Integrative Assignment - Final Version
Allende, Carla - Lacanna, Alejandra - Rodriguez, Viviana
EXPLORING RESEARCH ARTICLES (RAs)
Results, Discussions and Conclusions in Professional
Research Articles
Research
Articles (RAs) writing is of vital importance in every professional field.
Consequently, a deep analysis of diverse papers’ components may render itself
useful both to explore thorough investigations as such, and to aid
prospective RAs writers when dealing with discursive structure. The
present paper’s deliberate intention is to analyze and compare three sections
of two RAs, that is, Results, Discussions and Conclusions. The selected papers
belong to different fields, the medicine and the education ones. The article written
by Barrs (2012) specifically deals with the challenge of "how to maximise
target language interaction both inside and outside of the classroom”, mainly
with the aid of "digital technologies" (p.10). Di Angelantonio et al.
(2010) are the authors of the medical article, and their cohort study’s main
objective is “to quantify associations of chronic kidney disease stages with
major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality in the general
adult population” (p. 1).
First
and foremost, the very nature of these papers’ studies is utterly different;
while Barrs (2012) epitomizes an experimental report, fostering as it
does changes in practicum, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) present an
interventional clinical study defined by Chapman and Hall (as cited
in Röhrig et al., 2009, p. 3) as "...The aim
of an interventional clinical study is to compare treatment procedures within a
patient population, which should exhibit as few as possible internal
differences, apart from the treatment." Besides, ethical issues related to
randomization of data in order to avoid bias in results are much more regulated
by law in the medicine field. Moreover, the medicine paper activates a
specialist’s schemata in order to respond cooperatively to it, whereas Barr’s
(2012) research does not demand such a specialist’s understanding. Medicine
papers, in general, present a high degree of nominalization; the educational field,
in turn, demands more narrative because the discussions seem to be more
philosophical than otherwise.
In relation to the three moves meant to be found
in introductions to Research Articles (RAs) or Research Papers (RPs), Swales
and Feak (1994) present the “Create a Research Space” Model, where the three
portions of text within the introductory paragraphs to the topic of study
should be clearly grasped by readers. These cycles have the purpose of creating
a research space, in other words, showing the relevance of the research carried
out, presenting what other researchers have done in the field so far, establishing
a niche or gap in previous research - and finally occupying the niche, where
the nature and purpose of the study should be stated. To exemplify, Barrs’
(2012) article clearly expresses the gap in previous research by means of an
inversion statement, followed by the introductory negative connector “However”
(p. 11); in the case of Di Angelantonio et al.’s (2010) paper, the niche is
established by the negative connector “However” (p. 1), followed by an extended
definition of what the difficulty in previous studies has been so far.
Both Research Articles (RAs) include the
Results section within a separate set of paragraphs; this aids the reader in
his or her scanning of the text. Besides, the hitherto mentioned section offers
the audience useful information to evaluate the investigation. The data have
been presented not only in the text, but also through the use of tables and
figures, as it is usually the case with RPs. According to the American Psychological
Association (APA), “tables and figures enable
authors to present a large amount of information and to make their data more
comprehensible” (APA, 2010, p. 125). More precisely, APA (2010) asserts that
tables should be integrated within the text, but they should be designed in
such a way that they should be understood on their own. As regards the use of
figures in papers, APA (2010) declares, “If the figure does not add
substantively to the understanding of the paper or duplicates other elements of
the paper, it should not be included” (p.160).
Admittedly,
while Barrs (2012) seems to employ mainly tables, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010)
use tables as well as figures. Indeed, Barrs' (2012) tables are appropriately
numbered and they have an individual, italicized title including each word
capitalized. Equally, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) include figures which
are equitably numbered, and they all include a title with a legend and caption
giving enough explanations to offer the readers the opportunity to estimate
results. Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) make use of these tools to
accurately represent the data collected, and by so doing, they acutely reflect
the quantitative nature of their study. In the case of Barrs (2012), the author
has included eight tables as well as some examples of exchanges in his paper’s
Results’ section. For instance, there is a sample three-part interaction
exchange, a single initiation-reply example, and an excerpt of a continued
threaded discussion.
Di Angelantonio et al.’s (2010) paper has a
separate Discussions section, whereas the article by Barrs (2012) contains two
sub-sections devoted to analysis and reflection. For instance, in its first
period of action research, there is a Reflection section where the data
collected have been thoroughly analyzed and reflected upon. Moreover, in
the second period of action research, Barrs (2012) presents a detailed
reflection of its main findings. In brief, the medicine article by Di
Angelantonio et al. (2010) has a separate main Discussions section where there
is a detailed interpretation of the outcomes of their research, whereas the
education article by Barrs (2012) has its two periods of action research with
their corresponding interpretation of outcomes embedded in them.
Additionally, an overall evaluation of the exploration which has already
been conducted is done in order to establish future research actions. Modals
verbs are mostly used to signal possibility and advice respectively.
On
average, multiple comprehensive RAs features were deeply considered so as to
have a better overview of papers whose main function is to provide data
corresponding to distinctive fields. Basic distinctions have to do with
subject-dependant characteristics like nominalization in medicine papers, and
with the different nature of the aims of the research under study. By and
large, in spite of the fact that Barrs’ (2012) article presents statistical
data, the qualitative nature inherent in the action research that guided the
study may make its results not generalisable to large populations, but just
applicable to certain specific and reduced contexts. While Di Angelantonio et
al. (2010) explain the potential limitations of their study, Barrs (2012)
asserts that gathering data in such an investigation may result extraordinarily
difficult, given the conditions under which the action research project was
carried out. Ultimately, Barrs (2012) and Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) give emphasis
to the necessity of exploring new and valuable areas of inquiry that have
emerged as a consequence of their present studies. Therefore, both papers’
contributions to each field should not be underestimated but highly
valued.
References
American
Psychological Association (2010). APA Manual (6th ed.). Washington, DC: British Library
Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
Barrs, K. (2012). Action research: Fostering
computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the classroom. Language
Learning and Technology. 16(1), 10-25. Retrieved April 2013,
from
Di Angelantonio, E., Chowdhury, R., Sarwar,
N., Aspelund, T., Danesh, J. and Gudnason, V. (2010). Chronic
kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular
mortality: prospective population cohort study. BMJ Online First.
doi:10.1136/bmj.c4986
Retrieved April 2013, from
Röhrig, B., Prell, J. d, Wachtlin, D. and Blettner, M. (2009). Types of study in
medical research. Part 3 of a series on evaluation of scientific
publications. Aerzteblatt-international.d. NCBI. doi:
10.3238/arztebl.2009.0262
Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students:
Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan
Press.
