Strong examples of ASA format discussion section examples

Before we get into specific examples of ASA format discussion section examples, it helps to remember what the discussion is supposed to do in sociological writing.

In ASA-style papers, the discussion section typically:

• Interprets the main findings in plain, sociological language
• Connects results back to your research questions and hypotheses
• Relates your findings to prior literature and theory using ASA in-text citations
• Explains surprising or conflicting results
• Acknowledges limitations and suggests directions for future research

You’re not just repeating the Results section with adjectives. You’re answering the question: “So what?” in a way that a sociology professor, peer reviewer, or policy audience would respect.

Short example of an ASA discussion paragraph (intro-level paper)

Here’s a compact example of an ASA format discussion paragraph you might see in an introductory sociology class. Imagine the paper examined the relationship between hours of social media use and self-reported loneliness among college students.

Example 1 – Intro-level ASA discussion paragraph

The findings indicate a modest but statistically significant association between higher daily social media use and greater reported loneliness among students at Midwestern State University. Students who reported using social media for more than four hours per day also reported higher loneliness scores than peers who used social media for less than two hours. This pattern is consistent with earlier research suggesting that online interaction can sometimes substitute for, rather than supplement, in-person social ties (Lee 2020; Smith and Garcia 2019). However, the relatively small effect size suggests that social media use is only one factor shaping students’ experiences of isolation. Other unmeasured variables, such as preexisting mental health conditions or offline social support, may also influence loneliness. Future research should incorporate longitudinal data to determine whether heavy social media use predicts later loneliness or whether lonely students are more likely to turn to social media.

This is one of the best examples of a short ASA-style discussion because it:

• Opens with a clear statement of the main finding
• Connects to prior work with citations in ASA format
• Avoids overclaiming by mentioning effect size and unmeasured variables
• Ends by pointing toward future research

Extended examples of ASA format discussion section examples (upper-level papers)

To give you more realistic models, here are longer examples of ASA format discussion section examples drawn from typical upper-division sociology assignments. Each one highlights a slightly different purpose.

Example 2 – Linking findings to theory (education inequality)

Imagine a quantitative paper testing whether parental education predicts college students’ GPA, using Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital.

Example – Theory-driven discussion paragraph

The results support the expectation that parental education is positively associated with students’ academic performance, even after controlling for race, gender, and hours worked per week. Students whose parents hold at least a bachelor’s degree report significantly higher GPAs than first-generation students. This pattern aligns with Bourdieu’s (1986) argument that families transmit cultural capital that is rewarded in academic settings. In particular, students from highly educated families may be more familiar with dominant academic norms, such as how to communicate with professors, navigate advising structures, or access tutoring resources. These findings echo prior research documenting persistent achievement gaps by parental education (see also Lareau 2011; Reardon 2011). At the same time, the presence of high-achieving first-generation students in the sample suggests that cultural capital is not deterministic. Institutional supports, such as first-generation programs and need-based scholarships, may buffer the disadvantages associated with lower parental education.

Here, the discussion explicitly ties results back to theory and prior research. This kind of example of an ASA format discussion section is exactly what instructors want in 300- and 400-level sociology courses.

Example 3 – Interpreting non-significant findings (health disparities)

Students often panic when results are non-significant. In ASA writing, that can still produce strong discussion content. Consider a paper testing whether neighborhood walkability predicts BMI among adults.

Example – Making sense of non-significant results

Contrary to expectations, neighborhood walkability was not significantly associated with body mass index in this sample. This finding diverges from prior research suggesting that built environment features shape physical activity and weight outcomes (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2023; Sallis et al. 2016). One possible explanation is that the walkability index used in this study does not capture residents’ subjective perceptions of safety, lighting, or traffic, which may matter more than objective street connectivity. Another possibility is that dietary factors, which were not measured here, play a larger role in shaping BMI than local opportunities for walking. The absence of a significant association does not necessarily indicate that walkability is irrelevant; instead, it points to the need for more nuanced measures and larger, more diverse samples. Future research should incorporate both objective and perceived measures of neighborhood features to better understand how environments influence health.

This is one of the most useful real examples for students, because it shows how to talk about “null” results without apologizing for them.

Mixed-methods examples of ASA format discussion section examples

Mixed-methods projects are increasingly common in sociology and public health, especially in 2024–2025 as researchers try to understand complex social problems like COVID-19’s long-term effects, remote work, and digital inequality. Discussion sections in these papers need to integrate quantitative and qualitative strands.

