Chapter 16: Writing an APA-Style Research Report

Welcome to Last Minute Lecture.

This free chapter overview is designed to help students review and understand key concepts.

These summaries supplement not replace the original textbook and may not be redistributed or resold.

For complete coverage, always consult the official text.

Ever stopped to think about what happens after a researcher makes a discovery?

They've done the studies, crunched the numbers, but if that knowledge just, you know, sits there, has it really made an impact?

Right.

That sharing part, making it public, getting it out to the community, that feels like the crucial final step.

It really does.

It turns potential into actual progress.

Absolutely.

And that whole process of sharing, of joining the scholarly conversation, that's really where research gets its power and right at the heart of that, the research report.

Okay, so buckle up because in this deep dive, we are getting into the real details, the nitty gritty of how to write a research report specifically for the behavioral sciences.

And our guide for this, we're focusing on the publication manual of the American Psychological Association, the sixth edition specifically.

Exactly.

Think of this as our attempt to make that, let's be honest, sometimes pretty daunting manual, a bit more approachable for you.

And yeah, it's worth remembering who you're writing these reports for.

It could be for a peer review journal, maybe a conference presentation, or even a class project, right?

Right.

But the core principles for putting together a good, clear report,

they're pretty much essential across the board if you want to communicate effectively.

Totally.

You can think of a research report as needing to tell a clear story.

What questions were you asking?

How did you try to find the answers?

What did you actually find?

And crucially, how do those findings fit into what we already know, the bigger picture?

Now, I get it.

The idea of writing a whole research report can seem, well, huge, overwhelming sometimes.

Yeah.

But it helps to reframe it.

You're not starting with a totally blank page.

It's actually a very structured document,

like a template almost.

That's a good way to put it, a template that guides you through presenting your work.

And here's something that might help you feel better.

If you've been careful during your research, keeping good notes, organizing the articles you've read.

All that background work.

Exactly.

You've actually already done a lot of the heavy lifting.

You're kind of assembling the pieces you've already gathered.

That's a really key point.

And speaking of frameworks, that brings us to APA style.

Right.

It's pretty much the standard, the accepted convention in behavioral sciences for formatting and writing these reports.

It gives us that consistent template we was talking about.

But, and this is important for you to keep in mind, APA isn't the only way.

Oh, definitely not.

Different fields, even specific journals might have their own quirks, their own guidelines.

So, rule number one,

if you know where you want to publish or present, always, always check their specific instructions for authors.

Couldn't agree more.

Always check the target journal's specifics.

And while we're aiming to give you a really solid overview today, remember this deep dive is, well, it's a summary.

A highlights reel.

Yeah, exactly.

The publication manual itself, that's the ultimate authority.

Consider us your guides pointing out the main landmarks.

And don't forget the other APA resources.

They have a style workbook and their website, appasyle .org, is full of useful info.

Definitely check those out.

So, just to make sure we're all starting from the same place, let's nail down the definition.

Our source defines a research report as a written description of a study.

It has to include a clear statement of purpose, a review of the relevant background

a detailed account of the methods used, the results you found, and then a discussion section that interprets those findings and connects them back to what's already known.

Right.

It's the whole package designed for clarity and hopefully impact.

Absolutely.

And the foundation for putting that package together really lies in understanding the general APA guidelines for writing style and format.

Yeah, it might not sound like the most thrilling part, maybe.

Maybe not.

But it's so fundamental for clear communication.

Think of it like establishing a common language for scientists.

That's a great analogy.

APA style is all about a standardized format and really clear, direct communication.

This isn't the place for, you know, creative writing flourishes.

No, the goal is precision, avoiding distractions.

You want your reader focused on the research itself, not trying to figure out your unique formatting style.

Exactly.

It's about making it easy for your readers to find information, understand your process, and evaluate your findings without getting tripped up by confusing style or formatting.

The research has to be front and center.

Okay.

Let's zoom in on something super critical within that.

Yeah.

Citations.

We know we need to give credit, but APA has a very specific system for doing it.

It really does.

And citations do a few really important jobs.

They give context by linking to previous work.

They back up your claims with evidence.

And maybe most importantly, they help you avoid plagiarism.

Our source really emphasizes this passing off someone else's ideas or words as your own.

That's a huge no -no in academics.

Right.

So the basic rule is if it's not common knowledge in your field, or if you're talking about someone else's work, their results, their theories, you absolutely need to cite it.

And a really key APA principle.

Only site work you've actually read yourself.

Don't rely on secondary citations if you can help it.

