Flaws in Research Report Writing: An Evaluation of Research Reports Submitted for an International Conference on Education

Abstract

The present study was undertaken to assess papers presented during the 5th International Conference organized by the Collaboration of Education Faculties in West Africa (CEFWA). This was done with a view to revealing participants’ deficiencies in research report writing. The sample for the study comprised of 65 research reports submitted for peer review process by the conference participants. Data sources include reviewers’ assessment of research report using the CEFWA Research Report Rating Scale (C3Rs-a five Likert scale) and reviewers’ comments and suggestions on the weaknesses and strengths of the research reports. Based on these data sources, both descriptive statistics (e.g., mean) and content analysis of reviewers’ evaluation comments were used in the data analysis. The results of the study revealed that (1) the journal-conference proceedings rejection rate was 47.7% (2) the Introduction and Discussion were rated as weak; Literature Review, Methodology, Results and Conclusion were rated as fairly good; the titles and abstracts of submitted research reports were rated as good. Furthermore, the study revealed the following as the primary flaws associated with the Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Results and Discussion sections of the research reports: (1) improper focus on the study objectives and non-indication of gaps in knowledge (2) lack of attempt to critically critique the methods(s) used in previous studies (3) inadequate description of research designs (4) non-self-explanatory of tables and figures and (5) lack of discussion about the significance and implications of results. Based on the findings of this study, it was recommended that concerted efforts should be made by education faculties to organize faculty seminars where research report can be presented for constructive criticism. Also, universities and research institutions should endeavor to reward researchers for quality rather than quantity of their publications.