Example 4 – Integrating survey and interview data (workplace discrimination)

Imagine a study of perceived workplace discrimination among healthcare workers, using both a survey and semi-structured interviews.

Example – Mixed-methods integration

Survey results show that workers of color report significantly higher levels of perceived discrimination than White workers, even when controlling for job title, tenure, and department. These quantitative patterns are reinforced and deepened by the interview data. For example, nurses of color described being routinely passed over for leadership roles and receiving less support from supervisors when patient conflicts arose. These accounts illustrate how formal policies that appear race-neutral can be implemented in ways that reproduce inequality, echoing prior findings on institutional discrimination in healthcare (Gee and Ford 2011; Williams et al. 2019). At the same time, some White respondents expressed confusion about what counts as discrimination, suggesting that organizational training may not clearly define biased behavior. Taken together, these results highlight the importance of addressing not only individual prejudice but also the everyday organizational practices that normalize unequal treatment.

This kind of example of an ASA format discussion section shows how to weave different data types into a single argument.

ASA discussion examples focused on limitations and future research

Many instructors explicitly grade the limitations and future research subsections. Here are two focused examples of ASA format discussion section examples that emphasize those pieces.

Example 5 – Limitations paragraph (online learning during COVID-19)

Suppose the paper examined student satisfaction with online courses during the COVID-19 pandemic at a single U.S. university.

Example – Limitations-focused discussion paragraph

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. First, the data come from a single public university in the Midwest, which limits the generalizability of the results to other institutional contexts, such as community colleges or private universities. Second, the cross-sectional survey design prevents any conclusions about causality between online course design and student satisfaction. It is possible that students who were already more motivated or technologically confident were more likely to respond to the survey, introducing selection bias. Third, all measures are based on self-report, which may be affected by recall error or social desirability. For instance, students might overstate their engagement to appear responsible. Future research would benefit from multi-site samples, longitudinal designs, and the inclusion of objective indicators, such as learning analytics or course completion data (see also U.S. Department of Education 2021).

This is one of the best examples for learning how to write a limitations subsection that is honest but not self-destructive.

Example 6 – Future research paragraph (mental health and remote work)

Now imagine a 2024 paper on remote work and mental health among U.S. office employees.

Example – Future research-focused paragraph

The findings point to several directions for future research on remote work and mental health. First, longitudinal studies are needed to determine whether the associations observed here persist as hybrid work arrangements become normalized. As organizations stabilize post-pandemic policies, workers’ experiences of isolation or flexibility may change. Second, comparative research across industries could clarify whether the benefits of remote work are concentrated in higher-status occupations with greater autonomy, as suggested by prior occupational health research (Karasek and Theorell 1990; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 2023). Third, qualitative studies that center workers with caregiving responsibilities, disabilities, or precarious employment could illuminate how remote work intersects with existing inequalities. By attending to these diverse experiences, future research can move beyond simple questions of whether remote work is “good” or “bad” and instead identify the specific conditions under which it promotes or undermines well-being.

Again, this is an example of an ASA format discussion section that thinks like a sociologist: conditional, comparative, and attentive to inequality.

Full-length example of an ASA-style discussion section (student paper length)

To pull everything together, here is a condensed but realistic full-length example of an ASA format discussion section. Imagine a 15-page paper on food insecurity among community college students using survey data.

Example 7 – Integrated discussion section

Overview of key findings

This study finds that nearly one in three students at Riverbend Community College reports some level of food insecurity, a rate substantially higher than national estimates for the general U.S. population (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2024). Food insecurity is most prevalent among students who work more than 20 hours per week, those who are parenting, and students from racially minoritized backgrounds. These patterns are consistent with prior research documenting the concentration of food insecurity among low-income households and communities of color (Coleman-Jensen et al. 2023).

Connections to prior literature and theory

The findings extend earlier work on college food insecurity by focusing on community colleges, which enroll a disproportionate share of low-income and first-generation students. The strong association between working long hours and food insecurity supports strain-based perspectives that emphasize the cumulative burden of low wages, unstable schedules, and academic demands. At the same time, the elevated risk among parenting students aligns with feminist scholarship highlighting the “time squeeze” and emotional labor that student-parents face (Hays 1996; Gault et al. 2014). Together, these results underscore that food insecurity on campus is not simply an individual budgeting problem but a structural issue rooted in labor markets, financial aid policies, and caregiving responsibilities.

