Scarlet & Grey
Ohio State University
School of Music


Writing an Empirical Research Paper



General Comments

The goal of scholarly writing is to advance knowledge. Frequently knowledge can be advanced by clarifying the logic underlying some argument or problem. In the case of empirical scholarship, knowledge is advanced by bringing new evidence to bear on a problem. The purpose of an experiment is to set up a situation in which nature itself supplies evidence that will be consistent or inconsistent with particular views.

Good empirical writing will:

  1. present the problem, acknowledging the various nuances and alternative views
  2. identify and describe existing and possible theories
  3. identify ways in which these theories differ; use these differences to identify diverging predictions
  4. identify how observation might help determine which theory/theories is/are better
  5. describe the specific circumstances in which such observations might be made
  6. describe and summarize the actual observations made
  7. identify whether the observations are consistent or inconsistent
  8. remind readers of the limitations and assumptions used by your study
Good scholarly writing will clarify This is done by participating in a debating tradition. Good scholarly writing achieves the following:
  1. Distinguishes things people tend to think are the same.
Standard advice in homiletics (the art of preaching) is to (1) tell people what you are going to say, (2) say it, (3) then tell people what you said. In essence, repeat your main point three times.

Research papers are easier to read when the reader has some sense of where you are going.

Sections:
  1. Title. Begin by writing a provisional title. The title can be modified later, but constructing an initial title will help you clarify the precise goal of your research. Avoid the temptation to write a "cutesy" title. Don't be afraid of a long title.

  2. Abstract. Provide a single paragraph that describes the essential elements of the study. Do not hide your conclusion; include a clear statement of conclusion.

  3. Introduction. Introduce the problem you are interested in. Talk about how other people have addressed this problem (i.e. "literature review"). Use the introduction to identify an unresolved issue and set the scene for your experiment. End the introduction by giving a one or two sentence preview of your experiment:
    In brief, an experiment was carried out to determine ...
    Research papers are easier to read when the reader has some sense of where you are going.
    To anticipate our results, the experimental results will show ...


  4. Hypothesis. Identify the theoretical hypothesis. Identify operational definitions for each of the theoretical concepts.

  5. Method. The method section describes how the experiment was carried out and includes the following subsections: Stimuli, Participants, Procedure and Instructions. Begin the Method section by offer a brief over-view of the experiment consisting of two or three sentences.

  6. Stimuli. Describe in detail the stimuli used. Defend why you use certain stimuli rather than other alternatives.

  7. Participants. Describe in detail the participants recruited for the experiment. If appropriate, defend why you used these participants, rather than other alternatives.

  8. Procedure. Describe in detail how the experiment was organized.

  9. Instructions. Tell your readers exactly what instructions the participants received. Detailed advice concerning how to interact with subjects is available.

  10. Results. Provide tables and/or figures that summarize the results of your experiment. Where appropriate present the results of statistical analyses. Do not interpret the results in this section. Focus on accurately conveying what was observed.

  11. Discussion and Conclusion. Present your conclusion. Do not claim that the results "proved" or "disproved" the hypothesis. Do not claim that the hypothesis is true or false. Use the following language:
    The results of this experiment are consistent (or inconsistent) with the experimental hypothesis.
    If the results were consistent with your hypothesis, identify possible limitations to the experiment, and note If the results were inconsistent with your expectations, don't be a "sore loser". You are free to discuss possible confounds, but don't assume that the hypothesis is really correct and that your experiment was flawed.

  12. References. Give complete references for everything you cite. Read what you cite.


  • Course Index This document is available at http://dactyl.som.ohio-state.edu/Music829C/research.paper.html