Research Articles: Results, Discussion and Conclusion Sections analyzed

Research Articles: Results, Discussion and Conclusion Sections analyzed

Burgos Madia 

Garcete Marisol
UCAECE

  Writing Research Articles (RAs) is no easy task; not only do writers have to clearly display the results of their investigations but also they have to position themselves in their competitive fields of study “ showing that [they] are relevant and significant and have some new contribution to make” (Swales, 1994, p.156) . Fortunately, writers such as Swales and Feak (1994), among others, have extensively analyzed this genre developing reliable and clear guidelines as to how to construct them. However, few studies have attempted to compare and contrast sections of RAs in different areas of knowledge to reveal similarities and differences. It is the purpose of the present paper to analyze the Results, Discussion and Conclusion sections of two RAs: one in the field of Education by Hermes and King (2013) and the other in the field of Medicine by Gregg et al. (2014).
     The article by Hermes and King (2013) has been written as a problem-solution (PS) text devoting four pages to describe in detail – organized in subtitles – the situation, the problem and a possible solution. After the Methods section, the word Findings is used as a subtitle instead of the word Results. It is typed in bold capital letters on the left margin. Wallwork (2011) states that “the standard procedure is to present [the results] with little or no interpretation or discussion. This means that the Results is generally the shortest section in a paper” (p. 233). However, not only does this section take up seven pages but it also contains a few interpretations of key findings. For example, “our analysis (. . .) points to how the software has the potential to promote face-to-face, interpersonal interactions within the family” (p.131). Other interpretations have been weakened by the verb appear:“while the software fit into already established dynamics; it did not (. . .) appear to directly impact language use patterns with their children” (p.136).
     Regarding tables and figures, this section does not make use of them; the only element that has been included is the transcripts of parts of video-taped interviews. The transcriptions have been organized into subtitles with the word Excerpt in bold with corresponding numbers followed by the week number in which the videos have been recorded. Readers are referred to excerpts by phrases such as “This is apparent in Excerpt 1”, “This is illustrated in Excerpt 2 below”, “As Excerpt 4 suggests”, etc. Past simple tense has been used throughout this section to report about past events.
     The Discussion Section has been written separately; the word Discussion is typed in bold and capital letters on the left margin. At the beginning the authors summarize briefly their findings and refer back to the question that originated the study: “Is there potential for this technological tool to help learners make the leap from learning language as an isolated, academic task to actually using the language for everyday communication?” (p. 138). Hermes and King (2013) analyze what the finding imply and state the reasons for this outcome.
     Expression of distance and probability such as copular verbs, adverbs and the modal verb might can be found when interpreting the findings: “While this might well be indicative of Eileen’s interpretation of the researchers’ expectations surrounding the task, it also is suggestive of her conceptions of the ways in which Ojibwe can and should be used”; “she herself and her boys, reportedly started to use more Ojibwe with the grandparents”; “the technology did seem to create a bridge, that is, a means for Eileen to learn reportedly enough language to respond to her parents occasionally in Ojibwe”; “Eileen’s case suggested ways in which Ojibwemodaa might jumpstart authentic language use, and might help shift language learning from a chore to something she considers part of her personal time”(pp.138-139).
     In the Conclusions section Hermes and King (2013) seem to meet the criteria suggested by Wallwok (2011) in the sense that they briefly revisited the most important findings pointing out how these create knowledge: “Findings here suggest that these tools have the potential to jumpstart offline language use or even provide an occasion for latent speakers to rally around”; highlighted the importance and significance of those findings: “We should note that in some ways the research study itself provided a measure of structure and support for learning at home”; acknowledged the limitations of the study: “However, more work needs to be done to understand specifically what kinds of tools or activities could motivate youth to embrace learning their heritage language”; provided suggestions for improvements: “These findings suggest ways in which the software might be redesigned to help support such a shift”; and made recommendations for policy changes: “This case study also suggests it might be useful for language revitalization efforts to invest in validation and development of informal learning networks”, “the present research suggests that informal learning networks and the language learning technology needed to get them started, merit greater attention and investment” (p.141).
