When investigators embark upon writing a research article (RA), they do
so with the ultimate purpose of learning more about a specific subject.
Therefore, they will take special interest in the outcomes of the study at
issue: What information did they gather after having applied the methods
described in the Methods section? Did the research support or refute the
hypothesis presented in the conclusion? What conclusion did the researchers
reach after conducting their study?
These inquiries are answered in the final three sections of RAs:
Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. In this paper, two RAs will be analysed in
order to contrast the aforementioned sections in texts written for the natural
sciences and for the social sciences. For the former, the chosen article will
be Chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and
non-vascular mortality: prospective population based cohort study (Di
Angelantonio, Chowdhury, Sarwar, Aspelund, Danesh & Gudnason, 2010), and
for the latter, Fostering computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the
classroom (Barrs, 2012).
Results
In their RA, Di Angelantonio et. al. (2010) wrote the result first and
included the discussion in the following section. Besides, the authors chose to
subdivide the results section in three subsections, “Baseline associations”,
“Hazard ratios with disease outcomes”, “Chronic kidney disease and coronary
heart disease risk prediction”. This subdivision helps the reader understand
the different aspects dealt with. There is no such division in the Methods
section, yet it can be seen that these variables are mentioned in that portion
of the RA. Furthermore, the data gathered by the researchers are presented by
means of three tables and line charts so as to present a large proportion of
information in little space.
These graphic representations do not comply with certain basic APA rules
since the titles are not italicized, the tables are not on separate pages, nor
are all of its elements double spaced. Notwithstanding, other APA rules have
been respected, namely the use of horizontal lines to separate information and
make it clearer, adequate titles to explain the content of the tables, a
smaller font but readable enough, and the use of general and specific notes.
Finally, the Results section contains a description of the steps taken by the
researchers to interpret the data, written in the first person plural and
following the conventions of the use of the simple past tense,
After
we took inappropriate reclassification into account, however, the overall net
reclassification improvement was 1.04% (−0.93% to 3.02%; P=0.301). When we
calculated the average absolute improvement in prediction of risk without categorisation
into risk groups, the integrated improvement in discrimination was 0.0022
(0.0010 to 0.0033; P<0.001). This denotes an improvement equivalent to about
0.2% in predicted absolute risk for a typical screened person on addition of
information on chronic kidney disease status to other risk factors. (Di
Angelantonio et. al., 2010, para. 11)
Barrs (2012) also subdivided the Results section, but in this case he
made a distinction between “The 1st Period of Action Research” and “The 2nd
Period of Action Research”, and both stages are described thoroughly, in the
past tense. This distinction mirrors the description of the study in the
Methods section, most probably to enable the reader to follow the presentation
of information more easily.
Eight tables organize the data collected throughout the investigation,
which clearly comply with most basic APA rules. Although the tables are not on
separate pages, they are numbered and referenced in the text of the paper,
their titles are italicized and they adequately explain the contents of each
table, all its elements are double spaced, horizontal lines have been used to
separate information and make it clearer and columns present comparable values
down all rows. It should be highlighted, though, that the font is not smaller
than that of the text of the paper.
It is also interesting to note that the last paragraph in this section
anticipates some elements of the discussion, since they have included a
reflection on the scope of their RA,
The
statistical data in terms of number of postings/replies shows that the project
fostered high levels of independent and target language-focused participation,
but it is difficult to report on the effect of the project on classroom
dynamics. Although it was hoped that the project would help to foster positive
group development processes (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003, p. 4), this was not a
specific research question for this investigation. (Barrs, 2012, para. 14)
The Results sections of these RAs are similar in a number of ways. Both presentations
of results are in logical order: Di Angelantonio et. al.'s (2010) article is
arranged into sub-headings that focus the discussion on each of the variables
studied, whereas in Barrs’s, there are paragraphs devoted to different moments
in the action research, with the answers to the researchers' questionnaire
placed between them. Also, both articles present a summary of the data, and
feature text and tables, although figures are only present in Di Angelantonio
et. al.
Additionally, and adhering to the established set of APA conventions,
the past tense is used to describe the steps taken in the collection of
results. Besides, even though one cannot be absolutely certain of the extent of
the data collected for each of these RAs, it can be assumed that the data
presented in these papers are representative of the research being conducted,
and that the investigators have omitted irrelevant information.
