quality of a good research report

Child Care and Early Education Research Connections

Assessing research quality.

This page presents information and tools to help evaluate the quality of a research study, as well as information on the ethics of research.

The quality of social science and policy research can vary considerably. It is important that consumers of research keep this in mind when reading the findings from a research study or when considering whether or not to use data from a research study for secondary analysis.

Announcements

Find announcements, including conferences and meetings, Research Connections newsletters, opportunities, and more.

Search Resources

Search all resources in the Research Connections Library.

Explore Our Topics

Research Connections' resources are organized into topical categories and subcategories.

Key Questions to Ask

This section outlines key questions to ask in assessing the quality of research.

Research Assessment Tools

This section provides resources related to quantitative and qualitative assessment tools.

Ethics of Research

This section provides an overview of three basic ethical principles.

Research report guide: Definition, types, and tips

Last updated

5 March 2024

Reviewed by

From successful product launches or software releases to planning major business decisions, research reports serve many vital functions. They can summarize evidence and deliver insights and recommendations to save companies time and resources. They can reveal the most value-adding actions a company should take.

However, poorly constructed reports can have the opposite effect! Taking the time to learn established research-reporting rules and approaches will equip you with in-demand skills. You’ll be able to capture and communicate information applicable to numerous situations and industries, adding another string to your resume bow.

• What are research reports?

A research report is a collection of contextual data, gathered through organized research, that provides new insights into a particular challenge (which, for this article, is business-related). Research reports are a time-tested method for distilling large amounts of data into a narrow band of focus.

Their effectiveness often hinges on whether the report provides:

Strong, well-researched evidence

Comprehensive analysis

Well-considered conclusions and recommendations

Though the topic possibilities are endless, an effective research report keeps a laser-like focus on the specific questions or objectives the researcher believes are key to achieving success. Many research reports begin as research proposals, which usually include the need for a report to capture the findings of the study and recommend a course of action.

A description of the research method used, e.g., qualitative, quantitative, or other

Statistical analysis

Causal (or explanatory) research (i.e., research identifying relationships between two variables)

Inductive research, also known as ‘theory-building’

Deductive research, such as that used to test theories

Action research, where the research is actively used to drive change

• Importance of a research report

Research reports can unify and direct a company's focus toward the most appropriate strategic action. Of course, spending resources on a report takes up some of the company's human and financial resources. Choosing when a report is called for is a matter of judgment and experience.

Some development models used heavily in the engineering world, such as Waterfall development, are notorious for over-relying on research reports. With Waterfall development, there is a linear progression through each step of a project, and each stage is precisely documented and reported on before moving to the next.

The pace of the business world is faster than the speed at which your authors can produce and disseminate reports. So how do companies strike the right balance between creating and acting on research reports?

The answer lies, again, in the report's defined objectives. By paring down your most pressing interests and those of your stakeholders, your research and reporting skills will be the lenses that keep your company's priorities in constant focus.

Honing your company's primary objectives can save significant amounts of time and align research and reporting efforts with ever-greater precision.

Some examples of well-designed research objectives are:

Proving whether or not a product or service meets customer expectations

Demonstrating the value of a service, product, or business process to your stakeholders and investors

Improving business decision-making when faced with a lack of time or other constraints

Clarifying the relationship between a critical cause and effect for problematic business processes

Prioritizing the development of a backlog of products or product features

Comparing business or production strategies

Evaluating past decisions and predicting future outcomes

• Features of a research report

Research reports generally require a research design phase, where the report author(s) determine the most important elements the report must contain.

Just as there are various kinds of research, there are many types of reports.

Here are the standard elements of almost any research-reporting format:

Report summary. A broad but comprehensive overview of what readers will learn in the full report. Summaries are usually no more than one or two paragraphs and address all key elements of the report. Think of the key takeaways your primary stakeholders will want to know if they don’t have time to read the full document.

Introduction. Include a brief background of the topic, the type of research, and the research sample. Consider the primary goal of the report, who is most affected, and how far along the company is in meeting its objectives.

Methods. A description of how the researcher carried out data collection, analysis, and final interpretations of the data. Include the reasons for choosing a particular method. The methods section should strike a balance between clearly presenting the approach taken to gather data and discussing how it is designed to achieve the report's objectives.

