Introduction
Hernandez Sampieri, Fernandez Collado and
Lucio (2008) explain that academic research reports generally contain the
following elements: Title, Abstract, Introduction, Literature Review, Methods,
Results, Conclusions, References, and Appendixes. However, according to the area of inquiry,
research reports vary in their academic style and format. The purpose of this
paper is to compare and analyze the characteristics of two articles related to
different areas of study, one belonging to the education field, while the
other, to the medicine field. To be more specific, in this case only Results,
Discussions, and Conclusions/ Recommendations sections will be evaluated.
Barrs’ (2012) article deals with the use of a Computer-Mediated
Communication (CMC) program to foster second language interaction beyond the
classroom, while Di Angelantonio, Chowdhury, Sarwar, Aspelund, Danesh, and
Gudnason’s (2010) paper is concerned about the associations of chronic kidney
disease stages with major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality.
The method employed in Barrs’ (2012) article is action research, while Di
Angelantonio et al. (2010) utilize a prospective population based cohort study.
Apparently, the articles were written following different academic and citation
styles, and the Results and Conclusions sections are structured in distinctive
manners since both articles belong to different fields.
Analysis
Research Article (RA) writers may choose to write the Results,
Discussions, and Conclusions sections separately or blend them into two
sections, integrating the discussion into the Results section, or into the Conclusion
section. Noticeably, Barrs (2012) divides the article’s sections in a
distinctive manner: She includes three sections named Results, Limitations, and
Conclusion and Reflections. It may be argued that the very last section of
Barrs’ (2012) article complies with the standard requirements of a Conclusions
and Discussions section since the author interprets the outcomes, and discusses
the results of the research in this section.
On the other hand, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) develop the sections
following a dissimilar pattern. Although the authors employ the terms Results
and Conclusions in the abstract of the paper, in the body of the article they
use other expressions to name the equivalent sections: These are Hazard ratios
with disease outcomes, Chronic kidney disease and coronary heart disease risk
prediction, Strengths and limitations, and Conclusion. It appears that Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) divide the Results
sections into subsections in order to present very specific and detailed
information in a clear manner.
Regarding the tenses used in the results section, it can be noticed that
Barrs (2012) and Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) utilize past tenses to describe
the outcomes of their researches. The authors of both papers employ general to
specific text types to present the results of their investigations, though they
differ in style and content. Whereas Barrs (2012) interprets data with two
different but complementary approaches, or a “new conceptualization of
established approaches” as she explains (p. 13), Di Angelantonio et al. (2010)
introduce the results in a more clear and concise fashion, in the form of short
sentences charged with technical terms and numbers. This may be supported by
the assumption that Di Angelantonio et al.’s (2010) paper aims at interpreting
purely hard evidence, where the importance lies in succinctness rather than
eloquence.
Moreover, the authors of both articles use figures and tables to
represent the results of their investigations. These tools enable researchers
to present a large proportion of information in a small amount of space, and to
describe the results of statistical analysis or pertinent quantitative data
(APA, 2007). Barrs (2012) appears to format the tables in her article according
to some APA (2007) standards: She numbers all tables, names the tables with an
individual title, italicizes and presents them with each word capitalized and
uses horizontal lines to separate information. However, the author does not
present tables on a separate page as the APA (2007) establishes.
Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) do not seem to follow APA (2007) standards
to format tables, since the authors do not number the graphs, do not italicize
the titles, or present the titles with each word capitalized. Additionally, the
authors place the tables among paragraphs. These authors seem to make a more
strategic use of figures to achieve clarity of expression in the interpretation
of the results, more common in the scientific field.
Discussions sections are usually argumentative and evaluative as they
follow a certain parameter to present information. Although parts may not
appear in order, Discussions present situations, problems, solutions and
evaluations, and this is clearly seen in the articles analyzed. Di Angelantonio
et al.’s (2010) paper deals with a separate section to discuss the results but
avoids to follow the standard order, as it is noticeable that the two
paragraphs that form the section commence with the evaluation or solutions
rather than stating the situation. Barrs (2012) fails to include a separate
part to discuss the results and blends the discussions section together with
the conclusion.
As regards the Conclusions section of both articles, a clear difference
in length and content can be noticed. Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) limit the Conclusions
section to a summary of the main finding of the research, and to comment on the
limitations of the study. The authors of this RA repeat the same information
presented in the abstract in the Conclusions section. Conversely, Barrs (2012)
writes a detailed and complete conclusion because, as it was explained before,
the author avoids including a section for discussing the results of the
investigation. In order to compensate this decision, the last section in the
article is strongly persuasive and argumentative as it summarizes main
findings, interprets results, explains unexpected outcomes, highlights the
importance of the study, and states recommendations for further investigations.
The author’s arguments are supported by the use of qualifying adjectives, like
“useful” and “viable”, and expressions for presenting facts such as “…it was
also shown through the difference in results…” (Barrs, 2012, p. 22) instead of
holding evidence by opinions.
Conclusion
It is widely known that RA must include the results of the investigation
and its posterior discussion and evaluation, together with a conclusion to
support or reject the initial hypothesis. However, papers may vary in the style
and structuring of the information, and this is conditioned by the original purpose of the research.
Di Angelantonio et al.’s (2010) paper focuses
on interpreting hard evidence and explaining the meaning of the results in
order to find a single right answer, thus results are presented in a concise
and clear style. The authors belong to a scientific context where new
discoveries need to be supported by hard evidence and facts, hence it can be
noticed that the Discussions section is one of its strongest parts, and the Conclusion
is more modest and terse.
On the other hand, Barrs (2012) needs
to resort to more argumentative and persuasive language to achieve the aim of
her study. Researches in the humanities contexts base their investigations on
the interpretation of data and how they support or reject previous theories,
thus Barrs (2012) makes a more strategic use of the conclusion and utilizes a
persuasive style.
References
American Psychological Association (2007). Concise rules of APA style. Washington ,
DC
Barrs, K. (2012, February). Action research: Fostering computer-mediated
L2 interaction beyond the classroom. Language
Learning & Technology, 16 (1), 10-25. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/actionresearch.pdf
Di Angelantonio, E., Chowdhury, R., Sarwar, N., Aspelund, T., Danesh, J.
& Gudnason, N. (2010). Chronic kidney disease and risk of major
cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: Prospective population based
cohort study. Research. BMJ, Online first,
1-7. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c4986
Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández-Collado, C.,
& Lucio, B.P. (2008). Metodología de la Investigación
(4th ed.). México: McGraw-Hill.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario