A Comparative Analysis of Two Research Articles: Their Results, Discussion and Conclusion Sections

     Applying academic conventions is very important when writing Research Articles (RAs). Indeed, they should be respected in order to fulfill the requirements of the scientific community worldwide. This means using a certain structure and style, which is by international agreement known as "Introduction Methods Results and Discussion or IMRaD” (Hengl & Gould, 2002). Many authors have pondered into the task of writing books to help researchers write their RAs that respect these academic conventions. Nevertheless, there is very little research on how those conventions are presented on RAs from different areas of knowledge. Thus, the aim of this paper is to compare the results, discussion and conclusion sections of two RAs from two diverse fields of study: education and medicine. The comparisons will focus on how these sections have been structured in each article and whether the academic conventions are respected or not.

      In both articles, the one from the field of medicine (Bonner et al., 2014)  and the one from the field of education (Zhao, 2003), the Results section and the Discussion and Conclusion section have been presented under two major headings.

     First of all, the Results section in both RAs start with general statements and then, throughout the text, data is supported. They may be descriptive and they seem to thoroughly compare results and give explanation for the differences mentioned. Also, the authors may critique assumptions and clearly present the main findings. The Results section in the medicine article has been divided in subheadings like Reliability, Risk Formats and Process of Using Risk Calculators while the Results section in the education article has been divided into seven subsections so as to, in turn, help the reader  better understand these researches’ findings.

      Both RAs summarize the data in the text with two tables each of them. According to Swales and Feak (1994), the tables might be representative of the data being described as comparison is made between different groups of people without necessarily repeating what is said in the text, like in the RA in the field of education which has two tables that illustrate the data, on the one hand, the Overall Effect of Technology Applications in Language Learning and, on the other hand, a Summary of Technology and Content of Studies. The articles succeed in calling attention to the main points and achieving the communication principle of simplicity. Anyway, no bar charts or line charts were used.

          As for the Discussions and Conclusions sections, they come immediately below the Results sections, conducted as proper interpretations of outcomes. While in the article related to the field of medicine, the Discussions section has been divided into three clear cut pieces of information with a single-paragraphed conclusion, in the paper of the field of education the Discussions and Conclusion sections have been written together and deeply developed.

          In the medicine article two headings organize the ideas presented within this section: Findings and Implications and Strengths and Limitations. Within the former subsection, key findings make reference to the initial concern specified in the niche within the introduction: “However, research has established that percentages are poorly understood by both clinicians and patients” (Bonner et al., 2014, para. 2).  The relationship between what the authors found and what was stated in the niche is properly introduced by the expression This supports. It is worthwhile noting that the Discussion section’s primary objective might have been fulfilled; thus, reasons seem to be given about the outcomes. Then, the new findings are carefully compared with those in past literature. Moreover, the authors repeatedly mention, in several instances, that this research is consistent with findings in previous studies (Bonner et al., 2014). Regarding grammar tenses, will is used to express possibility, for example in the sentence when the authors argue that “The ultimate goal of risk calculator websites will vary depending on the motivation and target audience (…)” (Bonner et al., 2014, para. 33) whereas should is used for recommendations, for example, when they state that “Future research should include measurement of benefits (…)” (Bonner et al., 2014, para. 35). The second heading highlights the novelty of the topic and lists a number of research limits. Lastly, the short Conclusion section, as stated before, it is one subdivision of the Discussion and it is very concise as it does not extend more than one paragraph. It is successfully connected to the rest of the paper and refers back to the points mentioned in the introduction. It summarizes the research problem and describes what should be done in the future: “Future research should investigate both the benefits and harms of communicating risk” (Bonner et al., 2014, para. 38) and it seems to achieve the aim of convincing the readers that conclusions are of utmost importance. It does not use a signaling phrase such as In conclusion which would be inappropriate for academic writing (Swales and Feak, 1994).

          Similarly, the unified section labeled as “Discussion and Conclusions” in the article about the field of education, starts by reasserting and reminding the reader the three main goals which conducted the survey “This review study was conducted to achieve three goals” (Zhao, 2003, p. 20). Furthermore, the principal findings are recapitulated as well as their implications: “In this final section, the main findings of the study are summarized and their implications are discussed for future research” (Zhao, 2003, p.20). Contrary to the article about the field of medicine, this research paper does not use the modals will or should to express possibility or advice. It uses passive structures to convey emphasis, for example in the sentence “To truly capitalize on modern information (…) a number of issues must be addressed” (Zhao, 2003, p.22). Finally, this section concludes by pointing out four titled and numbered issues that need to be addressed in order to improve language learning in relation to modern information and communication technologies. As a consequence, the author succeeds in presenting sound arguments, evaluating the solutions and setting recommendations.

     All in all, after a deep analysis of Results, Discussion and Conclusions sections, it can be asserted that both articles respect the order of the IMRaD sections and academic formal style. However, they vary in few minor aspects like the use of some tenses and the decision of including the Conclusion section within the Discussion or not. Clearly, the authors of these articles though being experts of different areas of knowledge both have respected the academic conventions that Swales and Feak (1994) describe as proper within the academic and scientific community.

  

References

Bonner, C., Jansen, J., Newell, B.R., Irwig, L., Glasziou, P., Doust, J., Dhillon, H. & McCaffery, K. (2014). I Don’t Believe It, but I’d Better Do Something About It: Patient Experiences of Online Heart Age Risk Calculators. J Med Internet. Retrieved from http://www.jmir.org./2014/5/e120

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. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press

Zhao, Y. (2003).  Recent Developments in Technology and Language Learning: A Literature Review and Meta-analysis. CALICO Journal. Michigan State University. Retrieved from https://calico.org/html/article_279.pdf