Structuring a Research Report
One slide names what a report contains, another names how it should be presented, and both run past the end of the text the supplied file yields. This page stops where they stop rather than completing them from general knowledge — and pauses on the one requirement among them that deserves a second look.
Everything the two slides supply
This is short, and the shortness is the honest position rather than an editorial choice. Both slides are lists that begin with a stem sentence, and both stems promise more than the supplied file returns.
Three items each, in the same order the source gives them. Nothing else on either slide can be quoted, paraphrased or inferred from the supplied material.
Where the slides stop, and why this page stops with them
It would be easy to complete both lists. Anyone who has read a research report could produce a confident continuation, and it would look exactly like the recovered text on the page — same tone, same format, same apparent authority.
The three components that are recoverable
The source names the three and says nothing further about any of them. That matters more than it sounds: a component list without content specifications tells you a section exists and not what has to be in it.
WHAT THE SOURCE STATES ABOUT EACH RECOVERABLE COMPONENT
| Component | What the source states | What the source does not state |
|---|---|---|
| Cover | That the report should include one | What appears on it, whether it differs from the title page, or whether it is required at all in a bound submission |
| Title page | That the report should include one | Any required element — no title, author, date, degree, department or declaration is specified |
| Acknowledgements | That the report should include one | Whom to acknowledge, in what order, at what length, or whether it is optional |
Three components, named. No specification of contents attaches to any of them anywhere in the week.
The three format requirements
The second slide is the more consequential of the two, because a numbering scheme is a decision you make once and then cannot cheaply change. All three requirements are stated flatly, with no scheme, no example and no condition.
THE FORMAT REQUIREMENTS AND THE DECISIONS THEY LEAVE OPEN
| Requirement | Stated as | Not stated | The decision it leaves you |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section numbering | A requirement, unqualified | Scheme, depth, whether front matter is numbered, whether appendices join the sequence | How deep to go — a two-level or a four-level scheme reads very differently |
| Paragraph numbering | A requirement, unqualified | Scheme, whether it restarts per section, whether it applies to every paragraph | Whether to adopt it at all, given it is not a thesis convention |
| Page numbering | A requirement, unqualified | Position, scheme, whether front matter is numbered separately, where numbering starts | Front matter treatment, which is the only part of page numbering anyone argues about |
The columns of omissions are this library's reading of what the slide leaves open, not a list of things the source got wrong. A slide is entitled to be brief.
The practical point is that all three interact. A cross-reference in a research report reads as "see section 4.3" or "see paragraph 4.3.12" or "see page 87", and which of the three you can use is decided by the numbering scheme you adopt before you draft. Changing schemes after a full draft exists means revisiting every cross-reference in the document.
Paragraph numbering is a technical-report convention
Of the three, this is the one worth pausing on. Numbered paragraphs are the house style of specifications, standards, audit reports, contracts and government reports. They are not the house style of theses, and a reader coming from academic writing may never have produced a document that uses them.
For this readership the convention is not exotic — it is what you already read all day. Its real virtue is precision of reference: a numbered paragraph gives a reviewer, a steering committee or an auditor an address that survives repagination, reformatting and conversion to another file format.
Whether to number paragraphs — the library's guidance, not the source's
The other contents list in this batch, and whose it is
The same batch supplies a complete worked thesis schedule, produced as a project plan by a student rather than by the teaching material. Among its twenty-four tasks are several that are document components rather than research activities, and together they form a second contents sequence.
DOCUMENT COMPONENTS IN THE STUDENT THESIS SCHEDULE, IN THAT PLAN'S DATE ORDER
| Task, as the plan names it | Duration in that plan |
|---|---|
| Title Page | 10 days |
| Appendices | 4 days |
| Reference | 3 days |
| Acknowledgement | 2 days |
| Contents page(s) | 5 days |
| Summary/abstract | 3 days |
| Cover | 2 days |
Every duration is that one student's plan for that one thesis. None is a benchmark, a norm or a recommended allowance. Task names are reproduced as the plan writes them, and every duration here except the title page carries the plan's unresolved estimated-duration marker.
Two different things called structure
A useful distinction the source never draws. The slide on this page lists the report's furniture — the objects a bound document contains. The slide four positions later lists the report's argument sequence — introduction, theory or background, methods, results or findings, conclusion.
