Abstract writing may become one of the most challenging sections within the structure of a research paper (RP). Hubbuch (1996, as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p 11) defines abstracts as “brief summaries of the major points made by an author in a book or article”. An abstract will enable professionals or readers to delve into a highly condensed section of a RP and have a clear panorama of the main topics discussed. Thus, the reader will have the possibility of evaluating the significance of the RP and of deciding whether it serves a purpose.
Swales and Feak (1994, cited in Pintos & Crimi, Ibid) state that there exist at least two different types of abstracts, namely those included at the beginning of RPs and conference abstracts. The former outlines a research which has already been completed whereas the latter’s aim is to inform conference organisers about the researcher’s work either completed or still being developed.
Swales (1990, cited in Pintos & Crimi, Ibid) and Swales and Feak (Ibid, cited in Pintos & Crimi, Ibid.) state there are two broad abstract categories: informative abstracts and indicative abstracts. They mainly differ from each other in format, the data weight which the abstract contains and the approach the writer gives to his/her paper. An informative abstract, as its name suggests, provides information on research which has already been carried out while an indicative abstract relates to the researcher’s future intentions, mainly produced for conferences.
Apart from this broad categorisation of abstracts, it should be noted that researchers may decide to write abstracts following a structured or an unstructured format. This decision will make abstracts look different in terms of presentation. Structured abstracts contain bolded headings and each of them refers to a different section of the RP whereas unstructured abstracts consist of one long, unbroken, solid block of writing not longer than 150 words in length (Pintos & Crimi, 2010).
This paper will analyse the internal structure of four RPs in the field of medicine in order to find differences and similarities, linguistic features, the use of tenses and any other discernible and relevant items inherent to this analysis. In order to perform this close scrutiny in a comprehensive fashion, the abstracts and its corresponding internal subsections will be analysed separately.
Beckett et al. (2008) have produced a 355 word abstract. Even though it may look a rather lengthy abstract, it seems to follow the requirements stated by most academic writers: conciseness and clarity. After analysing these four medical RPs, which seem to adhere to the Vancouver referencing style, predominantly used in the medical field, they are structured in format and do not comprise a single block paragraph as in unstructured abstracts.
Considering that abstracts in medical RPs tend to be lengthier than abstracts found in the field of education, researchers may have considered the idea of conforming to traditional or well-established conventions in their discipline. This internal subdivision within medical abstracts containing bolded headings is probably time-saving when it comes to finding some particular or relevant information connected with the research. Readers are likely to find the data in which they are interested and grasp main ideas at a glance.
Beckett et al. (2008) have subdivided their abstract into 4 different sections. Each of them summarise the entire paper in a few words. Within the first section labelled “Background”, the authors have explained in merely two sentences the core of the problem and possible health risks. In the second section headed “Methods”, the authors have referred to the planned way in which they have carried out the research. The Results section is the longest one as it objectively depicts the key results, without interpretation, in an orderly and logical sequence. This paragraph may contain more wording since the aim is to briefly highlight the answers to the questions or hypotheses proposed before the investigation. The Conclusions section is very concise and provides the reader with a clear and concrete answer to the problem.
Swales and Feak (Ibid., cited in Pintos & Crimi, Ibid.) stated that abstracts should include full sentences, the use of past tense, impersonal use of passive voice, absence of negative sentences and the avoidance of jargon. These features can be found in the RP except for the use of jargon. The use of specific words or terminology is probably an inevitable consequence in this type of medical RPs. Not many people are well-acquainted with medical terms and common readers may sometimes find at a loss while trying to grasp the main ideas.
With reference to tenses, Swales and Feak (Ibid.) suggested that each section should generally be written using certain tenses. Conclusions are often written in present tenses since they report the results obtained and the present state of the art. Opening sentences, like the ones found in background sections, tend to be written in present or present perfect tense. These opening sentences appear to show the reader what the real problem is or the initial hypotheses suggested by the researcher.
Martinez, Assimes, Mines, Dell’Aniello and Suissa (2009) have produced a 281 word abstract. The internal structure of this abstract has different headings and more subsections if it is compared to the previous RP. The authors are likely to have felt the necessity of including some extra information pertinent to their research work. This necessity may be the result of attracting and tempting the audience to read their work or plainly a simple mechanism of providing the reader with as much information as possible. It should be noted that even though the authors have included more information and subsections, they appear to have succeeded in producing a relatively short abstract.
