To recap the three main parts of the paper outlined in previous sections: the introduction presents the context and aim(s) of your study; the methods section explains how you investigated the problem and probed for possible solutions; and the results section is all about the data you obtained. The purpose of the discussion section is to tie together everything that came in the previous three sections, explaining what it all means. Now — and only now — is the time to provide personal interpretations of your research. You must analyse the results obtained, point out any strengths or weaknesses in your methods that reinforce or weaken whatever conclusions you draw from the analysis, and clarify how your findings relate to your objectives.

Rather than using a template, the thread of your discussion section must be based on your own interpretations, translating your ideas into logical arguments that other people can easily understand. With this in mind, develop your ideas as fully as possible before you start writing the discussion section; after writing the previous three sections, spend further time considering the nature and limitations of the arguments you intend to put forward in your discussion.

Despite this need for an individual perspective, there are some relatively standard patterns that you may choose to follow in terms of structure and the literature has identified a variety of moves that researchers often use when discussing and interpreting their findings (for details on these, see Hopkins & Dudley-Evans [1988] , Swales [1990] , Holmes [1997] and Yang & Allison [2003] ). The following subsections summarize the four most common moves and consider the question of their order.