RESEARCH REPORTS
Written communication of research
• Science as a social activity
• Writing . . .
– as thinking
– as a tool to focus your thinking
– as hard work

WRITING REQUIRES ATTENTION
Chess (expert)
Chess (novice)
Reading (difficult)
Reading (easy)
Learning (intentional)
Learning (incidental)
Writing (reviewing)
Writing (translating)
Writing (planning)
0
Cognitive Effort during writing
(Kellogg, 1994)
100 200 300
Probe RT cost (ms)
400 500

THE STRUCTURE OF
A RESEARCH REPORT
• Title Page
• Abstract
• Body of Report
– Introduction
– Method
– Results
– Discussion
• References
• Tables and Figures

THE FRONT END
Title
• Indicates main idea, independent and dependent variables
• 10-12 words maximum
Abstract
• Summarizes the whole report
• Usually a sentence for each section
• Avoid details of method
• 100 – 150 words maximum

THE BODY of the REPORT
Introduction
• Overviews the problem or question
• Provides background on prior work
• Outlines the “design” and its purpose
• Describes main hypotheses
[so: reader knows what you did and why]

BODY of the REPORT (cont’d)
Method
• Describes what was done, how it was done
• Focus on circumstances that could influence the results
• Usual subheadings:
– Participants
– Apparatus and/or materials
– Procedure
[ so: reader could “replicate” your experiment]

BODY of the REPORT (cont’d)
Results
• Describes how data was “reduced”
• Verbally states pattern of results in the context of hypotheses
– Uses tables or figures to help represent pattern
• Assesses reliability with inferential stats
[so: reader knows what happened]

BODY of the REPORT (cont’d)
Discussion
• Reviews results in context of hypotheses
• Explains how results add to what was known
• Acknowledges any limits or shortcomings
• Notes practical or broader implications
[so: reader knows what we’ve learned]

THE REAR END
References
• To prior work specifically cited in the body of the report
• Arranged alphabetically, etc.
Author note(s) & footnotes
Table(s)
Figure caption(s)
Figure(s)

THE STYLE OF SCIENCE WRITING
• Transparent prose
– vs. prose style as content
• Paraphrased citations
– vs. direct quotes
• Common structure and format
– vs. ideosyncratic structure
• Few, short footnotes
– vs. many, discursive notes
• Dispassionate, no ad hominem stuff
– vs. when personalities, passions play a role
• Hedging conclusions
– vs. conclusions as truth

STERNBERG’S TIPS
What you say:
• Start strong, engage interest
• Do what you say you’ll do
• Keep the lit review short, focused and balanced
• Explain what your results mean
• Consider alternative explanations
• End strongly with a take-home message

STERNBERG’S TIPS (cont’d)
How you say it:
• Write clear, concise and readable sentences
• Aim for logical flow and organization
• Provide “advanced organizers” when needed
• Use analogies and concrete examples
• Don’t assume people will “know what you mean”
• Tell a good story
• Write for a slightly broader audience
• Avoid autobiography

ORAL PRESENTATIONS OF
RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY
Why have oral presentations?
• Rapid communication of results
– (but cf. Internet)
• More efficient communication
• Social bonding and interactions
• An excuse to travel

ORAL PRESENTATIONS (contd)
Types of presentations
• Colloquia & “job talks
– 50 minutes
• Seminars & workshops
– one to three hours
• Conference papers
– 10 to 20 minutes

ORAL PRESENTATIONS (contd)
Elements of a good presentation
• Have a plan, stick to it, and tell what it is
• Same basic organization as a written report
• Be painfully clear, redundant when necessary
• Simplify and stress important elements
• Know and relate your “take-home message”

ORAL PRESENTATIONS (contd)
Some notes on style
• Be relaxed, but don’t overuse humor
• Read if you must, but write as you talk
• Try to tell a good story
• Use visual aids as aids
• Control the dialogue
• Watch the time!