Writing up Research

Results

This page covers:

Purpose

What the results and discussion sections include

to present the results and make them meaningful to the reader.

WHAT THE RESULT SECTION INCLUDES

statement of results: the results are presented in a format that is accessible to the reader (e.g. in a graph, table, diagram or written text). Notice that raw data is usually put in an appendix, if it is included at all.

explanatory text: all graphs, tables, diagrams and figures should be accompanied by text that guides the reader's attention to significant results. The text makes the results meaningful by pointing out the most important results, simplifying the results (e.g. "nearly half" instead of "48.9%"), highlighting significant trends or relationships (e.g. "the rate of oxygenation decreases as the temperature decreases"), and perhaps commenting on whether certain results were expected or unexpected.

COMMON PROBLEM

The text includes too much detail that simply repeats data presented in graphs, tables, etc. without making the results meaningful.

Solution: remember that tables etc. are used to present a lot of information efficiently, but that your job is to direct the reader's attention to significant parts of this information.

ORGANIZATION

There are two basic ways of organizing the results:

Presenting all the results, then giving a discussion (perhaps in a different section)
Presenting part of the results then giving a discussion, presenting another part then giving a discussion, etc.

The method of organization you use will depend on the quantity and type of results you obtain from your research. You should look for a method of presentation that makes the information and ideas you are presenting as clear as possible to the reader.

EXAMPLE

Below is part of the results section from "Strategies of failure diagnosis in computer-controlled manufacturing systems: empirical analysis and implications for the design of adaptive decision support systems." Part of the discussion can be found on the Discussion page.

Task: read through the part of the results section below and try to find the purpose of each sentence. Click on the highlighted phrases for suggested answers. Here are some ideas to help you: explanation, reference to a figure, statement of results, making the results meaningful, comparison.

Strategies of failure diagnosis in computer-controlled manufacturing systems: empirical analysis and implications for the design of adaptive decision support systems
Konradt, U. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (1995) 43, 503-521

SUMMARY (adapted from the abstract) Objective of the study: to investigate strategies in failure diagnosis at cutting-machine-tools with a verbal knowledge acquisition technique. Method: semi-structured interviews with mechanical and electrical maintenance technicians; protocol analysis was performed on the data. Analysis of strategies was performed according to technicians’ experience, familiarity with the problem and the problem complexity. The technicians were categorized by level of experience.

3. Results

Figure 2 shows that the most frequent diagnosis strategies were “Historical information” (29% of the 182 observed strategies), “Least effort” (11.5%), “Reconstruction” (9.8%) and “Sensory check” (8.7%) (see Appendix). Strategies such as “Historical information”, which check available information about the failure history, and “Least effort” are two low cost technical checks which shorten the time needed for diagnosis activities (see Appendix). Strategies such as “Split half”, leading to a binary reduction of the problem space, and “Information uncertainty” play only a minor role in real-life failure diagnosis of machine tools (1.1%, see Figure 2).

Historical information (29.0)
Least effort (11.5)
Reconstruction (9.8)
Sensory checks (8.7)
Systematic narrowing (6.6)
Signal tracing (6.0)
Conditional probability (5.5)
Frequency (4.9)
Exclusion (3.3)
Manuals (3.3)
Pattern of symptoms (2.7)
Topographical search (2.2)
Diagnosis software (1.6)
Split half (1.1)
Information uncertainty (1.1)
Miscellaneous (2.7)

Figure 5.2: Frequencies of failure diagnosis strategies (n=182)

ADVICE

References to the figure and to the appendix are generally put in parentheses, e.g. "(see Appendix)" because this information is of secondary importance. Of primary importance are the results themselves, so most of the sentences focuses on them. Look at the following two sentences. Which one is more effective? Remember the purpose of the text in a results section. Click on them to find out.

a) Table 1 shows the results from the laboratory experiment.

b) The results from the laboratory experiment indicate that the reaction proceeds faster in the presence of this metal (see Table 1).

Back to the Writing up Research homepage

The Basics of Good Writing

How to reference

References (for works cited in Writing up Research)

Useful writing links