Data analysis. This section contains interpretations that lead readers through the results relevant to the report's thesis. If there were unexpected results, include here a discussion on why that might be. Charts, calculations, statistics, and other supporting information also belong here (or, if lengthy, as an appendix). This should be the most detailed section of the research report, with references for further study. Present the information in a logical order, whether chronologically or in order of importance to the report's objectives.

Conclusion. This should be written with sound reasoning, often containing useful recommendations. The conclusion must be backed by a continuous thread of logic throughout the report.

• How to write a research paper

With a clear outline and robust pool of research, a research paper can start to write itself, but what's a good way to start a research report?

Research report examples are often the quickest way to gain inspiration for your report. Look for the types of research reports most relevant to your industry and consider which makes the most sense for your data and goals.

The research report outline will help you organize the elements of your report. One of the most time-tested report outlines is the IMRaD structure:

Introduction

...and Discussion

Pay close attention to the most well-established research reporting format in your industry, and consider your tone and language from your audience's perspective. Learn the key terms inside and out; incorrect jargon could easily harm the perceived authority of your research paper.

Along with a foundation in high-quality research and razor-sharp analysis, the most effective research reports will also demonstrate well-developed:

Internal logic

Narrative flow

Conclusions and recommendations

Readability, striking a balance between simple phrasing and technical insight

How to gather research data for your report

The validity of research data is critical. Because the research phase usually occurs well before the writing phase, you normally have plenty of time to vet your data.

However, research reports could involve ongoing research, where report authors (sometimes the researchers themselves) write portions of the report alongside ongoing research.

One such research-report example would be an R&D department that knows its primary stakeholders are eager to learn about a lengthy work in progress and any potentially important outcomes.

However you choose to manage the research and reporting, your data must meet robust quality standards before you can rely on it. Vet any research with the following questions in mind:

Does it use statistically valid analysis methods?

Do the researchers clearly explain their research, analysis, and sampling methods?

Did the researchers provide any caveats or advice on how to interpret their data?

Have you gathered the data yourself or were you in close contact with those who did?

Is the source biased?

Usually, flawed research methods become more apparent the further you get through a research report.

It's perfectly natural for good research to raise new questions, but the reader should have no uncertainty about what the data represents. There should be no doubt about matters such as:

Whether the sampling or analysis methods were based on sound and consistent logic

What the research samples are and where they came from

The accuracy of any statistical functions or equations

Validation of testing and measuring processes

When does a report require design validation?

A robust design validation process is often a gold standard in highly technical research reports. Design validation ensures the objects of a study are measured accurately, which lends more weight to your report and makes it valuable to more specialized industries.

Product development and engineering projects are the most common research-report examples that typically involve a design validation process. Depending on the scope and complexity of your research, you might face additional steps to validate your data and research procedures.

If you’re including design validation in the report (or report proposal), explain and justify your data-collection processes. Good design validation builds greater trust in a research report and lends more weight to its conclusions.

Choosing the right analysis method

Just as the quality of your report depends on properly validated research, a useful conclusion requires the most contextually relevant analysis method. This means comparing different statistical methods and choosing the one that makes the most sense for your research.

Most broadly, research analysis comes down to quantitative or qualitative methods (respectively: measurable by a number vs subjectively qualified values). There are also mixed research methods, which bridge the need for merging hard data with qualified assessments and still reach a cohesive set of conclusions.

Some of the most common analysis methods in research reports include:

Significance testing (aka hypothesis analysis), which compares test and control groups to determine how likely the data was the result of random chance.

Regression analysis , to establish relationships between variables, control for extraneous variables , and support correlation analysis.

Correlation analysis (aka bivariate testing), a method to identify and determine the strength of linear relationships between variables. It’s effective for detecting patterns from complex data, but care must be exercised to not confuse correlation with causation.

With any analysis method, it's important to justify which method you chose in the report. You should also provide estimates of the statistical accuracy (e.g., the p-value or confidence level of quantifiable data) of any data analysis.

