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.