Though being the last part that researchers write, abstracts are the first section that is found in a research article (RA) (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). As Bathia (1993) illustrates, “an abstract (. . .) is a description or factual summary of the much longer report, and is meant to give the reader an exact and concise knowledge of the full article” (p. 78). Therefore, it is almost certain that readers will continue reading a RA if its abstract has previously aroused their interest. As Swales and Feak (1994) confirm, “This kind of abstract is more important for the reader than for the writer” (p. 210). In the present paper, the abstracts of four RAs, one by Almerich et al. (2005) from the educational field, and the other three by Martinez, Assimes, Mines, Dell’Aniello and Suissa (2009); Jørgensen, Zahl and Gøtzsche (2010) and Wijeysundera et al. (2009) from the medicine field, will be compared and analysed in depth according to their structures and main linguistic features.
Abstracts can be classified as informative, indicative, structured or unstructured if their organizational format is considered the paramount concern (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). Based on informal observations, the abstract from the education field seems to be indicative and unstructured since Almerich’s et al. (2005) purpose was not to deal with detailed data but to show the kind of research conducted in an unbroken paragraph of only 151 words long. Conversely, Martinez et al. (2009), Jørgensen et al. (2010) and Wijeysundera et al. (2009) may have included informative and structured abstracts since the results of their experimental studies involved the report of extensive data which needed to be shown in percentages, decimals and high numbers. Besides, these medicine abstracts had to be organized by bolded headings which could delimit the main sections of the RAs.
Despite their marked differences in structure, the four abstracts similarly follow the IMRAD formula which stands for Introduction-Methods-Results-And-Discussions. For instance, Almerich et al. (2005) included the introduction and objective of his study in the first and second sentences while the methods were specified in the third and fourth, and the results were presented in the fifth sentence. Concerning the discussion part, it was included in the last sentence of the paragraph. In the medicine abstracts, the IMRAD formula seems easier to identify because of the headings. The “objective” heading might be the introduction, whereas the “design”, “setting”, “participants” and “main outcome measures” could be part of the methods section. As Swales (1990) hypothesizes, “Although further research is needed, it seems to be the case that most abstracts reflect the IMRD pattern of the RA itself, allotting a sentences or two for each section” (p. 181).
Apart from their structure, RAs can also be classified and analyzed in detail if their linguistic features are taken into consideration. As regards tenses, it is almost certain that Almerich et al. (2005) chose the present simple tense to write his RA because, as Swales (1990) and Pintos and Crimi (2010) acknowledge, it implies that the recent study undertaken is alive and its findings are relevant in our contemporary world. On the other hand, Jørgensen et al. (2010) wrote the opening sentence in the past simple and the concluding sentence in the present simple whereas Martinez et al. (2009) used the present simple to start his abstract but the past simple to finish it. Indeed, as Pintos and Crimi (2010) suggest, “this tense mobility might be due to the fact that writers have the opportunity to use tenses strategically so as to produce different effects” (p. 14). Therefore, Jørgensen et al. (2010) may have started his abstract in the past simple to refer to a previous study on breast cancer while Martinez et al. (2009) could have used the present simple to refer to the current use of antidepressant venlafaxine.
In general, abstracts can share some linguistic characteristics such as “the use of past tense, third person, passive, and the non-use of negatives” (Graetz, 1985; cited in Swales, 1990, p. 179). However, the abstracts analyzed vary in the use of the person and the passive. On one hand, Almerich et al. (2005) and Wijeysundera et al. (2009) made extensive use of the third person singular and plural since, as Ning (2008) explains, researchers have a tendency to reinforce the objectivity of their study by writing in an impersonal form. Moreover, they frequently employed the passive voice to describe the steps taken to conduct their study. On the other hand, Jørgensen et al. (2010) and Martinez et al. (2009) used not only the third person but also the pronoun “we” as their RAs are co-authored (Pintos & Crimi, 2010) and they “may invite readers into their arguments and presuppose readers’ knowledge” (Ning, 2008, p. 64). Therefore, these researchers avoided the use of the passive voice since they may have employed the pronoun “we” to take responsibility for the actions performed in their study. Abstracts can also be characterized by the avoidance of abbreviations, jargon, symbols and certain language shortcuts that could confuse the reader (Graetz, 1985; cited in Swales, 1990).