Good point.

So how does it actually look in the text?

An APA in -text citation needs what?

Fundamentally just two things.

The author's last name and the year of publication.

And there are basically two main ways you can weave this into your sentences.

Okay.

What's the first way?

The first is the parenthetical citation.

This is where you make your statement and then you put the author and year in parentheses, usually at the end of the sentence.

Like studies show X leads to Y Smith 2020.

Exactly.

The focus stays on the information itself and the citation is there as backup.

Okay.

And the second way?

The second way is when you make the author part of your sentence, you weave their name right into the narrative.

So like Smith 2020 found that X leads to Y.

Precisely.

In that case, the year usually follows the author's name directly in parentheses.

Here you're highlighting the researcher who did the work.

Got it.

Now what about when there's more than one author?

That's where it gets a bit more complex, right?

A little bit, yeah.

There are specific rules.

If you're doing a parenthetical citation, the first type we talked about, and there are multiple authors, you use an ampersand, that and symbol, right before the last author's name.

So Jones, Lee, and Kim 2019.

Okay.

Ampersand in parentheses.

But what if I'm naming them in the sentence?

Ah, then you actually spell out the word and.

So Jones, Lee, and Kim 2019 discovered.

Simple difference, but important for APA style.

Okay, that makes sense.

And the number of authors matters too, doesn't it?

For how you cite them after the first time.

Yes, exactly.

If a work has just one or two authors, you list both names every single time you cite that source in your paper.

No shortcuts.

Every single time.

Got it.

But if the work has three, four, or five authors, you list all of their last names the very first time you cite it.

The first time only.

The first time only.

Then for every subsequent citation of that same work in your paper, you just use the first author's last name followed by at all.

Which means and others and the year.

Ah, at all.

So like Jones at all 2019, the second time around.

Exactly.

It just keeps the text cleaner after you've given the full list once.

Save space and repetition.

That makes a lot of sense.

Prevents those long strings of names over and over.

And our source mentioned something else interesting.

A subtle difference in the verbs we use when citing.

Yes, that's a nice touch for precision.

Yeah.

It's common practice to use slightly different verbs depending on what you're citing.

If you're talking about specific empirical results, the actual data.

Like what they found.

Right.

You might say demonstrated, found, reported.

But if you're discussing their theory, their interpretation, or their argument,

then verbs like argued, proposed, suggested, or theorized might be more appropriate.

Like Jones at all 2019 argued that.

So it signals whether you're talking about hard results or they're thinking about the results.

Subtle but useful.

It is.

Okay.

So let's recap citations quickly.

In the text you need the author and year.

That's the key.

This points the reader to the full reference list at the end.

And you absolutely need a citation if you quote directly or if you paraphrase someone else's ideas in your own words.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

That covers the essentials of in -text citation.

Now let's maybe zoom out a bit and talk about the overall structure of the report.

Okay.

The whole manuscript.

Right.

An APA style report isn't just essay.

It's broken down into very specific sections in a specific order.

And most of these sections actually start on a brand new page.

Ah, okay.

That structure is key for letting readers navigate, right?

Find what they need quickly.

Exactly.

It's like a roadmap.

So the standard order, the sequence you need to follow is title page first.

Okay.

Then the abstract, then the introduction, followed by the method section, then results, then discussion.

Intro, method, results, discussion.

Those are the core, right?

The core body, yes.

After the discussion comes the references list.

And then finally any tables, then figures, and then any appendices you might have.

Wow.

Okay.

That's a lot of distinct parts.

It is.

But each one has a very clear job to do, a specific purpose.

We can step through them.

Perfect.

Let's start right at the top.

The title page.

Page number one.

Page number one.

This is your cover sheet, essentially.

It needs a few key things.

First, obviously the title of your paper.

And that should be concise but really informative, right?

Give a clear idea of the study.

Exactly.

Tell the reader the main topic and what was investigated.

Then you need the author's name, your full name, and your affiliation.

That's usually the university or institution where the research was done.

Okay.

Title, name, affiliation, anything else.

There's also an optional author note section.

Yeah.

That's where you can put maybe grant funding information and importantly your contact information for correspondence.

Got it.

And what about that stuff at the very top of the page?

The header.

Ah, yes.

The header is consistent on every page.

It contains two things.

The writing head and the page number.

Okay.

What's the running head?

It's a shortened version of your title, no more than 50 characters, and it's typed in all C -YAP -E -S.

It goes flush left in the header.

All caps, flush left on every page.

Every page.

But here's a little quirk.

