Methods = what the scientists did Results = what they found Intro = why they did it Conclusion = what it means Discussion = why it means that
-
-
Show this thread
-
You read the methods first because the most important part of an experiment is the experiment I don't care why the scientists did their research if the methods were terrible
Show this thread -
Results next, because you want to know the facts that the experiment produced This is because facts come before theories!
Show this thread -
Then the intro, to understand the background to the research, and finally the conclusion/discussion because you want to see how it fits in with emerging theories and practice
Show this thread -
With this structure, you'll get the most out of any research paper, because you'll form an unbiased view on what the research was before you read about the theories that underlie it
Show this thread -
You also won't waste your time reading 10 pages of theory in an introduction when the experiment itself was basically a waste of time
Show this thread -
(As a general rule, the longer the introduction, the worse the actual research is)
Show this thread -
P.s. as some people have noted, it can be useful to read the last couple of lines of the introduction first to make sure you know what the paper is about
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm going to try this out! It's hard to resist the abstract though...
-
It does depend how much you care, but you can also use this on abstracts if you're just going to skim the article
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.