Regarding abbreviation, the American Psychological Association (APA) (2007) advises writers to use abbreviations sparingly to increase clarity. Almerich et al. (2005) provided an explanation for the abbreviation ICT he used in the first sentence; however, the abbreviation ANOVA which stands for “analysis of variance” should have been clarified since a reader who lacks statistics knowledge may fail to understand the study. According to APA (2007), “Although abbreviations are sometimes useful for long, technical terms in scientific writing, communication is usually garbled rather than clarified if, for example, an abbreviation is unfamiliar to the reader” (p. 51). On the other hand, Wijeysundera et al. (2009) made considerable use of abbreviations and jargon in the results part of the abstract which may confuse the general reader but which would seem necessary in the medicine field.
“Across various styles, the length and types of abstracts may vary but the APA manual states that abstracts should not be longer than 200 words” (APA, 2008; cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 31). Almerich et al. (2005) is the only researcher who stuck to the number of words advised by the APA manual (2008) since his research was conducted on the area of education, a social science. Besides, this academic writer included a list of key words below the abstract which “may function as indicative devices of [the RA]” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 33). However, Martinez et al. (2009), Jørgensen et al. (2010) and Wijeysundera et al. (2009) based their research on medicine issues such as breast cancer, cardiac stress and the use of an antidepressant. Hence, these authors needed to write structured abstracts of more than 200 words in order to report extensive data and present the experimental results of their scientific studies in an orderly manner through headings. Moreover, as Pintos and Crimi (2010) observe, “The format of abstracts may vary depending on the journal or publisher’s requirements” (p. 32).
In summary, writing an accurate, concise and coherent abstract which can attract readers to continue reading a RA can be a complex and demanding task. In the present paper, four research article abstracts were fully analyzed by comparing their structures and major linguistic characteristics. Having conducted their studies in the medicine field, the researchers Martinez et al. (2009), Jørgensen et al. (2010) and Wijeysundera et al. (2009) wrote structured and informative abstracts while Almerich et al. (2005) wrote an unstructured and indicative abstract which summarized a study conducted in the field of education. Concerning linguistic features, the four researchers varied in the use of tense, person and passive since each of them had different purposes and forms of attracting their readers. Indeed, Ning (2008) claims that journal abstract writers “must know, in the process of writing an abstract for publication, how to emphasize their personal contributions to their field of research and how to seek cooperation and acceptability” (p. 65)
References
Almerich, G., Suárez, J. M., Orellana, N., Belloch, C., Bo, R., & Gastaldo, I. (2005). Differences in the knowledge of the technological resources in professors starting for gender, age and center type. Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 11 (2), 127-146. Retrieved June 25, 2010, from http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v11n2/RELIEVEv11n2_3.htm
American Psychological Association (2007). Concise rules of APA style. Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
American Psychological Association (2008). Publication manual (5th ed.). Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional setting. London and New York: London Group.
Jørgensen, K. J., Zahl, P. H., & Gøtzsche, P. C. (2010). Breast cancer mortality in organised mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study. British Medical Journal, 340 (1241). doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1241
Martinez, C., Assimes, T. L., Mines. D., Dell’Aniello, S., & Suissa, S. (2010). Use of venlafaxine compared with other antidepressants and the risk of sudden cardiac death or near death: a nested case-control study. British Medical Journal, 340 (249). doi: 10.1136/bmj.c249
Ning, Z. (2008). A genre-based analysis of English research article abstract and the linguistic feature of personal pronouns for financial economics. US-China Education Review, 5 (7), 62-65. Retrieved June 25, 2010, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED502582.pdf
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 4: Research Articles: Abstracts. Buenos Aires, Argentina: CAECE University. Retrieved June 2010, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=4693
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Wijeysundera, D. N., Beattie, W. S., Elliot, R. F., Austin P. C., Hux, J. E., & Laupacis, A. (2010). British Medical Journal, 340 (5526). doi: 10.1136/bmj.b5526
Personal Information
06/08/2011
Analysing two research articles
Of particular interest and complexity can be the task of analysing research articles from different disciplines since as Swales (1990) illustrates, “RAs are rarely simple narratives of investigations [;] [i]nstead, they are complexly distanced reconstructions of research activities” (p. 175). Indeed, research articles tend to share repeated patterns though differ in some features and follow distinct structures since the purposes of their studies may be different. In the present paper, two research articles, one by Loucky (2007) from the educational field and another by Jørgensen, Zahl and Gøtzsche (2010) from the medicine field, will be analysed critically and compared considering the underlying structures and linguistic characteristics of their results, discussions and conclusions/recommendations sections.
