Contrastive Analysis Paper II

Towards a Comparative Analysis of Results, Discussions and Conclusions of Research Articles

Research Papers (RPs) in general are composed of several parts: Title, Abstract, Acknowledgements, Introduction, Literature Review, Methods, Results, Discussions, Recommendations, Conclusions, References, and Appendices. The aim of this paper is to provide a detailed analysis and a comparison of the Results, Discussions and Conclusions of both an educational and a medical research articles.

Barrs’s (2012) educational article reports on how technology can be used to deal with the problem of the lack of opportunities outside the classroom students who are learning English as a foreign language seem to face. Di Angelantonio, Chowdhury, Sarwar, Aspelund, Danesh & Gudnason’s (2010) medical paper attempts to quantify associations of chronic kidney diseases with cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality. One of the clearest differences between the two articles analyzed relies on the nature of these papers; while Barrs presents an experimental report, an action research paper which shows results and changes along the research, Di Angelantonio et al. present a comparative treatment procedure within a patient population with elements of the quantitative research.

Action research in education is grounded in the working lives of teachers, as they experience them. Carr and Kemmis (1986) describe action research as being about the improvement of practice; the improvement of the understanding of practice and the improvement of the situation in which the practice takes place. Especially noteworthy is how action research develops along the educational article. It concerns actors and its purpose is to understand and to improve their actions. This is overtly stated in the results, discussions and conclusions sections of the educational paper.

In the educational article, the results section is divided into a) planning the action research, b) taking action, c) analyzing and reflecting on the data, d) hypothesising and speculating based on the initial investigation, e) intervening, f)observing and g) reporting, writing and presenting (reflection).This research article does not seem to present the main findings but also it attempts at interpreting their meanings and outcomes at the same time, leading to the conclusion that the Results and Discussion sections may be blended together as the action research progresses.

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. (Barrs, 2012, p.21)

From the above example, it can be stated that there is a predominance of the present tenses for discussions together with some opinions slants such as “it is difficult to report” (Barrs, 2012, p.21). However, the past tenses are preferred to describe the results, depicting the outcomes that are related to the hypotheses presented in the introduction of the paper.

As can be seen in Table 4, the preliminary investigation revealed that the two distinct issues of (a) a lack of time, and (b) a lack of interest in the discussion topic, contributed to the low amount of interaction on the site.” (Barrs, 2012, p.17)

Rather more significant is the use of tables. According to Swales (1998), the primary objective of the discussions section is to provide the researchers reasons for the data patterns and to keep it as simple as possible; therefore, the use of tables seem to guide this educational discussion and analysis by supporting the text with tables used for presenting specific data and making comparisons between data points. The results section, according to Swales, should summarize the data. Texts are expected to follow the same logical order it was used in the “Methods” section, and then they should refer the reader to a table or figure where the data are presented graphically. The American Psychological Association (2007) provides certain patterns to follow when formatting tables. While the educational research article respects most of these requirements; the medical article does not comply with certain rules. Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) uses notes below tables to clarify the information presented, but Barrs (2012) does not; this omission can be connected to the fact that latter explains, interprets and evaluates results within the same section, making it almost redundant to explain the information provided by the tables with notes.

Meanwhile, the results section in the medical research article can be found separated from the discussions section. Although both sections are descriptive in nature, the results section presents the main findings of the research but it does not interpret their meaning. The researchers seem to restrict themselves to summarize and present the data collected with text, tables and figures. In this research article, the discussion section, serves the function of restating the key findings with reference to the initial questions or hypotheses, as well as reminding the reader of the overall aim of the study.

Regression spline analyses yielded broadly similar findings (web fig A). In analyses comparing people with and without chronic kidney disease, the hazard ratio for coronary heart disease was 1.53 (95% confidence interval 1.36 to 1.71) after adjustment for age and sex only; it was 1.45 (1.29 to 1.62) after further adjustment for smoking status, history of diabetes, systolicblood pressure, body mass index, total cholesterol, and triglycerides (“further adjustment”). (Di Angelantonio et al., 2010, p.3)

           

The last part to be dealt with in this comparative paper is the conclusions section. In the medical article there is a high degree of nominalization and the researchers refer to themselves in the first person plural whereas in the educational one there is more narration and impersonal reference. However, both research articles use the conclusion to tie the paper together. The conclusions refer back to their questions and possible solutions. The text structure of this paragraph is both cause-effect and persuasive-argumentative as the whole research is summarized and the results are highlighted together with the importance of carrying out the research described. However, space is also given for the limitations seen during the investigations and for further analysis as some issues do not seem to have been fully described in research papers or because other questions may have appeared when analyzing the data, this is introduced by some headers such as “further studies are needed to investigate” (Di Angelantonio et al., 2010, p. 6) or “although not investigated here” (Barrs, 2012, p. 22).

           

Even though there are some differences in the structure and format of the research articles analyzed and in the way the sections are developed, the important aspect to highlight is that Results, Discussions and Conclusions sections show the researchers’ intention to present, collect and analyse the data under the problem-solution pattern to finally, summarize, show a problem, evaluate the solution, present sound arguments and convince the readers that their conclusions and recommendations are of utmost importance.

References

American Psychological Association (2007).  Concise rules of APA style. Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

Barrs, K. (2012). Fostering Computer-Mediated L2 Interaction beyond the Classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1): 10-25. Retrieved in April from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/actionresearch.pdf

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: education, knowledge and action research. Lewes, Falmer.

Di Angelantonio, E., Chowdhury, R., Sarwar,N., Aspelund, T., Danesh, J. & Gudnason, V. (2010). Chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular

disease and non-vascular mortality: prospective population based cohort study. BMJ, 1-7. doi:10.1136/bmj.c4986

Swales,J.M. (1990). Genre Analysis. English in academic and research settings. (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.