How to write the discussion chapter without repeating the literature review
If you are staring at your discussion chapter thinking, “I have no idea how to bring the literature back in here without just repeating my literature review,” you are not alone. This is one of the most common sticking points for PhD researchers at the writing-up stage.
By the time you reach the discussion chapter, you have already spent years reading, synthesising, and writing about the literature. Being told to now “return to it” - but in a completely different way - can feel confusing, frustrating, and even overwhelming. There is a good reason for that.
In this post, I want to clarify what bringing the literature back in actually means, why this part of the PhD often feels harder than writing the literature review, and the key shift in thinking that makes discussion chapters work.
Why the discussion chapter feels so hard
Many researchers assume that struggling with the discussion chapter means they have forgotten the literature, are not theoretical enough, or are somehow not ready for this stage. In reality, the difficulty usually comes from something else entirely.
The role of the literature has changed.
In the literature review, the literature leads. You look outward. You map what is already known, identify debates, and position your study within them.
In the discussion chapter, that relationship flips. Your findings now take centre stage, and the literature plays a supporting role.
Instead of asking:
What does the literature say?
You are now asking:
So what do my findings mean for the literature?
This is a much more active and demanding kind of thinking - and it is something many PhD researchers are never explicitly taught how to do.
What “bringing the literature back in” does not mean
One of the biggest misconceptions about the discussion chapter is that bringing the literature back in means summarising it again.
It does not.
If your discussion chapter starts to sound like:
“Smith (2020) says this… Patel (2015) argues that…”
followed by a brief nod to your data, it is completely normal to feel stuck. That structure places the literature back in charge, which is exactly what you are trying to move away from.
A helpful principle to remember is this:
In the discussion chapter, your findings lead and the literature responds.
From speech to conversation
One way to think about this shift is as the difference between a speech and a conversation.
In the literature review, you are giving a speech. You are saying:
“Here is what is out there. Here are the key debates. Here is where my study fits.”
In the discussion chapter, you are having a conversation. You bring your findings into dialogue with existing ideas. The literature helps you interpret, contextualise, and make sense of what you have found - but it is no longer the main event.
The loop that makes discussion chapters work
A practical way to approach discussion writing is to think in terms of a loop:
What did I find?
Which ideas, concepts, or debates help me make sense of this?
Does this finding support, extend, complicate, or challenge what is already known?
That is it.
You are not trying to show that you have read everything. You are showing that you can think with the literature rather than hide behind it.
Why the discussion chapter can feel exposing
This is often the point in the PhD where researchers start to feel unusually exposed. Your thinking is suddenly much more visible.
You are no longer simply reporting what others have said. You are making judgments about how well existing ideas explain what you are seeing in your data. That can feel risky.
This is also where imposter syndrome often reappears, whispering questions like:
“Who am I to say this theory does not fully explain what is going on?”
But notice what you are actually doing here. You are not dismissing existing scholarship or claiming it is wrong. You are saying that, in light of your findings, certain ideas may only partially explain what you are seeing, or may need extending, updating, or revisiting in your specific context.
That is not arrogance. That is exactly how academic knowledge moves forward.
A quick example
Imagine your research explores how public libraries are changing in order to remain relevant and financially viable.
Your findings might show that libraries are no longer just sites of book lending, but have become community hubs offering job-seeking support, digital skills training, children’s services, and social initiatives.
In the discussion chapter, you would not begin by summarising everything the literature says about libraries. Instead, you would start with that finding and then draw on relevant literature - for example, on public space, community infrastructure, or institutional adaptation - to help explain why this shift is happening and what it means.
Here, your data leads. The literature helps you interpret its significance.
Key takeaway
The discussion chapter is not asking you to invent entirely new thinking from scratch. You are not starting from zero.
You are being asked to return to ideas you already know - but with more confidence, clarity, and authority than you had at the start of your PhD.
If this feels hard, that usually does not mean you are doing something wrong. It often means you are doing the right kind of thinking at exactly the right stage.
And while the discussion chapter may never feel easy, it can feel clearer, calmer, and far less lonely when you understand what you are actually aiming for.
Need more help with your discussion chapter?
Check out my PhD Survival Guide, which will walk you through the process of preparing the discussion below.