Martinez, Assimes, Mines, Dell’Aniello and Suissa (2009) have divided their abstract into six sections. Their first section was labelled “Objective” and it consists of only one sentence which depicts the purpose of the study. They have also included sections such as Design, which draws a parallel with the Methods section described above, a Setting section which briefly explains where the study was carried out and a Results and Conclusions sections. In addition to these four sections, the authors have devoted a special section in their abstract to referring to the participants who took part in the study. It is very probable that they have decided to include the population sample to better explain the methods and strategy used during their research.
Jørgensen, Zahl, Gøtzsche (2009), however, have written a more extensive abstract. This may be the result of including several subsections within the abstract and of writing in a more extensive fashion. The authors have included seven sections, and in some of them they do not seem to have been able to synthesise and compress the information provided. It is highly probable that they have decided to give as much information in the abstract as possible without complying with general conventions.
As regards lexis and grammar the authors do not seem to have complied with the use of tenses. Unlike the other abstracts, the authors have decided to write all the subsections using the past simple tense. This may respond to a personal decision and not to a special request of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), since the three articles which have been analysed in this paper have been retrieved from the same electronic journal. As stated above, the use of jargon accompanied by acronyms and percentages are present in the abstract, which may make the reading less comprehensible to those members who do not belong to the medical community.
Wijeysundera et al. (2009) have developed a more detailed abstract with eight different sections in less than 260 words. In order to include more sections than the previously analysed RPs, the authors must probably have resorted to an outstanding power of synthesis. The subsections included in this RP have been labelled in bold like the rest of the RPs and left-aligned. No other significant format changes have been noticed in the analysis of the four medical RPs. Consequently, it may be assumed that this format is the one applied by those researchers who write and publish their work respecting the Vancouver conventions and the American Medical Association (AMA) style.
Taking into account all the items discussed in the analysis presented in this paper, we might conclude by outlining some important features to be considered when it comes to writing an abstract. Abstracts should be written following a strict chronological order of the study in a truly condensed manner. In addition, writers should consider the audience but they should not forget that any individual who does not belong to that specific community might be interested in reading their RP. Hence, RP writers should summarise the entire research work in a comprehensive fashion, making this crucial, strategic section of a RP understandable enough to a wide audience.
A huge number of research writers may wish to have their work published in paper edition or electronic journals. When e-readers search the internet, they enter key words related to the subject and web search engines show the title of the RP and part of the abstract containing those key words. Thus, many abstracts contain key words about what is essential and inherent to the paper so readers can retrieve the information needed. It would also be advisable to contact the institution which will receive and publish the RP in order to enquire about the internal conventions and follow the requirements of that particular institution.
References
Beckett, N., Peters, R., Fletcher, A., Staessen, J., Liu, L., Dumitrascu, D., Stoyanovsky, V., Antikainen; R., Nikitin, Y., Anderson, C., Belhani, A., Forette, F., Rajkumar, C., Thijs, L., Banya, W. & Bulpitt, C. (2008, May 1). Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years older of age or older. The New England Journal of Medicine, 358(18), 1887-1898. Retrieved May 16, 2010, from http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/18/1887
Jørgensen, K., Zahl, P., Gøtzsche, P. (2009). Breast cancer mortality in organised mammography screening in Denmark: Comparative study. BMJ 2010; 340 (c124), 1-6. doi:10.1136/bmj.c1241
Martinez, C., Assimes, T., Mines, D., Dell’Aniello, S., Suissa, S. (2009). Use of venlafaxine compared with other antidepressants and the risk of sudden cardiac death or near death: A nested case-control study. BMJ 2010; 340 (c249), 1-9. doi:10.1136/bmj.c249
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 4 - Research articles: Abstracts. Universidad CAECE. Retrieved May 25, 2010, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=4693
Wijeysundera, D.N., Beattie, W. S., Elliot, R.F., Austin, P. C., Hux, J.E., & Laupacis, A. (2009).
Non-invasive cardiac stress testing before elective major non-cardiac surgery: Population based cohort study. BMJ, 340 (b5526), 1-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b55
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment