rm-lec-13

REPORTING

INTRODUCTION

The final step of the research process is publication of the findings, that is, the dissemination of information gathered during the investigation. This is an important step because it informs the community of the state of affairs in the area of the study and offers an opportunity to interest groups and the government to take notice of the findings, and more importantly, to act upon them. For the community, and even the experts, research reports are 'the research'; and research is what is contained in these reports. The research report is ‘the face of the investigation'. Hence, reports must be prepared in a manner that will present the findings as clearly and as constructively as possible.

1          THE CONTEXT OF REPORTING

Report writing is 'engineered writing' (Murray and Hay-Roc, 1986), that is systematic and disciplined writing. More specifically, a report is expected to describe the research process and to present the research outcomes accurately, adequately and effectively. In the first instance, any report, regardless of its nature and content, has to be prepared with its context in mind. The minimum elements of this context to be taken into account, when preparing a report are ethical standards, the kind of people to whom it will be addressed, its purpose, and the reporting outlets. We shall see later that the context is larger and more complex. But in the first instance, the reporter will have to begin thinking about these four factors, even before the; writing has begun.

1.1       ETHICS

To begin with, research must adhere to ethical standards, and this pertains also to the manner in which reports are written. As noted above, the report is the 'face of the study', and the way the findings are reported affects the quality and credibility of the whole study. The underlying standards of a report should reflect professionality, fairness and justice, which researchers are expected to respect. Disrespect of ethical standards, such as plagiarism, fabrication of the data, cheating and the like, constitute misconduct that is punishable by law.

1.2       The reader

The report must also be written in a manner that will make it accessible to the intended reader. Readers have different linguistic competencies and their knowledge of scientific terminology varies significantly. Consequently, it is important that the language in which the report is prepared is that of the consumer. In a similar fashion, the length of the report, the amount of detail it contains, the extent to which technical aspects are included and the depth of analysis and discussion will vary according to the capacity of the reader. Obviously talks given to concerned community groups will be different from reports submitted to a sponsor, papers presented in conferences or articles published in professional journals. In all cases, the report is expected to be clear, honest, thorough and informative, always with the specific reader in mind.

Basic ethical requirements in reporting ·         Research reports are required to present an accurate, honest and realistic account of the findings, without misrepresentation and without misleading the reader. ·         Anonymity and confidentiality must be faithfully observed; the text should not contain information that could betray the identity of the respondents and should not publish confidential information. ·         Key informants, mediators and gatekeepers should be duly protected. ·         Plagiarism is misconduct: the works of others as well as contributions to the research and/or to the preparation of the report should be duly acknowledged. ·         Cheating while preparing the report is a violation of ethical and professional standards and a punishable offence. ·         Fabrication of the findings is unethical and a serious offence. ·         Concealing findings is equally unethical and unprofessional and violates research standards. ·         Limitations of the research caused by any reason must be disclosed in the report. ·         Persons who contributed to the completion of the study and/or of the report must be duly acknowledged. ·         The report should be prepared in a professional manner, and should not harm the reputation or interests of the respondents or the sponsors.

1.3       Purpose

The nature and content of report vary according to the purpose of the research and of the report. Descriptive studies result in publication presenting descriptive findings and exploratory studies generate reports containing exploratory data. In a similar fashion studies based on action research will entail plans of action, which will show interest groups and the government what needs to be done to achieve the goals supported by the research. The purpose of the report underlies its structure and content, and should be clearly stated. Whether the report aims to inform the render, to advise the sponsor or the government, or to generate public debate or public action, has a strong impact on the manner in which it is presented as well as on the content and structure of the report.

1.4       Reporting outlets

For some, dunking at this stage of writing about the form in which a report will be published may seem out of place. Normally, you will expect this issue to be resolved after the report is written. Although logical, this consideration is not correct. The reason for this is that the nature, content, purpose, readership and length of the report depend very much on the publication channel. Hence, the publication outlet needs to be determined at this stage. In summary, the findings usually appear in one or more of the following outlets:

·         Newspapers: This medium addresses the general public, and is interested in reports that describe the central trends of the findings. In most cases, such reports are brief; are written in a simple language and style, are prepared by Journalists and not by the researcher, and hence adhere to the publication standards of the newspaper.

·         Newsletters: Findings published in newsletters address readers with special interest and/or a certain ideological orientation. The language and style are adjusted to the level of file reader, and the report, which is not prepared by the researcher, often a brief summary of the essence and significance of the findings.

