Two Report Structures Compared
One slide sets a quantitative report's sequence beside a qualitative one, and four more slides describe most of the sections. This is among the most directly usable material in the subject — and it carries one ordering anomaly and one silence that are worth knowing about before you build a report on either.
The two sequences, as the slide gives them
THE TWO SEQUENCES, POSITION BY POSITION
| # | Quantitative report | Qualitative report |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Introduction | Introduction |
| 2 | Theory | Background |
| 3 | Data | Methods |
| 4 | Measurements | Findings |
| 5 | Methods | Discussion |
| 6 | Results | Conclusion |
| 7 | Conclusion | — |
Seven sections against six. The source states neither count; both are derived here from the quoted lists.
Two things are worth noticing before any of the detail. First, these are offered as examples of a report, not as a standard — the slide's own wording is that the text "outlines an example". Second, the two are not variations on one template: they differ at four of their six or seven positions, which is a design difference rather than a labelling difference.
Where the two agree and where they part
Common to both
- Open with an introduction
- Contain a methods section, at different positions
- Close with a conclusion
- Place the evidence between methods and conclusion
Distinct to one
- Theory, data and measurements — quantitative only
- Background — qualitative only, in the position theory occupies
- Results — quantitative only
- Findings and discussion — qualitative only
The most consequential asymmetry is not in the labels. The qualitative sequence gives interpretation its own named section — discussion — and the quantitative sequence does not. That reading is this library's, taken from the quoted lists rather than stated by the source, and the per-section detail supports it: the quantitative results section is required to "explore the significance of other contextual features" and its conclusion to reflect on implications, so the interpretive work is distributed across two sections rather than housed in one.
Data and measurements before methods
Taken at face value, the sequence puts what was collected before how it was collected: the reader meets the dataset, then the measurement instruments and scales, then the procedure that produced them. That is a defensible order for a study whose measurement design is the interesting part, and it is an awkward one for a reader who wants to judge the data's credibility before reading it.
The quantitative report, section by section
Read against the seven-part sequence, these five statements describe some of it and not all of it. Data, results and conclusion each get a description. Hypotheses and the rationale are required to be stated clearly without the slide saying in which section. Theory, measurements and methods receive no description at all.
WHAT THE SLIDES SAY ABOUT EACH QUANTITATIVE SECTION
| Section | What the source says about it |
|---|---|
| Introduction | No description given |
| Theory | No description given |
| Data | A general outline, including the size of sample achieved and response rates and their consequences |
| Measurements | No description given |
| Methods | No description given |
| Results | A general description of findings, exploring the significance of other contextual features |
| Conclusion | Opens with a strong statement of findings; reflects on the implications of the hypotheses being confirmed or not |
Two further requirements — that hypotheses and the rationale are set out clearly — are stated without being attached to a section.
One phrase in that table repays attention. The data section is to give "response rates and consequences" — not the rate alone, but what the rate did to the study. That is a stronger requirement than most reports meet, and it is the right one: a response rate is only meaningful next to a statement of what it means for the claims that follow. The library's treatment is on Questionnaires and Response Rates.
The qualitative report, section by section
WHAT THE SLIDES SAY ABOUT EACH QUALITATIVE SECTION
| Section | What the source says about it |
|---|---|
| Introduction | Treated as preceding the main headings |
| Background | Reviews existing research on the topic as discussed in the literature |
| Methods | Outlines who was studied and why |
| Findings | Listed in the sequence and given no description |
| Discussion | Applies the findings to the research questions and highlights the study's limitations |
| Conclusions | Returns to the ideas and themes that instigated the research; assesses the implications of findings for key research questions |
Four of those descriptions are genuinely good. "Outlines who was studied and why" is a better one-line specification of a qualitative methods section than most textbooks manage, because it names the two things a reader actually needs and refuses to be drawn on procedure. The description of the discussion — application to the research questions, plus limitations — gives that section a job rather than a topic.
Findings is the one heading left undescribed
The other four descriptions circle it precisely. Background reviews what others found. Methods says who you studied. Discussion applies the findings. Conclusions assess the implications of the findings. All four refer to findings; none says what a findings section contains or how it is written.
