AN ANALYSIS OF LAB REPORTS RESEARCHING AI IN DECISION MAKING

Kowshik Barua

ENGL 21007 Writing for Engineering Course

Professor C. Rodwell

Lab Report Analysis

AN ANALYSIS OF LAB REPORTS RESEARCHING AI IN DECISION MAKING

                          Laboratory reports are a form of scientific writing communicating the outcomes of a certain experiment conducted. They are utilized in different settings, such as industrial research, academic research, and government research, among others. Lab reports adhere to a standard format, including the abstract, introduction, methods and materials, results, discussion, and conclusion. Researchers also use different rhetorical strategies in achieving and communicating their goals in such lab reports. The strategies differ from one researcher to the other, as shown in the analysis of the three lab reports by Ingrams, Kaufmann, and Jacobs (2022), Alon-Barkat and Busuioc (2023), and Paranjape et al. (2021).

Rhetorical Strategies in Lab Reports

The authors of lab reports employ several rhetorical strategies in achieving their goal and communicating the conclusions drawn from the results and findings of the lab experiment. Some of the strategies that are commonly used include the following.

Objectivity: some lab reports are written using an objective tone. An objective tone implies that the report’s author avoids making personal claims or opinions on the subject of the experiment. They concentrate on presenting the facts they obtained from the experiment’s findings.

•   Impartiality: By remaining objective, authors enhance the credibility of their conclusions. They refrain from injecting subjective biases.

Evidence: The authors use evidence from the experiment’s findings to support their claims in the lab reports. Some forms of evidence they use include figures, tables, and data from the output.

• Figures and Graphs: Authors use visual representations (such as graphs, charts, and diagrams) to convey complex data succinctly. These figures illustrate trends, patterns, and relationships.
• Tables: Organized data tables provide a systematic summary of measurements, calculations, or experimental parameters.
• Raw Data: Authors present raw data obtained during the experiment. This serves as the foundation for drawing conclusions.

Logic: writing a lab report requires logical reasoning, which helps authors explain the lab experiment’s results. Logical reasoning also helps the authors draw relevant conclusions from the lab.

• Explanation of Results: Authors employ logical reasoning to interpret findings. They explain why specific outcomes occurred based on scientific principles.
• Causal Relationships: Authors establish cause-and-effect connections. For instance:

– If enzyme activity increased with temperature, they logically connect this to enzyme kinetics.

– If material conductivity changed under varying conditions, they discuss electron behavior.

• Interpretation: Authors logically analyze deviations from expected results. If data diverges from theoretical predictions, they explore potential reasons.

Audience: a lab report is written targeting a specific audience. The author of the labreport tailors the style and language to meet the audience’s needs. For instance, a medical labreport differs from an electrical engineering lab report regarding the style and diction of thetechnical terms used.

• Target Audience: Authors tailor their language and content to the intended readership:

– Experts: Technical terms and specialized jargon are acceptable. An engineering audience expects precise terminology.

– General Readers: Authors simplify complex concepts, avoiding excessive technicality.

• Background Knowledge: Authors gauge the audience’s familiarity with the subject matter. They strike a balance between providing necessary context and avoiding redundancy.
• Purpose: The purpose of the report influences audience consideration. Is it for academic assessment, research publication, or practical application?

Similarities in the Formats of the Three Lab Reports

The three lab reports by three lab reports by Ingrams, Kaufmann, and Jacobs (2022),Alon-Barkat and Busuioc (2023), and Paranjape et al. (2021) adhere to the standard format of a lab report, despite having a few differences. For instance, Ingrams et al. (2022) are unique since it is the only one with a ‘Literature Review’ section. Similarly, the lab report by Paranjape et al. (2021) differs from the other two in that it has a ‘References’ section at the end of the report, while the two others have included their references in their footnotes. Therefore, this shows that despite the three reports adhering to the standard lab report format, their adherence has slight variations.

Differences in the Formats of the Three Lab Reports

The three lab reports by Ingrams, Kaufmann, and Jacobs (2022), Alon-Barkat and Busuioc (2023), and Paranjape et al. (2021) show differences in their formats. The differences arise in the sections included or missing in the lab reports about the others. Ingrams et al. (2022)differ from Alon-Barkat and Busuioc (2023) and Paranjape et al. (2021) as it is the only one with a ‘Literature Review’ section. Additionally, Paranjape et al.’s (2021) report is only one of the three with a ‘References’ section at the end of the report. As mentioned, the other two use footnotes. As such, this shows the lab reports differ in structure and format.

• Ingrams et al. (2022):

– Includes a ‘Literature Review’ section.

– Likely provides background information by reviewing existing research related to the
experiment.

– Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of prior work in the field.

