Writing the report
| English | Chinese | Pinyin |
|---|---|---|
| abstract | 摘要 | zhāi yào |
| findings | 结果 | jié guǒ |
| discussion | 讨论 | tǎo lùn |
A report has a fixed shape, and the shape is marked
- Abstract 摘要, introduction, method, findings, discussion, conclusion, references.
- The order is not a convention you may improve on. A reader looks for each part where it belongs.
- Most structural marks are lost in one place: mixing findings with discussion.
Put the sections of a research report in order.
A reader looks for each part where it belongs, so the order is marked rather than optional.
Method
- The method section must let a stranger repeat your study: who, how many, how selected, what they were asked, when.
- Vagueness here is not a style problem. It means nobody can check the result, which is what would have made it evidence.
- Include the instrument itself — the questionnaire, the interview schedule — in an appendix.
What is the test of a good method section?
Vagueness there means nobody can check the result, which is what would have made it evidence.
Findings against discussion
- Findings 结果 report what you found: numbers, quotations, patterns. No interpretation.
- The discussion 讨论 says what it means, how it relates to other work, and what it cannot show.
- ⚠ Keeping them apart is what lets a reader disagree with your interpretation while accepting your data — which is the point of the separation.
One sentence in the wrong section.
In findings: "62% of respondents said they skip breakfast, which shows that the canteen opens too late."
The first half is a finding. The second is an interpretation, and it belongs in the discussion — where it can be argued for, weighed against other explanations, and qualified.
Left in the findings, it makes every other number in the section look like an argument too, and a reader stops trusting the data.
"62% skip breakfast, which shows the canteen opens too late." What is wrong?
Left in findings it makes the other numbers look like arguments, and a reader stops trusting the data.
Rewrite "62% skip breakfast, which shows the canteen opens too late" as a findings sentence only.
Example: "62% of the 200 respondents reported skipping breakfast on at least three days last week."
State the limitations explicitly. A report that names its own weaknesses is trusted more, not less. An examiner will find the gap you did not mention, and finding it yourself is worth marks that hiding it cannot save.
Naming your study's weaknesses makes a report less credible.
It makes it more credible, and finding the gap yourself earns marks that hiding it cannot save.
Do not write the abstract first. It summarises what the report actually says, which you do not know until it is written — and an abstract describing the study you intended is the fastest way to advertise that the two are different.