On the title page only, the words running head actually appear right before the shortened title itself.

Oh, okay.

Only on page one.

Right.

Then flush right in the header on every page starting with the title page as a page one is the page number.

So title page, running head,

short title on the left, one on the right.

Right.

And then page two and onwards would just have short title on the left and the page number two, three, etc.

on the right.

You got it.

It creates that consistent identifier throughout the whole document.

Okay.

Title page done.

What comes next?

Page two.

Page two is the abstract.

All by itself on that page.

Think of the abstract as your paper's executive summary.

Or maybe it's elevator pitch.

Super concise summary of everything.

How's it formatted?

The word abstract itself is centered at the top of page two.

No bold, no italics.

Just centered.

Then the summary paragraph starts on the next space line.

How long should it be?

Typically between 150 and 250 words.

In one key formatted detail.

The abstract paragraph itself is not indented.

Just a single block of text.

No, indented.

Got it.

150, 250 words.

That's tight.

It is.

And interestingly, even though it comes right at the beginning, the abstract is usually one of the very last things you write.

Oh, really?

Why is that?

Because you need to know everything you've done and found before you can summarize it accurately.

And it's incredibly important because after the title,

it's often the first thing someone reads.

To decide if they want to read the whole thing.

Exactly.

Sometimes it's the only thing they read.

So it needs to be a really good, accurate snapshot of your entire study.

Makes sense.

So it needs to hit the key points.

What you studied, how you studied it, main findings, and maybe the main takeaway or implication.

That's the goal, yes.

Efficient and comprehensive.

Okay, so after the abstract, we finally get into the main body.

Starting with the introduction on page three.

Page three, new page.

And does the title go here again?

Yes.

The full title of your paper is centered at the top of page three.

Just like on the title page, but without the running head part in the header, obviously.

Okay.

And the introduction's job is?

To set the stage.

Provide the background, the context, and the logical reasoning that led you to conduct the specific study.

You're drawing the reader into your topic.

Our source mentioned it typically has four parts, but they aren't usually labeled with subheadings.

That's right.

They flow together naturally.

First, you start broad.

Introduce the general topic and explain why it's important or interesting.

Why should someone care about this area of research?

Grab their attention, establish relevance.

Okay.

Second, you review the relevant literature.

And this isn't just a book report summarizing study after study.

Right.

It needs to be integrated.

Exactly.

You synthesize key findings from previous research that directly relate to your question.

You show how prior work sets the stage for your study, maybe highlighting gaps, controversies, or inconsistencies that your research will address.

You cite appropriately, of course.

So it builds a logical argument for your study based on what came before.

Precisely.

It should lead the reader smoothly to the third part,

clearly stating the specific problem or research question you're tackling or the hypothesis you're testing.

And this is where you define your variables clearly.

Yes.

Absolutely crucial.

The reader needs to understand exactly what you mean by the terms you're using.

The literature review should flow right into this statement of your specific focus.

Okay.

Makes sense.

And the fourth part.

The final part of the introduction is a brief overview of your research strategy.

You give a little snapshot of your method, just the basics, the full details come later, and explain how this approach will let you answer your question or test your hypothesis.

Like a preview of the method section.

Kind of, yeah.

Just enough to show the reader the plan you used to address the gap or question you just identified.

Okay.

So by the end of the intro, the reader knows why you did the study and what you were looking for.

Next up must be how you did it.

Exactly.

That's the method section.

And importantly, this section does not start on a new page.

It just follows right after the introduction ends.

No new page.

Okay.

How's the heading?

The heading method is centered and bold face.

And the purpose here is to give a really detailed account of exactly how your study was conducted.

Enough detail for someone else to replicate it, right?

That's the gold standard.

That is absolutely the goal.

You need to describe how you defined and measured your variables, how you recruited participants, what procedures they went through, everything.

It's about transparency and allowing others to evaluate your methodology.

Makes sense.

And this section usually has subsections.

Yes, typically.

Most common ones are participants or maybe subjects, if you're working with non -human animals, and procedure.

And how are those headings formatted?

These subsection headings are flush left, also in bold face, and they use both uppercase and lowercase letters.

So participants starts at the left margin, bolded.

Okay.

And under participants, what do you need to include?

You need to describe your sample, how many participants were there, what were their relevant demographic characteristics, things like age, gender, ethnicity, maybe other characteristics important to your study.

How were they recruited?

Got it.

Describe the who and then procedure.

That's the step -by -step account of what happened in the study.

What did participants do?

What instructions were they given?

