Research Articles: Results, Discussion and
Conclusion Sections analyzed
Garcete Marisol
Burgos Madia
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
