Research Articles (RA) or Research Papers (RP) are divided into several sections: abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and conclusion. In general terms, the results section presents the outcomes of the research while the discussion section namely interprets the meaning of these findings. The conclusion, on the other hand, shows the recapitulation of the major ideas of the RP. This paper will analyse the results, discussion and conclusion sections of two RAs: One in the field of medicine and another one in the field of education. The text features and the linguistic aspects will be taken into consideration following Swales and Feak’s (1994) theory of academic writing.
The results and discussion sections are descriptive in nature. Swales and Feak (1994) explain that these two sections might stand on their own or might be blended together. The writer compares results, provides explanations and critiques assumptions but does not interpret the outcomes of the research. In the medicine RA, for instance, the results section appears as a separated text unit in which complete explanations of the study are depicted to provide a detailed analysis of the data gathered. For example, Vu et al. (2010) not only present the results they obtained after their research work but also critique previous assumptions about the causes of uterosacral ligament (USL) of earlier analysis:
When the peritoneum was incised at its crest, it was evident that the strip of the fold from the crest was only a duplication of the peritoneum. The USL was considered to begin when connective tissue was first encountered as the peritoneum was “peeled” off from the incision. (p.1124)
Both the medicine paper and the education article present the results section as a distinct unit. Whereas the traditional designation as ‘Results’ appears in the medicine paper, the education RA uses ‘The same correlation appears’ to designate the results section as such. In other words, the results are explained in a separate section under a different name. Another similarity found in both papers is the descriptive nature of the results sections. For example, Gorard (2006) compares and contrasts the results of the previous studies in the value-added of primary schools with the results of the present study by changing a variable, i.e. by reducing the number of students in schools. Thus, regardless of the section designation, the results sections of these RA seem to comply with the academic requirements since, as Swales (1998) would put it, they summarize the data gathered in the research without evaluating or interpreting their meanings (in Pintos & Crimi, 2010).
Nevertheless, both RAs seem to have a similarity in their structure as both of them employ graphs in their results sections. Swales (1998) explains that writers summarize data with photographs and graphs and integrate them with texts to correlate the results of the studies (in Pintos & Crimi, 2010). According to APA conventions (2010), graphs and figures are used to supplement information provided in the text. In the medicine RA, for instance, the photographs illustrate the process of the research, referring to the reader to them as a visual source to accompany the descriptions. Therefore, the use of photographs in this paper seems to follow APA requirements (2010) as they were used to communicate specific information about the subject matter.
Similarly, in the education RA, scholars opted for a graph to display the statistical results of their analysis and “to show that the same relationship, previously noted in the DfES value-added figures for secondary schools in England, also appears in the DfES value-added figures for primary schools” (Gorard, 2006). Once again, graphs are included in the result section to support communication and to summarize data that would be too loaded if it were presented in written form. Hence, either photographs or graphs aid the reader to have examples of representative data in the results sections of RAs (Swales & Feak, 1994).
Swales and Feak (1994) explain that the results and discussion sections of RAs are typically marked by the use of different tenses. In the medicine RA, for example, the experimental outcomes included in the results section are written in the past tense to describe the medical procedures: “in all specimens, the ligament was thin at its free border” (Vu et al., 2010, p. 1125). In contrast, the discussion sections of RAs are written in simple present to discuss the research findings. Gorard (2006), for example, uses the present tense to discuss the correlation of the dependent and independent variables in his analysis. As a way of illustration, he explains that “[t]here is a very clear quasi-linear relationship between the KS2 raw-score for any primary school and its eventual value-added score”. Hence, the utilization of the past or present tenses helps the reader identify the nature of the research outcomes and the different sections of the RAs as well.
It is in the conclusion sections of RAs where results are interpreted and evaluated. Generally, conclusion sections are persuasive-argumentative texts. According to Pryle (2007, in Pintos & Crimi, 2010), the purpose of this type of text is to convince the reader of the particular view on the issues under analysis. In the medicine RA, the conclusion section is very brief, if compared to the previous sections, and it cautiously claims the advancements of the research findings over previous studies. As Vu et al. (2010) assert “[o]ur findings on neurovascular relations are largely consistent with previous studies” (p. 128). While the conclusion section of the RA in medicine comprises a single section at the end of the paper, the conclusion section of the education RA is blended with the discussion. Here, not only does Gorard (2006) discuss and compare the results of his analysis but also evaluates the favourable impact of the last results on the British educational system, stating that:
The use of additional information about the social background of pupils is likely to decrease [...] making the relationship between school intakes and school outcomes stronger. (p. 5)
Moreover, a language aspect to be taken into account, especially in the conclusion sections, is the use of modal auxiliaries or useful expressions to claim probability or possibility. As Swales and Feak (1994) would put it, these phrases help writers to weaken the strength in their statements. Expressions such as “It might be [..]” or “It is also possible to [...]” (Gorard, 2006, p.4) are typically used to signal probability or possibility, respectively, whereas, the expressions “we agree with the sectional names [..] but we do not see them as equal sections of previous studies” (Vu et al., 2010, p. 1126) are found in the medicine RA to moderate the strength of their statement. All in all, academic writers should be cautious when evaluating result findings, to establish distance, and most importantly, to persuade the reader of the value of the writers’ claims.
In conclusion, both RAs seem to share textual and linguistics features typical of the results, discussion and conclusion sections. It should be noted that the medicine RA appears to be better organised in comparison to the education RA since the three different sections appear isolated and qualify for the principles of text-types. On the contrary, the education RA includes one section for the results and another one for the discussion and conclusion as a single unit. Both papers, however, seem to use typical phrases to denote possibility or certainty when claiming statements.
References
APA (2010). American Psychological Association Publication Manual (6th ed.). American Psychological Association. Washington, DC.
Gorard, S., (2006). Re-analysing the Value-added of Primary Schools. Retrieved April 2010 from http://www.york.ac.uk/media/educationalstudies/documents/research/Paper15Value-addedinprimaryschools.pdf
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 3: The research article: Results, discussions, and conclusions. Universidad CAECE, Buenos Aires , Argentina
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=8526
Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. A. Harbor, (Ed.). Michigan , MI: The University of Michigan
Vu D., Haylen B. T., Tse K. & Farnsworth, A. (2010). Surgical Anatomy of the Uterosacral Ligament. Department of Educational Studies. International Urogynecology Journal, 21, 1123-1128. Doi:10.1007/s00192-010-1147-8. Retrieved April 2010 from http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/SOMSWeb.nsf/resources/POM1002/$file/Sept2010.pdf
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario