Comparative Analysis of Two Articles

     Copley, Greenberg, Handley and Oaks (1996) stated that a research paper is “more than a collection of different pieces of information about a topic” (para. 1). Moreover, Swales and Feak (1994) have delved into the linguistic specifications and formal conventions for writing research articles properly. All these guidelines have been an important contribution to many researchers who have been concerned with sharing their studies with the professional community in their fields. However, few studies have been conducted to make a contrastive analysis of articles from distant disciplines. The purpose of this paper is to analyze and compare two research articles: one from Medicine field and the other from the field of Education field. Particularly, the introductions in both articles and methods sections are described. As for the introduction analysis, the criteria being followed is the Create a Research Space Model (C.A.R.S.) proposed by Swales and Feak (1994, p. 174), while methods sections are analyzed based on features of Process Paragraph.

     As regards the introduction, Gregg et al. (2014), in their article in the medical field, presents a considerably shorter introduction than the one written by Aydin and Yildiz (2014) in their article in the Educational field. Considering the organizational patterns proposed by Create Research Space Model (C.A.R.S.) (Swales and Feak, 1994, p.174), in the former, the authors seem to have structured it in a general-specific manner. Although move1 has been carefully developed for the review of some previous research, move 2 is not specifically indicated. The niche does not seem to have been established as there is no gap depicted. Then, move 3 outlines the purpose of the research but it does not indicate how it will be structured. On the other hand, in Aydin and Yildiz’s (2014) research article the authors dedicate half of the length of it to the development of the introduction which has been divided in detailed sections. As for move 1, the introduction thoroughly establishes the research territory. First, it shows that the research is important when it mentions the relevance of “writing instruction in foreign language classes” (Aydin & Yildiz, 2014, p. 160).  Second, it vastly reviews previous research as when the authors mention “sociocultural theories of learning”, “collaborative dialogue”, “peer editing” (Aydin & Yildiz, 2014, p. 161). Move 2 is expressed in one single sentence and it seems to indicate the gap that has been found in the area of wiki collaborative tasks. It starts with the negative connector Although. Then, the authors smoothly introduce the last move and they succeed in expressing purposive statements and descriptive statements such as principal findings and structure of research papers.

     Regarding the use of tenses in the introduction, Gregg et al. (2014) use the Past Simple to refer to what previous researchers did and the type of investigation they will conduct while Aydin and Yildiz (2014) employed a wider variety of tenses in the three moves like Present Simple, Past Simple and Present Perfect. The latter mostly used Present Tenses to refer to what has been found in the field of language learning and Past Simple to state the result of other studies on wikis. As for the last move they used Present Tenses to make reference to their present study.

     Considering the Methods section, in the study by Gregg et al. (2014) the word Methods is centered and the section is divided in three subsections where the participants, materials and procedures are analyzed although they chose other subheadings like “data sources”, “definitions” and “data analyses” ( Gregg et al., 2014, p. 1515-1516 ). Aydin and Yildiz (2014) chose the word Methodology which is not considered appropriate for this section as it refers to something different as the underlying theory. However, they also described the participants, materials and procedures.  Both articles follow the main features of process paragraphs such as description of how to fulfill the aims, inclusion of details, use of explanations, slow pace, repeated terminology and, of utmost importance, use of passive voice throughout the Methods section.

     As a result of the previous analysis, it may be concluded that both articles comply with C.A.R.S. Model for the introduction and the linguistic components of the methods sections although with some variations. Particularly important may be the thorough consideration of these features when writing in the academic field.

  

References

Aydin, Z. & Yildiz, S. (2014). Using wikis to promote collaborative EFL writing. Language Learning & Technology 18 (1), 160-180. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february 2014/aydinyildiz.pdf

Copley, C., Greenberg, L., Handley, E., &  Oaks, S. (1996). Developing a research question. Retrieved from  http://www.esc.edu/online-writing-center/resources/research/

Gregg, E. W., Li, Y., Wang, J., Rios Burrows, N., Ali, M. K., Rolka, D., Williams, D. & Geiss, L. (2014). Changes in Diabetes-Related Complications in the United States, 1990-2010. The New England Journal of Medicine.370 (16), 1514-1523. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1310799

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