·         Conferences: Most specific and more complex are the findings presented at conferences, where experts in specific areas are addressed. The presentation offers a detailed discussion of preliminary or final findings in the language of the audience, and it is prepared by the researcher.

·         Monograph: This outlet allows for large reports, which are detailed and contain a full discussion of the issue in question. Monographs are serious publications, sometimes a part of a series, are prepared by the researcher, and are treated in all aspects as a kind of book.

·         Journals: this medium provides an outlet for summarized, concise, detailed and critical research reports prepared by the researcher, and is the most common way of bringing the results to the critical attention of academic specialists. In most cases, the research findings are published in a series of journal articles, with each focusing on one aspect of the findings. Given the nature of the outlet, reports are fully professional in nature, and are written in the style prescribed by the journal editor.

·         Books: Books provide perhaps the best and most highly respected method of publishing research findings. The wider boundaries and focus allow for more scope and more complete coverage of the findings. The only limitation for reporting findings in a book is that its publication is often not supported by market conditions; hence only a few studies will be published in this form. Many research reports that are specialized and do not attract enough readers to make the publication viable find this medium a rather inaccessible outlet.

There are many more outlets for publishing findings. Workshops for interested people and/or the sponsors and seminars are two of them. Media interviews, particularly for radio or television stations, are other ways to disseminate the knowledge obtained through research. However, most researchers would rank books and monographs as the preferred form of publication, followed by refereed journal articles and conference papers. As we saw earlier, whether a report reaches the status and level of publication it deserves does not depend on quality alone. Politics and economic considerations are equally (and sometimes more) important.

2          STRUCTURE AND CONTENT

Having set the scene for the writing in terms of knowing what the report aims to achieve, who the readers are, where it is to be published and whether ethical standards are guaranteed, the reporter will begin writing. The discussion that follows relates to the professional standards (Wolcott, 1990) that guide the preparation of reports. Briefly, researchers preparing reports have to decide about, first, the content of the report, considering which parts of the findings to include, the amount of detail, the inclusion of statistics and narratives and so on; second, the structure of the report; and third, the text style. All three elements of the report are equally important, should be well integrated and need to be given adequate consideration before the writing begins. These points will be discussed briefly below. Since structure and content are closely related to each other, they will be discussed together.

The content of the report is expected to adhere to certain rules, and meet certain standards set by peers and the industry (see Fine, 1988). The content of the report is expected to reflect the points listed in Box 17.2.

General attributes of the report content The report content: ·         communicates and discusses the findings of the project, as well as problems and frustrations experienced during the study ·         is presented in a simple and orderly way, with every aspect of the project being properly introduced and explained, with the presentation directed towards pre-set aims and the whole structure organized according to accepted standards and practices ·         adheres to the accepted standards and practices of the social sciences, for example in its structure and composition

Many of the rules for writing reports in quantitative research also apply in qualitative research. The overall structure (introduction, main body, conclusion) as well as issues of accuracy and ethics will be as important in qualitative as they are in quantitative research. However, there are types of qualitative research which deviate somewhat from this model. As noted earlier, when discussing certain types of qualitative research, there are cases in which presentation of the findings in qualitative research can take the form of poetry, painting, or drama. These are perhaps at the opposite extreme of the spectrum from reports in quantitative research, but are nonetheless a part of it.

Another aspect of report writing in qualitative research is that reporting is not a task that comes after the research is completed but a central part of the research; so central, indeed, that some writers see it as the place where the final analysis takes place. Writing up is the last part of the project but also the final stage of analysis. Matt (2000: 581), for instance, notes on this that the presentation of reality is also a construction of reality. The way in which data, statements, and results are set creates a relevant interpretation of the world. The same author notes 'it is even allowed on the way from experience to text presentation to write different versions of a plausible text'.

3          THE REPORT IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

There are usually five main points in a report: the introduction, methodology, findings, discussion and conclusion. The sections 'Findings' and 'Discussion' are usually the most important, simply because they present the essence of the results and a critical evaluation of their quality. For this reason, the other sections of the report are generally smaller. As a general guide, the introduction and method usually do not exceed 10 per cent of the report, except when relevant literature or methodology are controversial and require special attention (in which case they may be presented in a separate section entitled 'Literature review'), or when a complicated methodology is used. Similarly, conclusions and recommendations make up only a small proportion of the report.