Results, findings, and a third vocabulary
The two sequences use different words for the section that reports evidence, and neither word matches the one the subject used a week earlier. This is not pedantry: a reader following the subject in order meets three names for what is arguably one thing, with no statement that they are the same thing or that they are not.
THREE VOCABULARIES ACROSS TWO WEEKS
| Where it appears | The name used | Whether it is defined there |
|---|---|---|
| The quantitative sequence on this slide | Results | Described: a general description of findings, exploring contextual significance |
| The qualitative sequence on this slide | Findings | Listed and not described |
| The previous week's write-up material | Results section | Defined, with rules and required contents, for reports generally |
The quantitative list has no findings section and the qualitative list has no results section. The previous week teaches a results section for both. The source does not reconcile the three.
Choosing between the two, and using either
The source does not say how to choose, and it does not need to: the choice follows from the study you actually did, which was settled long before you started writing. What the two sequences do is show you what each kind of study has to account for.
Reading the two structures against your own study
Applying either structure — a working check
- Say in the introduction which sequence the report follows, particularly if data precedes methods.
- Use one word for the evidence section — results or findings — and use it in the heading, the body and the abstract.
- State the sample achieved and the response rate together with what they mean for the claims, not as a bare number.
- Give the evidence section its own description in your own outline, since the source gives you none for the qualitative case.
- Check that every research question stated in the introduction is answered in the discussion or the conclusion.
- Confirm the sequence against your institution's requirements before drafting, not after.
The document furniture that sits around either sequence — cover, title page, acknowledgements, and the numbering conventions the same week states — is on Structuring a Research Report. The drafting stages that turn either sequence into a submitted document are on The Challenge of Writing Up.
What to carry forward
- Two complete sequences, quoted as examples from an external text rather than imposed as requirements: seven sections for a quantitative report, six for a qualitative one.
- The quantitative sequence puts data and measurements before methods, against every other structure in the subject. Record it, decide your own order deliberately, and tell the reader which you used.
- Theory, measurements and methods get no description in the quantitative account; findings gets none in the qualitative account.
- Findings is the section that carries your own contribution, and it is the only heading in either list left undescribed. Write your own specification for it before you draft.
- Results, findings and the previous week's results section are three names with no stated relationship. Choose one word and hold it across the heading, the body and the abstract.
Frequently asked questions
Should I really put data before methods in a quantitative report?
The slide's sequence does, and the library records that as printed rather than reordering it. It is quoted from an external text and may be that text's own ordering. Every other structure in the subject puts methods first, so if you follow this sequence, say so in the introduction and be ready to explain the choice.
What is the difference between findings and results?
The material never says. The quantitative sequence has a results section and no findings section, the qualitative has findings and no results, and the previous week teaches a results section for both. Within one report, treat them as the same section under different genre conventions, choose one word, and never alternate.
What goes in the findings section of a qualitative report?
The slide lists the heading and gives no description, which is the notable gap in an otherwise well-specified list. The four sections around it are described. The library will not invent a specification; the closest material the subject supplies is the previous week's rules for a results section, which are set out on a separate page.
Are these structures requirements I have to follow?
No. The slide's own wording is that the external text "outlines an example" of each. They are examples quoted by the teaching source, not standards. Where an institution publishes a required structure, that governs.
Why does the quantitative sequence have no discussion section?
The source does not say, and does not appear to notice. Reading the per-section detail, the interpretive work is distributed instead: the results section explores the significance of contextual features and the conclusion reflects on implications. That reading is this library's, not the source's.
How do I report a response rate properly?
The source requires the data section to give response rates and their consequences — the rate plus what it did to the study. A rate reported alone tells a reader nothing about how far your claims travel, which is why the word "consequences" is the load-bearing part of that instruction.
References and source attribution
- The supplied teaching source: weekly study notes, slide decks and assessment activities for a master's-level research methods subject in project management. Author, institution and year are not stated in the supplied files.
- Both report sequences are quoted by that source from an external methods text, cited on the slide by chapter number only. The text is not identified in the supplied extract and no claim is made here about its contents beyond what the slide quotes.
- The results-section rules referred to for comparison are from the preceding week of the same teaching source.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- Which report structure fits a mixed methods study?
- How should I order the methods and data sections of a quantitative report?
- What belongs in the findings section of a qualitative report?
- How do I report a response rate and its consequences?
- Should my report say results or findings?