DWIGHT E. GRAY The John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, Silver Spring, Maryland'
INAN earlier issue of T m s J O U ~ NIAmade L ~ bold to catalog and analyze the principal general faults, as I saw them, of the technical reports I had been reading and writing for several years. Completion of the faultfinding stage, however, is not the ideal point a t which to terminate a journey of criticism. Consequently, I have tried to go a step farther and devise some reasonably specific "ground rules" which might aid the author of a technical report, first, in avoiding the shortcomings cited previously and, second, in giving his completed manuscript a final check for logical development and general readability. In this discussion I have assumed the kind of technical reoort whose onlv " leeitimate reason for existence is to convey technical information to its readers. By definition, therefore, all other considerations are subordinated to accomplishing this end as efficiently and straightforwardly as possible. Suspense, for example, is all important in a murder mystery and "who done it" must not be revealed until the last chapter, or perhaps even the last paragraph of the last page. But suspense terminated by startlmg revelation is obviously out of place in a technical report. A detective story written in the style of good technical reporting would give the murderer's name in the first paragraph or perhaps in the title; certainly it would lead offwith an abstract which would "reveal all" even before the reader had begun the Introduction. Similarlv the kind of technical reoort considered here is not concerned with amusing its readers, relaxing them, making them angry, aiding them in sleeping, inspiring them to contribute money, making them envious, arousing their patriotism, making them socially conscious, or selling them soap. I t is expository in nature and should be written in the style that will give the reader the information contained in the report as accurately, efficiently, and unambiguously as possible. The present paper is concerned with two phases of the preparation of a technical document of this kind. First, as a possible aid to the author while be is writing his r e ~ o ror t uauer, the several major divisions of such a document and the separate functions of each are analyzed briefly. Second, there is presented a prepublication checking routine which is roughly analogous to the preflight check-chart which an airplane pilot fills out to make certain his plane is in shape to fly. The report checking procedure suggested here is intended to serve
-
the author of a technical report similarly and give him some assurance that his manuscript is in condition to face the wild, blue yonder of reader or editor reaction. No apology is believed necessary for the fact that some of the points made in both phases of the following discussion may appear obvious and elementary. It is my feeling that only by spelling out matters of this sort in considerable detail can one insure consideration of all pertinent factors. It is also obvious and elementary that an airplane must have fuel in its tanks if it is to fly; nevertheless this item is included in those the pilot must check, perhaps because the requirement with which everyone is familiar may he the one most easily overlooked. BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE MAJOR DIVISIONS Although the title and abstract appear a t the beginning of a document, they should be written in final form after the other sections have been completed. This sequence is followed in the analysis presented here. Introductory Sentences or Paragraphs. The introductory sentences or paragraphs should serve chiefly to orient the reader with respect to what follows and should be to the technical report what the conventional whatwhere-when-who lead is to a newspaper story. Whether they need be dignified by thS actual subtitle "Introduction" depends on the length of the report and the extent to which it seems desirable to subdivide formally the rest of the document. The question, ' V h a t , in general, is this report about?" should always be answered in the introductory section. If the nature of the report as a whole is such that the reader is to be given only a limited amount of background information, it may be desirable to introduce it a t this point; on the other hand, if the author intends to include a considerable amount of background material it probably is preferable to present most of it in the main body of the report and give here only enough to permit answering the above question intelligently. Other questions, one or more of which the first paragrauh or two should answer, include: -
'Operating under contract with the Bureau of Ordnance. Tlnitrd St,at,es-Navv. 2 GRAY, D. E., +XIS JOURNAL, 25, 226 (1948). ~~~~~~~
~~
374
1. Why was the work done? 2. Who or what organization performed the work being reported? 3. What relation has the work to other programs or to other parts of the same program? 4. What general scheme of organization is followed in the rest of the report? (It is particularly desirable to answer this question if the report is long or complicated.)
JULY, 1949
375
Although it may not often be desirable to answer all of the above questions, it is important that failure to answer any one be the result of the author's decision rather than just his oversight. It should be recognized that meeting the abovespecifications need not cause the early sentences of the report to be choppy and "staccato" instead of smoothand ,‘legato." Consider, for example, the following short, hypothetical introductory paragraph which in three sentences answem most of the questions suggested above: Development of the ramjet for Use in the propulsion of highspeed aircraft has reached a point where it is important t o knoa on performance of small va"stions in the burneras the esect char~rscteristics. Ramjets Incorporated is one of several lahoratories engaged in an extensive experimental program of investigating these relationships with a view toward establishing correlations that may prove useful in future design work. This report presents data on the "aria. concerns one phase of the study tion with ramjet length-diameter ratio of the air-iuel ratio at which combustion can be started and the range of sir-fuel ratios aver which burning is smooth.
MainBody. The main bodycontainsthe real technical meat of the document and the way in which its contents are presented will determine in large part whether the picture of the subject matter obtained by the reader is clear and sharp or vague and out of focus. Technical reports differ too widely in the nature of their contents for it to be possible, or desirable, to attempt to set up a single, standardized outline for all cases; typical sequences include:
ber this" category, that idea should be emphasized somewhere in the concluding paragraph or two. Whether this section is given a separate heading like "Summary" or "Conclusion" or iome combination of these depends, as in the case of the introduction, on the length and general formality of the report as a whole. Abstract. Since abstracts too often are omitted, the first and most important point to be noted is that no self-respecting technical report should be without one. Abstracts are of two general kinds: (1)Indicative (also called Descriptive)-which tells the reader only enough to enable him to decide whether he wishes to read the entire report, suchan abstract should indicate the general nature of the work, whether it mas theoretical or experimental, its boundary conditions and the type of conclusion^ reached. (2) Infomative-which actually summarizes the reportss major arguments, data, Choice of which kind to and significant conchsions. employ in any given case l d l depend on the wishes of the author and the "abstract" policy of the laboratory issuing the report or of the journal in which it is to be published. In writing either type the author should take particular care to make every word count, carrying word economy perhaps to a point just short of that a t which style mould become completely telegraphic, method of achieving brevity in an abstract is to reduce the number of sentences to a minimum by a relatively generous the use following of qualifying adjectives; consider, for example, imaginary quotation: Ramjets Incorporated is investigating possible relationships between the ratio of a ramjet's length to its diameter and various characteristics of its combustion performance. This program has been under way for some three months, One of its f i s t results has been demonstr+tion of the fact that there is no simple correlation between the range of air-fuel ratios over n-hich a ramjet hums smoothly and its length-diameter ratio.