This requires a commitment to the report's primary aim. For instance, this may be achieving a certain level of customer satisfaction by analyzing the cause and effect of changes to how service is delivered. Even better, use statistical analysis to calculate which change is most positively correlated with improved levels of customer satisfaction.

• Tips for writing research reports

There's endless good advice for writing effective research reports, and it almost all depends on the subjective aims of the people behind the report. Due to the wide variety of research reports, the best tips will be unique to each author's purpose.

Consider the following research report tips in any order, and take note of the ones most relevant to you:

No matter how in depth or detailed your report might be, provide a well-considered, succinct summary. At the very least, give your readers a quick and effective way to get up to speed.

Pare down your target audience (e.g., other researchers, employees, laypersons, etc.), and adjust your voice for their background knowledge and interest levels

For all but the most open-ended research, clarify your objectives, both for yourself and within the report.

Leverage your team members’ talents to fill in any knowledge gaps you might have. Your team is only as good as the sum of its parts.

Justify why your research proposal’s topic will endure long enough to derive value from the finished report.

Consolidate all research and analysis functions onto a single user-friendly platform. There's no reason to settle for less than developer-grade tools suitable for non-developers.

What's the format of a research report?

The research-reporting format is how the report is structured—a framework the authors use to organize their data, conclusions, arguments, and recommendations. The format heavily determines how the report's outline develops, because the format dictates the overall structure and order of information (based on the report's goals and research objectives).

What's the purpose of a research-report outline?

A good report outline gives form and substance to the report's objectives, presenting the results in a readable, engaging way. For any research-report format, the outline should create momentum along a chain of logic that builds up to a conclusion or interpretation.

What's the difference between a research essay and a research report?

There are several key differences between research reports and essays:

Research report:

Ordered into separate sections

More commercial in nature

Often includes infographics

Heavily descriptive

More self-referential

Usually provides recommendations

Research essay

Does not rely on research report formatting

More academically minded

Normally text-only

Less detailed

Omits discussion of methods

Usually non-prescriptive 

Get started today

Go from raw data to valuable insights with a flexible research platform

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 21 December 2023

Last updated: 16 December 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 12 May 2023

Last updated: 15 February 2024

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 18 May 2023

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

• 39.6k views
• Research Ethics

Q: What does good research mean?

Asked by Editage Insights on 04 Jul, 2019

Good quality research  is one that provides robust and ethical evidence. A good research must revolve around a novel question and must be based on a feasible study plan. It must make a significant contribution to scientific development by addressing an unanswered question or by solving a problem or difficulty that existed in the real world.

A good research involves systematic planning and setting time-based, realistic objectives. It entails feasible research methods based upon a research methodology that best suits the nature of your research question. It is built upon sufficient relevant data and is reproducible and replicable. It is based on a suitable rationale and can suggest directions for future research.

Moreover, all relevant ethical guidelines must be practiced while conducting, reporting, and publishing good quality research . A good research benefits the various stakeholders in society and contributes to the overall development of mankind.

Related reading:

• VIDEO: What every researcher should know to conduct research ethically

Answered by Editage Insights on 09 Jul, 2019

• Upvote this Answer

This content belongs to the Conducting Research Stage

Confirm that you would also like to sign up for free personalized email coaching for this stage.

Trending Searches

• Statement of the problem
• Background of study
• Scope of the study
• Types of qualitative research
• Rationale of the study
• Concept paper
• Literature review
• Introduction in research
• Under "Editor Evaluation"
• Ethics in research

Recent Searches

• Review paper
• Responding to reviewer comments
• Predatory publishers
• Scope and delimitations
• Open access
• Plagiarism in research
• Journal selection tips
• Editor assigned
• Types of articles
• "Reject and Resubmit" status
• Decision in process
• Conflict of interest

What makes a high quality clinical research paper?

Affiliation.

• 1 BMJ, London, UK. [email protected]
• PMID: 20233312
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-0825.2010.01663.x

The quality of a research paper depends primarily on the quality of the research study it reports. However, there is also much that authors can do to maximise the clarity and usefulness of their papers. Journals' instructions for authors often focus on the format, style, and length of articles but do not always emphasise the need to clearly explain the work's science and ethics: so this review reminds researchers that transparency is important too. The research question should be stated clearly, along with an explanation of where it came from and why it is important. The study methods must be reported fully and, where appropriate, in line with an evidence based reporting guideline such as the CONSORT statement for randomised controlled trials. If the study was a trial the paper should state where and when the study was registered and state its registration identifier. Finally, any relevant conflicts of interest should be declared.

