The Results section: How to use
tables effectively
Today’s agenda:
1. How to integrate text and tables into a coherent presentation
of results.
2. Examine tables in “mock” papers.
3. Examine published tables.
4. Wrap-up and assignment.
What makes a successful table
Just as with figures, your tables should present only your
most interesting and/or most crucial data.
Tables should be used to display supporting data that cannot
be effectively communicated in any other way.
When constructing tables, you should always eliminate
clutter and unrelated information.
Remember, the reader is busy and may skim the paper, notice
a table that seems interesting, and stop to look at it. Do not
force the reader to study the whole paper to puzzle out what
is being tabulated.
The importance of the caption
Each table must have a fully self-explanatory caption (or
legend). This means that a reader should be able to look at
the table and the caption and understand what is being
presented.
By convention, table captions are nearly always placed above
the table (whereas figure captions are usually placed below
the image).
In-class activity:
Let’s examine tables from “mock papers.” What
are the strengths and weaknesses? Could we
see ourselves making these same mistakes?
Plankton Type
Copepod
Neomysis
Cladoceran
P-Value
0.004939
0.302102
0.872516
Table 1. The P-values associated with selectivity versus availability
of three groups of organisms, copepods, neomysis, and cladocerans,
by the 3-spine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus.
Plankton Type
Copepod
Neomysis
Cladoceran
P-Value
0.004939
0.302102
0.872516
Table 1. The P-values associated with selectivity versus availability
of three groups of organisms, copepods, neomysis, and cladocerans,
by the Threespine 3-spine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus.
Critique: This is really a list rather than a table. Tabulations with
statistical values like this waste space. Put the values in the text
and do not use so many significant digits! Moreover, the caption
is awkward (incomprehensible?) and incorrectly located (table
captions are placed above the table).
average
standard deviation
CV
Velocity (m/s)
0.315484729
0.29605675
93.84186397
depth (cm)
22.00874087
16.43507372
74.67521118
substrate (mm)
115.6554054
84.17514793
72.78098901
Table 1. The average, standard deviation, and the coefficient variable of the
velocity (m/s), depth (cm) and the substrate size (mm) of the intermediate axis.
average
standard deviation
CV
Velocity (m/s)
0.315484729
0.29605675
93.84186397
depth (cm)
22.00874087
16.43507372
74.67521118
substrate (mm)
115.6554054
84.17514793
72.78098901
Table 1. The average, standard deviation and the coefficient variable of the
velocity (m/s), depth (cm) and the substrate size (mm) of the intermediate axis.
Critique: This example is more than a list—it would be difficult
to place in the text—but we can reduce the number of decimal
places here too. Formatting can be improved in several ways to
improve ease of reading, and the caption (which is poorly
worded) needs to be moved to the top.
Table 1. Showing the average values of the depth and velocity of the distribution of
the sculpin and the habitat.
2004
2010
Average depth
Average velocity
Torrent sculpin
23.9
0.50
Habitat
26.4
0.38
Torrent sculpin
25.0
0.45
Habitat
17.5
0.23
Table 1. Showing the average values of the depth and velocity of the
distribution of the sculpin and the habitat.
2004
2010
Average depth
Average velocity
Torrent sculpin
23.9
0.50
Habitat
26.4
0.38
Torrent sculpin
25.0
0.45
Habitat
17.5
0.23
Critique: The caption is not a complete sentence much less a
clear one. In addition, the boxes that enclose the data should be
minimized or better, avoided altogether. The Latinized scientific
name must be added—there are 70 genera and about 275
recognized species of sculpins, 37 in Puget Sound alone!
Table 1. Total number of Cutthroat Trout and Torrent Sculpin caught per year in each
habitat type. For all years except 2004, more fish of each species were caught in the
riffle area.
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Grand
Total
Pool
Cutthroat
trout
16
17
19
17
2
2
18
91
Torrent
sculpin
36
85
86
27
44
19
97
27
Riffle
Cutthroat
trout
9
31
20
15
5
8
30
2
Torrent
sculpin
69
174
149
56
144
68
231
43
421
120
934
Table 1. Total number of Cutthroat Trout and Torrent Sculpin caught per year in each
habitat type. For all years except 2004, more fish of each species were caught in the
riffle area.
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Grand
Total
Pool
Cutthroat
trout
16
17
19
17
2
2
18
91
Torrent
sculpin
36
85
86
27
44
19
97
27
Riffle
Cutthroat
trout
9
31
20
15
5
8
30
2
Torrent
sculpin
69
174
149
56
144
68
231
43
421
120
934
Critique: This is not bad, but the box should be removed and
scientific names added. Also, resist the temptation to interpret
the data or tell the reader what to make of it. So, the second
sentence of the caption should be dropped.
Tips for tables:
1. Use the space well: avoid a lot of “negative space.”
2. Consider carefully what the columns and rows should be—one
can present a very different emphasis depending on how the
table is laid out.
3. If there is too little “information content” (e.g., two or three
numbers) then consider putting the data in the text.
4. If there is too much “information” that the reader will miss the
important point—consider trimming the data in some way.
5. Make sensible use of decimal places.
6. Try vertical and horizontal presentations to see which is more
intuitive.
In-class activity:
Examine tables in published papers suggested by students.
Why did you choose this one? What can we learn from it?
Can it be improved? Is the caption adequate?
Assignment for Monday:
1. Work on the tables that you plan to include in your paper,
using what you have learned to communicate clearly and
efficiently.
2. If you’re ready, send me the Results section of your paper
3. Study the Discussion section of the published paper.
4. Plan the Discussion section of your paper.
5. Read pages 81–85 in the book.