Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
parser is required to extract words from the text that is being indexed; this information
must be passed to a procedure for building an index; queries must likewise be parsed
into a format that is consistent with that of the stored text; and a query evaluator
uses the index to identify the records that match a given query. The explanation
might begin with a review of this overall structure, then proceed to the detail of the
elements.
Another structure is by example , in which the idea or result is initially explained
by, say, applying it to some typical problem. Then the idea can be explained more
formally, in a framework the example has made concrete and familiar. The “compres-
sion for fast external sorting” could also be approached in this way. The explanation
could begin by considering, hypothetically, the likely impact of compression on
sorting. To make the discussion more concrete, a couple of specific instances—a
small table and a large table, say—could be used to illustrate the expected behav-
iour in different circumstances. Given a clear explanation of the hypothetical sce-
nario, you can then proceed to fill in details of the method that was tested in the
research.
A final alternative is to structure the body by complexity . For example, a simple
case can be given first, then a more complex case can be explained as an extension,
thus avoiding the difficulty of explaining foundational concepts in a complex frame-
work. This approach is a kind of tutorial: the reader is brought by small steps to the
full result. For example, a mathematical result for an object-oriented programming
language might initially be applied to some simple case, such as programs in which
all objects are of the same class. Then the result could be extended by considering
programs with inheritance. 1
Some other structures are inappropriate for a write-up. For example, the paper
should not be a chronological list of experiments and results. The aim is to present
the evidence needed to explain an argument, not to list the work undertaken.
The traditional structure for organizing research papers can encourage you to list
all proofs or results, then analyze them later; with this structure, however, the narrative
flow can be poor. It usually makes more sense to analyze proofs or experimental
results as they are presented, particularly since experiments or theorems often follow
a logical sequence in which the outcome of one dictates the parameters of the next.
When describing specific results, it is helpful, although not always possible, to
begin with a brief overview of whatever has been observed. The rest of the discussion
can then be used for amplification rather than further observations. Newspaper articles
are often written in this “pyramid” style. The first sentence summarizes the story; the
next few sentences review the story again, giving some context; then the remainder
of the article presents the whole story in detail. Sections of research papers can
sometimes be organized in this way.
1 Structuring by complexity is good for a paper but, often, not so good for ongoing research. For
example, the authors may have solved an easy case of a problem, say optimizations for iteration-
free programs, motivated by hopeful claims such as “we expect these results to throw light on
optimization of programs with loops and recursion”. All too often the follow-up paper never appears.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search