Publication types

• Clinical Trials as Topic*
• Ethics, Research*
• Guidelines as Topic
• Journalism, Medical / standards*
• Periodicals as Topic
• Publishing / standards*
• Writing / standards*

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.328(7430); 2004 Jan 3

Assessing the quality of research

Paul glasziou.

1 Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF

Jan Vandenbroucke

2 Leiden University Medical School, Leiden 9600 RC, Netherlands

Iain Chalmers

3 James Lind Initiative, Oxford OX2 7LG

Associated Data

Short abstract.

Inflexible use of evidence hierarchies confuses practitioners and irritates researchers. So how can we improve the way we assess research?

The widespread use of hierarchies of evidence that grade research studies according to their quality has helped to raise awareness that some forms of evidence are more trustworthy than others. This is clearly desirable. However, the simplifications involved in creating and applying hierarchies have also led to misconceptions and abuses. In particular, criteria designed to guide inferences about the main effects of treatment have been uncritically applied to questions about aetiology, diagnosis, prognosis, or adverse effects. So should we assess evidence the way Michelin guides assess hotels and restaurants? We believe five issues should be considered in any revision or alternative approach to helping practitioners to find reliable answers to important clinical questions.

Different types of question require different types of evidence

Ever since two American social scientists introduced the concept in the early 1960s, 1 hierarchies have been used almost exclusively to determine the effects of interventions. This initial focus was appropriate but has also engendered confusion. Although interventions are central to clinical decision making, practice relies on answers to a wide variety of types of clinical questions, not just the effect of interventions. 2 Other hierarchies might be necessary to answer questions about aetiology, diagnosis, disease frequency, prognosis, and adverse effects. 3 Thus, although a systematic review of randomised trials would be appropriate for answering questions about the main effects of a treatment, it would be ludicrous to attempt to use it to ascertain the relative accuracy of computerised versus human reading of cervical smears, the natural course of prion diseases in humans, the effect of carriership of a mutation on the risk of venous thrombosis, or the rate of vaginal adenocarcinoma in the daughters of pregnant women given diethylstilboesterol. 4 ​ 4

To answer their everyday questions, practitioners need to understand the “indications and contraindications” for different types of research evidence. 5 Randomised trials can give good estimates of treatment effects but poor estimates of overall prognosis; comprehensive non-randomised inception cohort studies with prolonged follow up, however, might provide the reverse.

Systematic reviews of research are always preferred

With rare exceptions, no study, whatever the type, should be interpreted in isolation. Systematic reviews are required of the best available type of study for answering the clinical question posed. 6 A systematic review does not necessarily involve quantitative pooling in a meta-analysis.

Although case reports are a less than perfect source of evidence, they are important in alerting us to potential rare harms or benefits of an effective treatment. 7 Standardised reporting is certainly needed, 8 but too few people know about a study showing that more than half of suspected adverse drug reactions were confirmed by subsequent, more detailed research. 9 For reliable evidence on rare harms, therefore, we need a systematic review of case reports rather than a haphazard selection of them. 10 Qualitative studies can also be incorporated in reviews—for example, the systematic compilation of the reasons for non-compliance with hip protectors derived from qualitative research. 11

Level alone should not be used to grade evidence

The first substantial use of a hierarchy of evidence to grade health research was by the Canadian Task Force on the Preventive Health Examination. 12 Although such systems are preferable to ignoring research evidence or failing to provide justification for selecting particular research reports to support recommendations, they have three big disadvantages. Firstly, the definitions of the levels vary within hierarchies so that level 2 will mean different things to different readers. Secondly, novel or hybrid research designs are not accommodated in these hierarchies—for example, reanalysis of individual data from several studies or case crossover studies within cohorts. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, hierarchies can lead to anomalous rankings. For example, a statement about one intervention may be graded level 1 on the basis of a systematic review of a few, small, poor quality randomised trials, whereas a statement about an alternative intervention may be graded level 2 on the basis of one large, well conducted, multicentre, randomised trial.

