Analysis of Research Articles

Analysis of Research Articles

By Barochiner, Erika and Dib, Daniela

Research Articles: Analysis of the Results, Discussion, and Conclusions Sections

Research articles are divided into different sections, each devoted to a specific purpose. Swales and Feak (1994) analyzed each of them and provided useful insights on how they should be structured. Broadly speaking, the introduction presents the research area to be studied, identifies a gap in the field and states the purpose of the paper. The methods section describes the procedures followed to conduct the study. In the results section, the authors present the outcomes of the data collection process. Then, in the discussion section, they interpret the results in the light of the literature review discussed in the introduction to the paper. It should be noted that the discussion section may be a part of the results section or not (Swales & Feak, 1994). The next section in the article is the conclusion, where the authors summarize the main points under discussion and make recommendations for future research. Although there exist several papers discussing the characteristics of these sections, there are no papers comparing and contrasting the results, discussion and conclusions sections of two specific articles, one in the field of medicine (Devereaux et al., 2014) and one in the field of education (Lys, 2013). Therefore, the purpose of this work is to analyze these three sections in the above mentioned articles and identify any similarities and differences between them.

With respect to the results sections, the word results is centered on the page in the medicine paper (Devereaux et al., 2014), whereas, in the education paper (Lys, 2013), this word is on the left margin. In both articles, the information has been clearly organized into subsections which present the results obtained with relation to specific areas addressed in the study. Such information is further expanded and clarified through the use of tables and figures in both papers. However, while the formatting of tables appears to be consistent with APA (2010) style in the education paper, which is reflected by the appropriate use of capitalization, italics and spacing, among other features, the tables in the medicine paper seem to have been formatted according to a different style. In addition, although both papers make clear in-text references to tables and figures, Lys (2013) uses the expression in Table in “As I have reported in Table 2, the average [...]” (p. 102) without brackets and the see Figure in “The length of the recordings increased each week (see Figure 1)” (p. 101) between brackets, whereas Devereaux et al. (2014) place the reference to both tables and figures between brackets, using the abbreviation Fig. in “The effect of aspirin was consistent across subgroups (P≥0.16 for all interactions) (Fig. 2)” (p. 1498), in the latter case. Finally, drawing an analogy between the two sections, it may be observed that both use the past tense and are isolated from the discussion section.

As far as the discussion section is concerned, both articles provide an interpretation of the results presented in the previous section in the light of previously conducted studies by establishing points in common as well as differences, which is consistent with the suggestions provided by Swales and Feak (1994). However, sources are acknowledged following different in-text citation styles. While Lys (2013) has used APA (2010) style, the medicine paper (Devereaux et al., 2014) uses superscript numbers to refer the reader directly to the reference list. In addition, the word Discussion is centered on the page in the medicine paper, and the section does not include sub-headings. On the other hand, in the education paper, this word is on the left margin, and the section includes a sub-heading. It is worth mentioning that the authors in both articles have used personalized utterances. There is a tendency to use modal verbs such as will and should to signal possibility and advice, respectively. The medicine article includes both modal verbs, whereas the education article only uses should.

With regard to conclusions, only the education article (Lys, 2013) has a clearly identified conclusions section. In the medicine article (Devereaux et al., 2014), conclusions have been integrated to the discussion section instead and they have been compacted in a very short paragraph at the end of the section. Since no hedging has been used, the conclusion statements seem too strong. In the education paper, on the other hand, the conclusion is much longer. In this case, certainty has been weakened through the use of expressions, such as suggest in “The data suggest that [...]” (Lys, 2013, p. 107) and apparently in “Students apparently blamed the repetitive and predictable nature of many exchanges with their host family” (Lys, 2013, p. 107), as well as through the use of modal verbs. It should be noted that Lys makes reference to work conducted by other authors even in this section, which would indicate that she is still discussing results and making comparisons. However, conclusions should reflect the author’s ability to summarize the findings of the study by highlighting any relevant aspects and advising on further lines of research.

After a thorough analysis of the above-mentioned sections, we conclude that although the articles under analysis belong to different fields, their results, discussion and conclusions sections comply with the requirements of academic papers in terms of structure and content, with the exception of the conclusions section in the education paper which provide further discussion instead of summarizing relevant study findings. Finally, the main differences between the papers lie in the length of the different sections, the citation and table formatting styles and the fact that the conclusions have been included in the discussion section in the medical paper, while in the education paper they appear in a separate section.  

References

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Devereaux, P.J., Mrkobrada, M., Sessler, D.I., Leslie, K., Alonso-Coello, P., Kurz, A.,… Yusuf, S. (2014). Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. The New England Journal of  Medicine. Retrieved from http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1401105

Lys, F. (2013). The development of advanced learner oral proficiency using ipads. Language Learning and Technology Journal. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2013/lys.pdf

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