As an academic, I’ve marked thousands of undergraduate student essays and reports. Most of my courses involve students doing some kind of empirical data-gathering, and then writing it up as a report. Often, these students make similar errors, so I thought I would compile some advice here.
Before you start
Firstly, start your report by making sure you fully understand the brief. Have you conducted what you were asked to? Do you know what you’re attempting to do? You will be marked according to how well you’ve answered the question set – so make sure you understand the brief. If you’re unsure, ask.
Secondly, you will be assessed according to your understanding of the problem. So, make sure that before you even start, you read widely. Read the peer reviewed literature – search for it on Google Scholar or similar – and make notes on key papers. You’ll read them again, but starting with a good knowledge is key to a good grade.
Data analysis
If you’re aiming for a high grade or a first, you’ll be expected to produce something original and innovative. The handout and the question set will only take you so far – can you take the analysis further? An upper 2.1 or 1st will require a detailed analysis and technical skill and competence.
If you’re producing an empirical report, you should expect to conduct statistical analysis, to show high quality graphs and figures or maps (if geographical in nature), and to show a detailed analysis. Here is where the reading comes in – what analysis are the key papers in the field doing?
Writing up your report
When it comes to writing up your report, there are a few common errors and guidelines. Structure is very important. In general, I recommend the structure below, unless you’ve been told differently.
You could think of the structure of your report like a martini glass. Start out broad, narrow in on your study, getting increasingly specific, in the introduction and literature review. The methods, results and interpretations are very narrow, focused on your own data: the stem of the martini glass. The Discussion again broadens out again and makes reference to the wider literature.
Introduction
The Introduction should include a brief rationale for the study, and aims and objectives.
The Rationale is your why. Why did you undertake this study? What was the purpose? What is the problem or challenge that the project is targeting? This need only be brief, but do clarify why you have undertaken the work.
The aim is the overall goal or purpose of the study, while objectives are specific statements that describe the steps or actions needed to achieve the aim.
Usually, you’d have one aim, and several objectives that help you achieve that aim. The objectives should produce independent datasets or tasks. Be more specific and ambitious than just ‘make a graph’ or ‘analyse the data’; good objectives usually start with terms like:
- to quantify
- to characterise
- to evaluate
- to identify
You may also find it helpful to include a research question. This should be answerable, and specific – you’re not trying to shoot the moon here. Sometimes a hypothesis, based on the rationale or literature review, may be appropriate.
If your study is in a particular place, the Introduction should also introduce the study area, supported by a map.
Review of previous work
Reports, particularly longer reports, usually include some kind of literature review. This should be specific, i.e. targeted towards your research question or study site. It should also be critical – this means that you’ve consulted, in depth, a number of sources from a variety of authors, and that you’ve skilfully depicted the state-of-the-art with detail and depth.
A superficial, vague, lacking in detail review will often be termed descriptive and this is a hallmark of 2.2 writing.
There is more guidance on writing a successful literature review here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03098265.2017.1337732
In this section of your report, start out broad, and then focus in narrowly on your own project. Note the triangle shape in the Martini Glass structure above.
Methods
An empirical report should include a methodology that includes a degree of critical evaluation. What method did you use and why? Why were these particular data gathered? What sampling strategy did you use and why? This critical evaluation means that you’re referring to the state-of-the-art and following best practice in the method – and that you should be able to argue why this method is the best.
If there are any limitations to the method, you should say how you have addressed them and why your data are likely to be appropriate.
Think of this section of your report as the stem of your martini glass – very focused on your own data.
Results and Data analysis
The Results section of your report is important. Here, you should present your results in the text first, with figures and tables or graphs following the paragraph in which they’re mentioned and discussed. Too often a results section is simply a list of figures. This is not results – do you see published papers doing this? Instead, the graphs and tables are used to illustrate your data.
A good results section will be detailed, pulling out the trends and key points illustrated in the graphs and tables. You shouldn’t have interpretations in this section, just your own data. We’re still in the stem of your martini glass here.
Interpretation
Once you have presented your data, you can interpret it. A good scientist always separates out observations and interpretations. This is because interpretations may change as paradigms change, but observations don’t. This is why some work undertaken in the Victorian period is still relevant now!
The Interpretation should be focused on your own data and results. You’re still on the stem of your glass here.
Discussion and Conclusions
Here is where we widen out again. This should broaden out, using your own new data within the context of the broader literature. Does your work support or oppose the prevailing hypothesis? This should weave in, skilfully and in detail, extensive reference to the peer reviewed literature. You can also loop back to your research question and/or aims. You should be expansive here, looking in detail at the wider literature.
Maps
In geographical or geoscience work, or anywhere where the subject is related to space, maps will be important. Ideally these should be made in professional software (.e.g ArcGIS). Cite appropriately in the caption any datasets you have used.
Maps should have gridlines of latitude and longitude (rather than a measured grid), a north arrow if appropriate, a legend (with properly formatted legend items and text), and a scale bar.
Statistics
Report statistics appropriately using APA style. This is also a useful reference. As is this reference below from the University of Washington.
Report decimals in general to two decimal places.
Make sure that you use appropriate statistical methods – ask if you’re not sure – and use box plots, bar charts, line graphs and whatnot appropriately.
Line graphs are for continuous data! Not for tallies or counts.
Style and Writing
You will be marked for writing style. A high grade will require a very fluent, professional style and tone. A lower grade will be more straightforward and simplistic. Your university may well have support if you struggle with this. You should aim for good spelling and grammar – proof read your work carefully, or even better, do it with a friend.
I always find errors after I’ve had a break from the work – so consider proof reading after a day off from the work. This will likely mean that you need to complete a day or two ahead of the deadline. This requires organisation!
You should generally use the Oxford Style Guide in the UK.
Do you have any other recommendations?
Add your thoughts and comments below.