Descriptive Analysis of Shared Policies in Academic Writing

Academic Writing: Shared Policies of a Discourse Community

Academic writing in a discourse community is a gradual and collaborative process of creating and sharing knowledge. According to Kuhn (1970), “the members of a discourse community function as scientists because they share language, beliefs, practices, education goals, professional initiations, and professional judgments” (as cited in Flowerdey, 2000, p. 130). Consequently, writers involved in a discourse community should follow a policy of the importance of inclusion of citations to avoid plagiarism and consider the possibility of publishing.

Academic writing tends to resort to primary and secondary sources to support and extend the ideas of the author. Therefore, it seems necessary for writers to learn how to include citations appropriately and effectively. Reference to the authors should always be presented so as to avoid plagiarism since as Swales and Feak (1994) establish, there is close relationship between plagiarism and property. Articles, theories, images, tables are produced by particular authors and should be acknowledged in such a way that they remain as their creators.    

There are several manuals to cater for the conventions and guidelines of academic writing according to the field of study. For instance, the American Psychological Association (APA) manual is applied in Psychology and Social Science, while the Modern Language Association (MLA) focuses on Literature and compositions. The conventions for the inclusion of direct and indirect sources, the use of paraphrasing as well as reference lists may be highly useful for writers attempting to produce academic texts. 

If one analyzes Swales (1990) criteria for a discourse community to be recognized, participatory mechanisms and information exchange are central aspects to be considered, since they involve the constant intercommunication of information and feedback. Consequently, participants may meet these requirements by publishing and sharing their work, as well as reacting to other members` written productions expressing further opinions, agreement, disagreement or subsequent feelings.

Writing in a discourse community tends to be an enlightening process that has to be gradually developed. Aspects such as the correct use of the language, the shared practices and the policy of applying conventions when citing sources appear to be of upmost importance for participants to develop as academic writers. Besides, being part of a community implies that individual work should lead to collaborative and group learning. “Knowledge is thus a process, not a product. It is only valid when activated within the discourse community” (Flowerdey, 2000, p.129).

References

Flowedey, J (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the

nonnative- English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 1. City University of Hong Kong.

Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. 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.   

Comparative Analysis of Research Abstracts

A Comparative Analysis on Research Abstracts

An abstract is the first section in a Research Article (RA) that acts as a guide for readers to know the main information they may encounter in the whole paper. According to Hubbuch (1996), “Composing an abstract has the same goals as a map: An abstract is a map in prose form” (p. 126). This paper presents a comparative analysis of the Abstracts of four Research Articles (RAs) from both medical and educational fields. While the former focus on the treatment of serious illnesses such as breast cancer and hypertension, the latter exposes the uses of videos and DVDs as facilitating resources in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) lessons.

Abstracts are generally defined as descriptions of main texts. In Hubbuch (1996)’s own words, they are “(…) brief summaries of the major points made by an author in a book or article” (p.126). In addition, Swales and Feak (1994) stress the increasing importance of Abstracts for readers since one of the main functions of this type of summary is to attract the audience to continue reading. This arousing interest and willingness to read complete RAs should not be taken for granted, because factors such as the readers’ own interests or the relevance of the information may also influence. However, a precise and coherent Abstract may be a significant starting point that subsequently leads to extensive research.

Swales and Feak (1994) establish that Abstracts should be one paragraph long containing between four to ten sentences. This convention seems to be applied by Rammal (2006) and King (2002), both authors of the educational articles, since they concisely present the topic under discussion and do not add further information on each section of the RA. In contrast, Jorgensen, Zahl and Gotzhe (2010) as well as Becket et al. (2008) pose a depicted presentation of the background or setting, methods, results and conclusions, each of them in different paragraphs and organized by its corresponding headings. 

Two types of Abstracts have been distinguished by Swales and Feak (1994): informative and indicative. Jorgensen et al. (2010) as well as Becket et al. (2008) seem to follow the informative one, because the focus is placed on data, and on the actions researchers took to achieve those results. For instance, Beckett et al. wrote that, “ we randomly assigned 3845 patients from Europe, China, Australasia, Tunisia, who were 80 years of age or older and had a sustained systolic blood pressured of 160 mm Hg or more (…)“ (p. 1887). Hence, emphasis is placed on the Methods and Results, issues to be later depicted in the main article. 

