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.