This ranking problem arises because of the objective of collapsing the multiple dimensions of quality (design, conduct, size, relevance, etc) into a single grade. For example, randomisation is a key methodological feature in research into interventions, 13 but reducing the quality of evidence to a single level reflecting proper randomisation ignores other important dimensions of randomised clinical trials. These might include:

• Other design elements, such as the validity of measurements and blinding of outcome assessments
• Quality of the conduct of the study, such as loss to follow up and success of blinding
• Absolute and relative size of any effects seen
• Confidence intervals around the point estimates of effects.

None of the current hierarchies of evidence includes all these dimensions, and recent methodological research suggests that it may be difficult for them to do so. 14 Moreover, some dimensions are more important for some clinical problems and outcomes than for others, which necessitates a tailored approach to appraising evidence. 15 Thus, for important recommendations, it may be preferable to present a brief summary of the central evidence (such as “double-blind randomised controlled trials with a high degree of follow up over three years showed that...”), coupled with a brief appraisal of why particular quality dimensions are important. This broader approach to the assessment of evidence applies not only to randomised trials but also to observational studies. In the final recommendations, there will also be a role for other types of scientific evidence—for example, on aetiological and pathophysiological mechanisms—because concordance between theoretical models and the results of empirical investigations will increase confidence in the causal inferences. 16 , 17

What to do when systematic reviews are not available

Although hierarchies can be misleading as a grading system, they can help practitioners find the best relevant evidence among a plethora of studies of diverse quality. For example, to answer a therapeutic question, the hierarchy would suggest first looking for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. However, only a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of reports of randomised trials have been considered for possible inclusion in systematic reviews. 18 So when there is no existing review, a busy clinician might next try to identify the best of several randomised trials. If the search fails to identify any randomised trials, non-randomised cohort studies might be informative. For non-therapeutic questions, however, search strategies should accommodate the need for observational designs that answer questions about aetiology, prognosis, or adverse effects. 19 Whatever evidence is found, this should be clearly described rather than simply assigned to a level. Such considerations have led the authors of the BMJ 's Clinical Evidence to use a hierarchy for finding evidence but to forgo grading evidence into levels. Instead, they make explicit the type of evidence on which their conclusions are based.

Balanced assessments should draw on a variety of types of research

For interventions, the best available evidence for each outcome of potential importance to patients is needed. 20 Often this will require systematic reviews of several different types of study. As an example, consider a woman interested in oral contraceptives. Evidence is available from controlled trials showing their contraceptive effectiveness. Although contraception is the main intended beneficial effect, some women will also be interested in the effects of oral contraceptives on acne or dysmenorrhoea. These may have been assessed in short term randomised controlled trials comparing different contraceptives. Any beneficial intended effect needs to be weighed against possible harms, such as increases in thromboembolism and breast cancer. The best evidence for such potential harms is likely to come from non-randomised cohort studies or case-control studies. For example, fears about negative consequences on fertility after long term use of oral contraceptives were allayed by such non-randomised studies. The figure gives an example of how all this information might be amalgamated into a balance sheet. 21 , 22

Example of possible evidence table for short and long term effects of oral contraceptives. (Absolute effects will vary with age and other risk factors such as smoking and blood pressure. RCT = randomised controlled trial)

Sometimes, rare, dramatic adverse effects detected with case reports or case control studies prompt further investigation and follow up of existing randomised cohorts to detect related but less severe adverse effects. For example, the case reports and case-control studies showing that intrauterine exposure to diethylstilboestrol could cause vaginal adenocarcinoma led to further investigation and follow up of the mothers and children (male as well as female) who had participated in the relevant randomised trials. These investigations showed several less serious but more frequent adverse effects of diethylstilboestrol that would have otherwise been difficult to detect. 4

Conclusions

Given the flaws in evidence hierarchies that we have described, how should we proceed? We suggest that there are two broad options: firstly, to extend, improve, and standardise current evidence hierarchies 22 ; and, secondly, to abolish the notion of evidence hierarchies and levels of evidence, and concentrate instead on teaching practitioners general principles of research so that they can use these principles to appraise the quality and relevance of particular studies. 5

