A Comparative Analysis of Two Research Articles in Medicine and English Language Teaching: Results, Discussions and Conclusions

 Introduction

In order to communicate scientific findings, professionals from academic fields should engage in writing Research Articles (RAs). In particular, the fields of Medicine and English Language Teaching (ELT) have evolved throughout the years to convert themselves in respected discourse communities.When writing Research Articles, there are certain structures and rules to follow in order to convey the necessary information.  Apart from Introductions, Literature reviews and Methods sections, it is important to know how to develop the Results, Discussions and Conclusions sections.   This paper aims at comparing, contrasting and analyzing two RAs according to established conventions.  The first article discussed is an action research which explores the use of Computer – Mediated Communication (CMC) beyond the classroom in language teaching (Barrs, 2012).  The second article is a prospective study which delves into the relation between chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease (Di Angelantonio et al. 2010).  

Results Section

 As Swales and Feak (1994) point out, the Results section describes main findings of a research by summarizing data or using texts, figures or tables, describing the outcomes related to the questions or hypotheses of the paper. Barrs (2012) as well as De Angeloantonio et al. (2010) present data gathered throughout research following general specific text structure in chronological order. This feature would enable the reader to have a comprehensive view of the topic being discussed.

 Barrs (2012) provides a detailed description of the different stages included in the study. Results section is divided into two periods; the first period comprises a mini project carried out to find out if students would participate in a computer mediated communication program. There is a short introduction in which the issue is posed as well as a research question. The method for collecting data is explained, as well as the activities students were supposed to do. Then, Barrs (2012) presents the results in text, tables and examples of students’ postings so as to illustrate how students performed during the experience of blogging. As regards tables, the author follows academic standards of formatting. Table headings are italicized, capitalized and situated flush right. Finally, in this period there is a short analysis according to students’ responses, having a negative outcome: “disappointingly, the majority of interactions involved a simple one or two sentence initiation (...)” (p.16).

 The second period delineates the main project where students interacted through a Moodle platform, including a research hypothesis based on the findings from the initial part of the investigation. Intervening action is described, and the objective is to get better results compared to the first attempt: “in order to get students more interested in posting and replying on the forum it was deemed necessary (. . .) to have students generate the discussion topics” (p.17). Results are shown in tables which provide detailed data related to number of postings, replies and type of postings. Such tables include relevant information and allow the reader to have a quick glance at collected data. Moreover, Barrs (2012) includes students’ exchanges to exemplify interactions in the platform. As it has been shown, Barrs (2012) develops the results section reporting detailed quantitative and qualitative data presented in tables and transcriptions of students’ interactions. Furthermore Barrs (2012) closely follows APA style as regards tables formatting.

 While Barrs (2012) states results in two distinct phases, Di Angelatonio et al. (2010) analyze results in three sections described as baseline associations, hazard ratios with disease outcomes and chronic kidney disease and coronary heart disease risk prediction. Specific and detailed information on main findings is displayed through the use of tables and figures. A scatter plot figure is included to account for the value of a specific event related to two variables: coronary heart disease in relation to patients with and without chronic kidney disease. As regards tables, formatting and reference in the text are appropriate and follow standard rules and conventions. Tables in the Medicine RA tend to be more detailed and specific and may be introduced to display data that cannot be easily accessed if written in a paragraph.

 Discussion Section

 Through discussion sections, researchers interpret collected data and draw attention to the hypothesis so as to relate them to the findings of research studies, showing the researcher’s attitude to illuminate relations between data and convince readers about the importance of his/her conclusions. Problem – solution texts structures as well as evaluative language are salient characteristics of this section. Whereas Barrs (2012) includes limitations section separated from conclusions and reflections, Di Angeloantonio et al. (2010) place limitations and strengths within the discussion section, which is not a distinctive characteristic.  

 Limitation section in Barrs’ (2012) action research addresses issues and problems encountered in the development of the project. Not only does the author present weaknesses and areas which need further investigations but he also encourages other teachers to take the challenge to implement similar projects in their contexts. Furthermore, Barrs (2012) draws attention to the fact that the study cannot provide valid generalizations to other contexts and participants. Similarly, Di Angeloantonio et al. (2010) put emphasis on the fact that the findings cannot be applied to a larger population: “(...) the findings may not apply to other races” (p. 6). In contrast to Barrs (2012), at the beginning of this section the strenght of the reserach is described, according to the results obtained.

 Regarding discussion section, Di Angeloantonio et al. (2010) restate the research hypothesis supporting the association between high risk of coronary heart disease with chronic kidney disease. Then, this section also indicates the necessity of “further studies in other populations (...)” (p.5), in order to get more information to compare. In Barrs’ (2012) study, there is not an explicit discussion section, since the data obtained is clearly analysed in the Conclusion and Reflections section.

 Conclusion Section

The Conclusion section in RA makes reference to hypotheses presented in the introduction and whether they were solved or not, and also exposes the need for more investigation if necessary, highlighting its importance. As regards linguistics features, they are particularly relevant and distinctive through the use of evaluative terms, and modals expressing possibility and advice.

 Barrs (2012) considers the action research project was useful and beneficial to increase students’ engagement in interactions in L2 outside the classroom, showing the students’ “(...) desire to stay in contact with classmates and to practice their English skills (...)” (p.22). The author makes use of modals and conditionals when reflecting upon the advantages of this type of project: “(...) the CMC platform would need to be not only student –negotiated (...) but well-planned and supported (...) if it were to encourage high levels of participation/interaction.” (p.22). Barrs (2012) concludes stating the possibility to carry out further investigation to collect data as regards the development of L2 through the implementation of CMC programs. The author encourages the reader to follow investigations related to the topic of inquiry, by stating its benefits and positive outcomes. Similarly, Di Angeloantonio et al. (2010) conclude the RA posing the need for further studies concerning connections between chronic kidney disease and non-vascular mortality from other causes than cancer.

 Conclusion

Based on the analysis and comparison of two RA in the field of education and medicine, it is important to point out that though both articles differ slightly in sections described above, they share common features and patterns. Each of them backup their findings by clear descriptions of the results sections, and attempt to show the importance of each study by including convincing statements in the discussion and conclusion sections. By comparing both articles, a clear picture of research papers sections is provided in order to be applied in future research studies

References

Barrs, K. (2012). Fostering computer – mediated L2 interaction beyond the classroom. Language Learning and Technology, volume 16 (Number 1), pp. 10-25. Retrieved from: http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/actionresearch.pdf  

Di Angelantonio, E., Chowdhury, R., Sarwar, N., Aspelund, T., Danesh, J., Gudnason, V. (2010). Chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: prospective population based cohort study. British Medical Journal, 341:c4986. DOI:10.1136/bmj.c4986

Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.