• Alon-Barkat and Busuioc (2023) and Paranjape et al. (2021):

– No ‘Literature Review’ section.

– Focus primarily on the experiment’s methodology, results, and conclusions.

– Use footnotes instead of a separate ‘References’ section.

• Paranjape et al. (2021):

– Unique ‘References’ section at the end of the report.

– Lists all sources cited using a specific style

-Provides a formal way to acknowledge external references.

Reasons for the Similarities and Differences

The lab reports have various similarities because they all adhere to the standard lab report
format. As such, their formats are similar. The lab report format is designed to be concise and
clear, enabling easy comparison between different lab reports on their adherence to the standard
format. On the other hand, the differences evident in the formats of the lab formats are attributed
to the differences in the requirements for publishing the journals. For instance, Paranjape et al.’s
(2021) report is the only one in which a ‘References’ section was required before publication—
the other two required footnotes.

•  Lab Reports:

-Purpose: Lab reports aim to demonstrate your understanding of the scientific
method through hands-on experiments. They typically follow a specific
format.

– Content: A lab report includes sections such as an introduction (background
and hypothesis), methods (experimental design and procedure), results (data
and observations), and conclusions (interpretation and implications).

-Audience: Lab reports are usually written for course instructors or fellow
students.

-Length: They tend to be concise and focused on the experiment’s details.

-Example: If you’d like to explore more about lab report writing, you can refer
to the article titled “How To Write A Lab Report”.

•  Scientific Articles:

-Purpose: Scientific articles present original research findings, theories, or
analyses. They contribute to the scientific community’s knowledge.
– Content: Scientific articles include sections like an abstract, introduction,
literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and references.
– Audience: They are intended for a broader audience, including researchers,
scholars, and professionals in the field.
– Length: Scientific articles are more extensive than lab reports and delve into
the research context, methodology, and broader implications.

-Example: If you’re interested in understanding the differences further, you can
explore the article titled “What’s the difference between a lab report and a
research paper?”.

In summary, lab reports focus on practical experimentation, while scientific articles contribute to
the advancement of knowledge. The differences in format arise from the distinct purposes and
audiences they serve.

As for the specific lab reports you mentioned:

-Paranjape et al.’s (2021) report stands out due to its inclusion of a
‘References’ section, which is uncommon in lab reports. This suggests a more
scholarly approach.
– The other two reports opted for footnotes instead, aligning with typical lab
report conventions.

If you’d like to explore the quality and additional information in these reports, I recommend
visiting the provided URLs:

Paranjape et al. (2021)
Second report
Third report

Examples of Rhetorical Strategies in the Three Lab Reports

The three lab reports use three different examples of rhetorical strategies. In their lab
report, Ingrams et al. (2022) used objectivity. Such objectivity is evident when the authors quote,
“The purpose of this study was to examine citizen perceptions of AI in government decision
making.” (p. 391). The strategy helps readers better understand the subject and, hence, determine
whether or not to proceed with the reading. Alon-Barkat et al. (2023) used evidence in their lab
report, as seen in their statement: “Our findings suggest that automation bias and selective
adherence are two cognitive biases that can influence human-AI interactions in public sector
decision-making.” (p. 163). The authors use evidence from the facts collected through their lab
experiment.

On the other hand, Paranjape et al. (2021) use logic in their lab report. As the authors
mention, it is evident that “The results of this study suggest that AI has the potential to improve the efficiency and accuracy of laboratory medicine tests. However, there are also some barriers
to implementing AI in this field, such as the lack of standardized data and the need to train
laboratory personnel.” (p. 830). They apply logic in deducing conclusions from the findings of
the lab report. These rhetorical strategies help the three authors achieve their goals and
objectives.

Conclusion

The rhetorical analysis shows that all three lab reports adhere to the standard format.
However, a few differences arise due to the requirements the articles must meet before being
published in different journals. Additionally, the analysis shows that the three authors employ
different strategies in communicating their purpose and achieving the overall goal of their lab
experiment.

Credit

Alon-Barkat, S., & Busuioc, M. (2023). Human–AI interactions in public sector decision
making: “automation bias” and “selective adherence” to algorithmic advice. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(1), 153-169.
Ingrams, A., Kaufmann, W., & Jacobs, D. (2022). In AI, we trust? Citizen perceptions of AI in
government decision-making. Policy & Internet, 14(2), 390-409.
Paranjape, K., Schinkel, M., Hammer, R. D., Schouten, B., Nannan Panday, R. S., Elbers, P.
W., … & Nanayakkara, P. (2021). The value of artificial intelligence in laboratory
medicine: current opinions and barriers to implementation. American Journal of Clinical
Pathology, 155(6), 823-831.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.