We have been unable to reach a consensus on which of these approaches is likely to serve the current needs of practitioners more effectively. Practitioners who seek immediate answers cannot embark on a systematic review every time a new question arises in their practice. Clinical guidelines are increasingly prepared professionally—for example, by organisations of general practitioners and of specialist physicians or the NHS National Institute for Clinical Excellence—and this work draws on the results of systematic reviews of research evidence. Such organisations might find it useful to reconsider their approach to evidence and broaden the type of problems that they examine, especially when they need to balance risks and benefits. Most importantly, however, the practitioners who use their products should understand the approach used and be able to judge easily whether a review or a guideline has been prepared reliably.

Evidence hierarchies with the randomised trial at the apex have been pivotal in the ascendancy of numerical reasoning in medicine over the past quarter century. 17 Now that this principle is widely appreciated, however, we believe that it is time to broaden the scope by which evidence is assessed, so that the principles of other types of research, addressing questions on aetiology, diagnosis, prognosis, and unexpected effects of treatment, will become equally widely understood. Indeed, maybe we do have something to learn from Michelin guides: they have separate grading systems for hotels and restaurants, provide the details of the several quality dimensions behind each star rating, and add a qualitative commentary ( www.viamichelin.com ).

Summary points

Different types of research are needed to answer different types of clinical questions

Irrespective of the type of research, systematic reviews are necessary

Adequate grading of quality of evidence goes beyond the categorisation of research design

Risk-benefit assessments should draw on a variety of types of research

Clinicians need efficient search strategies for identifying reliable clinical research

Supplementary Material

We thank Andy Oxman and Mike Rawlins for helpful suggestions.

Contributors and sources: As a general practitioner, PG uses the his own and others' evidence assessments, and as a teacher of evidence based medicine helps others find and appraise research. JV is an internist and epidemiologist by training; he has extensively collaborated in clinical research, which made him strongly aware of the diverse types of evidence that clinicians use and need. IC's interest in these issues arose from witnessing the harm done to patients from eminence based medicine.

Competing interests: None declared.

Your Article Library

Top 11 characteristics of a good report.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

This article throws light upon the top eleven characteristics of a good report. The characteristics are: 1. Simplicity 2. Clarity 3. Brevity 4. Positivity 5. Punctuation 6. Approach 7. Readability 8. Accuracy 9. Logical Sequence 10. Proper Form 11. Presentation.

Characteristic # 1. Simplicity:

The language shall be as simple as possible so that a report is easily understandable. Jargons and technical words should be avoided. Even in a technical report there shall be restricted use of technical terms if it has to be presented to laymen.

Characteristic # 2. Clarity:

The language shall be lucid and straight, clearly expressing what is intended to be expressed. For that the report has to be written in correct form and following correct steps.

Characteristic # 3. Brevity:

A report shall not be unnecessarily long so that the patience of the reader is not lost and there is no confusion of ideas. But, at the same time, a report must be complete. A report is not an essay.

Characteristic # 4. Positivity:

As far as possible positive statements should be made instead of negative ones. For example, it is better to say what should be done and not what should not be done.

Characteristic # 5. Punctuation :

Punctuations have to be carefully and correctly used otherwise the meaning of sentences may be misunder­stood or misrepresented.

Characteristic # 6. Approach:

There are two types of approaches: (a) Per­son—When a report is written based on personal enquiry or obser­vations, the approach shall be personal and the sentences shall be in the first person and in direct speech, (b) Impersonal—When a report is prepared as a source of information and when it is merely factual (e.g. a report on a meeting), the approach shall be impersonal and the sentences shall be in the third person and in indirect speech.

Characteristic # 7. Readability:

The keynote of a report is readability. The style of presentation and the diction (use of words) shall be such that the readers find it attractive and he is compelled to read the report from the beginning to the end.’ Then only a report serves its purpose. A report on the same subject matter can be written differ­ently for different classes of readers.

Characteristic # 8. Accuracy:

A report shall be accurate when facts are stated in it. It shall not be biased with personal feelings of the writer.

