Much may be published about different academic writing styles but very little might be available about the contrastive analysis of publications from different fields. However, it may be enriching to study two papers which do not belong to the same field and see if they follow the corresponding style guidelines. Thus, the thorough study could help professionals become aware of certain characteristics their papers should have in order to achieve successful transmission of information.
Therefore, the two publications are expected to share similar characteristics, respect academic standards and adhere to what Pintos and Crimi (2010) suggest:
Results and Discussions sections are descriptive in nature. Writers tend to compare results and give explanations for the differences. In general, they also critique assumptions. The Results section presents the main findings of the research but it does not interpret their meanings.
The present work is aimed at examining and evaluating the results, discussions and conclusions sections in two research articles, one about the reduction of breast cancer mortality (Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche, 2010) contrasted with one related to a ranking of online journals for computer-mediated learning (Elbeck & Mandernach, 2009). The design, the content development and the language choice will be deeply analyzed and critiqued following Swales and Freak’s (1994, cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010) recommendations and APA guidelines.
As for the design, the medicine paper seems to present a section pattern, which adheres to what Pintos and Crimi (2010) express concerning that “writers may choose to write three separate sections or blend them into two sections” (p.20). Thus, the medicine article contains two sections: Results and Discussion while the education article includes four sections: Results, Discussion, Limitation of this study and Conclusions. Although both publications have a different number of sections with subtitles, they offer an easy-reading format.
The general design of the papers provides information through the text, tables and graphs. As regards the breast cancer-related data, the results of the three analyzed age groups are clearly explained in the text which is supplemented with two tables and a line graph. In turn, the collected information about online journals is presented in six tables -four of them being too long and, although they seem simple, the stated data may be regarded as unnecessary. Furthermore, all tables and figures respect APA style because they have the correct format, titles, headings and, notes.
The interpretation of the results is reported in separate sections. The medicine research paper contains a discussion section which is subdivided into five parts with balanced paragraphs -the last one being the conclusions paragraph. Two line graphs may help the reader understand the changes produced in the periods of the study. On the other hand, the education paper presents the elucidation of the collected data in unbalanced paragraphs. No tables or graphs are included given the fact that there are no further results to be shown in that fashion to make the text understandable.
Regarding arrangement of information and content choice, both articles seem to depict the results of the investigations since the complete record of data is mainly summarized in plain language in paragraphs, tables and graphs. In the medicine article the totals are organized in tables and in a line chart while the percentages are detailed in the paragraphs. On the other hand, the results section in the education article presents the criteria and conditions for collecting data, a brief explanation of the computed percentages and the general outcome of that part of the study.
Although the medicine and the education publications may well be understandable to any professionals, some difficulty may arise when trying to interpret facts and conclusions. Jorgensen, Zahl and Gotzsche (2010) tend not to use much complex technical jargon while in their article about the electronic journals ranking, Elbeck and Mandernach (2009) utilize some technology words related to the investigation. Therefore, professionals may need to have knowledge about internet terms namely search engines, in-link count, incoming links, and home page.
The choice of language grammar is also crucial when writing a research paper. As Pintos and Crimi (2010) point out, “using highlight statements, modal auxiliaries, weaker verbs, generalizations and so on can help academic writers to improve the expression of their findings [since they] cannot be totally sure about the results and outcomes” (p.38). Consequently, the conclusions of the medicine investigation include “likely” and “it is time to question whether”, while in the education paper hedging is used when showing that a result may experience some change overtime.
Furthermore, although Elbeck and Mandernach (2009) place some hedging to state possibility in “one can challenge the operational definition” (p.15), they use categorical language to talk about their investigation and state “This study will undoubtedly generate varying perspectives” and “The challenge is evident as witnessed by the demise of over 5% of the journals” (p,15). These researchers also predict that “a generally accepted list and ranking of scholarly CML journals will evolve over time” (p.15) which may be impossible to prove beforehand. On the other hand, no strong language is observed in the medicine paper.
Results section in the breast cancer article contains present simple tense to introduce what information is included in a table and past simple to describe how figures changed during the period of the investigation. Conversely, present simple in the article about journals reports the interpretation of the results the tables show and express permanent states by means of a varied number of verbs, such as show, to be, represent, report, describe, contain, rank, offer, present, and refine. Passive voice is also used in both papers for explaining the steps of the investigation.
However, past simple active voice is mainly used to describe actions carried out by the participants in the medicine research article whereas a combination of active and passive voice can be seen in the limitations section and the conclusions section in the education paper to describe what the study offers and illustrates. In brief, the use of active voice may have been used to either simplify the structure of sentences or to emphasize who carried out the actions. In both papers, the use of “we” can be said to be acceptable.
All in all, although there are still many aspects which could be considered to compare and contrast these two research papers, the analyzed characteristics of the design, the content and the language choice show that both publications vastly meet academic standards. Therefore, professionals may highly respect the provided information on the investigations and consider it as useful literature for further publications. Thus, this analysis may prove to be beneficial for researchers who want to identify the features their papers should respect to achieve the desired effect.
References
Elbeck, M., & Mandernach, B.J. (2009). Journals for computer-mediated learning: Publications of value for the online educator. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-20. Retrieved February 22, 2010 from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=4188
Jorgensen, K.L., Zahl, P. & Gotzsche, P.C. (2010). Breast cancer mortality in organized mammography screening in Denmark May 15, 2010 from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=5752
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Lengua Inglesa Especializada II. Unidad 3. Buenos Aires. Universidad CAECE. Retrieved April 24, 2010 , from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=4692
No comments:
Post a Comment