Results, Discussions, and Conclusions Sections: A Comparative Analysis

Research Papers Sections Analysis-Integrative Assignment                   

Godoy, B., Goyeneche, X., & Furlano, P.

Results, Discussions, and Conclusions Sections: A Comparative Analysis

A research article (RA) is the medium through which people make public the results of their research. They can vary in structure across academic disciplines, but in general, most articles contain the following components: a Title, an Abstract, an Introduction, the Study Methodology, the Study's Results backed up with graphs and tables to report the data, Discussion of the Results, Strengths and Limitations, and a References Section that lists all sources consulted for the article (Swales & Feak, 1994). The aim of this paper is to make a comparative analysis of the Results, Discussions and Conclusions sections of two research articles that belong to two completely different areas, namely educational and medicine field.

Extremely noteworthy is the difference as regards the structure choice, since both articles differ in the way they organize the sections of the papers. While Di Angelantonio, Chowdhury, Sarwar, Aspelund, Danesh and Gudnason’s (2010) medical article exposes the three sections found in RAs separately, Barrs’s (2012) educational paper presents results and discussions jointly, leaving the conclusions in a single section. Nevertheless, both authors include all the information that these sections need to have.

Concerning Discussions section, both of them are descriptive in nature. They summarize their findings relating them to prior studies. The medicine article devotes the section to restate the key findings with reference to the original question as well as reminds the reader of the overall study. On the other hand, in the educational article, there is not a separation between Discussions and Results sections. The author reiterates the hypothesis proposed, points out the most important results and interprets the data making use of tables, formatted according to APA (2007) standards, to present the main findings of the study, delving into interpretation of outcomes in the same section.

Regarding the presentation of data, although both research articles use texts with the past simple tense, as well as tables and figures to state results (Swales & Feak , 1994), they differ from in the way they account for results. While Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) seems to have a more direct way, Barrs (2012) divides this sections into two parts and makes use of persuasive arguments as a useful writing technique to discuss the proposed topic.  This disparity seems to be connected with the purpose of each article. Whilst the medicine article focuses on interpreting statistical data, the educational paper centers its attention in analyzing and interpreting results.

According to Swales (1990), the Results section should summarize the data with text, tables, and/or figures. Both Results sections begin first with text and then refer the reader to tables and figures in order to highlight the evidence needed to answer the questions/hypotheses being investigated. The education research paper interprets and compares results, gives examples and explanations of the information stated in graphics. On the contrary the medicine article author uses a more concise and objective style which may be more complex to understand, particularly if you are not familiarized with the field.         

The American Psychological Association (APA) (2007) establishes some basic rules as regards the formatting of tables. The education research article respects certain requirements; all tables are correctly numbered, and each one has an individual title, which is italicized and correctly capitalized. Contrary to this, the medicine article does not comply with certain rules as tittles are neither italicized nor presented with each word capitalized. Whereas Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) uses notes below tables to clarify the information presented, Barrs (2012) omits them; this may be because the information seems easier to (be understood) understand and also because the author explains, interprets and evaluates results in the same section.

Most typically, persuasive- argumentative texts are used in the Conclusion section to convince the readers that the writer’s findings are of utmost importance. In the educational paper the author analyzes a particular situation, gives his point of view, determines the causes of the obtained results and makes recommendations under the light of certain circumstances. In the medicine article, on the other hand, De Angelantonio et al. (2010) shows his conclusions making use of words that signal his readers to understand and follow his way of thinking.

In the Conclusions sections, both RAs answer the questions or hypotheses previously stated. Furthermore they summarize what they have found and also suggest directions for future research. Particularly remarkable is the difference as regards the length of the conclusion sections; while De Angelantonio et al. (2010) devote just a nine-line paragraph to this section in his medical paper; Barrs (2010) organizes his conclusions in five paragraphs.

In the medicine article the authors limit themselves to state objectively and concisely the main findings whereas in the education paper the author not only points out main findings but also analyzes and reflects upon them. Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) use the present simple tense to show certainty about the statements; conversely, Barrs (2012) utilizes tentative language and modal verbs since in the education field it is not appropriate to show sureness about results and outcomes.

Overall both research articles from the two different fields, education and medicine, comply with certain norms required for the design of discussions, results and conclusions sections. The authors describe the situation in a clear and direct way, considering what is relevant to the topic, focusing on the objectives of the research. They provide the necessary explanations, considering the readers’ knowledge and give clear explanations of the literature reviewed as well as the illustrations presented; in this way, they account for the clarity and the reality principles applying for the conventions of proficient academic writing.

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 April 2013 from:http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/actionresearch.pdf

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. British Medical Journal, 341: c4986. 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.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C.B.  (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.