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
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 1: Defining concepts in research. Buenos Aires. Universidad CAECE. Retrieved March 2011, from
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 2: The research article: Introduction, literature review and method sections. Buenos Aires. Universidad CAECE. Retrieved April 2011, from
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
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario