“A Comparative Analysis of Two
Research Articles:
Their Results, Discussions and
Conclusions”
Research Papers in general are composed of several
parts: title, abstract, acknowledgements, introduction, literature review,
methods, results, discussions, recommendations, conclusions, references, and
appendixes. The
aim of this paper will be to deeply analyze different sections of two articles
in a bid to describe them and explore whether all research papers have the same
layout. Despite the fact that they are from different fields –medicine and
education respectively- they both share one main characteristic which is that
they are research papers. The Results, Discussions, and Conclusions sections will
be compared and contrasted so as to explore the differences and similarities of
those sections in both papers.
Barrs’s
(2012) as well as Di Angelantonio’s et al.'s (2010) articles comprise all the
elements required in an Action Research (AR) paper. The former belongs to the
field of education and it is clearly divided into different sections which
explore the results and the discussion of the investigation. Then, it is
concluded by the analysis of the limitations of the study. The latter belongs
to the medicine field and it is also divided into different sections so as to
attempt to quantify associations of chronic kidney diseases with cardiovascular
disease and non-vascular mortality.
Concerning
the results sections in the articles, Barrs’s (2012) result section is divided
into different parts which are: Planning the action research, Taking action, Analyzing
and reflecting on the data, Hypothesizing and Speculating based on the initial
investigation, intervening, observing and reporting, writing and presenting,
which is the reflection. Following the definitions provided by Swales (1990),
and bearing in mind Barrs’s (2012) article, one can conclude that the author both presents the findings and interprest
their meanings and outcomes.
The result section, according to Swales (1990), should summarize the given
information. Researchers resort to the use of texts, tables, and figures to
state the results of their study. Barrs (2012) presents the results and the
discussions in the same section. When referring to the results, the author
divides the section into two sub sections that follow the steps undertaken
throughout the investigation. The results are presented by means of tables
which are explained and analyzed. These are clear, simple and they contain
relevant information about the research that was carried out. All the tables
included in the article follow the requirements of APA (American Psychological Association)
(2007) as all of them are properly numbered and titles are correctly italicized
and capitalized. Apart from tables, Barrs (2012) also provides instances of
interactions among participants that serve for the purpose of exemplifying and
clarifying the information provided. As well as tables, these exchanges are
subsequently analyzed and explained. The tense mostly used in the results
section is the Past Simple.
On
the other hand, Di Angelantonio’s et al.'s (2010) Results section has subtitles
which organize the information the authors want to deliver. Contrary to Barrs’s
(2012) results section, Di Angelantonio’s et al.'s (2010) results section
is full of numbers and percentages. There are tables and figures which appear
in the type of scatter plots so as to show the correlation between variables. The tables have titles but the fact
that they are not italicized and they are not presented with each word
capitalized make one conclude that these authors
are not following APA style. Below each table there are general and specific
notes with a smaller font. The figures have a caption underneath them but the
word “figure” and the corresponding number is not italicized. This is another
instance in which the authors show that they do not follow APA style.
The discussion section in Di
Angelantonio et al.'s (2010) article is divided into two sub sections called
strengths and limitations and conclusion respectively. When referring to the
discussion itself, the authors describe the findings in relation to the initial
hypothesis and they also remind the reader the main aim of the study.
Before providing a
conclusion, Barrs (2012) devotes a section of the paper to state and
describe the limitations of the investigation as well as Di Angelantonio et al.
(2010) do in the strengths and limitations section of their article.
Finally, Both research articles use the conclusion to tie the paper together.
Barrs (2012) concludes the article emphasizing the fact that further
investigation would be of great value for the research. Regarding Di
Angelantonio et.al's (2010) conclusion, they also express the fact that
further studies are needed to investigate the association made at the beginning
of the paper. In both articles, authors constantly use modal verbs to show
and express possibility.
To sum up, based on the formal observations authors
from both papers intended to present a problem, analyze it and find a solution
developing their papers in a similar way although both articles come from
different fields. The fact that they both refer to the limitations of the
investigations would make the reader feel the need to continue reading more
about the topic.
References
American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the
American
Psychological Association. (6th ed.) Washington, DC: American
Psychological
Association.
Barrs, K. (2012). Fostering computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the
classroom. Language Learning and Technology, 16 (1), 10-25.
Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/actionresearch.pdf
Di Angelantonio, E., Chowdhury, R., Sarwar, N., Aspelund, T., Danesh. J.
& Gudnason, V. (2010). Chornic kidney disease and risk of major
cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: Prospective population based
cohort study. BMJ (341), 1-7. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/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.
