McCoy-Massey (2009) states that most journals and scientific papers follow a standard format. Research papers (RPs) are divided into clear-cut sections and sub-sections which will enable the reader to concentrate on the main topics discussed. The aim of these constituent, intrinsic sections characteristic of RPs is to make the reading more interesting, understandable and even manageable (Pintos & Crimi, 2010).
The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast three internal sections within both a medical research paper (Ybarra et al., 2004) and a research paper in the field of education (Beebe, Vonderwell, & Boboc, 2010). This analysis will be based on three crucial sections commonly identifiable in most academic papers: the results, the discussion, the conclusions and the recommendations sections.
According to Swales (1998, cited in Pintos & Crimi, Ibid.), the results section should be objectively presented in an orderly and logical sequence and it may refer the reader to summarised data in a text-format style, tables and/or figures. Thus, the purpose of this section is to present and illustrate the findings. This section should let the reader grasp the objective report of the results and, save all the information for the discussion section.
Beebe, Vonderwell, and Boboc (Ibid) have treated the results section in a cause-effect format style in order to present the situation in a carefully sequenced fashion. This resource has enabled the authors to delve into an in-depth analysis of major themes, which were regarded as significantly important. The development of these crucial issues which, according to the authors, may hinder online assessment were duly and detailed described. Each item has been separately discussed and every sub-section has been labelled and left-aligned for better comprehension.
In addition, the authors have resorted to the use of block quotations extracted from the interviews carried out during their research. Accordingly, the authors’ assumptions seem to have been fully supported by the comments made by the interviewees. Considering that all the block quotations used in the results section comprise more than 40 words, it should be noted that the authors have followed the American Psychological Association (APA) conventions. That is to say, quotation marks have been removed and the quotation has been “…display[ed] in a freestanding block of text” (APA, 2010, p. 171).
Swales and Feak (1994, cited in Pintos and Crimi, Ibid) assert that it is of extreme importance to utilise some linguistic tools to express cautiousness when being critical. Hedging could be described as cautious or vague language to make decisions about a stance (“Features of”, n.d.).
Beebe, Vonderwell, and Boboc (Ibid.) have made use of hedging to lessen the strength of their statements. The authors have resorted to different linguistic tools such as modals to indicate probability, the use of some verbs like seem and tend and some sentence openings like it is possible.
Pintos and Crimi (Ibid.) state that the outcomes related to the hypotheses are discussed within the results section and the tenses used are past tenses for the results and present tenses for discussions. The authors have also adhered to this convention. The present tense has been utilised to introduce the subject of discussion whereas the simple past tense was used to show the study findings.
APA (2010) states that the discussion section is written to provide the reader with inferences and interpretation of the results and to explain a new understanding of the problem. Beebe, Vonderwell, and Boboc (Ibid) have devoted a relatively lengthy paragraph for such purpose. As suggested by APA (Ibid), the authors have opened the section with a strong and clear statement. As well as this, they have used in-text citations in their academic paper to support their theses. The final paragraph depicts a thorough evaluation of the results on the part of the authors and they refer as well to their literature review presented at the beginning of their RP in order to conclude the section.
The recommendation section in Beebe, Vonderwell, and Boboc’s RP, (Ibid) introduces the need for further investigation. The authors assert that future research should be carried out in order to shed light to the case they have studied. It should be noted that they make use of hedging to make their suggestions and they have also included block quotations extracted from the interviews carried out during the research work probably to support their standpoint.
Despite the fact Ybarra, Leaf, and Diener-West (2004) have done their research in a different discipline and they have used different convention rules for in-text citations and referencing, their RP has a relatively similar format with minor changes compared to the paper in the field of education analysed above. These similarities may be due to the fact that the format of research papers in most disciplines should comply with global conventions and rules.
Ybarra, Leaf, and Diener-West (Ibid.) have chosen to discuss the results section into labelled sub-divided sections or sub-categories, most probably to show the results more clearly. The first subsection is descriptive and mainly reports the final results expressed in numbers as well as in percentages. These results include the whole population sample studied without stopping to focus on separate male and female groups. However, in order to develop a more thorough analysis, the authors seem to have decided to present their evaluation in two subsequent sections including reports from both the male and female population sample.
Data tables have been produced to visually indicate resultant values in each sub-section. “All tables are meant to show something specific; for example, tables that communicate quantitative data are effective only when the data are arranged so that their meaning is obvious at a glance” (Wainer, 1997, as cited by APA, Ibid., p. 128). APA (Ibid.) states that authors have to conform to well-established conventions when they decide to include tables or figures in their RPs. One of these conventions states that all tables should be produced on a separate page.
However, Ybarra, Leaf, and Diener-West (Ibid.) have not used a separate page to include their tables, most probably due to printing constraints. As stated by APA (Ibid), the tables contain clear individual, explanatory titles in order to infer the basic content of the table. All elements in the table have been double spaced and each column has a highly descriptive heading which clearly shows the statistics represented in numeral and percentage form.
Nevertheless, the titles have not been placed in heading caps and italics. This issue may be the result of differences in APA and Vancouver referencing styles. It is worth noting that the education RP does not present tables to show data analysis. This decision made by the writers may be due to the fact that they may not have felt the need to summarise the results in such a way.
With regard to grammar, the medical RP present past tenses in both active and passive voice to show the final results and evaluation of the findings. Likewise, personal statements have been avoided and the authors have resorted to the use the personal pronoun we. A vast number of linking words have been used to preserve the cohesion and the smooth sequence in paragraph transitions.
In both RPs, the authors have opened the discussion section with a clear and strong statement. In the medical RP, this section has also been divided into sub-sections which deal with each topic separately. In addition, the authors have decided to include extra sections within which they suggest further research on the issue.
As for the conclusions sections in the medical RP, it has been briefly divided into two paragraphs without failing to show the importance of their research work and the necessity of further investigation on the topic. Thus, the first paragraph states the purpose of the study examined as well as its importance whereas the second paragraph shows the writers’ opinion and suggestions for further research on the issue.
Academic writers should follow a specific format and respect a sequence of well-defined sections to make their paper more easily readable. In addition, they should remember that there exist academic conventions to adhere to, which will make their RP look reliable and professional. Even though a great number of standardised conventions should be followed when it comes to writing a RP, authors may decide to make some minor internal changes. Nonetheless, RP’s writers should bear in mind what each section should include and what purpose it should serve.
References
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Beebe, R., Vonderwell, S., & Boboc, M. (2010). Emerging patterns in transferring assessment practices from f2f to online environments. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 8(1), 1-12. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/47/67/d0.pdf
Features of academic writing. (n.d.). Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.uefap.com/writing/feature/hedge.htm
McCoy-Massey, D. (2009). Increasing knowledge - How to read a research paper. Retrieved June 1, 2010, from http://www.lbda.org/feature/2192/increasing-knowledge-and--how-to-read-a-research-paper.htm
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 3 - The research article: Results, discussions, and conclusions. Universidad CAECE. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=4692
Ybarra, M. L., Leaf, P. J., & Diener-West, M. (2004, February 6). Sex differences in youth-reported depressive symptomatology and unwanted internet sexual solicitation. Journal of Medical Internet Research. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://www.jmir.org/2004/1/e5/HTML
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment