Claiming centrality: An analysis into results, discussions and conclusions of research articles

Research articles provide a method for researchers to communicate the characteristics and results of a certain investigation. Typically, researchers use a standard format to organize and present the information. This format comprises: a title, an abstract, an introduction, a literature review, information about the methods used in the research, the results obtained, a discussion of the implications and limitations of the results, a conclusion, references and occasionally, appendixes. However, some research articles do not follow the same format. The purpose of this paper is to compare two research articles (RA), one in the educational field (Reupert, Hemming & Connors, 2010), and the other one, in the medicine field (Warmerdam, van Straten, Twisk, Riper & Cuijpers, 2008), and analyze their results, discussion and conclusion sections.

When analyzing the results section of a RA, it could be concluded that researchers tend to describe and compare the results obtained without interpreting their meanings. As Swales (1998) states, “the results section should summarize the data with text, tables, and/or figures. Researchers do not present the raw data they collected but they use the text to state the results of their study” (as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 18). After a deep analysis into the research articles mentioned in the introduction, it could be contended that the authors seem to comply with Swales’ (Ibid) statement. For instance, Warmerdam et al.’s (2008) results section presents statistical information but does not offer any interpretation of the results. “Attrition rates for the full sample were 30% (n =  79) at the 5-week assessment, 34% (n = 90) at 8 weeks, and 43% at 12 weeks (n = 112)” (Results, para. 1). Similarly, Reupert, et al. (2010) seem to have followed the same rule. As they state, “All the lecturers interviewed unreservedly identified themselves as inclusive educators within a tertiary setting” (Self-image as an inclusive educator, para. 1).

As far as similarities are concerned, the results sections of both articles have been described in the past tense. Some examples of this include: “No differences were found in quality of life scores between CBT [Cognitive Behavioural Therapy] and PST [Problem Solving Therapy] at each assessment” (Warmerdam, et al., 2008, Effects of the interventions, para. 3). And,  “The following themes and related sub-themes were identified (…)” (Reupert, et al., 2010, p. 124). Additionally, another similarity that could be drawn from both papers is that the data in the results sections is organized under different headings. Nevertheless, the use of tables and figures is a characteristic that differentiates the medicine article from the paper on education. Whereas Reupert, et al. present an explanation of the results obtained followed by examples, Warmerdam, et al. (2008) use tables, graphics of hierarchy and scatter plots to present specific data, statistical information and make comparisons. As regards the inclusion of figures and tables, Warmerdam, et al’s article seems to comply with the standards set by the American Psychological Association (APA), which asserts:

An informative table supplements –instead of duplicates- the text. In the text, refer to every table and tell the reader what to look for. (…) Each table should be an integral part of the text but also should be intelligible without reference to the text.  (APA, 2004, p. 154).

Moreover, every table in the medicine research paper is numbered and has an individual title, “positioned flush left with the table margin” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 23). Tables are referenced as follows: “Table 2 reports the estimated means ….” (Warmerdam, et al., 2008, Effects on Intervention, para. 1). As regards format, all the elements of the tables are double spaced and columns have a corresponding heading and report comparable values down all rows. Notes, which are in smaller font, are used to explain a particular item in the table: “Note: data is presented as a n (%) of participants unless otherwise indicated” as specified in Warmerdam, et. al. (Ibid).

According to Swales and Feak (1994), it is commonly believed that the results section of a research paper should concentrate exclusively on the present results. However, they claim that “research shows that [the] distinction between Results and Discussion is not as sharp as commonly believed” (p.170). With regard to the discussion section, there seem to be differences between both articles. On the one hand, the paper on medicine shows the discussion separately from the conclusion whereas in the article on education the conclusions are included in the discussion section. As characterized in Pintos and Crimi (2010), “Discussions can be written in isolation or together with the conclusions” (p.20).