Discussions
Di
Angelantonio et. al. (2010) outline and summarise the findings
of the study in the Discussion portion of their RA. They enumerate the main
findings one by one and include an interpretation of the results in light of
these discoveries. The authors also include a subsection called Strengths and
limitations, where a comparative analysis of the strong and weak points of this
research can be found. Finally, they have decided to include the conclusion as
yet another part of the discussion and not as an independent section.
In Barrs’s (2012) RA, some elements of the Discussion can be identified
in the final section of the Results. Moreover, the segment that discusses and
interprets the results is called Limitations, rather than Discussion. This may
be so because in this part, the author presents the main reasons why it would
be difficult to apply the results of this action research to other situations.
Had he included a more conventional title, the reader might not be predisposed
enough to read about the negative aspects of the study.
The main difference that can be seen in the treatment of the Discussion
sections in these two RAs is that Barrs (2012) has included the conclusion
within the discussions, yet Di Angelantonio et. al. (2010) have decided that it
should be separate from this section. Not only that, Di Angelantonio et. al
have used the conventional title for this part, whereas Barrs has chosen
another one that reflects his attitude towards the research he has conducted:
by naming it Limitations, he has directed the reader's attention to the
restrictions on the possible application and scope of their study. In both
papers, however, the simple present and present perfect tenses have been used
to develop the authors' interpretation of the results and their relevance in
connection with the hypothesis.
Conclusions
As stated before in the analysis of the Discussion section, Di
Angelantonio et. al. (2010) have included the conclusion as a component of this
part of the paper. As a result, it can be seen that it is rather short in
comparison with the rest of the sections. Consequently, one may infer that the
authors intended to give more importance to other parts of the article and let
the results and their discussion speak for themselves, thus finding no need for
a lengthy conclusion. Di Angelantonio et. al. also mention an alternative for the
continuation of research in this area: “Further studies are needed to
investigate associations between chronic kidney disease and non-vascular
mortality from causes other than cancer” (para. 16).
Barrs (2012) has chosen to name this section Conclusion and Reflections.
It is a five-paragraph summary of the interpretation of the data. If he had not
decided to recapitulate the methods used to obtain his evidence in this
section, it may have been less repetitive and more pertinent. Providing a
conclusion for the article, the author states that “the project can be seen as
beneficial both to the students in terms of their language learning, and to the
institution and teachers in terms of being able to increase the ways in which
students can be engaged in L2-focused practice” (Barrs, 2012,
para. 43). In the final paragraph, the author refers to the possibility of
further research, thus using the correct space in his paper to indicate future
steps in the investigation of computer-mediated interaction in educational
settings.
Barrs's (2010) conclusion is brief and concise, while Di Angelantonio
et. al. (2012) have devoted an independent and longer paragraph to this
section. Nonetheless, both conclusions appear to have the same aim, which is to
provide closure for the article and make references to the direction further
research might take, should anyone wish to continue exploring the topic under
discussion in their respective RAs.
Conclusion
This scrutiny of RAs in the natural sciences and the social sciences has
shown that, despite being different in several ways, both papers share many
features, which are relevant to the readers and researchers who consult them.
Not only do the authors present and interpret the results of their
investigation, but they also describe, sometimes critically, the scope of their
research and provide suggestions for those who wish to continue investigating
in their area.
The comprehensive analysis performed has attracted our attention to the
importance of using appropriate academic conventions in this sort of papers.
Having made a thorough comparison of Barrs (2010) and Di Angelantonio et. al
(2012), it is our contention that a clear organization and a suitable
presentation of the information gathered are among the most significant factors
in the writing of RAs, which cannot be neglected if researchers of any
discipline aim at making a relevant contribution to the growth of a discourse
community.
References
Barrs,
K. (2012) Fostering computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the classroom. Language learning &
technology 16 (1), 10-25. Retrieved April 2013 from:
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/actionresearch.pdf
Di Angelantonio, E. et. al. (2010)
Chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and
non-vascular mortality: prospective population based cohort
study. BMJ 2010 341 doi:10.1136/bmj.c4986. Retrieved in
April 2013 from: http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4986.pdf%2Bhtml
Purdue Online Writing Lab. APA
tables and figures. Retrieved in April 2013 from
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/20/
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario