A progressive discussion

A journey is not just about getting from A to B and reporting what’s at B. The slightly less obvious part is: how did it change your (by now well-informed) perspective on things? How did what you found during your journey relate to what you expected? Where were the deviations? How well did your experience integrate with what was to be expected? What turned out interesting?

Discussing your findings and building a synthesis of what was known before, what you found, and how these two sets of information converge or diverge is key to making your audience understand the value of your expedition. If everything ran like clockwork, and you can confirm what was expected, your discussion will feel like a celebratory victory lap. But the project is usually one in which—while the methodology was aptly chosen and worked according to plan—the results were not predicted. That is when things typically get exciting. The key requirement is, however, that things did not get exciting because of any intended or unintended influence by you.

Research means reflection and synthesis into an existing set of theoretical constructs. The discussion section in your report is the place for this synthesis.

(This is a preview section. The full chapter on this topic continues with the sections “Rough coordinates”, “Train of thought”, “In essence”, “To reflect”, “Two travellers’ tales”, “Devil’s advocate”, and “How to tackle”.)