Characteristic # 9. Logical Sequence:

The points in a report shall be arranged with a logical sequence, step by step and not in a haphazard manner. A planning is necessary before a report is prepared.

Characteristic # 10. Proper Form:

A report must be in the proper form. Some­times there are statutory forms to follow.

Characteristic # 11. Presentation:

A report needs an attractive presentation. It depends on the quality of typing or printing as well as quality of paper used. Big companies make very attractive and colourful Annual Reports.

Related Articles:

• Principles of a Good Research Report
• Report Control System in Large Organisations | Preparation of a Report

Comments are closed.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How to Make a “Good” Presentation “Great”

• Guy Kawasaki

Remember: Less is more.

A strong presentation is so much more than information pasted onto a series of slides with fancy backgrounds. Whether you’re pitching an idea, reporting market research, or sharing something else, a great presentation can give you a competitive advantage, and be a powerful tool when aiming to persuade, educate, or inspire others. Here are some unique elements that make a presentation stand out.

• Fonts: Sans Serif fonts such as Helvetica or Arial are preferred for their clean lines, which make them easy to digest at various sizes and distances. Limit the number of font styles to two: one for headings and another for body text, to avoid visual confusion or distractions.
• Colors: Colors can evoke emotions and highlight critical points, but their overuse can lead to a cluttered and confusing presentation. A limited palette of two to three main colors, complemented by a simple background, can help you draw attention to key elements without overwhelming the audience.
• Pictures: Pictures can communicate complex ideas quickly and memorably but choosing the right images is key. Images or pictures should be big (perhaps 20-25% of the page), bold, and have a clear purpose that complements the slide’s text.
• Layout: Don’t overcrowd your slides with too much information. When in doubt, adhere to the principle of simplicity, and aim for a clean and uncluttered layout with plenty of white space around text and images. Think phrases and bullets, not sentences.

As an intern or early career professional, chances are that you’ll be tasked with making or giving a presentation in the near future. Whether you’re pitching an idea, reporting market research, or sharing something else, a great presentation can give you a competitive advantage, and be a powerful tool when aiming to persuade, educate, or inspire others.

• Guy Kawasaki is the chief evangelist at Canva and was the former chief evangelist at Apple. Guy is the author of 16 books including Think Remarkable : 9 Paths to Transform Your Life and Make a Difference.

Partner Center

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Majority of workers who quit a job in 2021 cite low pay, no opportunities for advancement, feeling disrespected

The COVID-19 pandemic set off nearly unprecedented churn in the U.S. labor market. Widespread job losses in the early months of the pandemic gave way to tight labor markets in 2021, driven in part by what’s come to be known as the Great Resignation . The nation’s “quit rate” reached a 20-year high last November.

A new Pew Research Center survey finds that low pay, a lack of opportunities for advancement and feeling disrespected at work are the top reasons why Americans quit their jobs last year. The survey also finds that those who quit and are now employed elsewhere are more likely than not to say their current job has better pay, more opportunities for advancement and more work-life balance and flexibility.

Majorities of workers who quit a job in 2021 say low pay (63%), no opportunities for advancement (63%) and feeling disrespected at work (57%) were reasons why they quit, according to the Feb. 7-13 survey. At least a third say each of these were major reasons why they left.  

Roughly half say child care issues were a reason they quit a job (48% among those with a child younger than 18 in the household). A similar share point to a lack of flexibility to choose when they put in their hours (45%) or not having good benefits such as health insurance and paid time off (43%). Roughly a quarter say each of these was a major reason.

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to better understand the experiences of Americans who quit a job in 2021. This analysis is based on 6,627 non-retired U.S. adults, including 965 who say they left a job by choice last year. The data was collected as a part of a larger survey conducted Feb. 7-13, 2022. Everyone who took part is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way, nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology.

About four-in-ten adults who quit a job last year (39%) say a reason was that they were working too many hours, while three-in-ten cite working too few hours. About a third (35%) cite wanting to relocate to a different area, while relatively few (18%) cite their employer requiring a COVID-19 vaccine as a reason.

When asked separately whether their reasons for quitting a job were related to the coronavirus outbreak, 31% say they were. Those without a four-year college degree (34%) are more likely than those with a bachelor’s degree or more education (21%) to say the pandemic played a role in their decision.