How were the variables manipulated or measured?

In what order did things happen?

The play -by -play.

Pretty much.

And depending on your study, you might need other subsections too.

Like if you used specialized equipment, you might have an apparatus subsection.

Or if you developed specific stimuli, maybe a materials subsection.

Okay.

That covers the how.

So intro, why what, method, how.

Next must be what you found.

You got it.

The results section.

This also follows right after the methods section, no new page break.

The heading results is centered and bold face.

And the goal here is just to report the data.

Yes, exactly.

Summarize the data you collected and report the results of the statistical analyses you performed.

Should be clear, straightforward, and objective.

Just the facts, basically.

Just the facts of what you found.

This is where you often use tables and figures to help present the data clearly, but you also need to describe the key results in the text.

And the source mentioned appendix B in the manual for help with stats.

Right.

Appendix B has guidance on reporting different statistical tests if you need a refresher on the specific APA conventions for that.

But the key thing in the results section is present the findings.

Don't interpret them yet.

Okay.

Save the interpretation for.

The discussion section,

which comes next.

Again, no new page break.

Centered, bold face heading, discussion.

All right.

Now we get to talk about what it all means.

Now you interpret.

This is where you evaluate your findings, discuss their implications, and relate them back to the research question and the literature you talked about in the introduction.

The source called it a kind of mirror image of the introduction.

That's a great way to think about it.

The intro goes from broad context to your specific study.

The discussion starts with your specific findings and broadens back out to the wider context and implications.

So you connect your results back to the hypotheses in the previous research you mentioned earlier.

Exactly.

Did your results support your hypothesis?

How do they fit with or maybe contradict what others have found?

What are the theoretical or practical implications?

And this is also where you talk about limitations, right?

Yes.

Very important.

You need to acknowledge any limitations of your study.

What are its weaknesses?

What factors might limit the generalizability of your findings?

Being honest about limitations is crucial for good science.

Shows you've thought critically about your own work.

Okay.

So after you've discussed everything, where do we go?

Next up is the references section.

And this one starts on a new page.

New page for references.

Centered title, just references.

Correct.

Centered, not bold.

And this section lists every single source you cited in the text and only the sources you cited.

Ah, that one -to -one correspondence the source mentioned.

Every in -text citation must have a reference list entry, and every reference list entry must have been cited in the text.

Precisely.

No extras, nothing missing.

And the list is organized alphabetically by the first author's last name.

Alphabetical.

What about multiple works by the same author?

There are rules for that too.

Usually listed chronologically.

Oldest first.

And specific rules for multiple authors.

And very detailed formatting rules for different types of sources.

Journal articles, books, book chapters, websites.

Yeah, the formatting seems really detailed.

It is.

The publication manual, especially chapter seven in the sixth edition, has examples for tons of different source types.

Our source pointed to table 16 .2 having some good examples too.

The key is consistency and providing all the info someone would need to find that source themselves.

Okay, so references list.

Alphabetical, complete, formatted perfectly.

What comes after that?

After the references come any tables and then any figures you're including.

And each table and each figure gets its own separate page.

A new page for every single table and figure.

Yep.

Table one on its own page, table two on its own page, figure one on its own page, and so on.

Okay.

And these should add something, right?

Not just repeat the text.

Absolutely.

They should supplement or clarify the text, not duplicate it.

And you must refer to every table and figure by its number within the body of your paper.

You need to tell the reader when to look at table one or figure two.

Got it.

And how are they formatted?

Tables first.

For tables, the table number, like table one, and then the title of the table, in italics, go at the top, aligned left.

The table itself follows.

Below the table, you can add notes, general notes, specific notes keyed to the table content, or probability notes for significance levels.

Okay.

And figures?

For figures, the figure number, like figure one, italicized, and the figure caption go below the figure itself.

The caption serves as the title and explains what the figure shows.

Number and title above for tables, number and caption below for figures.

Got it.

Is there anything after tables and figures?

Potentially, yes.

An appendix or maybe multiple appendices.

Each appendix also starts on a new page.

New page again.

Centered title appendix.

Correct.

If you have more than one, they're labeled with letters.

Appendix A, appendix B, appendix C, and so on.

Centered at the top.

And what goes in an appendix?

Supplementary material.

Things that are maybe too detailed or would disrupt the flow if you put them in the main text, but that a reader might want to see.

Like a copy of the questionnaire you use.

Exactly.

Or detailed instructions given to participants.

Maybe a complex computer program you wrote for the study.

Or a list of stimulus materials.

Things like that.

Okay.

