|
T. R. Girill
Society for Technical Communication/Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab. (retired)
[email protected]
Technical Writing: Results Explained Well
In his recent post at The Scientist website, Nathan Ni reminds
everyone publishing technical results that 'scientific data needs
to be explained as well as presented' (www.the-scientist.com/
how-to-write-a-good-results-section-71858). His concerns apply
very broadly, not just to writing formal articles. Some students
may be so relived to have actual results to report (from a science
fair project or class activity) that they overlook their
responsibility as science communicators to make those results
meaningful for hesitant or confused readers. Thus even when a
(student) writer is just summarizing how a project turned out,
before riffing on its (alleged) big-picture significance, 'they
need to provide context for their numbers and reference points
for their data.' Ni suggests three ways that writers can provide
such context for the results that they report.
Goal Reminders
Results don't just happen, they literally 'result' from some
goal-directed student/writer activity. The goal, a secret to the
reader until announced, might be trying a new tool, or or exploring
an interesting organism, or testing a specific conjecture. Ni urges
writers to help their readers by framing reported results in terms
of the goal otherwise hidden in the writer's head: 'To test the
plausibility of model A, we tried process B...'
Context Reminders
Even without an overt goal, exploratory science projects usually
fit into a disciplinary context that enables readers to (better)
appreciate how things turned out. Students who cultured cells in
solutions involving three different concentrations of glucose,
for example, could boost reader understanding by overtly calling
these levels out as 'low,' 'medium,' and 'high' when reporting
what happened. Such simple context cues lay the groundwork for
explaining result significance in a later, formal discussion
section.
Curated Presentation
A good museum exhibit displays some natural phenomenon in an
accurate yet managed, curated way. Ni thinks that all writers
can take a lesson from such extra display work to make their own
results more meaningful and interesting.
Result curation might involve featuring changes rather than
absolute values (if that is most important). Or perhaps using
a table or figure/graph to (re)display numerical outcomes in
a visual, comparative way that (often) highlights tends rather
than absolute values. The slope or shape of a plot, for example,
is often more helpful or revealing than merely its end points.
Also, writers do not need to report results in the same order
that they obtained them if, afterward, a different order proves
more revealing to readers.
A writer's goal is always to help their reader(s) appreciate
their technical results, not just witness them. Often,
specific, strategic adjustments to a report's results section,
along the lines suggested above, can help readers approach
those results in more thoughtful, interest-boosting ways, even
before readers see a formal analysis in a subsequent, official
'discussion.'
[For a big-picture overview of effective technical text, see
http://writeprofessionally.org/techlit/handbooktoc
For more on how students can design effective text, see
http://writeprofessionally.org/techlit/usability]
|