Document furniture (this slide)
- Cover, title page, acknowledgements — and an unrecoverable remainder
- Largely institution-specific
- Decided once, applied mechanically
- Carries no argument and is never assessed for content
Argument sequence (the companion slide)
- Introduction through to conclusion, with methods and results between
- Determined by whether the study is quantitative or qualitative
- Decided by your research design, not by a template
- Is the report — everything assessed sits inside it
You need both, and they fail differently: furniture failures are irritating and fixable in an afternoon, sequence failures are structural. The argument sequence is set out in full, with both structures the source supplies, on Two Report Structures Compared.
Where this library does have detailed evidence about report furniture, it comes from published work rather than from teaching slides: the front matter, body and back matter of examined theses are set out on Anatomy of a Doctoral Thesis, and appendix practice — including numbering and navigation — on Appendices and Research Instruments. That is a different evidence class from this slide, and it is labelled as such on those pages.
What to do while the slide is truncated
A working sequence — the library's, built on what the slide does state
- Obtain your institution's published format and submission requirements before you draft. This is the document the slide cannot substitute for, and the subject's own checklist tells you not to ignore it.
- Build your own component list from that document, and keep the three the source names — cover, title page, acknowledgements — as a minimum floor rather than a complete set.
- Settle section, paragraph and page numbering in one decision, before the first draft, and write the scheme down.
- Decide front matter treatment explicitly: whether it carries section numbers, whether it carries page numbers, and where the body's numbering begins.
- Choose one referencing idiom for cross-references and use it throughout — section, paragraph or page, not a mixture.
- Check the whole scheme once more at the polishing stage, which is where numbering errors surface and where the material says the final draft comes into being.
What to carry forward
- Six items are recoverable from these two slides: cover, title page, acknowledgements; section numbering, paragraph numbering, page numbering. Nothing else can be asserted from them.
- Both slides are truncated in the supplied file. The library names the gap and declines to complete the lists, because a reconstruction would be indistinguishable from the source on the page.
- The source names three components and specifies the contents of none. Title page elements and cover requirements are institutional — get your institution's document.
- Paragraph numbering is a technical-report convention stated here without condition. It earns its keep with review and audit readers; in a thesis, check before adopting it.
- Settle all three numbering schemes in one decision before you draft. Changing them after a full draft means revisiting every cross-reference in the document.
Frequently asked questions
What else was on the report components slide?
Not recoverable. The slide continues past the end of the text the supplied file yields, and the remaining items are unknown. Cover, title page and acknowledgements are all that can be quoted, and this library will not complete the list from general knowledge because a reconstruction would read on the page exactly like the source.
Should I number the paragraphs in my research report?
The source requires it without qualification, and it is a technical-report convention rather than a thesis convention. If your institution publishes a format requirement, follow that instead. For a sponsor, steering committee or audit readership, numbered paragraphs are genuinely useful because review comments come back as references to numbers.
Does the source say what goes on a title page?
No. It states that the report should include a title page and specifies no element — no title, author, date, degree, department or declaration. Those requirements are institutional, and the subject's own closing checklist tells you not to ignore your institution's requirements about format and presentation.
Can I use the student thesis schedule's list as the missing slide content?
No. The plan contains all three components the slide recoverably names and four others — contents pages, abstract, appendices and references — but it is student work produced independently of the teaching slide. The overlap tells you the convention is widely held; it does not recover the truncated text, and this library attributes the list to the student throughout.
Where should I look for a report structure I can actually work from?
For the argument sequence, the same week supplies two complete structures — one quantitative, one qualitative — on the companion page. For document furniture, the library's evidence comes from the contents pages of examined theses rather than from teaching slides, and the front matter, body and back matter are set out there.
Is the truncation a fault in the material or in the file?
The record only supports a statement about the file: the extractable text ends before the lists do. The consequence is recorded in the objective audit, where the truncation of both structural slides is one of the reasons the week's objective about writing a research paper is assessed as only partly delivered.
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.
- The two lists quoted on this page are from the Week 13 slide deck of that source; both slides are truncated in the file's extractable text and no further items are asserted.
- The acknowledgement obligations paraphrased here are from a checklist reproduced by the same source in its final week from a methods text's student-researcher toolkit, copyright 2012. It is paraphrased rather than reproduced.
- The thesis schedule contents sequence is student work supplied with the same batch. Its task names and durations are that plan's own and are not benchmarks.
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- What belongs in the front matter of a research report?
- How deep should a section numbering scheme go?
- When are numbered paragraphs appropriate in a research report?
- How should page numbering handle front matter?
- What is the difference between a report's components and its argument sequence?