haa

In this assignment, we were asked to find 2 lab reports with similar topics to analyze. Once we analyzed the reports, we compared both lab reports and determined how their elements differed. We were also asked why there were such differences, and if they served a purpose.

The two lab reports I chose focused on how long working hours impacted physical and mental health. At first glance, the reports didn’t differ much but as I read on their differences intrigued me.

haaaa

Analysis

A lab report is a detailed account of an experiment, including information about its purpose and research, and a “carefully crafted argument meant to persuade an audience to accept your findings and conclusions.” (Markel, 2018).  Most lab reports written follow a general guideline to be able to get the author’s message appropriately and concisely across.  A lab report can usually be broken down into 8 elements, which include title, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, and references.  Some lab reports may have additional elements, while most follow this structure.  The purpose of this paper is to compare and analyze the structure of two sample lab reports and discuss the similarities and differences between their structures.  The two lab reports being compared are “Impact of Working Hours on Sleep and Mental Health” by P. Afonso, and “Impact of Long Working Hours on Health Based on Observations in China” by Liming Chu.

To begin, both lab reports include straightforward titles which demonstrate the area of study being researched as well as indicate the question being asked and answered.  Both reports have very similar titles. however, Liming Chu’s lab report has a clearer title, as it not only tells us the area of study but as well as the location in which data is being gathered.  Although both lab reports are simple in terms of the way they’re written they succeed in indicating what the rest of the report is going to be about.

The abstract is a basic summary of the information and findings being presented in a lab report, following the same structure.  Both lab reports incorporate descriptive abstracts, in which they not only state the topics covered but also the results and conclusions reached.  P. Afonso’s abstract section includes background information regarding the methodology for the experiments.  However, in presenting his background data P. Afonso doesn’t provide much of it but instead gives his stance regarding whether working hours impacts a person’s health.  In his report, Afonso states, “excessive working hours can also negatively affect sleep quality”, which although was proven his report is not providing enough background context on what the report is expanding on (Afonso Et al, 2017). In contrast to Liming Chu who gives information regarding why the experiment was conducted as well as setting up more clearly the different areas of focus of the report.  He gives information about how little is known about working hours and workers’ health, and how the study aims to achieve this.  “…the definition of long working hours varies slightly due to country differences in working hours systems.”, Liming Chu states how the definition of long working hours will vary in different countries but will still provide adequate information to accomplish the aim of his report (Chu, 2021).  Another difference is that Chu decides to include the aim of his experiment in the background part of the abstract, while Afonso created his own subsection.  The rest of the abstract is very similar as both include information regarding the results and conclusions reached from them in a short and concise manner.

The introduction of P. Afonso’s lab report is strong and provides important background information explaining why the research is important.  He provides examples of why the topic must be researched such as the karoshi deaths in Japan which are caused by overwork as well as other pieces of relevant data, which help engage the reader in the text.  Liming Chu follows a similar approach as they go into detail regarding different countries’ stances on long working hours as well as giving statistics on the matter.  For example, Liming Chu states “…working hours have been a matter of debate and have become a focal issue in Canada, France, Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom, and other Western countries.”, informing the reader that although the research being done is focused on China, the topic being covered is broader and encompasses many other countries.  P. Afonso also covers how the topic relates to other countries, such as the karoshi deaths in Japan which were caused from overwork and exhaustion. Both lab reports follow the format described in the chapter, as they give the reader sufficient background information while also comparing the research being done in the report with experiments performed by others.  However, P. Afonso’s introduction fails in one regard, which is briefly describing the methods used, instead of just reiterating its aim.