In academic writing, underlying structures such as problem-solution and cause-effect genres can be found in an organized pattern or blended in different parts of a research article (RA) (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). By using the problem-solution genre, Loucky (2007) appears to have provided his RA with a sense of argumentative and evaluative discussion. Indeed, Loucky’s (2007) article seems to be embedded into the pattern of a problem-solution text since the solution presented in the method section is evaluated and critiqued in the results, discussion and conclusions sections. As the RA is from the educational field, the solutions can be partial and possible, so not absolute. Therefore, Loucky’s (2007) could evaluate an apparent solution which led him to other problematic areas which are stated in the research recommendations section of his RA.
As opposed to the educational field, “scientific disciplines” such as medicine “tend to systematically use cause-effect paragraphs to show some kind of relationship between what the problem is and what the results have drawn” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 14). Jørgensen et al. (2010) seems to have analyzed the results of his comparative study by including cause-effect paragraphs in the discussion section and its conclusion subsection. For instance, the word “effect” and the verbal phrase “to be explained” of the conclusion subsection appear to signal the causes and effects of the scientific research. Indeed, Jørgensen et al. (2010) has succeeded in making the readers understand the cause-effect relationships in his comparative study of breast cancer.
Apart from their underlying structures; the results, discussions and conclusions sections of research articles have certain linguistic characteristics which can be analyzed. Concerning the results section, it is a summary of the data with text, figures and tables (Swales, 1998; cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 18). Loucky (2007) and Jørgensen et al. (2010) have presented the most significant findings of their research through tables which seem to follow some of the rules that the American Psychological Association (APA) (2007) has established since they are numbered, referenced in the results sections and their titles clearly explain the contents. However, the titles of the tables are not italicized as APA (2007) suggests, and the table 2 in Jørgensen’s et al. (2010) article is too long.
In the result section, researchers are supposed to describe and summarize the main outcomes of their research and use the past tense (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). However, it is almost certain that Loucky (2007) has failed to respect “the principle of simplicity” suggested by Swales and Feak (1994) since he has included many details in the result section making it the longest part of his RA and probably highly confusing for the reader. Indeed, apart from presenting the outcomes, Loucky (2007) has also interpreted and discussed them by using the present tense more often than the past tense. On the contrary, Jørgensen et al. (2010) has summarized his findings using the past tense and has divided them into three subsections which are related to the age of the women studied. Indeed, Jørgensen et al. (2010) appears to have written a results section which is logically ordered and easy for the reader to understand.
Especially noteworthy are the discussion sections of the research articles analyzed since they interpret the meanings of the main findings reported in the results section. On one hand, Loucky (2007) seems to restate the most important outcomes of his study in the first part of the discussion section to remind the reader about the aim of his study. On the other hand, Jørgensen et al. (2010) starts the discussion section by comparing his findings with the outcomes of a past study. As Pintos and Crimi (2010) observe, “interpreting results involves comparing the outcomes with those found in (. . .) the literature reviewed in the introduction” (p. 20). Compared to Loucky’s (2007) one-paragraph discussion section, Jørgensen et al. (2010) has written an extensive discussion where he has included the results of previous studies in Denmark and other countries probably to support and strengthen his own findings.
As regards the conclusion section, Jørgensen et al. (2010) has embedded a short conclusion in the discussion section in order to summarize the findings and comparisons analyzed in the discussion part. As for Jørgensen’s et al. (2010) conclusion section, he has written it separately starting with a summary of the main outcomes, giving some advice for future research and inviting readers to use his vocabulary learning programs. In order to show objectivity and establish distance, Jørgensen et al. (2010) has made use of modals such as “should”, “may” and “will” which as Swales (1990) points out, they express “modesty and proper caution” (p. 175). This researcher has also included a recommendations section in order to express the need for future research and suggest possible areas of investigation.
In brief; results, discussions and conclusions are relevant sections where academic writers should state a problem and its solution, or a cause and its effects as well as evaluate the results of the study undertaken. Besides, researchers should offer valid arguments and express their findings in an orderly and prudent manner. Two research articles, one by Loucky (2007) from the educational field and another by Jørgensen et al. (2010) from the medicine field, have been analyzed in depth to compare the structures and linguistic characteristics of their results, discussions and conclusions sections; and in order to understand the researchers’ reasons for the use of a specific grammatical structure, paragraph organization and lexical choice.
