A scrutiny on Research Papers in the fields of medicine and education

Research is a key component of any science, and one which is particularly important as regards the improvement of methods, the identification of knowledge gaps and the facilitation of further developments. Notwithstanding, the methods and conduction of research are different in the social and natural sciences. This can be clearly seen in the Research Papers (RP) that present findings and conclusions to the community.

A clear instance of this diversity can be found when examining and comparing this kind of text within the fields of medicine and education. In this paper, a detailed analysis and succeeding comparison of two articles, one from each discipline, will be carried out, paying special attention to their introductions, literature reviews, and methods sections.

In order to explore these differences, the following articles will be analysed: How Teacher Turnover Harms Student Achievement (Loeb, Ronfeldt & Wyckoff, 2012), an educational RP, and An Internet-Based Virtual Coach to Promote Physical Activity Adherence in Overweight Adults: Randomized Controlled Trial (Watson, Bickmore, Cange, Kulshreshtha & Kvedar, 2012), which belongs to the area of medicine.

Introductions

Watson et. al. (2012) present a description of the current situation in the US as regards obesity, “With 65% of US adults being overweight, and a third meeting the criteria for obesity, health professionals have been spurred to develop innovative strategies to address this epidemic” (para. 1). This use of figures and statistics is characteristic of scientific RPs and it is a reflection of the quantitative research often involved in these disciplines.

In this section, the authors also include the objective of their study, claiming that they “sought to understand the effectiveness of virtual coaching compared with the use of a pedometer and website alone in improving activity levels in overweight or obese participants” (Watson et. al., 2012, para. 6). This segment of the article also includes the hypothesis that guided their research.

In the research article by Loeb et. al. (2012), it can be noted that the introduction begins by highlighting a problem in education and the setting in which it has been known to occur, “teacher turnover rates can be high, particularly in schools serving low-income, non-White, and low-achieving student populations. Nationally, about 30% of new teachers leave the profession within 5 years (...)” (para. 1).

The authors also specify that “three research questions guide the investigation” (Loeb et. al., 2012, para. 16) and explain that “The article proceeds as follows. We first describe the data and methodological approach. We then present the results and conclude with a discussion of the implications of the findings” (Loeb et. al., 2012, para. 18).

Both introductions are quite similar, since they include a description of the current situation in which the researchers have observed a certain phenomenon that motivated the study, a description of the context, and the aim of the research they set out to discuss. In spite of belonging to different disciplines, both authors make use of figures and percentages to characterise the situation and present the problem to the reader.

The aforementioned description proves that both introductions have been structured in a general-specific manner, in which a research space was created, a niche was established and, finally, that niche was occupied. By specifying the motivations for the study, the authors expound on what their research is about. They also state the structure of the paper and the nature of the present research.

Literature reviews

In Watson et. al. (2012), most of the literature review can be found in the introduction, where the authors have paraphrased the findings of other scientists in several studies that are relevant to the topic. This has been done to provide a theoretical background to the study and to show the readers the need for this investigation in particular; thus indicating the gap found in the Literature Review, raising questions about that gap and expanding previous knowledge. Although there are no instances of direct quotations, each paraphrase has been connected with a source in the reference list. This section seems to be more of an introduction to the topic than a full literature review.

On the other hand, a lengthy and comprehensive literature review can be found in the introduction of Loeb et. at. (2012), containing paraphrases of other authors with their corresponding citations. This review contains two subsections: “Compositional” Explanations and “Disruptive” Explanations, which expound on two tendencies in which teacher turnover affects students’ performances.

In both RPs, the literary review shares several features: both are included as part of the introduction and include quantitative data, which is used to support the need for the study. Furthermore, in both articles this segment includes paraphrasing and citation of the sources. Nonetheless, in the latter it can be noted that the literature review appears to be not only much longer but also more developed than in the former, through the use of subheadings that organize the information obtained from other studies.

Methods

The methods section of the medicine research paper under analysis is further subdivided in seven headings: Eligibility Criteria, Setting, Interventions, Primary and Secondary Outcomes, Study Size, Randomization, and Statistical Analysis. In the first part of this section, there is a detailed account of the participants’ characteristics,

Participants were between 20 and 55 years old (inclusive); had a body mass index (BMI) between 25 and 35 kg/m2(inclusive); were fluent in spoken and written English; had a primary care physician; had access to a personal computer with an available USB port, speakers, and Internet access; and either answered no to all 7 questions on the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q) or obtained written permission from their primary care physician to take part in the study. (Watson, et. al. 2012. para. 7)

Furthermore, the authors provide detailed information about the setting in time and place. They describe the activities in which the subjects participated throughout the study, as well as the technology used to measure the results.

The article by Loeb et. al. (2012) is organized according to the three research questions mentioned at the end of the introduction. Each of these is developed in a subsection, and the authors have included an elaborate description of their approach for each of the issues thereby raised. Especially noteworthy is the comprehensive way in which the authors have discussed the methods and strategies they have applied to measure each of the aspects of teacher turnover, including two formulas that reflect the different variables that the researchers will measure,

To better understand the nature of observed effects, we examine whether the relationship between teacher turnover and student achievement varies in different kinds of schools. As described in the Introduction, many have suggested turnover to be a particularly pernicious problem in schools with historically underserved student populations, (…). To test this, we run models separately in low- versus high-performing schools and in low versus high percentage Black schools. (para. 32)

The present analysis shows that the methods section in both cases is well-developed, with exhaustive descriptions that give the readers a complete picture of the way in which each research was conducted. There is relevant information about the participants and the setting as well, which provides a much-needed context where to interpret the data obtained in light of the questions posed by each of the investigators.

Notwithstanding, the layout of the article by Watson et. al. (2012) better approaches the agreed conventions of RPs as regards the sections included in this segment of the paper, namely a) participants, b) materials and c) procedure. Even though, there are more subheadings, the expected ones have been included. One more thing to highlight is the fact that instead of using the word subjects, the word participant has been chosen.

In relation with the paper by Loeb et. al. (2012), the way the Methods section has been organized differs completely from the agreed conventions mentioned above. It must be admitted, though, that the organization of the sections under discussion clearly explains the way the research was carried out. In this case, neither participant nor subject has been used. Instead, the word teacher has been chosen to refer to the participants in the study.

Conclusion

The two papers examined in this work show that, even though the main aim and the structure is to contribute to their corresponding field of studies and at first sight they may look quite similar, there are a number of basic differences between the texts written for the social and for the natural sciences. Within the educational RP, the information provided and its analysis is of a predominantly qualitative nature and, as a result, this RP is quite descriptive. In contrast, the text in the field of medicine shows that the authors relied heavily on figures and objective information, thus rendering the results of the investigation more quantitative and analytical.

Even though the paper by Loeb et. al. (2012) shows the general features of a research paper, such as title, abstract, introduction, literature review (as part of the introduction), methods, results, discussions, references and appendixes; no subheadings in the methods section have been used, neither recommendations as a part of the paper has been included. The driving questions included in the methods section used to organize the text may respond to the fact that the authors tried to be as pedagogical as possible, while at the same time, respecting the conventions of RPs.

On the other hand, the article by Watson et. al. (2012) proves to be a perfect example of a research paper, with all the expected sections included. It should be noted that the recommendations are stated within the conclusion, as it reads, “Further work should examine the long-term benefits of virtual coaching and the extension of this application to a wider patient population” (para. 42), and that acknowledgements are placed at the end of the paper.

Of great concern is it for academic writers to be aware of the requirements of a research paper and of the different features it must have according to the discipline in which the researcher works. This is of utmost importance if they wish to make a significant addition to their discourse community. As it has been shown in this paper, the authors of the two articles analysed have proved to comply with the aforementioned requirements and make a meaningful contribution to their discourse community.

References

Loeb, S., Ronfeldt, M. & Wyckoff, J. (2012): How Teacher Turnover Harms Student Achievement. American Education Research Journal 50 (1), 4-36. doi: 10.3102/0002831212463813. Retrieved in April 2013 from: http://aer.sagepub.com/content/50/1/4.full

Watson, A., Bickmore, T., Cange, A., Kulshreshtha, A., Kvedar, J. (2012) An Internet-Based Virtual Coach to Promote Physical Activity Adherence in Overweight Adults: Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research vol. 14. Retrieved in April 2013 from http://www.jmir.org/2012/1/e1/