     In the article by Gregg et al. (2014) the Results section is presented in isolation and its headline is typed in capital letters and centered. This section is subdivided into two subtitles signaled in bold capital letters on the left margin: ‘Rates of Diabetes’ and ‘Rates of Diabetes-related Complications’ which clearly present the main findings of the research. Simple past tense is used throughout the section to refer to the outcomes produced.
The analysis of data is displayed within the text, discussing only the highlights. Readers are referred to tables and figures for more detailed information: “(Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix shows the distribution of diagnosed diabetes in the civilian population according to age, sex, and race)”, “(Tables S4, S5, and S6 in the SupplementaryAppendix)”, “(Table 1 and Fig. 1A)” (pp. 1516-1519).
     Considering the rules established by the American Psychological Association (2007), the tables and figures presented in the article comply with most of the characteristics. It is important to mention that there are three tables numbered consecutively with individual titles with each word capitalized, though not italicized, which adequately explain the content of the table. Only two tables begin on a separate page. All the data is presented and separated in horizontal lines where every column and row has a heading. However, not all the elements of the table are doubled spaced probably because of specific journal printing requirements.
     As regards the figures used in this RA, there are two line graphs presented in one column. They include a caption underneath the figure with the word Figure and its corresponding number. However, the figure and figure number are not in italics or doubled-spaced.
     The Discussion section in the article has been written under the heading Discussion in capital letters and centered. The descriptive nature of the section is clearly seen as the author explained the findings and analyzed several trends on diabetes-related complications between 1990 and 2010 in the U.S. population of adults with diabetes. Moreover, the section also explains the causes and effects of many other variables found while researching.
     Findings in the section are presented using the present perfect tense, some modal verbs and several expressions of distance and probability. For instance, “These findings probably reflect a combination of advances in acute clinical care”; “These changes (. . .) were likely to have influenced rates of myocardial infarction, stroke, end-stage renal disease, and amputation.”; “The screening for early complications may have contributed reductions in rates of end-stage renal disease” (p.1521).
     At this point, it might be relevant to mention that there is no visible distinction between the Discussion and Conclusions sections in the article as they seem to be blended at the end. However, there is a short and clear-cut conclusion, under that heading typed in red and capital letters, at the very beginning of the article in the Abstract section. Further concluding details are added almost at the end of the RA and a final idea concludes the article: “the total burden, or absolute number of cases of complications, will probably continue to increase in the coming decades” (p. 1522).
     All in all, even though the RAs analyzed partially follow the established conventions for the Discussion, Result and Conclusion sections, the information they convey is equally valuable and relevant. It can be stated that scholars in different areas of knowledge will adapt the requirements to their research needs. For instance, the article in the Medicine field have recourse to tables and figures due to the extensive numerical data, whereas the article in the Education field dealt with more qualitative data which did not demand the used of these strategies. Being aware of different text-types and being able to recognize the structure and main elements in RAs, help us to construct our own Research Papers to gradually take a more active part in the discourse community we belong to.

References

     American Psychological Association. (2011). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th Ed). Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
     Gegg, E. W., Li, Y., Wang, J., Rios Burrows, N., Ali, M. K., Rolka, D., ... Geiss, L. (2014). Changes in diabetes-related complications in the United States, 1990-2010 [Electronic version]. The New England Journal of Medicine.370 (16), 1514-1523.
    doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1310799
     Hermes M. & King K. A. (2013). Ojibwe language revitalization, multimedia technology, and family language learning [Electronic version]. Language Learning & Technology, 17, (1), 125–144.
     doi: 10.1.1.295.2845
     Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in Academic and Research settings. New York: Cambridge Univerity Press.
     Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
     Wallwork, A. (2011). English for writing Research Papers. Italy: Springer.
     doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7922-3