References
American Psychological Association (2007). Concise rules of APA style. Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
Jørgensen, K. J., Zahl, P. H., & Gøtzsche, P. C. (2010). Breast cancer mortality in organised mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study. British Medical Journal, 340 (1241). doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1241
Loucky, J. P. (2007). Improving online reading and vocabulary development. KASELE Bulletin, 35, 181-188. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED502662.pdf
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 3: The Research Article: Results, Discussions, and Conclusions. Buenos Aires, Argentina: CAECE University. Retrieved June 2010, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=4692
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
In academic writing, underlying structures such as problem-solution and cause-effect genres can be found in an organized pattern or blended in different parts of a research article (RA) (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). By using the problem-solution genre, Loucky (2007) appears to have provided his RA with a sense of argumentative and evaluative discussion. Indeed, Loucky’s (2007) article seems to be embedded into the pattern of a problem-solution text since the solution presented in the method section is evaluated and critiqued in the results, discussion and conclusions sections. As the RA is from the educational field, the solutions can be partial and possible, so not absolute. Therefore, Loucky’s (2007) could evaluate an apparent solution which led him to other problematic areas which are stated in the research recommendations section of his RA.
As opposed to the educational field, “scientific disciplines” such as medicine “tend to systematically use cause-effect paragraphs to show some kind of relationship between what the problem is and what the results have drawn” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 14). Jørgensen et al. (2010) seems to have analyzed the results of his comparative study by including cause-effect paragraphs in the discussion section and its conclusion subsection. For instance, the word “effect” and the verbal phrase “to be explained” of the conclusion subsection appear to signal the causes and effects of the scientific research. Indeed, Jørgensen et al. (2010) has succeeded in making the readers understand the cause-effect relationships in his comparative study of breast cancer.
Apart from their underlying structures; the results, discussions and conclusions sections of research articles have certain linguistic characteristics which can be analyzed. Concerning the results section, it is a summary of the data with text, figures and tables (Swales, 1998; cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 18). Loucky (2007) and Jørgensen et al. (2010) have presented the most significant findings of their research through tables which seem to follow some of the rules that the American Psychological Association (APA) (2007) has established since they are numbered, referenced in the results sections and their titles clearly explain the contents. However, the titles of the tables are not italicized as APA (2007) suggests, and the table 2 in Jørgensen’s et al. (2010) article is too long.
In the result section, researchers are supposed to describe and summarize the main outcomes of their research and use the past tense (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). However, it is almost certain that Loucky (2007) has failed to respect “the principle of simplicity” suggested by Swales and Feak (1994) since he has included many details in the result section making it the longest part of his RA and probably highly confusing for the reader. Indeed, apart from presenting the outcomes, Loucky (2007) has also interpreted and discussed them by using the present tense more often than the past tense. On the contrary, Jørgensen et al. (2010) has summarized his findings using the past tense and has divided them into three subsections which are related to the age of the women studied. Indeed, Jørgensen et al. (2010) appears to have written a results section which is logically ordered and easy for the reader to understand.
Especially noteworthy are the discussion sections of the research articles analyzed since they interpret the meanings of the main findings reported in the results section. On one hand, Loucky (2007) seems to restate the most important outcomes of his study in the first part of the discussion section to remind the reader about the aim of his study. On the other hand, Jørgensen et al. (2010) starts the discussion section by comparing his findings with the outcomes of a past study. As Pintos and Crimi (2010) observe, “interpreting results involves comparing the outcomes with those found in (. . .) the literature reviewed in the introduction” (p. 20). Compared to Loucky’s (2007) one-paragraph discussion section, Jørgensen et al. (2010) has written an extensive discussion where he has included the results of previous studies in Denmark and other countries probably to support and strengthen his own findings.
As regards the conclusion section, Jørgensen et al. (2010) has embedded a short conclusion in the discussion section in order to summarize the findings and comparisons analyzed in the discussion part. As for Jørgensen’s et al. (2010) conclusion section, he has written it separately starting with a summary of the main outcomes, giving some advice for future research and inviting readers to use his vocabulary learning programs. In order to show objectivity and establish distance, Jørgensen et al. (2010) has made use of modals such as “should”, “may” and “will” which as Swales (1990) points out, they express “modesty and proper caution” (p. 175). This researcher has also included a recommendations section in order to express the need for future research and suggest possible areas of investigation.
In brief; results, discussions and conclusions are relevant sections where academic writers should state a problem and its solution, or a cause and its effects as well as evaluate the results of the study undertaken. Besides, researchers should offer valid arguments and express their findings in an orderly and prudent manner. Two research articles, one by Loucky (2007) from the educational field and another by Jørgensen et al. (2010) from the medicine field, have been analyzed in depth to compare the structures and linguistic characteristics of their results, discussions and conclusions sections; and in order to understand the researchers’ reasons for the use of a specific grammatical structure, paragraph organization and lexical choice.
References
American Psychological Association (2007). Concise rules of APA style. Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
Jørgensen, K. J., Zahl, P. H., & Gøtzsche, P. C. (2010). Breast cancer mortality in organised mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study. British Medical Journal, 340 (1241). doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1241
Loucky, J. P. (2007). Improving online reading and vocabulary development. KASELE Bulletin, 35, 181-188. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED502662.pdf
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 3: The Research Article: Results, Discussions, and Conclusions. Buenos Aires, Argentina: CAECE University. Retrieved June 2010, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=4692
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
A comparative analysis of two research articles
Analyzing a research article is a complex task due to the several sections and
multiple linguistics characteristics this piece of writing contains. Copley, Greenberg, Handley, and Oaks (1996) have noted that “a research paper is more than the sum of your sources, more than a collection of different pieces of information about a topic” (para.1). Therefore, it could be explained that “in order to write a research paper you need to make use of analytical and argumentative skills” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 19). In the present paper, two research articles, one by Loucky (2007) from the education field and another by Overberg (2010) from the medicine field, will be analyzed in depth by describing them accurately and comparing the linguistic components of their introductions, literature reviews and methods sections.
Although the introductions of both research articles are structured in a general-specific manner moving from the general topic of discussion to the particular reasons for the study, these sections differ markedly in length and organization. In Loucky’s (2007) article, the introduction is formed by only one paragraph making it concise and easy to read and using present and past tenses to refer to the type of investigation conducted. Conversely, in Overberg’s (2010) article, the introduction is formed by four paragraphs since the researcher reviewed previous research in this same section. The first paragraph of the introduction section shows the importance of the topic of study through the use of the present simple tense, the last paragraph describes the type of investigation and its purposes by making use of descriptive and purposive statements, and the second and third paragraphs belong to the literary review which is embedded in the introduction section.
As regards the methods sections of the analyzed research articles, both share the same principles of process paragraphs and coincide in the use of the passive voice. Overberg (2010) and Loucky (2007) selected the process paragraphs as the text types for their methods sections since the actions taken for both studies are described step by step in chronological order through simple language. For instance, in Overberg’s (2010) article, first, permission was granted to download stories from a website; then, access to those stories was facilitated in four ways, and after that; women with breast cancer were invited to participate. In addition, both articles make use of the passive voice but in different tenses. While the education article uses the present passive to guide future vocabulary instruction and online reading in a classroom, the medicine article uses the past passive to describe the procedures and results of an experiment already done.
Despite the mentioned similarities, the methods sections of both research papers differ in the number and division of subsections and procedures. The methods section of Overberg’s (2010) article is divided into five parts: design and procedure, development of intervention groups, final questionnaire, technical aspects, and data analysis; since in order to facilitate access to 170 stories of breast cancer patients, varied procedures had to be followed such as recruitment and development of search facilities. On the other hand, the methods section of Loucky’s (2007) article is divided into one subsection: participants and procedure, which describes how 45 students do free and extensive reading using different online reading labs during a semester. Conversely, the participants subsection is absent in the medicine article though the subjects of the study are mentioned in the design and procedure subsection.
In brief, both analyzed research articles differ in structure, organization and linguistic characteristics. Some of those differences, such as the use of verbal tenses, may be caused by the influence of their fields of study: education and medicine. Indeed, the sections of a research paper are likely to vary according to the research area of study since unlike the social sciences, in the physical and life sciences, the sections tend to be prompt, difficult to replicate and without enough state of discussion and rationale (Swales, 1990, p. 120). As for the similarities of the research articles, both share some basic characteristics that all research articles have, such as the use of negative connectors to indicate a gap in the literature review, the general-specific organizational pattern of the
introductions, and the process paragraphs in the methods sections.
