A pragmatic approach to research papers (RPs) analysis

Walonick (2005) states that all RPs are roughly formatted in the same manner. “Most research studies begin with a written proposal” (Walonick, Ibid, para. 4). He also claims that RPs usually encompass approximately five chapters with well- established sections, which will progressively enable the reader to follow the research conducted.

The aim of this paper is to compare and contrast two RPs and point out the main features found in both of them. It is worth mentioning that the papers chosen for such analysis belong to different disciplines. As a result, the authors of the RPs analysed in this paper have conformed to a dissimilar standard set of conventions for formatting their work. The RP’s authors have adhered to two referencing conventions, namely the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Medical Association (AMA).

Aydin and Karakuzu (n.d.) seem to have produced their RP following a well-defined, structured format. Journal papers are subdivided into sections, to which a great number of authors seem to conform. This issue is probably a key factor when it comes to presenting a professional RP in most disciplines. Aydin and Karakuzu (Ibid.) have composed their research paper in six separate sections, which are generally expected to be found by readers.

The abstract, whose main function is to summarise the major aspects of the entire paper, is brief and concise. The American Psychological Association (APA) (2009) states that a well- prepared abstract should be accurate, nonevaluative, coherent and easily readable. Aydin and Karakuzu (Ibid.) appear to have managed to respect this requisite. In five sentences, they have included the purpose of their investigation, the experimental design, the major findings without revealing concrete data and a one-sentence summary of their interpretations and conclusions.

The introduction section can be thought of as an inverted triangle with information narrowing down. Pintos and Crimi (2010) point out that introductions should comprise three main moves. The first move will create a research space referring to previous literature. The next move will create a niche in which the writer will refer to a gap in his/her research territory and the final move will contain the purpose of the study. Aydin and Karakuzu (Ibid.) seem to have employed this principle and to have succeeded in concisely explaining the reason of their study.

The Methods section should clearly explain how the study was carried out. Even though this section generally tends to be rather lengthy, Aydin and Karakuzu (Ibid.) have produced a relatively brief section. They have designed three main paragraphs in which they have referred to the participants, materials and the procedure adopted. This conciseness may either show the authors’ power of synthesis or the omission of irrelevant data.

The results section should objectively present the key results in a logical sequence. Aydin and Karakuzu (Ibid.) have developed a presentation of the data and interpreted the data obtained. They have included tables to better exemplify the results in figures. The table has been formatted following the APA conventions even though the authors have not double-spaced the information. This characteristic may be the result of a special request made by the publishing journal or institution.

The Conclusions and Discussion section is the longest segment within the RP. The authors seem to have shown great interest in analysing the final data and results. For this reason, they have written three considerably lengthy paragraphs with an in-depth analysis, which lets the reader grasp a full understanding of the study.

Balanced against Aydin and Karakuzu’s (Ibid.) RP, Baker et al. (2010) have produced a structured abstract with bolded subheadings. This feature seems to be a predominant feature in medical RPs. Each bolded heading identifies the main section the writers have included in their paper. Nonetheless, each subheading contains one sentence except for the Results subheading, which contains seven sentences. This notable difference is probably because the Results section tends to be lengthy and contains a great deal of data.

The introduction section in Baker et al’s (Ibid.) RP comprises three clear paragraphs which mark the three typical moves in introduction sections. It is a general-specific text, which makes it resemble an inverted triangle. Most probably, academic writers tend to use this format to attract the reader’s attention. Besides, all the headings found in this RP are left aligned, which seems to be a requisite in AMA style.

The Methods section is the lengthiest section in Baker et al.’s (Ibid.) paper. The authors might have decided to provide the reader with a great amount of relevant information. Not only have they supplied data in written paragraphs but they have also used tables to serve the purpose of supplying clear and detailed information. This feature seems to show that the authors have specially considered their audience. Tables may sometimes become difficult to comprehend.

The Discussion section is relatively shorter if compared to the Methods section. The authors do not use much hedging and they seem to be certain about the laboratory results obtained. The scarce use of tentative language or hedging is probably due to the fact that the study and its pertinent results have been empirically and scientifically proved. Nonetheless, considering experimentation is an endless process, Baker et al. (Ibid) have suggested other scientists should carry out further research.

Baker et al. (Ibid) interpret the results in the light of what was already known in the Discussion section. They have written a relatively compact paragraph which does not fail to offer the reader an answer to the hypotheses or questions posed at the beginning of the RP. Despite the fact that the Discussion paragraph is brief, the authors seem to have been able to show their ability to collect data, draw conclusions and summarise the final results of their investigation.

The numerous advances in technology have given rise to a global information spread all over the world. As a result, a large number of scholars have found a golden opportunity to publish their work on the internet. Even though audiences may significantly differ, all academic writers seem to consider the background knowledge of the audience during their writing process. Some audiences are highly proficient whereas others are more generalist. No matter what field professional writers decide to write about. They all seem to conform to well-established conventions and to provide their RPs with evidence in order to academically support their work.



References

American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American psychological association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Aydin, S., Karakuzu, M. & Elkilic, G. (n.d.). Teacher effect on the level of test anxiety among young EFL learners. Retrieved July 6, 2010, from http://w3.balikesir.edu.tr/~saydin/index_dosyalar/200901.pdf

Baker, M. G., Thornley, C. N., Mills, C. Roberts, S., Perera, S., Peters, J. Kelso, A., Barr & I. Wilson, N. (2010). Transmission of pandemic A/H1N1 2009 influenza on passenger aircraft: Retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2010; 340 (c2424), 1-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c2424

Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 2 - The research article: Introduction, literature review and method sections. Universidad CAECE. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=4691

Walonick, D. (2005). Elements of a research proposal and report. StatPac. Retrieved July 4, 2010, from http://www.statpac.com/research-papers/research-proposal.htm