1. Session 6 MED 6000

2. Discussion  So what does this all mean?  The place where the researcher can speculate, infer, and reflect  Challenge for the reader:  Has the author jumped to unwarranted conclusions?

3. Remember your own biases  We are tempted to approach with disdain anything inconsistent with what we already believe and think we know.  Our prior beliefs may have been based on studies with even more design flaws than the one now being read.

4. Significance  Statistical significance  The purview of the Results section. The difference or effect was unlikely to have occurred by chance alone.  Practical significance  How important or useful is the difference or effect?  Theoretical significance  The outcome is consistent with what would have been predicted by theory.

5. Evaluative Criteria  Is the discussion clearly written?  Is the discussion focused on how the findings are related to the objectives of the study?  Do the conclusions follow logically from the results?  Are implications, limitations, and recommendations for further research included?

6. Parts of the Discussion  Summary of Findings  Restatement of findings from Results section, typically with some explanation and elaboration  Avoid exaggerated claims

7. Parts of the Discussion  Conclusions  Should flow logically from results  May speculate about the ultimate meaning of results, but stay within “skeptical” bounds  Implications  What might the results mean for other researchers and practitioners?

8. Parts of the Discussion  Limitations of the Study  What cannot be found because of the research design or other limitations  Be frank about design flaws  Need for Further Research  What type of additional research could be conducted that would add to the knowledge base in this area?

9. Research Paper Workshop