1. Description of apparatus Experimental procedure Data and results 2. Historical background Theoretied ddevelooment and results
All of the above ideas can be expressed in a style suitable for use in an abstract by:
3. Symbols Experimental procedure Application of experimental technique Results and discussion 4. Symbols and definitions Test procedure Test results Theoretical considerations Compmison between theory and experiment
"First results of the threemonth-old shudv bv Rsmiets Infuel ratio range of smooth burning."
Title. The ideal title for a technical report should be. brief and succinct and a t the same time descri~tiveand definitive of the document's contents. Since, however, The important point to be remembered is that what- these features are to a considerable extent incompatible, ever outline of presentation is chosen in any particular actual selection of a title usually means making the best case, it should be logical, should constitute a unified possiblecompromisebetween~tooshorttobesuEciently whole, and should have been carefully thought out by long to be a title.H As an exdescriptive,, and the author. ample, consider what title one might give the imaginary Paragraphs' The concluding section report whose hypothetical introduction r a s presented should represent the logical culmination of the developearlier in this paper; four stages in the gamut of pasmerit that was begun in the introductory paragraphs and sible titles bet,veen the extremes defined above might continued through the main body of the report. I t be: should summarize the main armments and draw conclusions t o which they lead, wrapping the whole in a 1. Ramjets tidy package for delivery t o the consumer. If there is 2. Ramjet Combustion Studies any one idea or result which the author believes is in the 3. Dependence of Ramjet Combustion Performance. I,. ~f you forget everything else, for heaven's sake rememon Length-Diameter Ratio
-
~~
376
4. The Variation with Length-Diameter Ratio of the Air-Fuel Ratio for Initiation of Combustion in a Ramjet and of the Air-Fuel Ratio Range of Smooth Burning The first, although attractively brief, obviously is inadequate because it tells almost nothing about the nature of the report and the scope of the work it covers. The fourth, which exemplifies the other extreme, is almost an abstract and too long for a title. Of these fcur, the third is probably the best; although longer than one might wish, it does partially define the report's boundaries. If the report were the first of a series, as the hypothetical introduction implies in this case, a still better selection might be a combination of title and subtitle such as, "Ramjet Combustion Studies: I. AirFuel Ratio Limits as a Function of Length-Diameter Ratio." PREPUBLICATION CHECKING ROUTINE
The sequence of presentation followed in the preceding analysis of the component parts of a technical reportis also employed in this section on the theory that the best time for the author to make a last evaluation of the title and abstract is just after he has given the other sections of his report a final'check. Introductory Sentaces or Paragraphs. 1. 1s the question answered? "what in general is this report abcut?" 2. Did you make the best possible selection of &her quest,ionsto answer in the introduction? 3. Are these selected questions answered adequatkly? 4. With regard to material in the introduction that is not directly concerned with answering the above questions, are there good reasons for including it in this section or might it more logically he presented elsewhere? 5 . Do yon feel this section properly orients the reader and puts him in a position to read the remainder of the report intelligently? Main Body of the Report. 1. Disregarding any previons outlines you may have made, can~youwith relative ease outline this section, carrying the procedure a t least to second-degree subheadings? 2. Is the material presented here consistent with what you promised the reader in the introductory section?
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
3. Is the real meat of the technical information you wish to convey to the reader covered in the main body? 4. Does i t develop to a point such that it can logically he followed by conclusions and a summary? Concluding Paragraphs. 1. Does this section summarize the main arguments presented previously and draw the conclusions to which they logically lead? 2. Are any conclusions drawn or inferences made for which evidence is not given earlier in the report? 3. Judging from the topical outline you prepared for the main body of the report, do the final paragraphs appear to follow naturally and to constitute a logical conclusion to the document? Abstract. 1. What would one who had read only the abstract expect to find covered in the rest of the report? 2. Are these points covered? 3. What would one who had read only the abstract exuect to find emuhasized in the rest of the r e ~ o r t ? 4. Are these points 5. Have YOU included any items of information which are not pertinent in view of the function of this the 6. IS the abstract as short as you can make it and still have it relatively easy to read and understand? Tztle. 1. Is the title consistent with the abstract and with the introduction, main body, and conclusion of the report proper? 2. Does it represent the best solution yon can devise for the dilemma of "not sufficiently descriptive" versus "too long?" General. Because of the schizophrenic problem of separating "you the reader" from "you the author," it is inherently very difficult for the m e who wrote the report to maintam a high degree of objectivity when checking and evaluating it. It is highly desirable, therefore, ti, have someone else also carry out the procedure given above. In closing it should he said that this paper is intended to represent a kind of first approximation to an anatomical analysis and prepublication checking routine applicable to technical reports. I t was prepared primarily for my own use and is presented here on the chance that it may prove of value to others, even if only to stimulate someone to devise a better schemes copy of which I wish hereby to he the first to request.
