2 nd paper

 Ramirez, C. & Schneider, S (2012)

Comparing Results, Discussions and Conclusions sections in Two Research Papers

Research papers are of outstanding importance since not only do they provide vast, profound knowledge about various topics, but also suggest a feasible solution to a certain issue, as in the case of action research papers. Even though research papers could be based on different academic fields, they are required to follow a particular structure. Thus, they generally contain the following sections: Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, and References. However, depending on the type of research, different patterns or features can be found. After analyzing and reflecting upon the Results, Discussions, and Conclusions sections of an article from the medicine field and another article from the education field, several similarities and differences have been found.

As regards Results and Discussions sections, the authors of both research papers have selected two different structures.  In his education article, Barrs (2012) has written the main findings of his research and the interpretation of their meanings in the same section. In other words, Results and Discussion sections are integrated. This is not the case with the article by Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) from the medicine field, in which the authors have written first the results, and the main analysis has been done in a separate section. In order to provide the reader with a more detailed interpretation of the results, these authors have written the main findings of their research in the Discussions section. In this section they have also included future studies needed to further investigate their question.

Moreover, the authors of both articles use tables and figures to present information which may result hard for the audience to understand in text format. There is a vast use of tables in Barrs’ (2012) research article while in Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) research article there are two tables and two figures. These tables are properly titled, for instance: “Association of renal function with coronary heart disease and non-vascular mortality” (Di Angelantonio et al., 2010). In Barrs’ article (2012), tables are titled accurately, for instance: “Total number and average of postings” (see table 1, p.15). In this article, legends and figures have not been used. In Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) research article, legends appear to be properly presented and figures correctly used, named and numbered. Past tenses and accurate language seem to have been used in this section in both research papers (Swales and Feak, 1994).

As for Discussions and Conclusions sections, Barrs (2012) and Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) have chosen different structures for their research papers. The former has not written the discussions in a separate section, but he has analyzed and discussed the outcomes in the results section under the heading Reporting, Writing and Presenting about the Research (Reflection). In this part of the paper, Barrs (2012) explains the main findings, relating this information to the thesis statement:

The high level of participation and the large number of postings/replies, all conducted in the target language and from outside of the classroom, show that such a CMC platform was a useful and viable way of increasing the opportunity to engage students in target-language focused interactions. (p. 13)

 Linking the main outcomes of his research to the introduction, Barrs (2012) has succeeded in reminding the reader of the main purpose of his study outlined in the introduction. Conversely, in Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) research article the authors have elaborated the main findings on a separate section, the discussions sections, providing full details of the outcomes of their research; for instance, “For people without manifest vascular disease, we have shown that even the earliest stages of chronic kidney disease are associated with higher risk of coronary heart disease” (Di Angelantonio et al., 2010, p 5). Moreover, they have included a chart in which a comparison is made between what they have found and the findings of the past literature.

After analyzing both papers, they seem to fulfill the requirements of the Discussions, Results, and Conclusions sections. They provide summarized data in text, tables, and figures (Swales, 1990). The Results sections are logically ordered, complete and clearly stated. Furthermore, in both research papers, the main purpose of the studies outlined in the introduction appear to be restated either in the Discussions section or in the Results section.  However, they differ in their Results and Discussions sections since the original purposes of both articles were different. Di Angelantonio et al.’s (2010) paper belongs to the medicine field and it focuses on interpreting the results of their investigation by explaining the meaning of statistical findings as well as the results’ relevance. This is done in a separate section –the Discussions section– in which they also suggest future investigations to be done. Barrs’ (2012) paper belongs to the education field and it focuses on convincing the readers of the importance of her project.  This is why, the author presents persuasive arguments and, instead of interpreting the outcomes in the Discussions section, she includes the main findings of her investigation together with the reflections on the project in the Conclusions section.  

References

Barrs, K. (2012). Fostering computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 16, 10-25. Retrieved April 2012 from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/actionresearch.pdf

Di Angelantonio, E., Chowdhury, R., Sarwar, N., Aspelund, T., Danesh, J., & Gudnason V.

(2010). Chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: prospective population based cohort study. British Medical Journal, 341, 1-7. Doi: 10.1136/bmj.c4986

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