A comparative analysis of four research article abstracts

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