3.1       Abstract

An abstract is an accurate, comprehensive, concise and informative summary of the report. It provides a useful summary (of between 150 and 200 words), allowing the reader to gain a brief overview of the findings of the study. An abstract is a mini-report where the reader will find sufficient information about the purpose and the outcome of the study to decide whether to read the report or not.

Questions to consider when preparing the abstract ·         What was the purpose of the study? ·         How the study was conducted (including sample type/size, methods of data collection and data analysis? ·         What were the main findings of the study? ·         What were the main conclusions?

Abstracts are required with reports which are submitted to professional journals and are gradually becoming more common than before. The types of publications in which abstracts are not required are books, journal articles, monographs and newsletters. In a number of cases, reports contain what is referred to as Executive Summary. This is an abstract that is more detailed and somewhat larger than usual.

3.2       Introduction

Here, the author describes, explains and introduces: the topic of the report; the purpose and significance of the research; the findings of the exploratory study (if any); a review of the literature; problems encountered; and adjustments made to arrive at the topic ultimately studied and presented in the report. Briefly the main questions considered in this suction of the report are those shown in Box 17.4,

Questions to consider when preparing the introduction ·         What is the research topic? ·         Why is there a need to research this topic, and who will benefit from this? ·         What has been found/said by other researchers/writers in this area? ·         Is everything said/done in the past on this topic correct? ·         Are there gaps, deficiencies etc, that justify the research introduced in this report? ·         What is the view of the researcher on past research and policy on the research topic? ·         What is hypothesized by the researcher? ·         What are the expected outcomes of this study?

These questions are expected to see the research topic in the context of current: research, debates and policies, and show why the reader should be interested in the report, why the report is important and what the reader will gain from studying this report.

3.3       Method

This section informs the reader m clear and specific terms about the manner in which the research was conducted. Many professional Journals have already established set patterns regarding how this section should be referred to and what to include. Some call this section 'Method', others 'Methodology'. In a similar fashion some are strict about the elements that are to be included in the section, as well as the names of the sections used, while others are less strict about names and aspects contained in this section. Overall, this section covers issues regarding file methodological framework, sampling procedures, instrumentation, methods of data collection, analysis and interpretation, and problems encountered by the researcher during the study. Briefly, this emails all the steps introduced when discussing the steps of the research process. To sum up, the methodology section will include the following.

Choice of the topic and methodology

·         What is the research topic?

·         How has the research question been addressed?

·         What type of methodology has been employed in the study?

·         What is the overall framework that contains the research process?

Instrumentation

·         What precisely is the research topic, and what are the relevant variables?

·         How were the variables operationalized?

·         What types of instruments were used to measure the variables?

·         What type of scales and response categories were used in the research?

·         What are the working hypotheses, null hypothesis and alternative hypotheses?

Sampling

·         Who were the respondents who took part in the study?

·         What was the size and composition or the sample?

·         What sampling procedures were used to select the sample?

·         What measures were employed to avoid errors?

·         What degree of generalisability was expected?

·         What were the characteristics of the population?

 Methods of data collection

·         What methods of data collection were employed in the study and why?

·         What were the actual procedures of data collection, including way of preventing or correcting non-response?

·         How were validity and reliability ensured in the study?

·         What types of pre-tests and pilot studies were employed in the investigation and what were their findings?

Data analysis

·         How were data analyzed?

·         Were statistical measures and computing employed?

·         What precautions were taken to ensure validity and reliability?

·         Are there any concerns that need to be taken into account?

Ethics

·         How were ethical issues addressed in the study?

3.4       Findings

This is where the results are presented. It is usually the largest part of a report, and its specific content depends on the nature of the topic and the methodology employed and the extent to which presentation is supposed to go (whether to offer a brief summary of the findings, for example, or a detailed analysis of the data). Its chief component is a direct description of variables and relationships between variables in the form of statements, Cables, figures, graphs and/or other types of presentation. The findings are presented here, point-by-point, and step-by-.step, following the structure of the instrument used or the order of the topic as categorized by die researcher.

