An Analysis of Two Main Sections of Research Articles

An Analysis of Two Main Sections of Research Articles

Giorgio Ciofalo, M. R., and Sánchez, M. F.
Universidad CAECE

Research papers (RP) are structured in a way that facilitate communication and understanding in the academic community. The most widely used format for academic RP is the IMRaD formula (Introduction, Methods, Research and Discussion) (Hengl and Gould, 2002). Each section has a particular goal and its own characteristics, assumed by experts as conventions in the field of academic writing, which make articles understandable and readable.

However, the comparison of two RA from different areas of knowledge has demonstrated that not all papers follow the IMRAD rules. The aim of this paper is to analyze and contrast two of the belonging sections of RPs: the Introduction and Methods sections of a medical and an educational RA in order to reveal if the conventional academic layout of articles is accurately achieved.

  Swales and Feak (1994) have created a model to structure introductions in RP. The C.A.R.S. (Create A Research Space) model states that an introduction contains organizational patterns such as different moves and semantic and syntactic features.Each introduction comprises three different moves (or cycles). In the first move, the researchers create the need to conduct a research after a literature review. Afterwards, in the second move, the motivation to establish a “niche” or a gap is stated, while in the third one, the purpose, main findings  and main findings of the research are outlined.

       Baralt, Pennestri and Selvandin´s (2011) introduction presents two clear paragraphs. In the first paragraph, the researchers state the three moves that an introduction requires.  The first sentences deal with data visualization and the importance of “wordles” or word clouds to appeal different types of learners. The first move is clearly stated when the authors say that “there is relatively little research” (Baralt et al., 2011, p12) on the focused area. Sentences are written in present simple tense showing that there is no allusion to the research activity, but, that knowledge may belong to the grounds of common knowledge. The second move is established in Baralt et al. ´s article when a niche is settled by using a negative connector which states that “No study exists to date that explores their potential in the FL classroom” (p. 12). This second move articulates the cycles one and three in a smooth reading. The third move is presented in two parts, the former in the first paragraph, when researchers establish their purpose and present the project done; and the latter, in a separated paragraph, which includes an outline of the article and the goal of each section. The purpose of the paper is signaled with the phrase “the present paper aims to…”  (Baralt et al., 2011, p 12) followed by the goals of the project previously ran.

The medical article´s introduction differs from the educational one in various aspects. As previously stated, both articles have different aims, the former´s aim is descriptive while the latter, purposive. Gregg et al.’s (2014) paper shows an only-one- paragraph introduction which begins with a general review of the previous research in the field and states the changes in society as the first move. All these sentences are in the past tense indicating what other studies showed twenty years ago.  Then, researchers enumerate many of the new trends in the field so as to generate a niche and the needs for research, achieving a second move without using any signal phrase. Finally, the third move is not determined by any semantic feature as in Baralt et al.’s (2011) article, but it shows that researchers assembled data to examine how the spectrum of diabetes complications has changed (Gregg et al., 2014).

   As regards the Methods section, it can be stated that both papers, the Research Article (RA) from the field of medicine and the RA from the field of education, respect almost none of the characteristics of a well-structured methods section (Swales & Feak, 1994). Centered headings and subheadings typed at the left margin show a correct paper’s organization. In the case of the RA from the field of medicine the word Methods has been precisely centered at the start of the section. However, although the three sub categories of the methods section are correctly typed at the left margin, these subsections have been written using words that are not the usual ones.  

The participants who took part in the research and the materials used are described under the subheading “data sources”:

The National Health Interview survey (NHIS) amples an average of 57,000 adults per year […]. The National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) collects data on discharged patients […]. The U.S Renal Data System (USRDS) […] data on end-stage renal disease drawn from clinical and claims data reports […]. The National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) is a registry of all U.S deaths that includes information about decedents’ age, race, sex, state of residence, and underlying cause of death  (Gregg et al., 2014, p 1515).

Another set of materials are detailed under the subheading “definitions”, e.g. “to identify cases in hospital discharge records, we used the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM)” (Gregg et al., 2014, p. 1515). And, the procedures are described under the subheading “data analysis”, e.g. “for the primary analysis […] we calculated […]. To assess the potential effect of larger increase in detection or diagnostic practices, we conducted […]. To examine trends in the relative risk of complications associated with diabetes, we also estimated […]” (Gregg et al., 2014, p. 1516).

In the case of the educational RA, there is no direct heading to indicate the reader what the methods section is. The article presents a title: “The Present Study” that introduces the readers to the main aspects of the project carried out anticipating the classroom context and project stages.

There is a picture of participants and materials under the sub-heading “Classroom Context”: “an intermediate-level Spanish FL class at a private research university. […] 18 students.” (Beralt et al., 2011, p. 15). There is also a thorough explanation of procedures under the sub-headings “Action Research Stages 1, 2 and 3”. Words such as “first”, “second”, “lastly” or phrases for example “in the second composition”, “in the third composition”, “by the fourth composition”, “at the end of the semester” are used to describe what the researchers did gradually.

  Another drawback in structuring the papers is that, any of them shows a careful choice of verbal tense. Past or present passive voice is not the mostly used one. In the case of the RA from the field of medicine the researchers frequent use of the word “we” gives less importance to the experiment carried out and more emphasis on them as doers of the action. In the case of the educational RA, prominence is also given to the participants and the instructors. As regards terminology, Gregg et al.’s (2014) article supposes that readers have a specific background knowledge of the subject matter to understand the message that is being conveyed.

  A comparative analysis of the “introduction” and “methods” sections of the two research papers reveals that although each article has a different purpose, they have been written under the introduction moves proposed by C.A.R.S model. The educational paper shows all the introduction requirements and discourse markers while the medical article displays them but not attaching to conveyed rules of an appropriate structured RA. However, referring to methods, both papers are difficult to skim. Although both researches are based on sound theory, the methods sections lack academic reliability because they are not accurately structured. So as to conclude, none of the introduction and methods sections in the papers analyzed follow the requirements and the steps of a RA precisely, nevertheless, they are legible and understandable for the academic community.

References

        Baralt, M., Pennestri, S., Selvandin, M. (2011) Using Wordles To Teach Foreign Language Writing. Language Learning & Technology Journal, 15, 2. retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2011/actionresearch.pdf

Gregg, E. D., Li, Y., Wang, J., Burrows, N. R., Ali, M. K., Rolka, D., Williams, D. E., &Geiss, L. (2014) Changes in Diabetes-Related Complications in the United States, 1990-2010. The New England Journal of Medicine.  Retrieved from http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1310799

Hengl, T. & Gould, M., (2002) Rules of thumb for writing research articles. International Institute of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation. Retrieved from http://www.itc.nl/library/papers/hengl_rules.pdf

Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Retrieved from http://sharif.edu/~hatef/files/Academic%20Writing%20for%20Graduate%20Students-Essential%20Tasks%20and%20Skills%20-%20For%20Nonnative%20Eng%20Speakers.pdf