That covers the whole structure from title page to appendix.

Wow.

Now that's the structure if you're writing it up, but what about actually getting it out there?

Like submitting to a journal.

Right.

That's often the next big goal.

Submitting for publication.

Our source lays out the first few crucial steps.

What's step one?

Selecting the right journal.

This is really important.

Journals are usually specialized.

Think about the journals where you found relevant articles during your lit review.

Good place to start.

Definitely.

Check their websites.

They usually describe their focus, the kind of articles they publish.

You want a journal where your research topic is a good fit for their readership.

There are even journals specifically for undergraduate research sometimes.

Okay.

Find the right home for it.

Step two.

Prepare the manuscript exactly according to that specific journal's guidelines.

Ah.

Back to the journal's specific instructions.

Yes.

They all have an instructions to author's page or document.

It might specify things like word limits, specific formatting details, maybe slight variations on APA style.

You have to follow their rules meticulously.

Okay.

Be precise.

And step three.

Usually, you'll write a cover letter to the journal editor.

You submit this along with your manuscript.

What goes in the cover letter?

It's basically your pitch.

Briefly introduce your study, highlight its main findings and why they're significant, and explain why you think it's a good fit for this specific journal and its readers.

Got it.

So, select journal, print manuscript to their specs, write cover letter.

Then you submit.

What happens then?

Then it goes into the peer review process.

The editor gets it, usually sends an acknowledgement, and then finds experts in your field, your peers, to review the manuscript anonymously.

The reviewers read it and give feedback.

Right.

They evaluate its strengths, weaknesses,

originality, methodology,

significance, everything.

Then they make a recommendation to the editor.

Accept it as is rare.

Accept it with revisions, common, or reject it.

And rejection is pretty common, right?

It is, unfortunately.

It's a competitive process.

But the feedback, even from a rejection, can be really valuable for improving the paper.

True.

Okay.

So, journal publication is one route.

What about conferences?

Conferences are another great way to share your work.

Often a bit faster than journal publication and good for getting feedback too.

Two main formats,

paper presentations and poster sessions.

Okay.

What's involved in presenting a paper?

First, you usually have to submit an abstract or summary.

And if it gets accepted, you prepare an oral presentation.

This isn't just reading your paper aloud.

No, more engaging than that.

Hopefully.

Usually you use slides like PowerPoint.

You cover the key parts, intro, rationale, hypothesis, method, results, conclusions.

But you have a strict time limit, often only 15, 20 minutes.

So you have to be concise and practice.

And maybe have handouts.

Yeah.

Having a brief summary handout is often a good idea for people who want more details.

Okay.

And posters, how are they different?

Poster sessions are usually in a big room.

Lots of researchers stand next to their posters, visual displays of their research on bulletin boards.

People wander around, look at the posters and can stop and chat with the researcher, ask questions.

More interactive, maybe?

Less formal?

Can be, yeah.

The APA manual doesn't give specific poster guidelines, but conferences or organizations often do.

Key things are making it readable from a distance, big font,

having a clear, logical layout.

Same basic sections.

Intro, method, results.

Yeah.

Brief versions.

Intro, purpose, method, results, conclusions.

Use visuals, bullet points, graphs.

Be mindful of the space limits.

And you literally need to bring pushpins.

Having handouts for your poster is also smart.

Pushpins.

Don't forget the pushpins.

Okay.

That covers presenting too.

It does.

From writing the report section by section to getting it published or presented.

So, wow.

We've really covered a lot here in this Deep Dive.

The whole journey of an APA -style research report, from why we write them and the general guidelines, through every single section, from title page to appendix, and even how to think about submitting for publication or presenting at a conference.

It's quite the process.

It really is.

But understanding these principles, this structure, it's just so crucial.

If you want effectively share what you've learned with the scientific community, it's the shared language, the framework that lets science build on itself.

Absolutely.

And just to reiterate, while hopefully this conversation was helpful, we really encourage you to get your hands on the actual publication manual, the sixth edition we focused on, for the full comprehensive details.

Definitely.

It's the ultimate source.

And don't forget the APA -style website, apatastyle .org.

Loads of great resources there too.

FAQs, tutorials.

Really useful stuff.

Okay, so as we wrap up, here's something to mull over, a final thought for you.

We've talked a lot about how this very structured format of the research report helps communication within the scientific community.

But how might that structure itself, that standardized framework,

actually influence the kinds of questions researchers ask, or even the way research itself is thought about and carried out?

Does the format shape the science?

That's a fascinating question to think about.