Findings are presented in a summary form so that a general impression of trends is created. A common way of presenting the finding is in the form of central tendency and dispersion, aided by frequency rabies and graphs integrated in the text. Following this, cross-tabulations and estimations of associations between the variables are undertaken. This will show whether factors of the issue in question are interrelated or interdependent. If regression analysis was used m the study, the findings will be presented in this section. Finally, the results of significance tests, if employed, will be provided here to strengthen the significance of relationships or differences reported in this section. The issues considered in this section are listed in Box 17.5 in question form.

Questions to consider when writing the findings ·         What are the direct answers to the research questions? ·         How can the findings be presented in a summary form? ·         What techniques can be used to present visually the trends identified in the study? ·         Are there any associations evident in the study that can explain interdependence between relevant factors? ·         Can the findings allow predictions to be made on the basis of the findings? ·         How significant are differences reported in this study? ·         Why should we trust the findings? ·         Are there any problems that may affect the validity and reliability of the study? ·         Does the presentation of the findings conform to ethical standards?

The presentation of the findings and the associated quantitative and ideological/ethical considerations will provide a platform for further critical elaboration. This is presented in the next section.

3.5       Discussion

The presentation of the findings is followed by a discussion of the most important points. The findings are summarized, explained and interpreted, establishing more general trends beyond individual observations and data. Without repeating the findings or departing fully from the facts identified in the study, this section will facilitate a more general debate of the significance of the findings and comparisons with other studies. Such a discussion takes place in a logical, theoretical, comparative and political context, and attempts to integrate the findings into theories, into the purpose of the study, and into its main hypotheses. Ultimately, the discussion of the findings offers some more general answers to the research questions and explains many issues included in the research problem, In addition, eventual weaknesses of the methods employed in the study will be explained adequately, and possible effects on the results and the resulting limitations of the study will be disclosed. The main issues, which are usually addressed in this section, are summarized in Box 17.6.

There are cases in which findings are presented and discussed in the same section. In such cases the sections 'Findings' and 'Discussion' are merged into one, usually labeled 'Findings and discussion' or 'Presentation and discussion or the findings'. In either case, the discussion section should not introduce data not previously presented in the 'findings' section. Discussion means just that: discussion of the results presented in the previous section of the report.

Questions to consider when writing the discussion

·         What is the general meaning of the findings?

·         How do the findings relate to the main assumptions/questions introduced earlier in the report?

·         How do the findings fit with trends reported in the relevant literature?

·         What theories, views or opinions do these findings support or reject?

·         Do the findings support plans and programmes related to the issue in question?

·         Do the findings support the hypotheses formulated by the researcher at the outset?

3.6       Conclusions and recommendations

Most reports contain a section headed 'Conclusions', 'Summary and conclusions' or 'Conclusions and recommendations'. This section summarizes the basic answers that emerged out of the research data, and stresses the implications these findings have for the study object, the theory and the community in general. In addition, attention is given to gaps in our knowledge identified in the study which deserve further attention.

Following the formulation of conclusions, researchers usually make recommendations about action that is required to respond to the situation identified in the study. Here the author puts the results of die study in a normative context and makes some general or specific recommendations, the implementation of which is expected to solve the problems studied in the project. Action theorists will of course put more emphasis on this point than positivists, but the general trend is for the researcher to that a stance on the issue in question, to consider the conclusions made and to state, directly or indirectly, what action is recommended in this area. In summary, the questions listed in Box .17.7 arc some of the issues that are addressed in this section of the study:

This section is one that readers will study very carefully, and one that policy makers and critics will give special consideration. It is therefore wise to construct this section in a way that offers an accurate, legitimate and fair reflection of the study and of the research report. Most of all, conclusions should reflect only the findings of the study, and should not go beyond what the research can support.

3.7       References

Every report is expected to contain a list of references: literature referred to in the report should he adequately documented and listed in alphabetical order at the end. Referencing can be done in many ways. The style used depends on the guidelines adopted by the publisher or on the author's preference if no restrictions are set to the topic. Hence, the question here is not about whether such references should be made or not, but rather in what way. Journals and publishers, as well as other academic bodies (universities or professional bodies), already have established ways of referencing which are widely used. The Harvard system is one example, but others are equally popular. Using one or the other seems to be a matter of preference rather than a reflection of the quality of the system.

Questions to consider when presenting the conclusion ·         What is the answer to the research question? ·         Does the study answer the question fully and convincingly? ·         Does the answer require further empirical support? ·         Does the study point to deficiencies in theory and research? ·         What are the implications of the findings for the issue in question and the community in general? ·         Are there any gaps in our knowledge of the issue m question and relevant theory? ·         What can be done to improve the state of affairs in this area of study? ·         Who should take action in this context: the individual, interest groups, the community or the government?