Unexpected results

One unexpected finding is the lack of a statistically significant association between Pell Grant receipt and food insecurity once work hours and parenting status are included in the model. This pattern suggests that need-based financial aid, while important, may be insufficient to offset the combined effects of low wages and caregiving demands. It is also possible that some Pell recipients face higher overall expenses, such as childcare or transportation, which were not fully captured in the survey. This result complicates assumptions that financial aid alone can resolve basic needs insecurity and points to the importance of campus-based support services, such as food pantries and emergency grants.

Limitations

Several limitations should be acknowledged. The data are drawn from a single community college in the Pacific Northwest, which may limit generalizability to other regions or institutional types. The cross-sectional design also prevents causal claims about the direction of the relationships observed. For instance, students experiencing food insecurity may reduce their course load or work additional hours, which could in turn shape their risk of future food insecurity. In addition, the study relies on self-reported measures of food insecurity, which may underestimate need due to stigma or misunderstanding of survey items. Despite these limitations, the consistency of the findings with national surveys of college students suggests that the patterns identified here are not unique to Riverbend (Hope Center for College, Community, and Justice 2023).

Implications and future research

The high prevalence of food insecurity documented in this study has important implications for community colleges and policymakers. Campus leaders should consider expanding basic needs initiatives, including food pantries, benefits navigation, and partnerships with local food banks. At the policy level, reforms to financial aid that account for the true cost of attendance—including housing, childcare, and transportation—may be necessary to reduce students’ economic strain. Future research should examine how specific campus interventions affect both food security and academic outcomes, such as credit completion and retention. Longitudinal designs that follow students over multiple terms would be especially valuable for identifying when during the academic trajectory students are most vulnerable to food insecurity and how institutions can intervene effectively.

This longer model is one of the best examples of ASA format discussion section examples for students writing term papers or honors theses: it integrates findings, theory, limits, and implications without turning into a policy manifesto.

How to adapt these real examples to your own ASA paper

You don’t need to copy any sentence structures. Instead, use these real examples of ASA format discussion section examples as a checklist while you draft:

• Start with a paragraph that clearly states your main findings in plain language.
• Follow with 1–3 paragraphs connecting those findings to theory and prior research using ASA-style citations.
• Include at least one paragraph that addresses unexpected or non-significant results.
• Add a limitations paragraph that is honest but proportionate.
• Close with implications and future research, especially if your topic touches policy, education, health, or inequality.

If you’re writing in 2024–2025, your instructors are also expecting you to show some awareness of current debates: remote work, post-COVID learning loss, mental health trends, AI and automation, digital divides. That doesn’t mean you have to write about those topics, but if they intersect with your project, signal that you know the conversation has moved beyond 2010.

FAQ: ASA discussion section examples

How long should the discussion section be in an ASA paper?
For most undergraduate ASA papers (10–20 pages), the discussion section usually runs about one to three pages, depending on how complex your data and theory are. Shorter assignments may only have a single integrated “Results and Discussion” section.

Do I repeat my results in the discussion?
You restate the key results briefly, but you do not repeat tables or detailed statistics. Instead, you interpret the patterns, compare them with prior work, and explain why they matter.

Can you give examples of good topic sentences for an ASA discussion?
Yes. Strong topic sentences sound like: “The results support the hypothesis that…,” “Contrary to expectations, the analysis shows…,” or “Taken together, these findings suggest that….” Each of the examples of ASA format discussion section examples above opens with a sentence that orients the reader to the main point of the paragraph.

What is an example of integrating theory into the discussion?
Look back at the education inequality and food insecurity examples. In both, the writer names a theorist or framework (for example, Bourdieu, strain theory, feminist scholarship) and then explains how the findings fit, extend, or challenge that perspective. The key is to move beyond name-dropping and actually show how your data speak to the theory.

Should I cite new sources in the discussion section?
Yes, it’s common to introduce a few additional citations in the discussion if they help interpret your findings or connect to current research, as long as you stay within ASA style guidelines. Just make sure every in-text citation appears in your reference list.

Is it acceptable to mention policy or practice recommendations?
Absolutely, especially in applied sociology, education, public health, or social work. The trick is to keep recommendations grounded in your actual findings and the literature, like the real examples above that reference USDA, CDC, or NIOSH data rather than personal opinion.