In the research arena information is supposed to follow an organization aligned to the conventions of the scientific protocol. Research in the field of education, if compared to other sciences, is a relatively recent activity. As I have previously discussed, it has flourished since the last decade with the launch of university courses for teachers. There was no research history in the field of education in our country due to the absence of scientific treatment of the profession. Medical Science, on the contrary, has a solid history of research writing and may be considered the most loyal adherent to scientific protocols due to its long history of evolution from the experimental reports. As is often the case, medicine research papers serve for models of research writing in other fields. “As is well known, certain groups in the social or behavior sciences have tried, with varying degrees of success, to adopt and adapt the hard science paradigm” (Swales, 1990, p.175).
Nwogu (1997) notes that “as with most experimental research reports, the medical research paper is a highly technical form with a standard format for the presentation of information. This format is the division of the paper into "Introduction [(I)], Methods [(M)], Results [(R)] and Discussion[(D)]" - the traditional IMRD sections of the research paper” (p.119). However, Swales (1990) believes that the RD patterns are in an exploratory phase. On the arrangement of section labels he comments that “ [e]ven if a majority of RAs have closing Results and Discussion sections, others coalesce the two, while even others have additional or substituted sections labeled Conclusions, Implications or Applications and so on” (Swales,1990, p.170).
Regarding Discussions sections Belanger (1982, cited in Swales, 1990) proposes certain cycling movements within the subsection that confirm Peng´s (1987 , cited in Swales, 1990) and Hopkins & Dudley- Evans´ (1988, cited in Swales, 1990) 11- Move schemes. Swales (1990), however, glosses the scheme in eight moves: (1) Background information, (2) Statement of results, (3) (Un)expected outcome, (4) Reference to previous research, (5) Explanation, (6) Exemplification, (7) Deduction and Hypothesis , (8) Recommendation (pp. 172-173). This paper aims at analyzing the Results, Discussions and Conclusions sections on a corpus of two Research Articles (RA), one in the medicine field ( Gardiner, Owen, Sugiyama & Vandelanotte , 2009) and the other in the field of education (Loucky , 2007) in order to illustrate the similarities and differences of RAs in both fields.
An analysis of the layout of both papers shows that they are divided into subsections following the IMRD model with some variations. The article by Gardiner, Owen, Sugiyama & Vandelanotte ( 2009) has a R section subdivided into four subsections and a D section which includes some recommendations and a conclusion. On the other hand, the RA on education (Loucky, 2007) has two additional subsections – (1)Results, (2)Discussion & Pedagogical Implications, (3) Conclusions and (4)Research Recommendations. In the education RA the Recommendations section appear after the Conclusion, but, in the medical paper, the recommendations form part of one of the moves in the ‘Discussions’ section.
For Pintos & Crimi (2010) “[d]epending on the kind of research, the results section may be isolated from the discussed section or it may be integrated together. Thus, RA writers may opt to write first the results, (…) or describe the results and discuss them in the same section. You may find different structures with many different purposes.” (p.18). Nwogu (1997) also points out the notion of structure, but he relates it more to the internal organization within each subsection. He observes that “[m]ost research article writers are familiar with the IMRD format, but not all are conscious of the fact that there exists an internal ordering of the information presented in the various sections of the research article” (p.119). It may be stated that Nwogu´s notion of internal structure should be taken into consideration in order to produce clear, coherent and logically organized research reports.
For the Results section writers not only appeal to description of outcomes but they also make use of visual devices that can compact a wide range of information within a limited space. According to Crimi & Pintos (2010) tables and figures are used in papers “(…) to describe the results of statistical analysis or pertinent quantitative data” (p.22) In both papers these devices are introduced in the R sections.