3.8       Optional elements

Finally, the report may include acknowledgements, a list of contents and an appendix. All three pares are optional and are included in the report only if required or relevant.

Acknowledgements may be given in a separate section or as a footnote attached either to the title of the paper or to some part of the introduction. A list of contents is generally required when large reports are produced, and may provide detailed information or just the main points or chapters of the report. Appendices provide an opportunity for the researcher to place in the report elements of the study which, although important, do not fit into the main body. Such elements might include the full questionnaire, pictures, maps, lengthy tables and other peripheral material that can help the reader to understand the findings fully, and to offer additional evidence, clarification or support.

4          THE REPORT IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Most aspects of report writing in quantitative research that were described in the previous section are also relevant to the qualitative report. The structure and over all flow of the main body are almost the same in both concepts. Both begin with an abstract and an introduction, both present the main body, findings and conclusions, cite relevant literature and make acknowledgement to those who helped with the completion of the project (although other parts of a qualitative report may in a number of cases vary considerably from the quantitative format).

In addition, with respect to reports referring to studies conducted within a fixed qualitative model, the report will be similar to that of quantitative researchers. The actual content may not entail statistical figures and significance tests but the overall format and the standards of presentation, regarding parts of the report, styles, ethics, and so on, will be the same. However, in the case of a study developed within a grounded theory model, the report is rather different. As noted above, there may be a few extra parts and there will certainly be basic differences in their content and underlying argumentation.

One basic characteristic of qualitative reports is their diversity. Reports vary not only according to the nature of the research topic and the research model, but also according to the underlying paradigm. The report or the findings of a text analysis based on hermeneutic or postmodernist principles will be constructed in a different manner from one reporting the findings of a case study. This is the reason that some writers who present guidelines on report writing in qualitative research suggest, separate reports for each research domain, rather than constructing one to be applied in all research models.

It must be noted at this stage that despite the differences in length, nature and detail of the various steps of the report, the overall structure of the report demonstrates many commonalities. Above all, many researchers present their report in a manner that does not vary significantly from that employed in field research, while others prefer to pledge affiliation to grounded theory but produce reports that do not vary from those prepared by field researchers. In the following sections we shall describe a few other examples.

4.1       Report writing in field research

An example of reporting in field research is described by Bailey (1996) and is summarized in Box 17.8. Although in structural terms it is similar to that of quantitative researchers, it is lengthier and contains no explicit section on discussion of the findings. The nature of qualitative research, the reciprocal interaction between the researcher and the respondents, is reflected fully in the structure and content of the report.

Having discussed the structure and process of field work, it is easy to understand the tasks that are included in the steps of the report outlined above.

Main items of the field-research report 1.    Introduction 2.    History: This reports the history of the setting or the group, 3.    Narrative: This describes the research in chronological order. 4.    Supporting documentation: This includes supportive material, verbatim quotations, pictures, maps and the like. 5.    Retaining the speaker's voice: This relates to the perception views and behavior of the speaker. 6.    Locating oneself: Has the researcher influenced the outcomes? Is the researcher insecure or ambivalent as to the extent of his/her influence on the outcome? 7.    Methodological details: This section describes methods, entry, exit, problems, and limitations. 8.    Sharing results with the members: A draft of the report is shared with key informants for comment and reactions are invited. 9.    Ethical issues: These are similar to those in other types of research. 10. Conclusions and appendices: These are as discussed in other report types. (Bailey, 1996)

Types of presentation

Referring to ethnographic research, van Mannen (1988; see also Mate, 2000: 584-5) introduces a more diverse approach to report writing. In this context, reference is made to the observation that ethnographic texts are permeated by what he calls realist tales, which are the most common writing styles in this context, and which guide the presentation of the content of the report. In addition, there are another two tales (self-confidential tales and impressionistic tales), which are reported to be less popular. These three models are shown below.

Types of presentation

Realist tales:

·         written in the third person

·         written in a realistic style, using the language of the facts

·         stresses the typical, which is presented in the foreground

·         a production of objective reality

·         the author stands in the background as an uninvolved observer,

Self-confessional tales:

·         entails the researcher being fully involved in and talking from the field

·         personal style of the researcher is employed

·         researcher describes all possible experiences with, and outcomes of, ethnographic work

·         contains methodological accounts and experiences about entry into, experience with, feelings, and changes in the field

·         written in the first person; includes also personal assumptions, prejudices etc.; presents researcher's version

·         findings presented in a realistic form

Impressionistic tales:

·         highly personal presentation of all ‘expansive recall of fieldwork experience' (van Mannen, 1988: 102)

·         attempts to bring the public to the world of the researched

·         attempt to present a moving and unusual story from the field

·         researcher stands in the foreground

·         written in essay form

·         impressionist tales are presented within a realize or on impressionist model (ibid: 106)

The presentation of the styles listed above demonstrates the diversity of reports not only within the qualitative paradigm but also within the domain of individual research models. It goes without saying that this diversity should not be seen as a problem but rather as an advantage. Each version serves a purpose, which other models cannot serve equally adequately and equally accurately.

Sets of formats

These are not the only forms of data presentation in field research. There are several equally respected and accepted types of report writing in this area. Burgess; (1984; 182) refers to three different types of qualitative reports. These are descriptive, analytic and substantive reports.

·         Descriptive reports: These present summaries of the experiences the researcher recorded while conducting the research in a set format, mostly without adding personal evaluations and without deviating from what the researcher believes was happening in that setting.

·         Analytic reports: These present descriptions but also discuss the concepts that emerge from the research. Comparisons, evaluations, and explanations are part of the content of this type of reporting.

·         Substantive reports: These are similar to analytic reports with the added attribute that they entail discussions that contribute to the development of general theories.

From a different perspective, other researchers and writers (Richardson, 1994; Pfeifer, 2000) note that field reports employ a number of set formats of writing, of which the following three are worth mentioning.

·         Member-centered-writing: Reports written within this format present findings from the point of view of the respondents. They present the findings as realistically (i.e. as closely to reality) as possible, with elements such as typical activities, and personal input on the part of the respondents, set in a time context and in a social context. The views of the respondents are presented verbatum, and interpretations of situations, events, relationships and so on are presented as perceived by the members of the community.

·         Writer-centered writing: Reports employing this format focus on the writer, who presents reality as seen and interpreted by him or herself. Accounts of life in the setting are not necessarily 'realistic' (i.e. not necessarily as they really happened). The writer in this format has a great deal of freedom to present reality at will. Richardson (1994) gives the following examples of writing styles employed in this context: narrative of the self, ethnographic fictional presentations, poetic representation, ethnographic drama and mixed genres (see Box 17.9).

·         Mixed-format: Within this format, reporting the results of a field study is accomplished by means of a combination of member-centered and writer-centered guides. Reporting life in the setting 'realistically', as well as presenting; personal views and the like is considered to offer a stereoscopic view of life in the field.

Writer-centered writing styles in field research ·         Narrative of the self: The writer employing this format is allowed to 'exaggerate, swagger, entertain, make a point without tedious documentation, relive the experiences, and say what might be unsayable in other circumstances' (Richardson, 1994:521). ·         Ethnographic fictional presentations: Reports here resemble fictional stories, making fiction out of field research experiences. The writer feels free to create scenes with characters, events and other aspects, and write about them. ·         Poetic representation: The setting that was studied by the researcher is perceived as a place where field conversations are a form of poetry. Hence the report is presented as a long poem. ·         Ethnographic drama: In this context, field experiences are recorded and presented in a form of drama. The summary of these experiences are then presented in a form of drama; in other words, they are performed rather than published in the conventional way. ·         Mixed genres: This model does not prescribe a singular format but rather encourages the use of more than one of the four writing styles listed above. (Richardson, 1994)

Although field researchers use alt writing formats, [lie mixed-format report seems to be the most popular. For some writers (e.g. Bailey, 1996: 108), many field researchers situate their writing between respondent-centered and writer-centered writing,

4.2       Case studies

The models of report structure and presentation described above with regard to field studies research are also employed by many researchers in case studies research. The report may appear as n single case narrative with descriptions, tables, graphs, pictures and so on. It may appear as a multiple-case report with multiple narratives, as a question-answer report or as a cross-case report presenting a separate theme in each chapter rather than a case per chapter. How the details will be set within the context of the report depends on many factors; hence (he report format may vary, and take the form of one of those presented in Box 17.10 (see Yin, 1991).