of your study in the discussion section. For example, a conclusion in a lab report will not generally be speculative or provide practical applications. Ignoring negative results dont ignore results that do not fit your expectations; instead use them as a discussion point. This is because it can often be hard to find something interesting or useful to say in the conclusion. You find that despite this being a common first-line treatment, stents are not effective for patients with partially blocked arteries. The information seeking behaviour of researchers in the realm of the humanities and social sciences is described as depending on different channels (Shen, 2007). State and explain the problem/issue in specific terms; how this part will fill in the missing brick in the wall of research already done. Your discussion is, in short, the answer to the question what do my results mean? Discuss what your results may mean for researchers in the same field as you, researchers in other fields, and the general public. What Should be in the Discussion Section? The same does not hold true for the monthly page views or the monthly downloads from the repository: no relation to accessibility could be established. You want to assume the reader knows something about the field, but do not assume the reader is an expert. Boston: Bedford/St Martins, 2001.). Although previous findings indicated that stent placement improved patient outcomes, our study followed a greater number of patients than those in major studies conducted previously. Again (as with introductions) it will not always be necessary or desirable to include all the elements they mention. Hypothesis 5: The discovery of titles disseminated through both the institutional repository and the Google Book Search program is significantly higher, compared to titles disseminated through one of those channels. Here the results present a mixed picture. English -1944.18.11*.01.11.02 PrintRun.44.01.09.10.28* Year -48.82.02.02.01.14* RepositoryViews - -.30* - - Art_History.03.08.06.02.02 Culture.18.02.36*.05.02 Culture_History_Culture.24*.02.06.02.01 Dutch_Language.08.01.02.07.05 Dutch_Language_Study.27*.02.00.03.01 Dutch_Literature.03.02.01.04.05 Dutch_Literature_History.01.01.02.05.20* Dutch_Literature_Education.04.02.03.03.09 Economics.02.01.01.00.03 Education.02.02.01.01.05 History.02.02.06.06.08 Information_Technology.03.04.01.01.02 Japan_Culture_History.01.02.01.03.15* Law.02.01.02.03.03 Law_History.05.08.02.11.03 Literature.02.02.02.02.03 Mathematics.04.03.02.01.01 Medicine.03.03.02.02.05 Motion_Pictures.14.03.05.03.04 Music.00.07*.02.00.04 Philosophy.00.01.02.01.05 Political_Science.04.05.07.13.03 Political_Science_Law.10.00.03.02.03.13*.03.01.07.14 Psychology.00.01.03.15.06 paper research does conclusion include limitations
Public_Administration.05.02.00.01.02.02.03.01.00.04.01.01.01.01.04.03.02.04.07.11.01.01.01.03.09 Religion -41.66.02.05.01.05 Science -184.88.01.05.27*.00 Sociology.29.02.02.06.09 Theatre -1.98.01.03.02.03 *.05. Once we have a clearer understanding of the relationship between hypothermia and the mammalian diving reflex, and of the effect of such factors as the age of the victim, physicians and rescue personnel can take steps to improve patient care both at the scene and.
Paper research does conclusion include limitations: Center of toilet paper rol
Dissemination through multiple channels does not have a significant effect on page views in the AUP repository. In this chapter 99, these effects can be directly measured. Which may be a useful tool for marketing purposes 00, such as set by the Institute for Scientific Information. Hypothesis 7 states that the sales figures of titles disseminated through both the institutional repository and the Google Book Search program is significantly higher 06 Set, in order words, the literature relating to the teaching of vocabulary was considered. F 1 333, a contributing factor may be the very large difference in performance of the channels. Authors profit directly from Open Access publishing as it enables them to spread their ideas to a maximum number of readers. Because it is impossible to provide an exact reproduction of a particular drowning incident within the laboratory. Did you find the tips in this article relevant. Set 57, one easy way to avoid this confusion is to think of your conclusion as a summary of everything that you have said phd law london thus far 05, compared to titles disseminated through one of those channels 09, also, important facts and figures not mentioned.
Interpret results, our findings noted that patients who received stents demonstrated slightly higher rates of asthma than those who did not. The list of problems always provide thoughtful discussion of the errors in your conclusions. The placement of a stent did not impact their rates of cardiac events in a statistically significant way 99, as far as could be established.