Discussion and Contribution Development

What is the difference between the results and discussion chapters?

Results state what was found, with the evidence, the base and the precision. Discussion states what it means: how it stands against prior work, what explains it, what follows from it, and what the study contributes. If your discussion could be understood without reading the results chapter, it is probably restating rather than interpreting.

What counts as a contribution for a masters dissertation?

Usually empirical or contextual: new evidence about a phenomenon, or an established relationship examined in a population, sector, country or setting where it has not been examined. Methodological contributions and modest theoretical ones (a boundary condition identified, a construct refined, a framework found inadequate in a specified way) also count. New theory is doctoral work. Contextual contributions are real and are undersold far more often than they are overclaimed.

My findings contradict previous studies. What do I do?

Report it, diagnose it, and do not apologise for it. Work through six candidate causes in order: different population, different measurement, different method, different time period, different analytical choices, and only then genuine disagreement. The first five explain most apparent contradictions. Then state both positions, name the cause, and say which is better evidenced for which population. A well-handled disagreement is often the strongest passage in a dissertation.

How do I know if I am overclaiming?

Check for population drift (your sample described as a sector or a country), causal language on a design that cannot support it, contribution inflation ("fills a gap", "transforms understanding"), and confidence inflation where a moderate finding produces a confident implication. Then apply the subtraction test: if this study had not been done, what specifically would not be known? Whatever survives that is your claim, and nothing beyond it.

How do I write limitations that are not generic?

Give each one three parts: what the limitation is, which specific findings it affects, and in which direction it would bias them. "The sample was small" is a fact. "The sample of 40 gives limited precision on the subgroup comparison, where the interval spans effects from negligible to substantial, so that analysis should be read as inconclusive rather than negative" is a limitation. Four to eight of those beat a list of twelve generic ones.

What do I say about a result that was not significant?

Interpret it, and distinguish failing to detect an effect from establishing there is none. If the confidence interval is wide and includes effects that would matter, the honest claim is that your study could not settle the question, which is a statement about the study. If the interval is narrow and close to zero, you have evidence of a small or absent effect, which is a statement about the world and is a genuine contribution. Never soften it into a marginal positive.

How should the conclusion differ from the discussion?

The conclusion answers the question the introduction asked, in the introduction's own terms, states the contribution, compresses the limitations into a paragraph, and says what follows. No new evidence, no new citations, no new claims. Read your introduction immediately before writing it, because the commonest defect is a conclusion that answers a slightly different question from the one posed.