In the article on education (Loucky, 2007) there is one one table which does not totally fulfill the American Psychological Association (APA) conventions. The APA (2007, cited in Crimi & Pintos, 2010, p.23) “ (…) establishes certain basic rules, [some of them are] :(1) all tables should be numbered, (2) each table should have an individual title, (3) all elements of the table should be double spaced, (4) all tables should be referenced at the end of the paper, (4) no vertical lines can be used to separate information and (5) each table should begin on a separate page”. Although the table mentioned above is numbered, the elements on the table are not double spaced or referenced at the end of the paper. The table does not begin on a separate page. Although there are no vertical lines separating information, and this is in keeping with APA conventions, the absence of lines may make the table rather confusing.
In the medical RA there are two tables and one figure. The size of them all is very small, making them unreadable in the present screen format. Below each tables and figure there´s a hyperlink between square brackets – [view the table] - that allows the reader to view the table/figure after clicking on it. A tentative explanation could be that the article might not be originally intended for paper format, as is often the case with articles having hyperlinks. The figure is a 3D column bar with general notes on its right that explains the symbols, abbreviations and references, but, there is no word Note preceding the information.
Regarding internal unity in the Discussions section, the medical article (Gardiner, Owen, Sugiyama & Vandelanotte, 2009) validates the 11-Move model (Peng, 1987, cited in Swales 1990 ) (Hopkins and Dudley- Evans, 1988, cited in Swales, 1990) or 8-Move model (Swales, 1990) (Nwogu, 1987). The section contains eight paragraphs. The first two paragraphs redescribe the main findings. Paragraph 3 reveals the unexpected outcome. Paragraphs 4 and 5 make refer to fig. 1 deals with previous research and provide explanation. Paragraph 6 deals with some recommendations. Paragraph 7 handles the limitations of the study and the last paragraph discusses the conclusion.
The article on education (Loucky, 1987) does not seem to follow Swales´ (1990) or Nwogu´s (1987) model for the Discussions section. It is labeled “Discussion and Pedagogical implications” and it only contains one short paragraph. The conclusion and recommendations are isolated in different subsection headings. These subsections appear to be larger than the conclusion and far more content-comprehensive. As Pintos and Crimi (2010) have stated “The first part of a discussion section serves the function of restating the key findings with reference to the initial question(s) or hypothesis, as well as reminding the reader of the overall aim of the study” (p.20). None of these features can be traced in the section being analyzed. The information provided is vague and all the features proposed by Crimi & Pintos (2010) take place in the Conclusions and Research Recommendations sections.
By and large, it may be assumed that the corpus of the present analysis bears some similarities and differences. Both of them are divided into subsections, although with minor differences in the subdivisions. Both of them contain figures and/or tables in the Results section to display statistical outcomes. However, they differ in the content organization and internal unity. The article by Loucky (1987) does not follow the highly technical standard format for the presentation of information that the medical RA does. As it has been previously pointed out in the introduction, medicine research papers still seem to serve for models of research writing in other fields, but, as Swales (1990) wisely commented “[f]inally, there is an element of irony in a situation wherein social scientists are engaged in a cognitive and rhetorical of method at a time when their mentors in the hard sciences are beginning, rhetorically at least, to downgrade its importance” (p.176).
References
Gardiner, P., Owen, N., Sugiyama, T., & Vandelanotte, C. (2009). Associations of Leisure-Time Internet and Computer Use with Overweight and Obesity, Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviors: Cross-Sectional Study. J Med Internet Res, 2009. 11(3): e 28. http://www.jmir.org/2009/3e28/. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1084
Loucky, J. (2007). Improving Online Reading and Vocabulary Development. KASELE Bulletin, 35, 181-188. Retrieved April, 2010 from www.caececampusuniversidad.com.ar
Nwogu, K. (1997). The Medical Research Paper: Structure and Functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138. Retrieved June, 2010 from www.sciencedirect.com
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). LENGUA INGLESA ESPECIALIZADA II. Unit 3. The Research Article: Results, Discussions, and Conclusions. UNIVERSIDAD CAECE.
Swales, J. (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Pre
No comments:
Post a Comment