How to be more critical in your PhD discussion chapter
How do you write a critical discussion chapter in your PhD?
You’ve slogged through the data. You’ve coded. You’ve themed. You’ve stared at your transcripts so long they now haunt your dreams. And now… it’s time to write the discussion chapter.
Welcome to the part of your PhD where you’re supposed to “critically analyse” your findings.
Only no one actually tells you what that means. They just say stuff like:
“Go deeper.”
“Be more critical.”
“Engage with the literature.”
...which is very helpful. Not.
So if you’re sitting there thinking, am I doing this right? Am I just rambling? Have I invented something groundbreaking or just restated my findings with fancier words? — you are in exactly the right place.
Let’s go.
What the discussion chapter Is not
It’s not:
A recap of your findings.
A second lit review.
A random stream of consciousness where you throw in quotes and hope for the best.
If your current draft reads like, “Participants felt sad. Smith (2018) also found that participants felt sad,” … we need to talk.
What it is - the critical thinking chapter
The discussion is where you flex. It’s where you show your reader: you’ve actually thought about your findings; you can connect them to theory, literature, and real-world context; you’re not just describing data — you’re making sense of it.
You’re not just dropping in quotes like confetti. You’re telling us what it all means, why it matters, how it links back to your research questions, where it sits in the wider field, and what it adds to existing knowledge. You’re not just saying “what.” You’re digging into the so what and the now what.
Think about it... Imagine someone hands you a box of puzzle pieces. The findings are the pieces. The discussion chapter is where you finally show us what the picture actually is.
So if you’re just laying out the same pieces again with different wording? That’s description. If you’re connecting them into something meaningful, insightful, and theoretically informed? That’s analysis.
The classic mistake: “This supports the literature”
Let’s say your finding is that “participants felt isolated.”
You write:
“This supports Jones (2020), who also found that participants felt isolated.”
Okay... and?
That’s description. It’s like saying, “This is similar. Yay.” You’re not analysing. You’re just matching socks.
Try this instead:
“Participants’ experiences of isolation were closely tied to institutional structures that prioritised performance over wellbeing — a dynamic also identified by Jones (2020). However, this study extends that work by highlighting how isolation was internalised as shame, especially among early-career professionals.”
Now we’re talking.
What does critical analysis actually look like?
Here’s a list of what your discussion chapter should be doing. You don’t have to do all of it in one paragraph, but you should hit most of these across the chapter:
Linking your findings to existing research
Highlighting where they confirm or challenge that research
Explaining why those confirmations or contradictions matter
Using theory to interpret what you’ve found
Considering context, nuance, and limitations
Reflecting on what it all means for practice, policy, or future research
Showing awareness of your own role in the research (positionality, anyone?)
So, consider…
Are you just describing what participants said, or are you interpreting why they said it and what it means?
If your examiner said, “So what? Why does this matter?” – would your paragraph hold up?
What would someone with the opposite viewpoint say about your findings? Can you pre-empt that and respond to it?
Zoom in, zoom out
One of the easiest ways to level up your discussion chapter is to use this rhythm:
Zoom in: Look at a specific point, quote, or theme in detail.
Zoom out: Connect it to the wider theory, literature, or social context.
Example: “When a participant said, ‘I just kept my mouth shut,’ this wasn’t simply a sign of disengagement — it reflects a deeper form of internalised compliance. This aligns with Foucault’s (1977) concept of disciplinary power, where individuals police themselves to avoid external punishment.”
You’re not just saying “they shut up.”
You’re saying: and here’s what that reveals about power, control, and identity.
That’s critical.
Handle limitations like a pro (not an apology)
When it comes to limitations, here’s what NOT to do: “This study had limitations because the sample size was small and only included women. Sorry.”
Here’s what TO do: “While the sample was limited to women, this focus allowed for an in-depth exploration of gendered experiences. However, future research could expand this scope to explore comparative experiences across gender identities.”
You’re not apologising. You’re showing critical awareness.
Final thoughts
You are not “bad at being critical.”
You’re just not used to doing it out loud in academic writing.
But the truth is, you already do it:
When you read a paper and roll your eyes at their sample size? That’s critical.
When you say, “Yeah but that doesn’t apply to my context”? That’s critical.
When you make a case for why your research matters? Also critical.
You’ve got the skills. Now you just need to put them on the screen.
So stop playing it safe. Get brave. Get analytical.
Ready to nail your discussion chapter?
My step-by-step guide will support you in bringing out all that good stuff you found in your research! Let’s finish your thesis strong. Click here to buy now!
