Author
Abstract
Many scholars posit that the explication of content within the discussion section represents the most challenging facet of academic prose. They assert that the discussion section is charged with furnishing a comprehensive portrayal of the study, encapsulating in a concise retort the narrative of the research, and, in a more extensive reply, a depiction of the pertinent and consequential findings. The discussion section caters to the reader, and its objective is not merely to recapitulate and reflect the research results. Nevertheless, many studies in the field of social and multidisciplinary sciences contain these shallow and inadequate components. This paper endeavors to scrutinize and critique the discussion section within scholarly papers to set forth a systematic pattern for the standardized composition of this pivotal segment. A multi-faceted critical review approach, alongside systematic literature collection and the use of text mining techniques to examine many scholarly articles and discover patterns and common themes, was employed. The findings emphasized the importance of content and organization in presenting a complete and coherent explanation of the findings, theoretical concepts, and research limitations, identifying several significant shortcomings in this section. To prevent shortcomings and add value to a scholarly study, a systematic pattern for writing a standardized discussion was created, including a seven-part pyramid with specific elements at each stage as a proposed roadmap for the researcher. Ultimately, the researcher hopes to contribute to the improvement of the quality and impact of scholarly articles by proposing the implementation of a written checklist based on the pattern.
Suggested Citation
Mohsen Moradi & Bahram Kheiri, 2025.
"Crafting cohesive narratives: a step-by-step innovative pattern for writing structured discussions in research,"
Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 4341-4375, October.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:59:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s11135-025-02185-9
DOI: 10.1007/s11135-025-02185-9
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:59:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s11135-025-02185-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.