Indicative Abstracts are generally used in conferences, but their characteristics tend to apply more to the type of abstract Rammal (2006) and King (2002) have written. According to Swales and Feak (1994), generalized summaries of the information in the articles, reference to the future and absence of specific or quantitative results are some of these features that are also applied in the educational papers. Such is the case of Rammal (2006), who explicitly states in his abstract that “(…) emphasis will be on approaching the identity and culture of the native speakers of English through diverse authentic teaching materials” (p.1).

Another possible classification of the Abstracts of RAs is concerned with the organizational formats. While the educational authors create unstructured abstracts, characterized by the presence of a long and unbroken paragraph, the medical ones tend to prefer the structured type of Abstract. This contains bolded headings that identify the sections in the Research Paper (RP). As it has been mentioned previously, Jorgensen et al. (2010) devote a paragraph to each of the following subsections: Objective, Design, Setting, Main Outcome Measure, Results and Conclusions. Only after this detailed abstract, does the introduction of the RP start.

As regards the linguistic features of Abstracts, Swales and Feak (1996) state the use of full sentences and the impersonal passive as some of the most salient features. While the former convention is applied by all authors, the latter seems to arise some points of divergence. King (2002), Rammal (2006) and Beckett et al. (2008) resort to passive voice as a device to focus on the actions rather than on the doers. However, Jorgensen et al. (2010) prefer using the personal active form, probably following the convention in medicine of not using the passive voice since if the agent is not stated, no one can take responsibility for the actions described.  

Another linguistic consideration is tense mobility. Swales and Feak (1996) establish that present tenses are generally used in opening sentences, conclusions and current applications, whereas past tense is predominant when referring to findings, variables and tests. Becket et al. (2008) appear to strictly follow this convention, but discrepancies arise in the other RAs. Such is the case of King (2002) and Rammal (2006), whose brief and concise Abstracts resort only to the use of present tenses since there is only reference to the current applications and the organization of the RPs, not to particular data, methodology or figures.

The format of Abstracts may vary according to the journal or publisher’s requirements, but the Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL) (2010) states some features that could be standardized. These include assigning one page to the Abstract with the corresponding header. None of the writers seem to apply this convention since the abstract is written on the same page than the introduction of the RP, without a consistent header. Besides, it has been stated that the word Abstract should be centered with no bold, italics, or quotations marks. However, Rammal (2006), King (2002) and Becket et al. (2008) place this word in the left margin, with different sizes and fonts. 

The logical presentation of information and ideas is considered significantly important in Abstracts writing. The APA manual (2008) establishes that continuity in words and concepts as well as thematic development should be reached for the audience to understand the issue presented. For example, Rammal (2006)’s Abstract may be too brief to grasp an idea of all the contents of the RA, while Jorgensen et al. (2010) may present such a detailed account of each part of the research that the audience may not follow reading since the Abstract itself summarizes the issue and mentions all the important findings.

The RAs analysis has portrayed significant differences in the way medical and educational writers undergo the process of writing Abstracts. Not only the structure of the Abstracts, but their organization, the format, the main function, the type of information included, the length, the tense mobility and the appliance of APA conventions have shed light on distinctions among the Education and Medicine fields. Despite these differences, all the Abstracts analyzed act as maps that, depending on their efficiency and coherence, may lead the audience to different destinations.

References

American Psychological Association.(2008). Publication Manual (5^th edition). Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. 

Beckett, N., Peters, R., Fletcher, A., Staessen, J., Lui, L., Dumitrascu, D., Stoyanovsky, V., Antikainen, R., Nikitin, Y., Anderson, C., Belhani, A., Forette, F., Rajkumar, J., Thijs, L., Banya, W., Bulpitt, C. (2008). Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older. [Abstract]. The New England Journal of Medicine,358. Retrieved May, 2012, from http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0801369  

Hubbuch, S.M. (1996). Writing research papers across the curriculum. Harcourt Brace: Fort Worth, TX.

Jorgensen, K.J., Zahl P.H., Gotzche, P.C. (2010). Breast cancer mortality in organized mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study. [Abstract]. BMJ: British Medical Journal. British Medical Association. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c1241.   

King, J. (2002). Using DVD feature films in the EFL classroom. [Abstract].  The weekly column, 88. Retrieved May, 2012, from  http://www.eltnewsletter.com/back/February2002/art882002.htm

Rammal, S. (2006). Video in EFL classrooms. [Abstract]. Palestine: Birzeit University. Retrieved May, 2012, from http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/using%20video

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

Comparative Analysis of Research’s Results, Discussion and Conclusions Sections

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.