W11B. Writing up Anticipated Results and Discussion

1. Summary

1.1 Purpose of the Anticipated Results and Discussion

The Anticipated Results and Discussion section of a research proposal communicates what you expect to find and what those findings would mean. Unlike the rest of the proposal, this section asks you to reason prospectively: you are not reporting what you have discovered, but articulating what you predict and why those predictions matter.

Two subsections work together here. The Anticipated Results subsection answers the question What do you think you will find? The Discussion subsection answers the follow-up question What will your results mean, and so what? Both are essential: results without interpretation are data; interpretation without results is speculation.

1.2 General Recommendations

Before drafting either subsection, keep the following principles in mind.

• State your expectations explicitly. Indicate what you expect to obtain from the research. Vague optimism (“we hope to learn something useful”) is not a substitute for a substantive prediction.
• Accuracy is not required. You cannot predict the exact outcome of a study that has not yet been conducted, so your expected results do not need to be correct. What matters is that they are reasoned—grounded in your literature review, research question, and methodology.
• Connect results to earlier sections. The anticipated results must be linked to the problems identified in your introduction and to the methodology you have proposed. A result that could not plausibly follow from your chosen methods is incoherent.
• Use appropriate tenses. Write in either the future tense (will) or the conditional (would). Both are acceptable; choose one and apply it consistently throughout the section.
• Consider including a figure or table. A visual representation of expected outcomes—a predicted distribution, a hypothetical comparison table, a schematic diagram—can make anticipated results concrete and persuasive.

1.3 Writing Up the Anticipated Results

1.3.1 Use Clear and Concise Language

Write in plain, accessible language. Avoid heavy technical jargon wherever possible. Because the reader of a proposal includes evaluators from adjacent fields, phrasing that relies entirely on specialist vocabulary risks obscuring your argument rather than supporting it. If a term is indispensable, define it when first introduced.

1.3.2 Be Organized

Present your anticipated results in a logical order that flows smoothly. The reader should be able to follow from one expected finding to the next without having to reconstruct the underlying reasoning. A coherent sequence—for example, moving from the broadest finding to the most granular, or following the structure of your research questions—makes the section easier to evaluate and improves the overall persuasiveness of the proposal.

1.3.3 Present the Most Important Information First

Begin with the most significant expected findings and work toward less central results. This priority ordering ensures that your audience grasps the key takeaways immediately and does not have to read through minor details before reaching the main point. In a proposal context, evaluators often skim; leading with the most consequential result makes a stronger impression.

1.3.4 Be Realistic

Your anticipated results must be realistic and aligned with your methodology, sample size, and available resources. An anticipated result that would require a sample of ten thousand participants when you have described a purposive sample of thirty is not credible. Align ambition with feasibility: a modest, achievable finding argued clearly is more persuasive than an ambitious claim unsupported by the proposed design.

1.4 Writing Up the Discussion

The Discussion interprets the anticipated results in context. It moves outward from what you expect to find toward what that would mean for the field, for practice, and for future research.

1.4.1 Summarize the Key Findings

Begin by summarizing the key findings you anticipate. This brief recap anchors the discussion in the specifics of your study and reminds the reader of the concrete predictions before you move into interpretation. Do not simply repeat the Anticipated Results subsection word for word; instead, distill the most significant expectations into a clear, focused opening.

1.4.2 Identify the Implications

Explain the benefits that would follow if the proposal is accepted and the research proceeds. The discussion should address:

• Who will benefit from the findings and how they will benefit—be specific about the stakeholder groups (practitioners, policymakers, educators, system designers, or others).
• How your findings might change existing knowledge, practice, or theory related to your research topic.
• What might happen if the proposal is not accepted—that is, what problem would persist unaddressed and at what cost.

Making the implications concrete and stakeholder-specific gives the discussion rhetorical force. Abstract claims about “advancing the field” are far less persuasive than a specific account of who would use the results and how.

1.4.3 Contextualize Your Results

Place your anticipated results within the existing literature. Discuss how your expected findings compare and contrast with previous studies on the topic. This contextualization achieves two things: it demonstrates that you have read the relevant scholarship carefully, and it clarifies the specific gap your study fills. If your findings would confirm an established result, explain why replication in your context matters. If they would contradict existing work, explain why that contradiction is plausible and what it would imply.

1.4.4 Discuss the Significance

Explain the significance of your anticipated results—why they matter beyond the narrow scope of your study. This includes their contribution to the field of study (theoretical significance) and the potential benefits they might offer to society or professional practice (practical significance). Avoid vague claims; tie significance to specific mechanisms: because X would be demonstrated, practitioners could Y or because the existing model lacks Z, confirming it would allow W.

1.4.5 Consider the Limitations

Be transparent about the limitations of your study that might affect the interpretation or generalizability of your results. No study is perfect, and acknowledging limitations is not a weakness—it is evidence of scholarly rigor. For each limitation you name, either explain how it will be mitigated (through design choices, triangulation, or supplementary data) or explain why the study remains valuable despite it.

1.4.6 Offer Suggestions for Future Research

Discuss potential directions for future investigation that could build on your anticipated results. A well-conducted study raises as many questions as it answers. Pointing toward those open questions demonstrates intellectual awareness of the broader research landscape and shows that your work is positioned within an ongoing conversation rather than presented as a definitive final word.

1.4.7 Conclude with a Statement of Importance

Close the Discussion by summarizing the main points and emphasizing the importance of your anticipated results. This concluding statement should reinforce the overall significance of the proposal: why this research, why now, and why it matters. It functions as the final argument for why the proposed study deserves to be funded, approved, or pursued.

1.5 Practical Suggestions for the Discussion

When drafting the Discussion, consider framing your anticipated results in terms of their downstream effects. Strong discussions often mention how the findings will:

• Improve best practices in a professional or technical domain.
• Inform policymaking decisions at institutional or governmental levels.
• Strengthen a theory or model by providing additional empirical support.
• Challenge popular or scientific beliefs by offering evidence that contradicts a prevailing assumption.
• Create a basis for future research by opening new lines of inquiry or establishing a methodological baseline others can build on.

These framing strategies give the Discussion a forward-looking orientation that is typical of strong research proposals.