How to write a Research Report- Mo

Title
-Plain is better than cheesy
-Should be self explanatory, easily understandable
-Try to reflect the strongest point of your study
-sexiest thing about your study
-highlight the think you do that is different from others

Abstract
1. Introduce purpose, research question, why it’s important
2. Briefly review theories used
3. Talk a little bit about sample and design (1 sentence)
4. Present major findings (things that are consistent with expectations and things that are VERY
contradictory to expectations); side things don’t need to be included
5. Theoretical and practical implications at what levels

Introduction
1. Overview section: 3 sections – finish before the end of your 3rd page
a. Establish the general importance of your topic, cite a lot of recent studies (1/2 page)
i. Reviewer- “This study is about X and it is important”
b. Present the focus of study;
i. State purpose
ii. define relevant concepts
iii. review specifically relevant research that has been done; integrate some theoretical link/
logic; point out the gaps and what they ignored
1. it’s conceivable, possible, etc. that
iv. conclude that we need this research to fill gaps
c. Generally describe your study and how you are making a clear contribution to the literature and
filling gaps;
i. theoretical contributions & methodological contributions
ii. pick 3 things about your paper: list the best one first,
d. Layout the organization of the paper
2. Build your theoretical framework (don’t have to link it yet); about 1.5 page per theory, depending on
theory
a. Lay it out very clearly; what is the theory and what is contained in the theory; what kind of IV’s
and what kind of DV’s go there?
i. Set up the theories used to support your hypotheses and argue all of your premises very
clearly and show enough support for your framework
1. what is the process?
2. what are the variables?
3. why are they included in the process?
4. HOW do they link together (mechanism)?
b. Give an idea of how the logic will be applied; lay out the mechanisms of the theory; set these
mechanisms up as truth for your future hypotheses
i. HOW does this work?
3. Hypothesis development- organize it how you want; represent in a figure if it’s confusing
a. Needs clear theoretical back up (show the mechanism of theory and WHY)
b. Empirical back up; other studies with similar findings using similar mechanisms or in a different
population
c. Clearly describe your mechanism; specifically how the mechanism works in this case and WHY
you expect your results
d. NO research question; instead, present competing hypotheses and present evidence for both
Methods: talk about how to deal with common method bias; be super clear

1
 1. Participants: talk about demographics for generalizability, talk about representativeness, wave 1 and
wave 2, response rate,
2. Procedure: design, how you did your stuff
3. Measures:
a. Response scale: agreement, dichotomous, how we code it, semantic differentiation, what does a
high score indicate
b. Present 1 sample item (pick the best item possible)
c. Reliability: what kind of indicator are you using and the value for this scale; match this with the
nature of your data
i. If it is bad, you can cite other studies that it’s reliable measures
4. Analysis: do a little test about common method bias: minimum test is to do an EFA to see if there is
substantial cross loading; “no cross loading was over .2 so …”
a. In SEM, state the kind of procedure you will be using; how are you going to test mediation and
moderation; justify with citations
b. Include fit indices

Results
1. Descriptive stats: means, standard deviations, correlation table; show these in tables
a. Correlations are also support for your hypothesis; every piece of evidence is validity evidence;
you can see if these are significant without controlling for other variable
b. Major analysis:
i. In the order of the hypotheses; holla back to the H’s
ii. only include stats for significant findings, when they aren’t significant just say so they
iii. don’t spend lots of time explaining WHY (that’s for discussion)
iv. qualify your data statements with a statement about what that means in a nonstatistical
way
c. If there is any explanatory analysis to help you explain contradictory findings; post hoc model;
look at correlations, test a different model or paths

Discussion: read enough literature to write a good discussion

1. Summarize how your findings support your hypotheses
a. Start with consistent ones, don’t be repetitive but be clear
b. Then inconsistent ones
2. Explain EACH one of your inconsistent findings
a. Write this in a constructive way, not defensive; although this is inconsistent with our
expectation, it tells us this new information and provides a new direction for
b. Be very up front and give them equal footing
3. Reasons accounting for unexpected findings
a. Methodological- chancy
i. Power – methodological, effect size, sample size
ii. Operationalization is problematic- measures
iii. Missing data- range restriction
b. Theoretical
i. Mediators or Moderators- 3rd variable
ii. Alternative theory or mechanisms- theoretical reason
c. Almost everything you do to present is speculative, so back it up with evidence
i. Evans- interactions found with common method bias is good
ii. Be bold, but reasonable in giving accounts
iii. Don’t be apologetic; show the constructive side
4. Implications
a. Theoretical- how does this support, expand and modify the theoretical framework
i. What cannot be explained by your theory and what new one’s can be incorporated to
solve the problem at hand?

2
 ii. How can it be extended?
b. Practical- always intervention
i. Individual level- wellbeing and productivity
ii. Policy level- org and/or govt. what can be done? Bringing the big picture in
5. Limitations (what’s inherently wrong with your study; acknowledge everything)
a. Write about everything that seems to be a problem
b. Be frank and up front about everything; don’t try to hide anything
i. Try to make arguments that minimize this concern but be open and avoid defensiveness
c. NO speculation; back up every argument with previous theorizing
6. Future Research directions
a. Stay on point and with theory; only things that are related to your current study
7. Conclusions
a. Summarize main findings
b. Summarize main contribution over current literature
c. Summarize future direction

References
This reflects your thinking
Don’t cite everything you know; just the things that are important
i.e. namely
e.g. for example
cf. confer for a different perspective/argument/findings

Tables
Standard error and standard deviation
include effect size measures: r square, correlation coefficient
include sample sizes in tables

Figure
No writing at all

Figure Captions
Put in order of figures
Define abbreviations in figure captions, spell it out

Other:
Remember transitions from one topic to another
Make the reader’s job easier
You are always selling right up until your limitations
You believe what you write

6 Rules
1. Make sure each sentence is accurate and useful.
2. Make sure each sentence is comprehensible.
3. Consistency is important (terminology, ordering of H’s and results)
4. Know what to present and what to hide; soften the red flags
5. Don’t use acronyms unless necessary; don’t create your own acronym
6. You are communicating your professional image. Be conscientious and use psych language.

Deal breakers:
Important questions Good design
Adequate results- like 7 out of 10
“annoyingness”