References
Copley, C., Greenberg, L., Handley, E., & Oaks, S. (1996). The writer’s complex. Empire State College. Retrieved May 2011, from http://www.esc.edu/esconline/across_esc/writerscomplex.nsf/home
Loucky, J. P. (2007). Improving online reading and vocabulary development. KASELE Bulletin, 35, 181-188. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED502662.pdf
Overberg, R., Otten, W., De Man, A., Toussaint, P., Westenbrink, J., & Zwetsloot-Schonk, B. (2010). How breast cancer patients want to search for and retrieve information from stories of other patients on the internet: an online randomized controlled experiment. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 12, (1):e7. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://www.jmir.org/2010/1/e7/HTML
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 1: Defining concepts in research. Buenos Aires, Argentina: CAECE University. Retrieved June 2010, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=9459
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
multiple linguistics characteristics this piece of writing contains. Copley, Greenberg, Handley, and Oaks (1996) have noted that “a research paper is more than the sum of your sources, more than a collection of different pieces of information about a topic” (para.1). Therefore, it could be explained that “in order to write a research paper you need to make use of analytical and argumentative skills” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 19). In the present paper, two research articles, one by Loucky (2007) from the education field and another by Overberg (2010) from the medicine field, will be analyzed in depth by describing them accurately and comparing the linguistic components of their introductions, literature reviews and methods sections.
Although the introductions of both research articles are structured in a general-specific manner moving from the general topic of discussion to the particular reasons for the study, these sections differ markedly in length and organization. In Loucky’s (2007) article, the introduction is formed by only one paragraph making it concise and easy to read and using present and past tenses to refer to the type of investigation conducted. Conversely, in Overberg’s (2010) article, the introduction is formed by four paragraphs since the researcher reviewed previous research in this same section. The first paragraph of the introduction section shows the importance of the topic of study through the use of the present simple tense, the last paragraph describes the type of investigation and its purposes by making use of descriptive and purposive statements, and the second and third paragraphs belong to the literary review which is embedded in the introduction section.
As regards the methods sections of the analyzed research articles, both share the same principles of process paragraphs and coincide in the use of the passive voice. Overberg (2010) and Loucky (2007) selected the process paragraphs as the text types for their methods sections since the actions taken for both studies are described step by step in chronological order through simple language. For instance, in Overberg’s (2010) article, first, permission was granted to download stories from a website; then, access to those stories was facilitated in four ways, and after that; women with breast cancer were invited to participate. In addition, both articles make use of the passive voice but in different tenses. While the education article uses the present passive to guide future vocabulary instruction and online reading in a classroom, the medicine article uses the past passive to describe the procedures and results of an experiment already done.
Despite the mentioned similarities, the methods sections of both research papers differ in the number and division of subsections and procedures. The methods section of Overberg’s (2010) article is divided into five parts: design and procedure, development of intervention groups, final questionnaire, technical aspects, and data analysis; since in order to facilitate access to 170 stories of breast cancer patients, varied procedures had to be followed such as recruitment and development of search facilities. On the other hand, the methods section of Loucky’s (2007) article is divided into one subsection: participants and procedure, which describes how 45 students do free and extensive reading using different online reading labs during a semester. Conversely, the participants subsection is absent in the medicine article though the subjects of the study are mentioned in the design and procedure subsection.
In brief, both analyzed research articles differ in structure, organization and linguistic characteristics. Some of those differences, such as the use of verbal tenses, may be caused by the influence of their fields of study: education and medicine. Indeed, the sections of a research paper are likely to vary according to the research area of study since unlike the social sciences, in the physical and life sciences, the sections tend to be prompt, difficult to replicate and without enough state of discussion and rationale (Swales, 1990, p. 120). As for the similarities of the research articles, both share some basic characteristics that all research articles have, such as the use of negative connectors to indicate a gap in the literature review, the general-specific organizational pattern of the
introductions, and the process paragraphs in the methods sections.
References
Copley, C., Greenberg, L., Handley, E., & Oaks, S. (1996). The writer’s complex. Empire State College. Retrieved May 2011, from http://www.esc.edu/esconline/across_esc/writerscomplex.nsf/home
Loucky, J. P. (2007). Improving online reading and vocabulary development. KASELE Bulletin, 35, 181-188. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED502662.pdf
Overberg, R., Otten, W., De Man, A., Toussaint, P., Westenbrink, J., & Zwetsloot-Schonk, B. (2010). How breast cancer patients want to search for and retrieve information from stories of other patients on the internet: an online randomized controlled experiment. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 12, (1):e7. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from http://www.jmir.org/2010/1/e7/HTML
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 1: Defining concepts in research. Buenos Aires, Argentina: CAECE University. Retrieved June 2010, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=9459
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
