writing discussion

[divine]

Hi guys,
I have a serious confusion. I am writing my discussion part of thesis. As I began to conceptualize my discussion, I started thinking that some of the objectives can be combined and discussed to avoid repetition and lengthy writing. But my objectives are stated separately in methodology. what you people think?
For instance one of my objectives is to compare for coping among students in various years of study.
(after a list of other objectives-the next one follows)
another objective states to see whether coping predicts stress in students taken as a whole group.
when I discuss about difference on coping among various years- it doesn't make sense just to state difference and keep mum. How that difference in important in context of stress invariably seeps into discussion, making me quote studies about coping and stress.
at the same time I have seen prediction of stress by coping which needs to be discussed. But then when I get to this objective , it becomes repetitive as some of the supporting studies have already been discussed in one of the earlier objective (mentioned above).
there are many variables like this which are examined to see how they differ among various study years and then how they predict stress- where in discussion of findings in the light of supporting literature gets repetitive.
therefore, any suggestions (asap) are more than welcome.
Please let me know whether I can state that I am combining discussion of two objectives as it is logical to sequentially examine them rather than sticking to the order of objectives in methodology.
Thanks in advance....

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I would think it would make sense to have a separate heading for the finding in each objective and then a separate section to discuss the discrepancy. Also, you wouldn't need to discuss the supporting literature as much in the discussion as you would in earlier sections. The main point would be to state whether your current findings are consistent or inconsistent with the prior research. It's ok to be repetitive, you just say that this objective is also consistent with the research from so and so and so and so.

 

[divine]

Thank You smalltownpsych for your inputs. I know it is logical to do so. But the repetitiveness is obvious and monotonous. Will it be grossly wrong to combine objectives and discuss ?
or discuss in terms of variables???- Like say I take coping and its types as a heading and then discuss differences among groups and then prediction of stress by various coping styles... and proceed similarly on other variables.

And people....please suggest... and relieve me of this stress...