Comparative Analysis of Three Main Sections in Research Articles

María E. Casinelli and Clarisa A. Dornes

Universidad CAECE

 Research articles (RAs) have their own structure and are composed of different sections. Swales (1990) and Swales and Feak (1994) have described the structure that RAs should have, providing academic writers with guidelines about the elements which should be present in each section and the conventions to be respected when writing them. Focusing on the results and discussion sections in particular, it can be seen that they can be written together or separately, and that they are both descriptive in nature. The results section shows the main findings of the research but does not interpret its meanings, as the interpretation of outcomes should be done in the discussion section.The latter may be written in isolation or together with the conclusions, and it should restate the key findings with reference to the questions or hypotheses formulated in the introduction, comparing those outcomes with the ones found in the past literature. The conclusion, whether embedded in the discussion section or written separately, should tie the paper together by developing or making reference to some of the points mentioned in the introduction. Not only do RAs need to follow the conventions described by Swales and Swales and Feak, but they should also comply with the conventions established by The American Psychological Association (APA, 2007) as regards academic writing.

However, when examining RAs it is possible to see that sometimes authors do not follow some of the conventions above mentioned. Academic life may pose a challenge to college and university students, and in order to succeed it is necessary to participate actively in reading and writing activities which foster the development of thinking skills. Being able to analyze the structure of RAs and their linguistic characteristics is of utmost importance for student writers to develop such skills and to learn how to write an RA properly.

This paper aims at providing a comparative analysis of the results, discussion and conclusion sections in two research articles, one from the field of education by Wang and Smith (2013) and one from the field of medicine by Devereaux et al. (2014). It is expected that a detailed comparison like this one contributes to broaden students’ knowledge on academic writing and enhances their thinking skills.

In terms of general structure, it might be stated that the education article is a problem-solution text in which a situation was described, a problem was stated, and a solution was proposed, tested and evaluated. The conclusion, in turn, was developed as a persuasive-argumentative text, in which readers are persuaded to agree with the authors’ views. Examples of such persuasion are phrases like “We fully believe that having incentives [...]” or “linking mobile learning to a formal course evaluation may be a crucial step to improving [...]” (Wang & Smith, 2013, p. 129). The medicine article was also designed as a problem-solution text, but the discussion and conclusion section is more tentative: “Observational data have suggested [...]” and “the most effective time to restart aspirin would be [...]” (Devereaux et al., 2014, p. 1502). 

The results section in both articles was isolated from the discussion and its main function is to describe the findings related to the questions or hypotheses presented in the introductions. In the article on medicine, it was divided into four subsections: patients, study outcomes, differences between strata, and bleeding risk, whereas in the article on education, it presented three subsections, each of which displayed the outcomes related to a different research question. In the work by Wang and Smith (2013), the authors included some interpretations of the outcomes of the study in the results section, but the main analysis was performed in the discussion. As regards the use of tables and figures, in the article by Devereaux et al. (2014) they were referenced within the text of the results section, but were presented in the methods or discussion sections, for example. Conversely, the article from the field of education included one table in the results section, and both the reference to the table and its introduction were placed in the corresponding division. 

The discussion section in the article by Wang and Smith (2013) was isolated from the conclusion, which was presented separately. However, in the article by Devereaux et al. (2014), the conclusion was embedded in the discussion, the beginning of which was marked by the use of the phrase In conclusion. In both articles the discussion restated the key outcomes of the research with reference to the initial questions or hypotheses, and it also reminded the reader of the purpose of the studies. 

In their conclusions, all authors summarized their findings, evaluated their results and, in the case of the article related to education, suggested a subsequent course of action. Although the conclusion in the medicine article is considerably shorter compared to that in the education article, in both of them alluded to some of the points mentioned in the introduction, thus tiding the article together. 

The three sections analysed in this paper have been developed according to the text type expected for such sections: problem-solution and persuasive-argumentative. Regarding the use of academic language, it can be observed that hedging and tentative phrases can be found in the article on medicine, whereas the article on education also includes stronger or more emphatic phrases in its conclusion. The use of the signalling phrase In conclusion in the former is, according to Swales and Feak (1994), unnecessary and should therefore be avoided in serious academic writing. Concerning the use of tables and figures, the education article follows all the conventions established by the American Psychological Association (APA, 2007) in terms of organization, spacing, headings, numeration and title content. The article on medicine, on the other hand, follows these rules partially. It can be seen, for instance, that the way the tables have been used in the results section shows some incoherence, as they are cited in the results but are presented in other sections of the paper. This incoherence is rather confusing for the reader. The deviation from the rules as regards the use of tables and figures may be due to the fact that the field of Medicine usually follows the Vancouver system instead of APA.

All in all, both articles respect the conventions that Swales (1990) and Swales and Feak (1994) claim should be followed when writing the results, discussion and conclusion sections of a research article. The article written by Deveraux et al. (2014) deviates slightly from APA’s (2007) rules, possibly due to the fact that it belongs to the field of Medicine, but the education article seems to follow all APA’s conventions rigorously, as can be observed with the organization and structuring of tables and figures. By and large, it could be safely declared that the articles selected for the present analysis are in accordance with academic writing standards.

References

American Psychological Association. (2007). Concise rules of APA style. Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

Devereaux, P.J., Mrkobrada, M., Sessler, D.I., Leslie, K., Alonso-Coello, P., Kurz, A.,… Yusuf, S. (2014). Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. The New England Journal of  Medicine. [e-published ahead of print]. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1401105

Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series). 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 Press.

Wang, S., & Smith, S. (2013). Reading and grammar learning through mobile phones. Language Learning & Technology, 17(3), 117–134. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2013/wangsmith.pdf