Empirical Research Reports: Journals

Reports of research that will appear in academic journals need to follow the journal’s guidelines. These reports will typically have an hour-glass shape (on its side): they start rather general, becoming more specific in detailing the research question (e.g., hypothesis) addressed in the research; they are very specific with regard to methods and findings; then they become progressively more general as the theoretical and practical implications of the research are presented and discussed. The introduction and discussion sections should be easily read by a general audience, whereas the methods and results sections are more technical. The Introduction section is sometimes referred to as a literature review; however, good Introductions are not exhaustive reviews of far-ranging literature, but focus on presenting a rationale for each research question or hypothesis that is addressed in the research. The methods section should provide sufficient detail so that the study could be replicated by someone else. This section should clearly state what the design and procedures of the study were, the manner in which sampling occurred, whether or not random assignment was used, and the psychometric properties of measures used (Wilkinson, 1999). The results section should provide a logical and coherent presentation of the rationale for data analysis and those results that are pertinent to evaluating the research questions. All data analyses that were conducted do not need to be reported; researchers should select those that provide a coherent evaluation of the research questions.

The discussion section should start with a one paragraph summary of the purpose and procedures of the research. Subsequent sections may be organized as going from specific issues (e.g., the research project and particular findings) to more general issues (e.g., implications of the research). The discussion should not merely repeat the results. The discussion should contain the (a) conceptual and theoretical implications of the results, (b) the practical implications of the results, and (c) the connections of the results to past research. This is the case for both significant findings and non-significant findings. (See the APA Publication Manual (2010) for contents of the discussion.) Null or non-significant findings can be presented in terms of (a) the theory, and thus the hypothesis, being wrong; (b) there were measurement problems that prevented a reasonable test of the hypothesis (e.g., a scale had an unacceptable coefficient alpha); (c) the design of the study was flawed or inadequate; (d) the execution of the research deviated from the protocol; or (e) a sampling issue contributed to the null results (sample size, nature of sample). Writing the discussion may require that new literature be cited to interpret unexpected findings. The discussion should be very cautious about making causal statements, although it may explore these issues. The discussion may contain a discussion of the limitations of the research, but this should not be a major part of the discussion.