Both lab reports fail to provide a materials section but instead provide data and methods of the experiment.  Liming Chu’s method and data are presented in different subsections, “Data”, and “Measurement of the variables”, the latter containing its own subsections.  Information regarding how and where data was collected was given, and tables were also used to show equations used and data gathered.   The “Measurement of the health level of the labor force” and “Measurement of long working hours” gave information about the way health level would be measured and what’ll be considered long hours as this can be subjective.  On the other hand, P. Afonso’s lab report doesn’t contain any subsections and instead is one section labeled method.  He still addresses the methods used and the way data was being gathered in a clear manner, but it’s not as organized as Liming Chu’s method section, which had subsections separating every important part.  Both follow a similar structure to the method format described in the chapter.  For example, P. Afonso discusses the data that was gathered and gives a brief but ample explanation about what the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is and what it encompasses, “HADS is a self-reported 14-item questionnaire… possible scores range from 0 to 21 for both anxiety and depression…” (Afonso Et al, 2017)  Liming Chu’s report is similar in this regard, as they also go in-depth about what the Self-Related Health Test and China Family Panel Studies are.  P. Afonso’s methods section is weaker compared to Liming Chu’s because of the lack of clear structure.

P. Afonso and Liming Chu both had separate results and discussions sections.  The part that stands out the most is the tables where data was collected were placed in different parts of the report.  P. Afonso decided to provide data along with the results, which more closely follows the way it was structured in the chapter, while Liming Chu decided to provide it in the discussion.  Apart from this, both reports thoroughly explain their results and data gathered and set up the argument that’s going to be proved in the discussion section by telling what the data proves without expanding much on it.  P. Afonso’s discussion section is strong and provides a lot of arguments and explanations about the data gathered.  The report also takes note of similar studies made and talks about how the new results compare with the previously gathered, “These findings are similar to those of several previous studies…”.  More importantly, it discusses possible sources of error and limitations, as well as what these results mean and how they should be used as evidence to advocate shorter working hours (Afonso Et al, 2017).  Liming Chu follows a similar approach, although they go into more detail about limitations and concerns about the experiment and why the results presented themselves in the way they did.  Liming Chu however decided to display his table of results in the discussion section.  A possible reason as to why this decision was taken might be to prove the point they made about their results being credible, the best way to do it is to show the results after making such a statement and convincing the reader with detailed and extensive data tables.  Liming Chu is once again more organized in their distribution of information as they objected to using multiple subsections to separate the different points of the report.   These different subsections are used to divide the data and discuss how certain variables such as health insurance and education impacts the results.  Although P. Afonso does the same in regard to him talking about different variables and their effect, he fails to go in much depth as previously mentioned is not as organized in his presentation and Liming Chu.

The conclusion section is where the biggest difference between the two papers can be seen.  While Liming Chu decides to have an in-depth discussion of the results and how they may be used in China as well as what summarizing points previously made, P. Afonso doesn’t include a conclusion in his report, rather he has a small box where he lists key points of the research.  However, none of the reports follow a method similar to chapter 14, as they opted to use different methods.  Liming Chu goes into great depth about his findings; however, he goes into too much depth and varies off from what the initial purpose of the study was.  He fails in this regard as he not only talked about new data gathered outside the research but also spends a significant portion of the conclusion discussing it.  P. Afonso’s on the other hand, has no conclusion but instead a small box of key ideas in the report.  This is not a sufficient method as he fails to summarize key details in his report and although concise and short can be good, this is too short and provides very little in regard to convincing the reader about the significance of their work.  The most significant said being “These results confirm the importance of maintaining regular weekly working hours and avoiding excessive overtime work in reducing the risk of anxiety, depression and sleep disorders”, which briefly tells the reader the importance of the results (Afonso Et al, 2017).  Both reports provided references in the correct format and used them extensively throughout the report.

In conclusion, while talking about very similar topics, both lab reports provided similar yet distinctly different formats of writing a lab report.  The lab reports mostly incorporated the 8 different elements, P. Afonso taking the liberty of only using 7 and leaving out a conclusion.  Liming Chu’s method of organizing and interpreting data was preferable as it wasn’t only clear but very organized as well.   However, on data alone Afonso has better and more in-depth data compared the Liming Chu.  All things considered, both reports take liberties with the way they’re written that both help enhance the writing as well as slightly deter it.