Abstract
Similar to the Ethics Business Memo involving Google’s Company Code of Conduct, it is important to remain within the bounds of being ethical for lab reports as well. While researchers write lab reports for a very concentrated group of people, they also need to acknowledge the range of linguistic and educational differences among people. Most lab reports are published in bigger journals that can be accessed by the general public. With that in mind, researchers need to be aware of this and realize the bigger picture on how they can impact the world. This assignment looks to analyze 2 lab reports within similar fields of study. They were then compared to each other on the basis of being ethical or not. One may have been more ethical than the other or both may have been equally ethical. Regardless, they should have each been written with the audience in mind.
TO: Michael Coppola, Professor
FROM: Bramhadev Emogaje, Student
DATE: March 9, 2020
SUBJECT: Analysis of Engineering Lab Report Introductions
Lab reports are typically expected to follow a certain format and usually, they must be in line with a publisher’s expectations. For lab reports in any engineering discipline, this expectation is emphasized greatly to prevent the inclusion of unnecessary information. It is important that the elimination of this kind of material is done correctly to avoid the mishandling of technical devices which can result in danger or consumer harm. With this in mind, the introduction of these lab reports should be very specific and should also do a good job to convey the overall purpose of the paper. Including unnecessary information disregards the importance of taking care of the audience which, in turn, does not contribute to the overall purpose of the paper. Researchers writing engineering lab reports must ensure that the introductions are kept very concise and clear. The reader should be able to grasp the general direction of where the paper is headed and because of that, this memo will evaluate the clarity of two engineering lab report introductions.
It is frustrating to read a report, of any kind, that is filled with jargon and unnecessary information. Including this kind of material makes it very hard to understand what is being written about. One would have to dissect every line just to grasp a small understanding of the overall picture. Though, it is understandable that many of these lab reports are written with the intention to be read by other professionals. Unfortunately, this makes it very hard for the average person to understand much and they would have to settle to reading things like abstracts or introductions which, is not a bad thing! Introductions to any paper should do very well in taking care of the audience. They should serve as a precursor to what will be mentioned later and should also be ridden of any kind of unnecessary information.
Given this, you asked that I analyze two engineering lab reports and report my analysis. I will compare the introductions of two reports and evaluate the conciseness with audience awareness.
The first lab report titled “Numerical and Experimental Analysis of a High-Pressure Aviation Engine Turbine Disc”, did well when introducing a problem that the paper was addressing. Within the first paragraph, the reader is already able to understand some background information regarding plane crashes, often being caused by “rotor bursts”. The following sentence then explains that “temperature gradients” and “centrifugal forces” impact the plane rotors which lead to engine damage. This report has done a great job in the introduction so far, keeping the details very concise and eliminating most technical jargon however, this is unfortunately where it stops. The next 6 paragraphs in this introduction are filled with unnecessary information that overcomplicates it. It continues by explaining the impact of temperature on the aviation engine and does not address the overall purpose of the paper. While the first paragraph does a great job introducing some background information and a problem, the next 6 paragraphs focus on information that should be included elsewhere in the paper such as, the effect of temperature on rotor discs, the lifetime of a disc, and how the disc works when the plane is in motion. This report could have done a better job taking care of the audience by reducing much of the information included in the intro. Rather than spend 2-3 paragraphs on the way temperature affects the rotor discs, it could have had one sentence about it and went more in-depth later in the paper. This would save enough space to perhaps include a final paragraph that gives a brief overview of the experiments and evaluations conducted within the paper.
The second lab report titled “Performance Analysis of Aviation Fuel Gear Pump Based on AMESim” did an overall better job than the first report. Similar to the first report, the first paragraph provided some background information and made clear of a problem being addressed. In the second paragraph, it then goes beyond by referencing some individuals who helped contribute to the report’s research and methodology. And finally, the third paragraph explicitly states the purpose of the paper indicated by “this paper proposes…” and elaborates on some extra details of what will be covered later in the paper. Compared to the first lab report, this one does a much better job taking care of the reader and eliminates unnecessary information. It gives some brief information and then walks the reader through the organization of the paper while even giving care to mention a specific purpose. Not to mention this is all done within only 3 paragraphs vs the first lab reports 7 paragraphs.
In general, it was clear which paper did a better job taking care of the reader and minimizing unnecessary information/technical jargon. While the first lab report did well introducing a problem, it did not do well being clear and concise. The second report, on the other hand, did extremely well making the introduction easy to follow. It gives the reader a sense of awareness and understanding and allows for less confusion. This can easily be shown by its 3 paragraphs compared to the first reports 7 paragraphs.
In closing, I encourage you to take a look at the introductions of both reports and see for yourself. If I did well evaluating these report introductions, you should find that the second lab report is much easier to understand.
Attached: Performance Analysis of Aviation Fuel Gear Pump Based on AMESim, Numerical and Experimental Analysis of a High-Pressure Aviation Engine Turbine Disc
References
Semrad, K., Spodniak, M., Fozo, L., Hovanec, M., & Korba, P. (2019). Numerical and Experimental Analysis of a High-Pressure Aviation Engine Turbine Disc. 2019 International Conference on Military Technologies (ICMT), 1-4.
Hong, L., Li, H., Xiao, H., & Ren, S. (2018). Performance Analysis of Aviation Fuel Gear Pump Based on AMESim. 2018 9th International Conference on Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (ICMAE), 400-405.
