XXXX, Wyne 1

XXXXXX
Omar Wyne
ENGL 297
Ethnographic Report
A Study of Writing Experimental Reports
Introduction
Psychology is a social science that studies human behaviors. Writing in psychology originates
from experiments which use empirical analysis to understand people. The writing structures itself
by containing three elements: describing, explaining, and understanding information from an
empirical study. Psychology incorporate these three components to its writing. An experimental
report is a type of writing psychologist often use to communicate their findings.
Experimental reports in the field of psychology are reports of empirical research written by
psychologists. Empirical reports are used to communicate the results of an empirical study to an
intended audience. Throughout the report, psychologist are constructing arguments that validate
their research and interpret their results to see how they contribute to previous works. This study
takes a look at the process of writing experimental reports that occurs before and after
conducting an empirical study.
We are interested in the process of writing of experimental reports in the field of psychology and
had the opportunity to study a professional writer's work. XXXX was kind enough to take the
time and allow us to research her writing. At the end, this ethnographic research project helped
us expand our understanding of the different writing processes that goes into composing an
experimental report. While conducting interviews, observing artifacts and analyzing documents,
we received the chance to experience observing a professional writer composing experimental
reports in her professional field.
Research Location and Subject
As we were brainstorming potential research subjects for our focus, we turned to the University
of Maryland, College Parks Department XXXXXX. We decided to study XXXX who, in
addition to being an associate professor, is also a researcher in XXXXXX. Her research focuses
on the influence that a childs social interactions have on their cognitive development,
specifically in mathematics and problem solving. She also studies how parent-child interactions,
parental beliefs, and home environment can play a role in a childs development.
Throughout XXXX intensive research, she composes experimental reports regularly to
communicate her findings to her audience. She has a large number of publications ranging from
articles to chapters that use experimental reports. The great thing about experimental reports is it
that accompanies any subject in the field of psychology and XXXX is one of the many people
who focuses on education within psychology. Since XXXXX is an expert in writing
experimental reports, we believe she is the perfect writer to research for this project. We met with
XXXXX and conducted our interviews in her office, located in XXXX

XXXX, Wyne 2

Data Collection Procedures

Throughout the past four weeks, we conducted interviews, observed artifacts and analyzed
documents to help us with our analysis of XXXXX professional writing. By using multiple
different data collection methods, we understood the writing process that goes into constructing
experimental reports. We started this project by researching XXXXX recent publications
(artifacts). The main objective from reading her published work was to see how she writes
experimental reports after conducting an empirical study. Its the perfect way to observe and
learn from the end product. While reading and analyzing her work, we were able to come up with
questions for our interviews. With several end products in front of us, we still need to know what
went behind the writing process. Meeting and interviewing XXXXX was able to help us with
that.
Conducting interviews in XXX office was a great experience and a fascinating research method.
She seemed very relaxed and willing to help us with our project. While there were large amounts
of talking going on outside her door, it didn't disturb or take away from the interview. Luckily,
we weren't intruded by anyone during our interview. We drew from her work as a researcher and
professor at the university as preparation for our first interview. During the interview sessions,
we asked her about the writing process, following the case studies she conducts. The aim in our
interviews was to help make sense of how XXXXX manages her writing process before and after
empirical studies. By the end of it, we learned more about the specific steps she takes along her
writing process. The major components we were able to leave with that makes and leads up to an
experimental report is a literature review, the grant, and collaborative writing, the
revising/editing process, and the publication process.
While we were conducting our interviews in her office, we were taking field notes and recording
our conversations. We were taking field notes to help us keep the record of key observations we
might highlight or come back to in later interviews, and or our final report. Recording our
conversations with XXXX helped us be mindful, interactive listeners, while not relying on
jotting everything down.
Writing Process Before Empirical Study
Literature Review
Before deciding on starting a new study, XXXXX, and her team goes through an in-depth
literature review to see what's already out there. A purpose of a literature review is to establish
and identify key subjects and studies of a topic. She doesn't want to conduct a study where she
brings little new information to her field. But note, replication is an important part of science.
She would want to replicate a study where gaining some additional information will contribute to
the field. So to know what has already out there, XXXXX and her student/colleagues use tools
such as PsychINFO and Google Scholar to read up. Both tools are excellent methods of web
search engines that search scholarly literature. After that research process, she would ask herself
"what's missing," and "what is it we still need to know?" These questions, on top of studying
previous works, help her come up with a potential topic.

XXXX, Wyne 3

The literature review will be in the introduction section of the report. It's important to
acknowledge previous works that help reach a hypothesis or question. It sets up the groundwork
for what the rest of the paper will consist. It's also important to mention the literature review at
the end in the result section. Writers use it as a comparison to any new findings, and as a source
for drawing conclusions.
Grant Writing
After XXXX and her team decide on their point of focus, they must obtain money through grant
writing. She describes grant writing as the biggest thing that includes an outline, hypotheses,
and arguments. The outline includes the questions that the researchers will be focusing on as well
as their respective hypotheses with the appropriate support and arguments.
As we investigated the language involved in grant writing, we found it containing language
that'll help the grant agencies understand why the study is important. Because the agencies only
have a limited amount of money, each of her grant proposals has to be interesting in order for
them to stand out from the other hundreds and hundreds of proposals they receive. Further
analysis of the following excerpt from the interview gave us the understanding that, even though
grant proposals depend on the ability to convince the agencies, it is still not a personal piece of
writing and there are no emotions involved:
Partner: Would you say that the grant writing would be more personal? But like kind of
have an emotional connection with it? Or not?
XXXXX: No not that. It's science. But you are trying to say why this question is
important to the field. There's only so much money to go around and the funding is
tighter and tighter every year because there is more and more people. There's a little bit
of smaller and smaller money and so you have to convince them. So it's not emotional in
any way. You don't that. It has to be supported.
Omar: They don't like emotion?
XXXXX: No. They don't need emotion. It's science.
After the empirical study, if XXXXX received the money, she would then have to write a final
report for the granting agency that gave her the money. In that report, she includes the findings,
the next steps and what she plans on doing with the findings. Instead of a Thank-You note, she
would just give them the final report so they can see what their money helped find.
Writing Process After Empirical Study
Collaborative Writing
The writing process involved in report writing after the study varies depending on XXXXX
working with. If her research team includes students, she then has a smaller role compared to
working with colleagues.

XXXX, Wyne 4

XXXXX and her group divide the report into separate sections for different people. The very
first step, as explained by XXXX, is the methods. The methods section will include what they
did in the paper and who the participants were. Because it's very straightforward, the section is
usually in the report as "alternative" hypotheses, where it can say "we believe this happened,
however here is something that could also happen."
They write the method section as soon as they start the study. After that, XXXX and her team
write the result section, followed by the introduction and discussion sections. However, these
two sections can be switched or written simultaneously. They usually record the hypothesis
before an empirical study, but when they incorporate it into the final report, it does not change.
The writing always goes from cause to effect, never the other way around. XXXXX describes
historical writing as a taboo in the field because previous empirical work is supposed to guide the
theory, not the actual data found. In cases of conflicting hypotheses from different researchers,
they might include them.
Revising/Editing Process
Towards the end of the writing process, XXXXX and her team begin the editing phase. The main
objective of this phase is to ensure the paper in its entirety has the same language and tone
throughout. XXXXX stresses that reports are strictly scientific. Writers have to be aware of their
diction. However, since there are different authors for different sections, the editing process is a
critical facet of the entire experimental report writing process.
The editing phase varies depending on who she is writing the paper with. If she is working with
her students, she plays more of a mentor role and performs the editing portion of the paper. She
says that it's part of the learning process for her students. XXXXXX implements the directrevision method with her students (Wolfe, Ch. 6) She and her disciples usually start off editing
and revising each other's work as soon as they finish with their empirical study portion. The
introduction and discussion sections simultaneously get written together in a back and forth
discussion between the students and professor. It's a preferable method because everyone on the
team is shaping and sharing the texts responsibility together. After simultaneously editing during
the writing phase, each section gets independently edited to take into account situating a
consistent language and tone throughout the report. The revision process is a way XXXXX
guides her students writing towards a more professional and suitable style for experimental
reports.
The revision process differs when working with colleagues. There's less of a teaching and
mentoring aspect to it. You have to assume that everyone knows their assignment and is able to
follow through with their section. It's a given, considering that everyone is a professional. There
is a feedback method, but one that isn't as hands on as the direct-revision method. Usually, there
are "global suggestions" on how the paper could go and less detailed editing.
XXXXX doesn't have an editor. She and her team do the editing themselves in-house. But that
doesn't mean everyone within the scientific community follows suit. In her field (psychology) it
typically isn't the case, but in other fields such as medical, someone who is a researcher, but not
much of an academic or scientific writer, might receive outside help.

