UQ logo
Welcome to the Hang in There Homepage You are at the Hand in There site

 Study

Writing

Scientific writing - Report writing


Reports generally follow a standard structure, so getting these right usually follows from understanding what the different sections of a report should do.

1. Abstract

With abstracts, it's important to note that they are NOT just another introduction to your report, they are a summary of your whole report. As such, if a reader doesn't have time to read your whole report, they should be able to just read your abstract to get a brief picture of:

  • What you did
  • Why you did it
  • How you did it
  • What you found (i.e. your key results)
  • The significance of what you found.

Work through the following example by clicking on the Next button.

Adobe Flash player is required to view this content.

Adobe Flash player is required to view this content.

The classic mistake with abstracts is to just write something like:

Poor example


This report investigates the use of HVOF thermal spraying of intermetallic compounds (specifically nickel aluminide, NiAl) onto parts vulnerable to high temperature oxidation and corrosion in gas turbine and waste incinerator plants.

This tells the reader "what was done", but doesn't tell them what the key results were or why they should care about these results.

2. Introduction

The introduction should (though not necessarily in this order):

  • Put the work in context (this involves summarising and appraising prior research)
  • Specify the research topic and state the purpose of the study
  • Outline any theoretical framework
  • Outline what you intend to do and why
  • State the research hypotheses.

By the end of your introduction, the reader should not only know what your research question was, but should also be convinced that it was an important and interesting question to answer and has not already been answered.

Usual types of justification include:

  • Closing a gap in the literature or extending the literature
  • Testing an important aspect of a current theory
  • Replicating an important study
  • Retesting a hypothesis using new or improved methodological procedures
  • Resolving of a conflict in the literature
  • Solving a problem, and so on.

3. Methods

  • An account of what you did in the order in which you did it.
  • It should be in sufficient detail for someone else to replicate the study.


4. Results

DO

  • Specify what the data were and how they were prepared for analysis.
  • Present a summary and descriptive statistics in a suitable graphical or tabular form.
  • Provide a verbal summary of the above.
  • Describe the data analysis (e.g., what sort of statistical test was applied to the data) and the outcome of the analysis.

DON'T

  • Interpret or offer any explanations for the results although you can say whether the data support or contradict any of your hypotheses.
  • Include calculations.

 

Example


Results
A one-tailed t-test for independent samples indicated that the younger group had a significantly faster reaction time (M = 320 ms, SD = 48 ms) than the older group (M = 392 ms, SD = 56 ms), t(38) = 4.37, p < 0.05.

(Example from: Findlay, B (2000), How to Write Psychology Laboratory Reports and Essays 2nd ed., Pearson Education Australia.: Sydney)

 

5. Discussion

  • Summarise, appraise, interpret and explain the results.
  • Compare, contrast and integrate results with the findings of other studies.
  • Point out and offer solutions for any methodological weaknesses or limitations.
  • Make suggestions for future research.
  • End with a concluding paragraph summarising the main findings and the lessons to be drawn from the study.


Example


Discussion
As predicted by X's theory of synapse response time decay with aging, the experiment showed that the older participants had a significantly slower response time than did the younger group. The increase of 72 ms (or 23%) for an age difference of y years however, suggests that this aging effect is ...

 

6. Appendices

If you don't want masses of data "bogging down" the main text and overwhelming the reader, but still think the data should be included for completeness, then the usual strategy is to put this data in an appendix and refer to it at the appropriate place in the main text.


Further reading


J.R. Matthews, J.M. Bowen and R.W. Matthews (1996) Successful Scientific Writing, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Student Services Reference Library. (Highly recommended.)

G.D. Gopen and J.A. Swan, The Science of Scientific Writing, http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/23947?fulltext=true&print=yes&print=yes.

M. Alley, L Crowley, J. Donnell, Christene Moore, "Writing Guidelines for Engineering and Science Students," Virginia Tech at: http://writing.eng.vt.edu/.

J. van Emden (1990) A Handbook of Writing for Engineers, 2nd ed., MacMillan: London.

B.M. Cooper (1964) Writing Technical Reports, Pelican: London.

University of South Australia Learning Guide: Writing Practical Reports at: http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learningconnection/students/Lguides/!9pracrv.doc

University of South Australia Learning Guide: Writing Practical Reports at: http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learningconnection/learnres/learng/word/!9pracrv.doc.

Back to top