Writing Discussion Section Of Thesis Research Papers On Engineering
While the introduction starts generally and narrows down to the specific hypothesis, the discussion starts with the interpretation of the results, then moves outwards to contextualize these findings in the general field.
The Discussion section is sort of an odd beast because it is here where you speculate, but must avoid rambling, guessing, or making logical leaps beyond what is reasonably supported for your data.
Generally speaking, the organization is as follows (examples from Rothschild, G., Nelken, I., & Mizrahi, A. Functional organization and population dynamics in the mouse primary auditory cortex.
Nature Neuroscience, 13, 353-360, DOI:10.1038/nn.2484): 1. Begin with a restatement of your research question, followed by a statement about whether or not, and how much, your findings "answer" the question.
Our data, however, put additional constraints on this connectivity model.
And to what extent are the responses of individual neurons in the network independent or correlated?The results of the content analysis of this study did not support this finding ...By not presenting consensus, distinctiveness and consistency information simultaneously, the present research design has successfully avoided the criticism of lacking real world characteristics directed at other research testing Kelleys covariation theory, research such as Pike & Bewer (1992) and Fergis, Nok & Layman (1996). Specifically, at short distances we observed both very large and very small correlations, while at longer distances we observed only smaller correlations..., the strong correlation between the signal correlation of pairs of neurons (generally attributed to common input), and the noise correlation between them (generally attributed to direct synaptic connections) of strongly coupled subnetworks that share common input.Such a model, with partially overlapping, strongly connected subnetworks that share common input, has already been suggested for L2/3 neurons in the visual cortex Different experimental procedures, including direct mappings of synaptic connectivity in local cortical circuits, would be required to reveal the underlying organizational principles of the auditory cortex.These should be the first two pieces of information the reader encounters.How similar or variable are the response properties of neighboring neurons in A1?: In vivo two-photon calcium imaging enabled us to characterize the functional architecture of neuronal populations in layer 2/3 of the mouse primary auditory cortex with high precision. Tonotopy and gradual decrease of signal correlation with distance were found when examining larger distances.It thus seems that local heterogeneity is embedded in larger-scale order in A1.In terms of the consistency of the provided information, the null hypothesis was supported: the provision of high or low levels of information does not correspond to the attribution made.The results of the experiment in terms of consistency oppose the trend suggested in the literature by researchers such as Mc Beatty (1989) and Orbit et al. Mc Beatty suggested consistency was the dominant feature of information that affected the nature of the attribution made, while Orbit et al found that consistency information had a string tie to circumstance or person-situation attributions.