XXXX, Wyne 5

Publication Process
The bulk of XXXXXX editing process may come from trying to publicize her work. But first,
determining and figuring out how or even who to publicize to is a task in on itself. XXXX
understands that a lot of the top journals have high rejection rates, so her report has to make a
significant contribution to her field if she doesn't want to get rejected. Publications receive
hundreds and hundreds of papers, and only about five percent of them may get published.
There are multiple different journal publications. So it's helpful to understand where the topic of
your paper has its best fit. And with that, comes the audience. XXXX chooses the publication
best fit after writing her report. When it comes to genre, you wouldn't be writing a medical report
for a child development publication. Each topic of experimental reports has it's intended
audience and publications (Johnson-Eilola, Selber Ch. 14).
The review process for most journals in the field of psychology is a double-blind review. The
reviewers don't know who XXXX is and XXXX doesn't know who's reviewing her work. When
submitted, the paper usually goes through the hands of two or three experts in the field. XXX
then receives a review of her work once reviewed. The process can take from anywhere between
three to six months. They usually say either "we accept the paper," "we accept the paper with
some minor revisions," or completely reject it. They rarely accept it as it is. XXXX says it has
happened to her once her whole career. Which means that editing and revising according to the
reviewer's notes is critical and common practice when publicizing written work. The usual thing
that happens is that she might receive a letter saying "we like it, but here are things that you need
to fix to make the paper stronger." According to XXXXX, the feedback almost always does make
the report stronger. After revising, the report is sent back for another review that may or may not
receive greater praise. But if they, unfortunately, do reject the paper right out, she still receives
the reviews, which is helpful in improving your writing, but they won't accept it again. XXXXX
says it could be because of a major methodological flaw, not a right fit for the publication, or
because the findings don't make any big scientific contributions.
Artifact Analysis
In addition to interviewing, we analyzed artifacts in order to see the final results of the writing
process. In 2012, XXXXX, along with colleagues, published a report in XXXXXX. The report,
titled XXXXXXXXXX looked at whether or not a theoretically based number board game
can improve childrens numerical knowledge (XXXXXXXX).
At first glance, we can see that three authors, including XXXXX wrote the report. The
introduction of the report included information from other empirical studies, consistent with the
information that would be found during what XXXXXX explained to be a literature review. In
the following sections of the introduction, they included the research question as well as a
hypothesis with supporting information from previous studies. Following the introduction, the
researchers go into methods, the results, and then the discussion of results. Because this
particular study had two different experiments, this was repeated twice for the second
experiment. The report ends with a general discussion using both experimental results,

XXXX, Wyne 6

limitations of the study, and a conclusion that includes how the results of this study are applied
field. This layout mirrored what XXXXX described in our interview.
It is easy to sit and listen to someone explain how something gets created, but to be able to see
the actual result enhances our understanding of the writing process and allows us to see a clear
picture of how reports are supposed to look when finished. Throughout XXXX report, we saw
consistent language and noticed that she wrote it in the third person. The report did not include
the use of literary devices, flowery language, or emotional appeals. Because of this, we were able
to see how important brief and concise diction can lead to a report that is strictly scientific.
Conclusion
While this study only focuses on one researcher in a world of many, it offers insight into a
complicated process. Experimental report writing is unavoidable to researchers and learning the
process can help prospective students decide if this is what they want to do and how they can
prepare themselves. The main purpose of this study is to understand this particular writing
process in its entirety. The process includes obtaining already published information with a
literature review and obtaining monetary funds for the study, before the actual study with grant
proposals. After the empirical study, researchers will collaborate with one another to write, edit,
revise, and send the report out for a publication review. Although there are dissimilarities for
each field of study, we understand that the basic rule applies to all reports: the language has to
stay consistent, the tone is scientific and simple, and the information is accurate and
straightforward. For students who want to pursue a career in psychology, they would have to
master technical writing and should expect the majority of their time spent writing in a concise
and scientific manner.

XXXX, Wyne 7

Works Cited
Johnson-Eilola, Johndan, and Stuart A. Selber. Solving Problems in Technical Communication.
Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 2013.
XXXXXXX. Personal interview. 11 November 1016.
XXXXXXX
Wolfe, Joanna. Team Writing: a Guide to Working in Groups. Boston, Bedford/St. Martin's,
2010.