Analyzing Different Ways to Write Lab Reports

Brandon Calero

City College of New York

ENGL 21007

Professor Elizabeth Von Uhl

March 14, 2020

There is no way for products made by different people to wield the exact same results. Many people do research on various projects, yet the way they express the results can vary from person to person. This can be shown by reading various lab reports on subjects either being related to each other or not. Using different reports such as: Janusz Cofala and Péter Dörfner’s “Constructing Regional Energy Scenarios from Global Energy Models”, Livia Bizikova, Stefan Jungcurt, Kieran McDougal and Carin Smaller’s “Effective Public Investments to Improve Food Security”, and Nieves Zúñiga “Does more transparency improve accountability?”, we can find variety in different lab reports. We can use these examples in order to determine how to write in ways that are more effective when conveying the results. 

To begin, determining common relations between the methods of writing of each lab report can assist in building a format to write a good lab report yourself. Primarily each report tends to begin with introducing facts and statistics about the topic they are speaking on. This can be seen in each article in its own way. First Cofala and Dörfner’s “Constructing Regional Energy Scenarios from Global Energy Models” show this when they write “Energy consumption is a major source of various species of emissions to the atmosphere”(p. 1) to begin the report.  This is a relevant fact as they speak on the cause of the problem the experiment is attempting to assist and brings into context to how the problem became the issue needing to be solved in the first place. Bizikova et al.’s “Effective Public Investments to Improve Food Security” also does this when they write “Since 1990, the proportion of undernourished people fell from 23.3 percent to 12.9 percent, almost achieving Millennium Development Goal 1 (MDG1) to halve the proportion of people suffering from hunger (United Nations, 2015).”(p. 1). This uses the fact to reveal the issue in the  same way; yet has the reader acknowledge how the issue has been improving over the years. Lastly Zúñiga’s “Does more transparency improve accountability?” follows the trend as well when she writes “In fact, the demand for accountability is often responded by increasing the level of transparency under the assumption that better and more information would allow citizens, governments or markets to hold institutions accountable for their policies and performance (Bellver and Kaufmann 2005).”(p. 1). This brings to light the reason for finding the connection between transparency and accountability which is the purpose of the essay. These three connections show that there is a benefit in showing facts based on the topic. This is because it makes it easier to understand why someone would research the topic instead of just demonstrating the research. This makes it easier to comprehend the data given as something relevant rather than numbers on a screen. Secondly the reports seem to have prerequisites in how the research will proceed. Primarily Cofala and Dörfner(1995) uses four different tables in order to showcase different elements of the project(p. 5-8). In the same manner  Bizikova et al. (2017) uses a general table to highlight the reason of the problems and highlights the main objective for the research in order to categorize the part of the issue they are trying to assist(p. 2). Lastly Zúñiga(2018) writes 2 sections labeled “The concept of transparency and its demand”(p. 1) and “The concept of accountability and its demand”(p. 2) in order to display the two subjects and determine whether they do overlap. This way demonstrates the variables being tested in each experiment in unique ways for each individual experiment. Lastly they all include a summary in order to bring the results and demonstrate the importance of the project. Cofala and Dörfner (1995) show this by speaking on how effective their system is ending the report stating “Thus the approach is reliable enough to be used in the integrated assessment of regional impacts of global energy scenarios.”(p. 32) which brings the ability to review the data collected and allow it to be used in real life. Secondly Bizikova et al. (2017) also has a similar closing statement “Public investment in agriculture has a positive impact on food security.”  (p. 9) which demonstrates a final result from the project demonstrating how the research in agriculture can provide a major benefit for people who may not have food and can help raise their standard of living. Finally this trend concurs with Zúñiga(2018) as she states “The potential of transparency to lead to more accountability depends in great manner on contextual considerations” which can be seen as a conclusion to show that situations may cause people to act more discreetly yet that does not mean that they are less accountable when it comes to action, nor does being fully transparent mean your always going to be accountable. This is a summary that reflects the argument being pursued in the report. All of these are consistent throughout these articles and show a small layout to make a good lab report.

Yet there are also various differences between each article which strengthens or weakens their ability to showcase the material as well. Primarily Cofala and Dörfner (1995) use very sophisticated language. This is shown throughout the article an example being when it states “According to the RAINS database format, information on consumption of certain fuels (e.g., nuclear, hydro, renewables) and on electricity and heat generation is available for sector aggregates only” (p. 18) which can be difficult for those who may not understand the terminology yet wish to review the results for other purposes. Secondly Cofala and Dörfner (1995) display their process clearly. They showcase every equation, database, and material very clearly and actively discuss the reason they used each part clearly. (p. 9-31). Separately Bizikova et al. (2017) had another approach. Rather than the tables and equations in the other reports Bizikova et al. (2017) use figures and visuals to express the results they find more vividly and appealing.(p. 4-7) making the report easier to follow with the detailed expression of ideas. Lastly Zúñiga(2018) is made to be more logically intensive than project based. it states the purpose in a color coded box (p. 1) which can be useful in order to find the purpose quickly rather than searching through a paragraph. Yet it also falls short in its display of information. This is because most of it is packed together and difficult to tell where headings are. This makes it less accessible  for the general public, which seemed to be the main target of the piece. This can showcase the differences in each piece and how they can be related to one another.

To recap there are various ways to make a lab report in order to benefit the information being provided. The reports written by Cofala and Dörfner, Bizikova et al, and Zúñiga really showcase how there can be various similarities in the way a lab report can be written. They also showcase differences to showcase their involvement in the topic, and what they view as necessary for the data to be showcased.

References

Cofala, J., & Dörfner, P. (1995). Constructing Regional Energy Scenarios from Global Energy Models (pp. [i]-[iii], Rep.). International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). Retrieved March 10, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/resrep15846.1

Bizikova, L., Jungcurt, S., McDougal, K., & Smaller, C. (2017). Effective Public Investments to Improve Food Security (Rep.). International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). Retrieved March 14, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/resrep14752

Zúñiga, N., Jenkins, M., & Jackson, D. (2018). Does more transparency improve accountability?

(Rep.). Transparency International. Retrieved March 14, 2020, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep20498