance in a variety of jobs.

(Weissberg & Buker, 1990, p. 161)

1. What did the authors of this study find out about their original hypothesis?

2. Why do you think the authors ordered the information in their discussion in the way shown here?

3. What other kinds of information do you think the authors could have included in this section?

The information that you include in this section depends greatly on the findings of your study. The kinds of information that you can include in your discussion section are not fixed. However, the first elements are typically those that refer most directly to the main purpose or hypothesis of the study.

Your readers now expect you to analyze and interpret your findings. The following list of information elements of the discussion section is conventional and provides you with a good model:

INFORMATION ELEMENTS IN DISCUSSIAN SECTION

1. A reference to the main purpose or hypothesis of the study.

2. A review of the most important findings, whether or not they support the original hypothesis, and whether they agree with the findings of other researchers.

3. Possible explanations for or speculations about the findings.

4. Limitations of the study that restrict the extent to which the findings can be generalized.

As the discussion section continues, the writer moves the reader’s attention away from the specific results of the study and begins to focus more generally on the importance that the study may have for other workers in the field.

5. Implications of the study (generalizations from the results).

6. Recommendations for future research and practical applications.

The order of discussion elements shown here is not strictly followed by all authors. However, the specific-to-general movement is a convention that most writers follow.

Date: 2016-01-14; view: 842

<== previous page	\|	next page ==>
Following are the examples taken from the result section of different articles. Identify the tenses of the verbs in bold type. Be sure you understand why each tense is used.	\|	COMPOSING LETTERS WITH A SIMULATED LISTENING TYPEWRITER

doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.006 sec.)