Re: [Phys-l] Writing a review or lab report

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 05/02/2011 08:53 AM, Dr. Richard Tarara wrote:
> I  the consider lab 
> report a totally artificial animal. 

1)  Agreed.

> Maybe one could argue for lab 
> reports as training for writing papers--but in my mind, they are too 
> different for the lab report exercise to be useful.

2) Agreed.

> Has anyone ever had to write a 'lab 
> report' outside of an undergraduate course?  

3) Well, yes and no, depending on how literally we take the question.

3a) I reckon the question intended to ask about reports that resemble
 the usual undergraduate lab report.  I've never seen such a thing
 in the real world.

3b) On the other hand, literally speaking, there is such a thing as
 a real-world "lab report".  Alas, it doesn't resemble the sort of 
 thing you normally see in school.

It helps if we distinguish "science" in general from "scientific
research" in particular.  There is a lot of stuff that should be
scientific but is not research.  In particular, consider a
scenario such as:
 -- You send a sample of well-water off to a testing lab 
  to check for pollutants.
 -- You send a blood sample off to a forensic lab to check 
  for a DNA match.
 -- You send a blood sample off to a medical lab to check 
  for cholesterolemia or diabetes or whatever.
 -- etc. etc. etc.

In such a scenario, you want the work to be done "scientifically" 
but you do not want it to be research.  That is, you want it to 
be done using cut-and-dried methods.  (This stands in contrast 
to research, which involves innovation and a certain amount of 
risk-taking.)

In such a scenario, the lab sends you back a "lab report".  It 
does not resemble the usual(*) undergraduate lab report.  It
does not involve any "creative writing" skills, or much in the
way of writing skills at all;  it is mostly just "fill in the
blank".

  (*) Actually I have seen undergraduate "lab report" assignments
  that were of the "fill in the blank" variety.  These are arguably
  true-to-life, but OTOH don't do much to teach writing skills or
  analytical thinking skills.

  And don't get me started about "powerpoint" presentations.
  These are ubiquitous in the real world, but are a very
  bad idea, as Tufte and others have pointed out..........

I reckon the usual undergraduate lab-report is some sort of
weird chimera:  part real-world lab report, part watered-down
research paper, and part creative-writing essay (along the lines
of "how I spent my summer vacation").

It's also a moving target.  We expect a college senior lab 
project to be a lot more like a real research project, but a 
college freshman lab project not so much.  And then there is 
the high-school "science fair" project.

=============

Having said all that, the "lab report" is not a bad thing.
Yes, it is artificial.  Yes, it is a weird chimera.  But
some of that weirdness is necessary for pedagogical reasons.
We can't expect students to write professional-grade research 
papers on the first try.

My recommendation is to treat the "lab report" as a watered
down research paper.  (FWIW I think of the traditional 
"science fair" poster in mostly the same terms, i.e. as
a watered-down research paper.)

============

As for active voice versus passive voice:  Either is acceptable.
Neither is more "traditional" than the other, since both have
been used in the scientific literature since Day One.
 -- As a reviewer or grader, I would never upgrade or downgrade 
  a manuscript on the basis of active voice versus passive voice 
  (although I might have something to say if it switches back 
  and forth too much).
 -- As an author, I have a strong preference, but that is between
  me and my co-authors.