A Comparative Analysis on Results, Discussions and Conclusions sections in Research Articles
Research articles (RAs) are organized in several sections such as the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Literature Review, Methods, Results, Discussions, Recommendations, References and Appendixes. Each of these parts shares structuring characteristics but also notices discrepancies according to the type of research undergone. This paper presents a comparative analysis of the Results, Discussions and Conclusions sections of two RAs from different fields of study. One of them is educational- based and reports on methods to foster computer- mediated second language interaction outside the classroom, whereas the other is about a medical cohort study about chronic kidney disease and the risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality.
Writing any type of research paper (RP) requires writers to use analytical and argumentative skills as well as further information and evidence to account for the course of action taken. Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) seem to emphasize the importance of analysis in their text, since each section of the research is deeply described and interpreted. Barrs (2012) may focus mainly on argumentative skills, since she proposes a study based on her own points of view supported by theory. Besides, writing an RP involves following American Psychological Association (APA, 2007) conventions in order to create academic texts that can be recognized within a discourse community. These rules are applied to each section of the research and to more general issues such as citations, margins, line spacing, and font, among others.
At least four types of research studies have been distinguished: exploratory, descriptive, correlational and explanatory. Barrs (2012) seems to carry out an explanatory research study, since she establishes causes, effects, correspondence between variables and predictions. Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) appear to develop a correlational study, because they emphasize the quantitative relationships between variables. As Sampieri, Collado and Lucio (1998) argüe, “la utilidad y el propósito principal de los estudios correlacionales son saber cómo se puede comportar un concepto o variable conociendo el comportamiento de otras variables relacionadas” (p. 62-63). This purpose may be observed in the title of the research: “chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non vascular mortality”.
As regards research design, Ogier (1998) defines it as “the most appropriate method of inquiry that will answer the research questions and aim of the study” (p. 85). Hence, the design is directly related to the objectives of the research. Barrs (2012) and Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) appear to have selected different methods to carry out their research, probably due to the outstanding characteristics of their fields of study. The first author develops an action research since she examines the phenomena through observation, reflection and her own intervention. This method is adopted by people “who want to do something to improve their own situation” (Sagor, 1992, p.7). Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) may find the experimental design more effective as they can manipulate variables and establish cause- effect relationships.
The Results section tends to be descriptive since the main findings of the research are presented and explained. Swales and Feak (1994) suggest that texts, tables and/ or figures should be used as concise tools to express relevant information obtained. Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) resort to these three instruments to express data obtained in the medical research, while Barrs (2012) uses only text and tables. Of greater importance is the fact that tables or figures should not reproduce the text, but add significant information in a simple and concise way. This consideration seems to be followed by Barrs (2012) since she rarely refers to information already presented in tables, while Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) tend to repeat figures and percentages in both tools.
Swales and Feak (1994) have stated the main function of tables is to present specific data in order to establish comparisons. This purpose seems to be achieved in the precise tables Barrs (2012) introduces in her research because one may easily read them and compare and contrast quantitative results on different issues such as number of postings, replies, reasons for low number of replies, among others. Di Angelantonio et al.’s (2010) use of tables appears to be more detailed and specific, requiring the reader to pay careful attention to figures and variables. This difference is likely to be based on the structuring characteristics of these fields, since medicine deals with more technical, specific and scientific information.
According to the APA (2007), tables should be numbered, have an individual italicized title with all significant words being capitalized, and be always referenced in the text of the paper. These conventions are fully applied by Barrs (2012) because all the tables she presents share these characteristics. However, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) introduce titles that do not follow these conventions because they are not italicized or capitalized properly. They also address tables in the text and make use of notes to explain particular items on them, although they are not preceded by a superscript lowercase letter as the APA (2007) establishes. In addition, the elements in the table do not seem to be double-spaced.
Authors may decide to write the Discussion section in isolation or together with the Conclusion. For example, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) distinguish both sections while Barrs (2012) unifies Conclusions and Reflections on the same part. Generally, in the Discussion, the most important findings with reference to the hypothesis or research questions are restated and compared with past literature. Barrs (2012) and Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) appear to focus only on highlighting the data obtained in the research, but no correlations are established with previous studies. Both authors include a Limitations section, where they describe aspects of the research that do not prove efficient, realistic or practical to the whole purposes of the current investigations.
As regards the Conclusion, it should provide the reader with an integrative and comprehensive perspective of the whole RA as well as with subsequent actions to be taken. The latter consideration is taken by Di Angelantonio et al. (2010), who write that “further studies are needed to investigate associations between chronic kidney disease and non- vascular mortality from causes other than cancer” (p. 7). Barrs (2012) also mentions the importance of further studies to continue developing the issue of fostering interaction in the second language outside the classroom since she highlights that “(…) the nature of the interactions themselves could become an area of value for extended investigation” (p. 22). Concluding connectors are not used because the heading already signals the section.
The articles analyzed have provided an interesting account of various types of research, their Designs, the Results, Discussion and Conclusion sections as well as general conventions for this type of writing. Differences can be found in the papers as regards the organization, the sub headings, the management and interpretation of data and the use of tables and citations. However, these studies achieve the two goals generally set for research: to produce new knowledge and theories, and to solve problems, each of them in its correspondent field. Besides, they stress the importance of carrying out further investigations since knowledge is not considered static, but dynamic and subject to change continually.
References
American Psychological Association (2007). Concise rules of APA style. Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in- Publication Data.
Barrs, K. (2012). Action research: fostering computer mediated L2 interaction beyond the classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 16, 1. Kanda University of International Studies: Japan. Retrieved April 2012, from http://lit.msu.edu/issues/february2012/actionreseacrh.pdf
Di Angelantonio, E., Chowdhury R., Sarwar,N., Aspelund, T., Danesh J., Gudnason, V. (2010). Chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: prospective population based cohort study. BMJ: British Medical Journal. British Medical Association. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c4986.
Hernandez Sampieri, R., Fernández Collado, C., & Baptista Lucio, P. (1998). Metodología de la investigación. (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill: México.
Ogier, M. (1998). Reading research. Bailliere Tindall: London, UK.
Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct collaborative action research. ASCD: Alexandria, VA.
Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B.(1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan.