How the Discussion section connects to the rest of the paper.
The pattern in the Discussion section is the same, from the natural sciences to the social sciences. In this article, we take a deep dive into two Discussion sections from completely different fields in completely different journals: the first is from Nature, the second is from Organization Studies. Both are open-access papers, so you can track down the full papers yourself.
Paper 1: “The rise of baobab trees in Madagascar” (Wan et al., 2024; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07447-4)
Nature articles don’t normally have separate Discussion sections. Generally, the structure is dense paragraphs combining hypothesis, methods, findings, and discussion (i.e., interpretation) of findings step-by-step, as in this paper by Wan et al. In the last section (or next-to-last section) of the main text, though, Nature papers generally include elements of a Discussion section. Here’s one paragraph from the paper, with a sentence-by-sentence analysis (excerpted, superscript references removed):
“The genomic and ecological analyses presented here enable a re-evaluation of the conservation status of baobabs. According to the IUCN Red List criteria, the two Brevitubae species are now listed as endangered (with A. suarezensis coded B1ab+2ab and A. grandidieri A4c, IUCN Red List, 2023). Our predictions, based on PSMC analyses and the identification of potentially suitable habitats, show considerable population size reductions for these species from 1 to 0.1 Ma and from the LGM (about 22 thousand years ago (ka)) to the present…These features plus their distinct ecological niches, narrow ecological valence and low genetic diversity suggest that the two species are likely to have reduced resilience to ecological perturbations and habitat fragmentation. In addition, coupled logistic models for species experiencing ecological competition fit the past population dynamics of species in Brevitubae and Longitubae (A. perrieri excluded), whereas previous studies modelling the distribution of A. suarezensis and A. grandidieri forward in time to 2050 and 2080 suggest that climate change will pose severe threats for A. suarezensis, leading to its extinction before 2080. We therefore propose the conservation status of A. suarezensis be moved from endangered to critically endangered on the basis of criterion A3ce of the IUCN Red List…We therefore recommend that conservation efforts should be focused on the three subpopulations outside the protected area network.”
Sentences 1 & 2: “The genomic and ecological analyses presented here enable a re-evaluation of the conservation status of baobabs. According to the IUCN Red List criteria, the two Brevitubae species are now listed as endangered (with A. suarezensis coded B1ab+2ab and A. grandidieri A4c, IUCN Red List, 2023).”
What these sentences are doing: Stating what the authors want readers to do with the findings (re-evaluate the conservation status of baobabs) and connecting the findings to what is currently known (they’re currently endangered). This sentence also connects back to two sentence at the end of the second paragraph (i.e., the Introduction): “The remaining Malagasy species are now listed as being of least concern but their declining populations indicate that more rigorous conservation strategies are required to ensure the long-term survival of these culturally and globally important species. For that to happen, a detailed understanding of the genetics of baobabs is urgently needed.”
Sentences 3 & 4: “Our predictions, based on PSMC analyses and the identification of potentially suitable habitats, show considerable population size reductions for these species from 1 to 0.1 Ma and from the LGM (about 22 thousand years ago (ka)) to the present…These features plus their distinct ecological niches, narrow ecological valence and low genetic diversity suggest that the two species are likely to have reduced resilience to ecological perturbations and habitat fragmentation.”
What these sentences are doing: Using the results to build a case for putting baobabs on the critically endangered list rather than having them remain on the endangered list (where the paragraph ends) by listing all the reasons why these species are so at risk.
Sentence 5: “In addition, coupled logistic models for species experiencing ecological competition fit the past population dynamics of species in Brevitubae and Longitubae (A. perrieri excluded), whereas previous studies modelling the distribution of A. suarezensis and A. grandidieri forward in time to 2050 and 2080 suggest that climate change will pose severe threats for A. suarezensis, leading to its extinction before 2080.”
What this sentence is doing: Connecting their findings to the literature (previous findings) and to species modelling, all leading to the conclusion to be drawn from the findings: baobabs will be extinct before 2080.
Sentences 6 & 7: “We therefore propose the conservation status of A. suarezensis be moved from endangered to critically endangered on the basis of criterion A3ce of the IUCN Red List…We therefore recommend that conservation efforts should be focused on the three subpopulations outside the protected area network.”
What these sentences are doing: Taking the findings and telling readers what should be done with them: put baobabs on the critically endangered list and increase conservation efforts.