For the most part, men and women offer similar reasons for having quit a job in the past year. But there are significant differences by educational attainment.

Among adults who quit a job in 2021, those without a four-year college degree are more likely than those with at least a bachelor’s degree to point to several reasons. These include not having enough flexibility to decide when they put in their hours (49% of non-college graduates vs. 34% of college graduates), having to work too few hours (35% vs. 17%) and their employer requiring a COVID-19 vaccine (21% vs. 8%).

There are also notable differences by race and ethnicity. Non-White adults who quit a job last year are more likely than their White counterparts to say the reasons include not having enough flexibility (52% vs. 38%), wanting to relocate to a different area (41% vs. 30%), working too few hours (37% vs. 24%) or their employer requiring that they have a COVID-19 vaccine (27% vs. 10%). The non-White category includes those who identify as Black, Asian, Hispanic, some other race or multiple races. These groups could not be analyzed separately due to sample size limitations.

Many of those who switched jobs see improvements

A majority of those who quit a job in 2021 and are not retired say they are now employed, either full-time (55%) or part-time (23%). Of those, 61% say it was at least somewhat easy for them to find their current job, with 33% saying it was very easy. One-in-five say it was very or somewhat difficult, and 19% say it was neither easy nor difficult.

For the most part, workers who quit a job last year and are now employed somewhere else see their current work situation as an improvement over their most recent job. At least half of these workers say that compared with their last job, they are now earning more money (56%), have more opportunities for advancement (53%), have an easier time balancing work and family responsibilities (53%) and have more flexibility to choose when they put in their work hours (50%).

Still, sizable shares say things are either worse or unchanged in these areas compared with their last job. Fewer than half of workers who quit a job last year (42%) say they now have better benefits, such as health insurance and paid time off, while a similar share (36%) says it’s about the same. About one-in-five (22%) now say their current benefits are worse than at their last job.

College graduates are more likely than those with less education to say that compared with their last job, they are now earning more (66% vs. 51%) and have more opportunities for advancement (63% vs. 49%). In turn, those with less education are more likely than college graduates to say they are earning less in their current job (27% vs. 16%) and that they have fewer opportunities for advancement (18% vs. 9%).

Employed men and women who quit a job in 2021 offer similar assessments of how their current job compares with their last one. One notable exception is when it comes to balancing work and family responsibilities: Six-in-ten men say their current job makes it easier for them to balance work and family – higher than the share of women who say the same (48%).

Some 53% of employed adults who quit a job in 2021 say they have changed their field of work or occupation at some point in the past year. Workers younger than age 30 and those without a postgraduate degree are especially likely to say they have made this type of change.

Younger adults and those with lower incomes were more likely to quit a job in 2021

Overall, about one-in-five non-retired U.S. adults (19%) – including similar shares of men (18%) and women (20%) – say they quit a job at some point in 2021, meaning they left by choice and not because they were fired, laid off or because a temporary job had ended.

Adults younger than 30 are far more likely than older adults to have voluntarily left their job last year: 37% of young adults say they did this, compared with 17% of those ages 30 to 49, 9% of those ages 50 to 64 and 5% of those ages 65 and older.

Experiences also vary by income, education, race and ethnicity. About a quarter of adults with lower incomes (24%) say they quit a job in 2021, compared with 18% of middle-income adults and 11% of those with upper incomes.

Across educational attainment, those with a postgraduate degree are the least likely to say they quit a job at some point in 2021: 13% say this, compared with 17% of those with a bachelor’s degree, 20% of those with some college and 22% of those with a high school diploma or less education.  

About a quarter of non-retired Hispanic and Asian adults (24% each) report quitting a job last year; 18% of Black adults and 17% of White adults say the same.

Note: Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology.

• Business & Workplace
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• COVID-19 & the Economy
• Income & Wages

A look at small businesses in the U.S.

Majorities of adults see decline of union membership as bad for the u.s. and working people, a look at black-owned businesses in the u.s., from businesses and banks to colleges and churches: americans’ views of u.s. institutions, 2023 saw some of the biggest, hardest-fought labor disputes in recent decades, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy