Key Components of the Discussion Section
This video illustrates the six key components of the discussion section in a scientific research article by examining excerpts from a fictional research article about varroa mites in honeybee colonies.
This video is part of the University of Guelph’s Writing in the Sciences (WITS) website designed to provide science researchers and post-secondary students with practical guidance on how to use clarity and precision in scientific writing. This video was created by Dr. Jodie Salter and Dr. Sarah Gibbons, and the WITS project was made possible by an NSERC Science Communication Skills Training Grant. To access the WITS website with its modules, resources, and interviews, visit https://writinginthesciences.uoguelph....
VIDEO Descriptive Transcript:
To illustrate the six key components of the discussion section, we’ll examine excerpts from a fictional scientific research article about varroa mites in honeybee colonies.
The writer starts their discussion with an ANSWER to their RESEARCH QUESTION by noting which two natural chemical treatments are effective. They state, “Our findings indicate that formic acid strips and oxalic acid trickling are effective natural chemical treatments for reducing the presence of varroa mites in honeybee colonies.”
Next, the writer provides a SUMMARY of their KEY FINDINGS by focusing on which of the two treatments are most effective: “Formic acid treatment was the most effective treatment for reducing the presence of varroa mites in honeybee colonies. This finding suggests that this treatment is an effective option for Ontario beekeepers.”
After providing the key findings, the writer begins to INTERPRET their INDIVIDUAL FINDINGS. The writer provides explanations for the similarities and differences that they observe. For example, they note that, “Although oxalic acid is stronger than formic acid, formic acid strips were 14% more effective than oxalic acid trickling in reducing varroa mite populations. One reason for this observed difference may be that formic acid can penetrate the wax of the brood chamber whereas oxalic acid cannot.”
The writer also COMPARES their findings to OTHER STUDIES. They state, “Our findings with respect to natural chemical treatments are similar to those of Buzz et al. (2021). Buzz et al. (2021) compared the efficacy of sucrocide spray treatment to formic acid treatment and found that formic acid treatment was more effective for reducing mite populations. These similarities suggest that formic acid treatments are an effective option that beekeepers can use to protect their colonies.”
Note here that the writer moves beyond stating that their research is similar to that of others. [Laptop screen showing the text “These similarities suggest that formic acid treatments are an effective option that beekeepers can use to protect their colonies.”] They also indicate what these similarities suggest about the results.
In addition to highlighting what they found, the writer also ACKNOWLEDGES their LIMITATIONS. They note, “As our study took place during a single season, we did not have the opportunity to determine how temperature impacts treatment efficacy.”
[Text on screen “SUGGEST FUTURE RESEARCH.] The writer concludes by indicating how this research can be addressed by future researchers, noting, “Further research is needed to determine how seasonal temperature impacts the efficacy of treatment types.”
In their discussion section, the writer uses the six key components to guide their writing process. They answer the research question, summarize the key findings, interpret the individual findings, compare these findings to other studies, acknowledge limitations, and suggest future research. By addressing the six components, the writer helps their reader understand what their findings mean and how these findings contribute to the research field.