As regards the use of modals in the discussion sections, “might” “may” and “could” are included in both papers to show possibility. Warmerdam, et al., (2008) make use of “may” when explaining the results of their study: “ the results may not apply to all depressed people” (Limitations, para. 2). The use of “could” is seen on the paper on education: “Another reason could be a lack of time for lecturers to collaborate with disability supports” (Reupert, et al., 2010, p. 130). Concerning the past literature, the researchers of both articles compare it to the present outcomes. But whereas Reupert, et al. integrate the reference to previous literature with the general discussion,  “This result is similar to other studies of lecturers in social work faculties (Cole & Cin, 1996)” (p. 129); Warmerdam, et al. present the previous literature under the subheading Comparison with prior work. Similarly, Reupert, et al. discuss the limitations of their research in the last paragraph of their discussion section by stating “An obvious limitation of the current study is that the views and practices of the interviewees could not be verified” (p.130). Conversely, Warmerdam, et al. describe the limitations of their research under the heading Limitations. By and large, the writers of both papers use the discussion section to make reference to the aim of the study: “The results from the present study show that the Internet-based CBT and Internet-based PST are both effective….” (Warmerdam, et. al., 2008, Principal Results, para. 1). “All the lecturers in this study identified themselves as inclusive educators …” (Reupert, et al., 2010, p. 129).

All in all, the conclusion section is used by the researchers to provide a reflection on their work, alluding to points mentioned in the introduction. The main difference found in both articles seems to be that whereas the paper on education does not present a conclusion section, the paper on medicine does. Nonetheless, the conclusion given in the latter is only two sentences long, which seems to indicate that most of the information has already been covered by the other sections in the paper. The results, discussion and conclusion sections analyzed in the research articles of this paper appear to show similarities as regards “the researcher’s ability to summarize, show a problem and its solution, evaluate the solution, present arguments and convince the readers that his/her conclusions are of utmost importance” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p.21).

References

APA (2004) Publication Manual (5^th ed.). British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data: Washington, DC.

Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 3: The research article: Results, discussions, and conclusions. Buenos Aires.  Universidad CAECE. Retrieved May 2011, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=8526

Reupert, A., Hemming, B., & Connors, J. (2010). Do we pratice what we preach? Intenational Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Vol.22, Nº2. Retrieved April 2011, from http:// www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE726.pdf

Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994).  Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Warmerdam, L., van Straten, A., Twisk, J., Riper, H., & Cuijpers, P. (2008). Internet-based treatment for adults with depressive symptoms: Randomized controlled trial.  Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. X, Nº 4.   Retrieved April 2011 from

http://www.jmir.org/2008/4/e44/

Research Articles: a comparative analysis

The purpose of this paper is to present a comparative analysis of the introduction, literature review and method sections of  two research articles, one that belongs to the medicine field (Warmerdam, van Straten, Twisk, Riper & Cuijpers, 2008)and the other one, which belongs to the education field (Ansary & Babaii, 2002). As Pintos and Crimi (2010a) state, “Analytical papers break a topic down into pieces, considers it in detail so as to be able to interpret and discover essential features in it” (p. 20). Therefore, it is the aim of this paper to deconstruct and analyse the characteristics of the aforementioned articles.

According to Swales and Feak (1994),  the Introduction section of a Research Article should on the one hand, be attractive to readers and on the other, it should have a general-specific structure, “following the Create a Research Space Model (C.A.R.S.)” (as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010b, p. 27).

There are three moves in introduction, creating a research space, establishing a niche, and occupying the niche. (…) First, writers create a need to run research, then they establish the reasons for the study, and finally they occupy the gap they found in the second step. (Ibid).

Ansary and Babaii(2002)´s introduction seems to have followed the previously mentioned characteristics. To begin with, readers might feel attracted to continue reading the article due to its simple and straightforward language. At the same time, the researchers’ use of a rhetorical question in the second paragraph may contribute to this by involving the readers in the discussion. Additionally, researchers seem to have followed the C.A.R.S Model by creating a research space in which they seem to argue that all the checklists that had been designed till then to evaluate teaching materials showed lack of practical utility. Then, it could be said that these authors established a niche in their introduction by “indicat[ing] a gap in previous research” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010b, p. 28).  “Textbook evaluation has thus far been ad hoc, with teachers trying to make decisions based on (…) unreliable material and simplistic criteria (…)” (Ansary & Babaii, 2002, The current study, para. 1). Finally, the researchers seem to occupy that niche by describing the purpose of their study: to provide a new model of textbook analysis.

