3 cm-cubes, each weighing 100 g. Two of the cubes thus obtained were randomly selected for testing. Th e cubes were dried individually in a Phillips R2D2 Dehydrator for 10 minutes. Immediately aft er removing each cube from the dehydrator it was coated with the selected seasoning mixture8 and left to stand on a glass plate for 30 minutes at room temperature (16°C) in order to enhance absorption of the seasoning prior to heating. Seasoning quantities were measured used standard domestic kitchen scales and were therefore only approximate. Each cube was then placed on an ovenproof dish and transferred to a pre-heated Panasonic Model 33KY standard electric fan-assisted oven at 150°C for 10 minutes. Th e product was removed from the oven and allowed to come to equilibrium, aft er which the cubes were assessed according to the TTS test developed by Dundee (Dundee, 1997).
91 Unit 3 ✏ Writing about Results 3.1 Structure Th e title of this section varies in diff erent disciplines, and also in diff erent journals. Instead of Results, it is sometimes called 'Analysis' or 'Data Analysis'. Th e table below shows four options for the subtitles from this point until the end of the research paper. In all cases this section reports your comments on what you found or observed, and if the subtitle contains the word Discussion (i.e. Results and Discussion), it includes some or all of the Discussion. As with the Methodology section, the best way to choose an appropriate subtitle is to look at the Guide for Authors of the journals you read regularly. In most cases, the results of your work can be given in graphs, tables, equations or images. Why, then, should you bother to write a Results section? Why not simply provide good, clear graphs or tables with good, clear titles and perhaps a few notes underneath each? Th inking about these questions is a good way to begin to understand what you should be writing Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Results and Discussion and