Abstract
There is a well-worn formula for writing a Discussion section: summarize results, confess limitations, and suggest future research. If you just follow this formula, however, your Discussion will be flat and tired, because while these are necessary features in your Discussion, they are not sufficient. To realize its full potential, your Discussion also needs to have a narrative arc: the story you set up in the Introduction needs to meaningfully develop. This chapter offers two strategies to help with this challenge. First we offer the drama metaphor as a way to identify, position and develop the characters in your research story. Second, we describe three storyline structures you can use to design and strengthen the partnership between Introduction and Discussion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
CONSORT. (2010). Checklist for reporting randomized trial. http://www.consort-statement.org/. Accessed 7 Aug 2020.
Docherty, M., & Smith, R. (1999). The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers. BMJ, 318, 1224–1225. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7193.1224.
Lingard, L., & Watling, C. (2016). It’s a story, not a study: Writing an effective research manuscript. Academic Medicine, 91(12), e12. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001389.
Lingard, L., Regehr, G., Espin, S., & Whyte, S. (2006). A theory-based instrument to evaluate team communication in the operating room: Balancing measurement authenticity and reliability. BMJ Quality and Safety, 15(6), 422–426. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2005.015388.
Lingard, L., Vanstone, M., Durrant, M., Fleming, C., Lowe, M., Rashotte, J., et al. (2012). Conflicting messages: Examining the dynamics of leadership on interprofessional teams. Academic Medicine, 87(12), 1762–1767. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318271fc82.
O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245–1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388.
Parshuram, C., Friedrich, J., Amaral, A. C., Ferguson, N. D., Baker, G. R., Etchells, E. E., et al. (2015). Patient safety, resident wellbeing and continuity in three resident duty schedules in ICU: A randomized trial. CMAJ, 187(5), 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.140752.
Skelton, J. R., & Edwards, S. J. L. (2000). The function of the discussion section in academic medical writing. BMJ, 320, 1269–1270. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7244.1269.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lingard, L., Watling, C. (2021). Writing a Discussion That Realizes Its Potential. In: Story, Not Study: 30 Brief Lessons to Inspire Health Researchers as Writers. Innovation and Change in Professional Education, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71363-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71363-8_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-71362-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-71363-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)