Making Tables
Tables are commonly used to display data or other
information that are not suitable or helpful when displayed as
figures, or in the text. Examples could include, raw data from
each experimental trial (table in an appendix), a
long listing of species studied and the number of chromosomes each have, and
so on. An author has to decide,
on a case-by-case basis, whether the information is (1) necessary to include
in the paper at all and (2) the best
way to display it for the reader. Sometimes, that means using a table.
Below, you will find a couple of examples of bad tables, a description of their faults, and an example of a good table.
Table Example 1.
______________________________________________________________________________
1 estrogen 14.0 - 28 18
2 testosterone 21.0 11 - 13
3 progesterone 3.0 13.1 4.5 9.8
Example 1 - Analysis:
This table has so many things wrong with it that it is difficult to know where
to start, however:
- it lacks a descriptive title
- it isn't formatted well and is messy, which
makes it difficult to read
- the columns aren't labeled, so we have no
idea what the numbers stand for
- there is no explanation for why certain cells
lack data ("-")
- quantitative data might be better in a graph,
and if not, maybe the table should be
dropped altogether
Table Example 2. Number of mammal species seen at National Parks.
______________________________________________
Species # National
Park
______________________________________________
36 Yellowstone
National Park
34 Glacier
National Park
14 Big
Bend National Park
______________________________________________
Example 2 - Analysis:
This table is not too bad; however, there are problems
with it.
- There is not a lot of information here. Why
have a table at all?
- The title is not very informative. Mammals
seen during surveys for mushrooms? You do not have to
duplicate your
methods section here, but the table should make sense all by itself.
Table Example 3. Mammalian species that have
been examined for age differences in antipredator
vigilance (from the literature).
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Common name Species Type
of Effect noted Source
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Impala Aepyceros
melampus -
Age effect* Burger
& Gochfeld 1994
Springbok Antidorcas
marsupalis No
age effect Bednekoff
& Ritter 1994
Spanish ibex Capra
pyrenaica +
Age effect Alados
1985
Wedge-capped capuchin Cebus
olivaceus +
Age effect Fragaszy
1990
Uganda kob Kobus
kob +
Age effect Burger
and Gochfeld 1994
Thirteen-lined ground squirrel Spermophilus
tridecemlineatus + Age effect Arenz
& Leger 1997
African buffalo Syncerus
caffer No
age effect Prins
& Iason 1989**
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
* = +/- Age effect: Positive/negative association between vigilance
and age.
** = confounded by time of day, group size, and position in group.
Example 3 - Analysis:
This table is pretty good. Although one might think of things
that could improve it, it has all of the basic elements:
- the title is clear (note that you do not have
to have a whole paragraph describing the table).
- unless your browser has goofed it up, the
formatting is nice and easy to read
- this kind of information is appropriate for
a table:
- this info could
clutter up a paper if it were put in paragraph form
- a table helps
the reader to scan quickly to see what the dominant effect is -> + Age
effect
- additional helpful notes at the bottom of
the table to help the reader understand information in the table
© Cody Arenz, Garry Duncan, & Nebraska Wesleyan University