The science that is discussed in a scientific presentation, like the science described in written proposals and reports, can fail to make an impression if the presentation is lacking in clarity, organization, and interest value. Therefore, learning how to give effective scientific presentations is as important in communicating your research findings as any written product.

The three main types of scientific presentation are seminars or colloquia, oral papers at professional meetings, and posters. Seminars and meeting papers are spoken presentations that differ primarily in length and, consequently, content; poster presentations are mounted on a panel and read by passersby. In this chapter, we provide suggestions for how to prepare and present scientific seminars and both oral and poster papers. Most of our advice is derived from our own experiences as speakers, members of audiences, and session or seminar organizers. In addition, Appendix A provides tips on how to write clearly, many of which apply to construction of slides for oral presentations and creation of poster papers.

Seminars are usually allotted an hour or so, with the expectation that the speaker will talk for about 45 minutes and will answer audience questions during the remainder of the time. Meeting presentations are usually limited to 15 or 20 minutes each, with the expectation that the speaker will talk for about 12 or 17 minutes, respectively, and respond to questions during the remaining minutes.

This appendix could be called “Some tips on how to write clearly” because it cannot – and does not attempt to – replace detailed guides on the subject of English exposition. We focus instead on issues and problems that arise frequently in scientific writing, as in grant proposals (Chapter 2) and research reports (Chapter 3).

Many writing guides are biased towards being prescriptive rather than descriptive. That is, they prescribe what writers should do rather than describing what writers do. Part of this bias results from the very nature of such guides; it is easier and shorter to say what to do than it is to explain why or to show that good writers do things in the way prescribed. The other part of the bias results from selection: those who write guides tend to be philosophically prescriptive about language.

It is with some trepidation that we offer these notes about how to write clearly because they inevitably appear, and often are, prescriptive. English has become the world language because it is forgiving in so many ways. Any writer can violate many of the so-called rules and still be understood. Truly good writers see through awkward prescriptions. For example, everyone knows the following “rule:” never use a preposition to end a sentence with.

A curriculum vitae, affectionately known as a c.v., is a summary of one's academic career and qualifications, usually prepared by an applicant seeking employment or other support. The commercial world tends to use the French term résumé for the equivalent document. Curriculum vitae means literally the course of life (in Latin), and it intends to be a short summary, although modern c.v.s can sometimes be quite lengthy, depending upon the specific purpose for which they are drawn up. Although most of a c.v. consists of itemized lists, some general exposition may be involved; much of Appendix A on writing clearly therefore applies.

There is no prescribed format for a general c.v., although its contents are reasonably standard. For specific purposes, as in a tenure-review document, a university or other body may require a c.v. in special format. We emphasize the contents that typify a c.v. drawn up by a new doctorate seeking a postdoctoral position or assistant professorship, although we also include mention of sundry items that are often more applicable to someone at a later stage of his or her career. As it may not be obvious why certain items are desirable to include in a c.v., we offer our explanations as to their inclusion. However, we urge you to seek feedback on your c.v. as you prepare it for different purposes and whenever you substantially revise its format or content.

Research results are of little use unless they are reported so that others can access them. We have turned “report” of the opening quote into a double entendre in order to make the point that a scientific report should be written clearly so as to avoid suspicion. This chapter deals with writing a research report such as a graduate thesis or a manuscript for publication. The next chapter considers presenting research orally or by a poster paper at a scientific meeting, and Appendix A discusses clarity of writing in general.

Scientific reports have a standard format that should always be followed in the absence of special instructions to the contrary. Here is the usual sequence of parts of a scientific report:

1. Title page

2. Abstract

3. Introduction

4. Methods

5. Results

6. Discussion

7. (Conclusions)

8. Acknowledgments

9. Literature cited

10. Appendixes

11. Tables

12. Figure legends

13. Figures

Exceptions to this list are uncommon. For example, certain journals may have unusual requirements of style or form that need to be followed in manuscripts. Our advice to always follow exactly the instructions to authors when preparing a report for publication cannot be overstressed. In certain student reports and theses, placing figure legends on the figures themselves and inserting figures and tables as separate pages after their first mention in the text may be permitted. Conclusions may be a separate section (older pattern) or incorporated at the end of the discussion (now more common).

Training in the biological sciences, and indeed in most sciences, appropriately emphasizes mastery of techniques and theory – essential elements of any original research endeavor. The less glamorous steps to successful research are often neglected in the formal training programs of scientists – such as how to plan a study adequately, secure research funds effectively, present results (written and oral) clearly and interestingly, and present qualifications in a résumé. This book is a map to those activities, with examples drawn primarily from the authors' discipline of behavioral ecology. In the first edition, we integrated our own experiences with the most frequent problems encountered by our students to produce what we hoped would be a helpful, concise guide to the more practical aspects of scientific research. In this second edition, we have updated these tips to accompany the changes that advances in computer technology and the Internet have brought to the practical sides of submitting research grants and manuscripts and presenting research in talks and posters. We have also deleted one of our original appendixes, which provided addresses for funding agencies, because these are now readily available on the Web, and have replaced it with an appendix on ethics considerations. The basics of planning scientific research remain the same, however.

Our concern is with widely applicable skills. If you want to know details – such as what research questions are currently considered “hot” in your field, what organizations are currently offering monies for what kinds of research, what laboratory and field techniques are state-of-the-art, or how to use modern computer-intensive statistical applications properly – you must seek specific sources appropriate to your needs.

Success in science, as in most complex endeavors, depends partly on preparedness and planning. The three Persian princes of Serendip notwithstanding, a great truth is found in the aphorism that chance favors the prepared mind. No mere chapter could constitute a complete guide to planning research. This one attempts to cover the main points common to most projects. We begin with a background sketch of epistemology: how science as a whole works and the roles of individual investigators. That introduction provides a framework for discussing specific issues of planning research. Subsequent chapters deal with some of the major steps of doing science (e.g. how to write a grant proposal and how to communicate the results of research) that ensue after good planning.

SCIENTIFIC EPISTEMOLOGY

In order to plan research effectively, the investigator should understand how his or her activities fit into the endeavor of science as a whole. Some explanations of the “scientific method” confound epistemology – how we accumulate knowledge and understanding through science – with specific research activities of the individual investigator. This section attempts to disentangle the two by sketching the “big picture” first and then showing where the practicing scientist fits in.

Science as process and product

One can conceive of science as a cycle of activities and results based on procedures that are often referred to as the “hypothetico-deductive method.”