Similarly, the Introduction section of  Warmerdam, et. al.´s Research Article appears to have been organized following the C.A.R.S. Model as well. Their introduction begins by commenting on the state-of-the art, and therefore, creating a research territory for their study. “Several trials have shown that there are effective self-help treatments for depression, including Internet-based self-help” (Warmerdam, et.al., 2008, Introduction, para. 1). Then, the researchers appear to establish the niche by expressing the gap that exists in previous works. “As far as we know, there is no study which evaluates Internet-based PST [Problem Solving Therapy] for depression” (Introduction, para. 2). And finally, the niche is occupied, as Warmerdam, et.al present the purpose of their study: to “evaluate the effectiveness of Internet-based CBT [Cognitive Behavioural Therapy] and Internet-based PST compared to a waiting list control group. [And](…) to determine the difference between the two treatments regarding their effectiveness” (Introduction, paragraph 4).

As regards the Method sections, there seem to be several differences between both articles. Whereas, in the education Research Article, the Method section has been divided into two main subsections: Materials and Procedure; in the medicine Research Article the Method section seems to provide more detailed information since it is divided into six subsections: Design, Participants, Randomization, Interventions, Outcome Measures and Statistical Analyses. In the case of Ansary and Babaii’s article, the Materials subsection presents two lists, one of them provides the reference information of ten textbook evaluation checklists and the other, provides the reference to ten EFL(English as a Foreign Language) and ESL (English as a Second Language) textbook reviews. The Procedure subsection, on the other hand, comprises a process paragraph, in which the researchers enumerate in a chronological order and in simple and concise language, every step their research took:

First, the reviews and checklists were closely scrutinized. Secondly, all points made by reviewers as for and against a particular textbook were jotted down. Then, the same procedure was followed to identify the elements that checklist producers introduce as important criteria (…)” (Ansary & Babaii, 2002, Procedure, para.1).

In contrast, Warmerdam, et. al. (2008) present the reader with several process paragraphs under the headings: Design, Participants, Randomization and Interventions. Each of these paragraphs seem to comply with the characteristics stated by Canavan (1979), “For a process paragraph to be successful, it must be clear and concise. An effective how-to-do paragraph should break the process into a series of related steps. These series are usually presented in chronological order” (as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010b).  Furthermore, simple definitions and detailed statistical information are given under the headings: Outcome Measures and Statistical Analyses. This detailed information would facilitate the replicability of the experiment. As far as similarities is concerned, in both articles the heading Method appears is bold and has not been centred but aligned to the left margin. Thereby, failing to comply with the standards presented by Pintos and Crimi (2010b).

All things considered, it could be contended that both Research Articles appear to have been written in a clear and concise manner, respecting the conventions of Academic Writing for their respective fields. Both introductions were organised following a general-specific structure, bearing in mind  the C.A.R.S. Model. As Swales and Feak (1994) assure, “The CARS model states that Move 1b (introducing and reviewing items of previous research in the area) is obligatory” (p. 179). Thus, it should not be surprising that both articles included this information. Swales and Feak (1994) also consider that Move 2, i.e. establishing a niche, is essential since it “connects Move 1 (what has been done) to Move 3 (what the present research is about)” (p. 185). Finally, Move 3 also seems compulsory. “The third and final step in the typical RP Introduction is to make an offer to fill the gap (…) that has been created in Move 2. The first element in Move 3 is obligatory” (p.190).  Thereby, it would seem natural that any Research Article has this structure and complies with the C.A.R.S. Model. Not only have the Introduction sections but of these Research Articles been organised following the academic standards, but also their Method sections. Especially noteworthy is the fact that both articles are similar as regards the inclusion of process paragraphs which offer the necessary and relevant information that would allow the duplication of their studies. However, there seem to be some differences as regards specific information, since the medicine article offers statistical information and definitions. All in all, Research Articles may have different characteristics according to the field they belong to.

References

Ansary, H., & Babaii, E. (2002).  Universal characteristics of EFL/ESL textbooks: A step towards systematic textbook evaluation. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. VIII, Nº2. Retrieved April 2010 from

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Ansary-Textbooks/

Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 1: Defining concepts in research. Buenos Aires. Universidad CAECE. Retrieved March 2011, from

http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=9459

Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 2: The research article: Introduction, literature review and method sections.  Buenos Aires.  Universidad CAECE.  Retrieved April 2011, from

http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=8517

Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994).  Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Warmerdam, L., van Straten, A., Twisk, J., Riper, H., & Cuijpers, P. (2008). Internet-based treatment for adults with depressive symptoms: Randomized controlled trial.  Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. X, Nº 4.   Retrieved April 2011 from

http://www.jmir.org/2008/4/e44/