I'm currently writing a research paper in the field of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and me and my professor have slightly different views on how to present and order the different elements that are necessary in a paper.
I have two parties that are interested in my research, my professor (and school) and the company I do the research for. The company has no experience with scientific reports.
My professor comes from an psychology background and wants me to write in an hour glass structure. I however believe that I should be writing it for the public that is going to profit from the research, which is in this case the company.
After a search I came across this: Is it a good academic practice to tell the reader in the introduction what the essay is about directly? In which I found the answer by Jeromy Anglim that I completely agree with.
This however only goes in to the introduction and says nothing about the discussion/conclusion section of the paper.
At the moment I have a conclusion section right after my results where I answer my research questions. After this I have a discussion section on what these results mean with the theory and all that belongs there. This was very appreciated by the company.
However, not so much by my professor. He says the conclusion always comes after the discussion, or is part of the discussion.
Long story short:
- What is a good way to present the introduction and discussion/conclusion in a paper which has to be easily read and understood by non-academics.
- If I do not use the hour-glass structure, what section of my paper would be the best place to justify this decision?