Summary of the Nature “Discussion”
States what is currently known: Baobabs are currently endangered
States what is problematic about that current state: Predictions from this study suggest considerable reductions to their numbers
States how the methods allowed them to arrive at those findings: PSMC analyses and identifying potentially suitable habitats
States how findings change what is currently known: Baobabs will have reduced resilience to climate change than previously thought
States what readers and others need to do with these findings: Change the endangered listing for this species and do more to conserve it
Paper 2: “What We Do in the Shadows: How expert workers reclaim control in digitalized and centralized organizations through ‘stealth work’” (Schou & Nesheim, 2024; https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406241233175)
In Organization Studies papers, each contribution is generally discussed in separate subsections in the Discussion, with the first paragraph giving a general summary. Since each subsection follows the pattern I’ve stated in this blog, I show how the pattern holds in the first paragraph of the first subsection, followed below by the sentence-by-sentence analysis (excerpted, references retained):
“In recent years, scholars have paid more attention to the more menial (Huising, 2015), relational (DiBenigno, 2020) and stealthy tactics (van Wieringen et al., 2017) by which experts may claim control. However, there has not [been] an overarching understanding of this type of work, and scholars have not answered how the tactics reclaim control. We do so by conceptualizing stealth work as multiple sets of activities, which include strategic workarounds, using relations (DiBenigno, 2020) and concealment (Chan & Hedden, 2023; van Wieringen et al., 2017), that allow experts to claim control in organizations that are centralizing and digitalizing. The related prior work has mostly focused on how experts placate and work around stakeholders, such as clients (e.g. Chan & Hedden, 2023; van Wieringen et al., 2017), and we extend this work by showing how similar tactics can be used to negate the enforcement of managerial control. We point to three reasons why stealth work may succeed…”
Sentence 1: “In recent years, scholars have paid more attention to the more menial (Huising, 2015), relational (DiBenigno, 2020) and stealthy tactics (van Wieringen et al., 2017) by which experts may claim control.”
What this sentence is doing: Following the pattern, this sentence states the direction of recent research. While not stating directly what is currently known (which comes later, in Sentence 4), it introduces relatively recent literature.
Sentence 2: “However, there has not [been] an overarching understanding of this type of work, and scholars have not answered how the tactics reclaim control.”
What this sentence is doing: Problematizing that recent research and stating what is insufficient about it.
Sentence 3: “We do so by conceptualizing stealth work as multiple sets of activities, which include strategic workarounds, using relations (DiBenigno, 2020) and concealment (Chan & Hedden, 2023; van Wieringen et al., 2017), that allow experts to claim control in organizations that are centralizing and digitalizing.”
What this sentence is doing: Stating how the findings of this study help overcome some of the limitations of that prior research: by introducing a new conception of stealth work.
Sentence 4: “The related prior work has mostly focused on how experts placate and work around stakeholders, such as clients (e.g. Chan & Hedden, 2023; van Wieringen et al., 2017), and we extend this work by showing how similar tactics can be used to negate the enforcement of managerial control.”
What this sentence is doing: First, it briefly states what prior research has focused on, then states how the findings of this study relate to that prior research, and how. This is the argument of the paper: Stealth work can be used to negate the enforcement of managerial control.
Sentence 5: “We point to three reasons why stealth work may succeed…””
What this sentence is doing: Preparing to elaborate on the findings and what their implications are.
Summary of the Organization Studies Discussion
States what is currently known: How experts placate and work around stakeholders
States what is problematic about that current state: We don’t fully understand this type of work, nor how tactics reclaim control
States how the methods allowed them to arrive at those findings: Not as prominent in the Discussion in this journal—covered thoroughly in the Methods section
States how findings change what is currently known: While not stated in this paragraph, it is stated in other sentences in this section (e.g., “And while stealth work is also similar to institutional work in the sense that it takes the shape of seemingly unimportant day-to-day activities [Currie et al., 2012], it also differs.”)
States what readers and others need to do with these findings: Again, while not in this paragraph, this statement comes later in the Discussion section: “If other parts of the organization still act in ways that enforce expert control, such as in our case where other parts of the organization would ask for the expert engineer and not the frontline manager, then it is difficult for managers in the frontline to stamp down their authority.”
コメント