1. Ten key parts of the manuscript
The Research Report
Ten key parts of the manuscript
Title page
Abstract
Introduction
Method
Results
Discussion
References
Footnotes*
Tables
Appendix*
*if necessary.

2. The Introduction Three tasks: Identify and introduce research problem.
Review relevant background theory and research.
Define purpose and approach to research problem.

3. Task 1: The Problem Questions addressed: What is the problem or issue?
Why is it important?
How does the current study extend, alter, augment, refute, etc., an aspect of the research issue?
What propositions were tested?
1-2 grafs +
1 graf +
Example of problem: Research shows personality develops in fairly consistent ways. What are the mechanisms of personality development? Well, role expectations might be because [To be uncovered in lit review]
Importance: Well, there is little in the way of an account of personality development. Role expectations might provide a start to understanding the process.
Extension and one of few attempts at using role expectations as a process variable in personality development.
Using a cross-sectional sample, we tested for developmental patterns in ratings of trait adjective expectations across four age-graded roles. What were the goals of the study in relation to the problem?
1 graf
3-4 grafs

4. Task 2: Review Summary of relevant research and theory
Avoid lists and “abstracting” all works cited.
Use transitions and headings to cue the reader.
Discuss shortcomings and be critical, where appropriate. Not simply an intellectual travelogue.
Craft a coherent and concise analysis that flows logically into the questions addressed in the current research (i.e., Task 3).

5. Task 3: Approach
What was done in the current study to address the problem identified in Task 1 and elaborated in Task 2?
Key variables (i.e., sets of role expectations).
How variables will behave—Hypotheses and rationale for predictions (flowing logically from Task 2).
Lead-in to Method section.

6. Housekeeping Don’t use “Introduction” heading.
Pay attention to how authors structure the introductions of their reports.
Be purposeful in your review. “How does this empirical or review article relate to the problem and how we’re addressing it?” Consult with me, Tim, or your classmates when needed.
Make it all count. Ask yourself, “How does this word, sentence, paragraph, section, perspective, finding, etc., persuade the reader or help her/him understand the nature of the problem, its significance, or the approach of the current study?”

7. Method
Goal: Write enough about what you did and how you did it so that it could be replicated.
Conventions:
Label section (Method, not Methods).
Use subsection labels—usually Participants, Materials, Procedure.
Other labels: Measures, Apparatus, Analyses.
Write at threshold of sufficiency.

8. Participants Report: Where and how recruitment occurred.
Sample size for all raters and for each set of raters.
Sex, age, race/ethnicity, relationship status, # marriages, # children, age of youngest child, and employment status.

9. Materials
Report:
Measures used (includes demographic questionnaire items).
Attribution: Where did the measure come from, or how was it created?
Sample items for measures/scales.
Response format.

10. Procedure Report: What participants did from start to finish.
Where did the assessment occur (setting, circumstances, supervision)?
Instructions?
What were the media (computer, paper and pencil)?
How long did it take?

11. Method Section Tips
If you did it right, it’s boring, but straightforward.
Participants subsection should give the reader a gross understanding of the sample (err on the side of being over-descriptive).
Materials subsection shouldn’t reproduce the measure, it should characterize and summarize it.
Procedure subsection should be visual. The reader should be able to mentally sketch the scene(s) and progression of events.
Remember, the Method section is the bridge between the Introduction and Results sections.

12. Results
Goal: Describe analyses and findings as they relate to hypotheses.
Conventions:
Label section (Results).
Describe analyses.
Report findings in words (1st) and statistics (2nd, usually parenthetically).
Use of tables.

13. Not Just Numbers
Remind reader of context of analyses and findings (i.e., hypotheses and predictions).
Describe type of statistical analyses (ANOVA).
Use subsection headings to report distinct sets of findings.
Tables must be referred to in text.
Tell reader how findings relate to hypotheses.
Report degrees of freedom, significance levels (p values), means, standard deviations, and sample sizes.
p value: The a posteriori likelihood of obtaining a result that is as extreme as or more extreme than the observed value you obtained, assuming the null hypothesis is true. Addresses Type I error—mistakenly rejected null hypothesis.
We’ll discuss how to present statistics once we start analyzing data.

14. Discussion
Goal: Clarify and interpret results: 1) within specific scope of hypotheses and, 2) within a broad theoretical and/or empirical context.
Conventions:
Label section (Discussion—not conclusion, summary, etc.).
Don’t report statistics. Statistical findings should be written in English.
Parallel Introduction.
Be reasonably conservative, yet unapologetic.

15. How did you do? What does it really mean?
Structure
How did you do? What does it really mean?
Were hypotheses supported by the results?
Restate hypotheses/goals.
Report validation or invalidation in same order as results section.
How do findings relate to previous work (empirical and theoretical)?
Discuss how results fit (or not) with trends of findings and theories of articles in Introduction. If inconsistent, try to explain why or cite similar exceptions.
What was done poorly? What could be done better?
Implications of research? Why might anyone be interested in these findings?
3. Use ideas from Tim’s lectures to identify weaknesses and areas for improvement: Sample size? Representative sample? Sample characteristics (Psychology students)? Gender of targets? Construct validity of measure?
4. Put research in perspective. What did the findings show? Make some claims based on results. What should be done now? How should research proceed to address questions raised by this research.