LANG1402 Chap.10 Writing the Discussion and Conclusion
Writing the Discussion and Conclusion
Where reporting stops and interpreting starts
The lesson treats the discussion as the part of the report that everything else exists to make possible, and it names the shift precisely. You stop reporting that one source found this and another found that, and start saying what the set of them adds up to.
The section answers the question you opened with, puts your reasoning where a marker can see it, and reaches outward to what the finding implies for practice, for policy or for further study. The sorting exercise that opens the lesson defines it as much by exclusion as by content.
Of eight candidate elements, a statement of the question and background context belong in the introduction, a summary of each source and a note of where sources agree belong in the literature review, an acknowledgement of limits and a final restatement belong in the conclusion, and only interpretation and recommendations belong in the discussion itself.
What a discussion paragraph is made of
The three sample paragraphs the lesson analyses each do a different job.
One sets out the points of agreement and the points of divergence, treating a difference of scale or emphasis as a difference of scale rather than as a contradiction. One answers the guiding question directly with an interpretation that reframes the topic. One sets out implications in three named directions.
The language features named alongside them are analytical reporting verbs, hedging, cohesive devices and evaluative language, and much of that list is about linking rather than about content, because a discussion builds an argument rather than reporting results.
Four moves and one prohibition
The conclusion restates the guiding question and purpose, summarises the key finding rather than listing findings, reflects on a limitation of a small scale study, and identifies a direction for further work.
No new sources or evidence appear, and a reader notices immediately because the citation has no reference behind it in the review. Limitations are usually written as an apology when they should be written as a boundary: naming what the evidence shares tells a reader exactly how far the finding travels.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Eight candidate elements routed to four sections
- 02
Opening a paragraph with a reading rather than a fact
- 03
Differences of scale and emphasis, explained rather than stated
- 04
Analytical verbs, hedges, cohesive devices and evaluative language
- 05
Implications for practice, policy and further research
- 06
The four moves of a conclusion and the one prohibition
- 07
Limitations written as boundaries rather than as apologies
- 08
APA patterns and the check that runs in both directions
Turn a list of findings into the opening of a discussion
- 2Replace the first sentence with an interpretation.
- 2Use the same three findings as evidence for it.
- 2Name the relationship between them.
Key terms
- Discussion
- The section that interprets the reviewed findings in relation to the guiding question and draws implications, rather than reporting what each source said.
- Implication
- A consequence the findings point to for practice, for policy or for further research, stated specifically enough that somebody could act on it.
- Cohesive Device
- A word or phrase such as however, in contrast or taken together, which links ideas across sentences and paragraphs so that a reader can follow an argument.
- Evaluative Language
- Wording such as significant, limited, robust or preliminary that comments on the strength or importance of a finding rather than restating it.
- Limitation
- A stated boundary on how far a finding travels, drawn from a feature the evidence actually shares rather than from general modesty about the study's size.
- Hanging Indent
- The reference list format in which the first line of each entry sits flush left and subsequent lines are indented.
Writing the Discussion and Conclusion FAQ
What is the real difference between the literature review and the discussion?
The literature review reports what sources say and shows how they relate. The discussion says what those relationships mean for your question and what follows from them. The quickest test is the opening sentence of each paragraph: a fact about a source belongs in the review, a reading of the evidence belongs in the discussion.
Can I introduce a new source in the conclusion if it is a good one?
No. The published structure allows the conclusion only what has already been discussed, so a source arriving at the end has either been mishandled or does not belong. The two legitimate repairs are to move it into the literature review and integrate it properly, which makes it one of your three, or to cut it.
How should I write the limitation without undermining my own report?
Name a specific feature the evidence shares and say which population or setting the finding may not cover. That hands a reader a boundary and hands you a direction for further research. A general statement that the study was small invites doubt about everything without telling anyone where the finding actually stops.
Assessment move
Run the reference check in both directions and treat it as two separate passes. Reading the text and confirming each citation appears in the list catches omissions; reading the list and confirming each entry is actually cited catches the source you dropped while editing, which is the commoner error and the one that suggests the list was assembled rather than used.
Working through Writing the Discussion and Conclusion in LANG1402? Sia is AskSia’s AI Arts and Humanities tutor — ask any LANG1402 Writing the Discussion and Conclusion question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how LANG1402 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
