One of the principles of professional writing is the
view of communication as the basis of human relations (Professional Writing
Online, 2015). Therefore, one of the most crucial moments in conducting
research is the communication of the outcomes. This stage is of utmost
importance since it makes effective the very goal of research: to contribute
with the academic world. Research Articles (RA) must follow certain regulations
to be accepted in academic communities. In order to comply with conventions
writers must organize findings and their interpretations into different
sections in their papers: Results, Discussion and Conclusions. Such stages
might be dealt with separately or merged together, depending on the topic under
investigation, the goals being pursued and the researchers’ style. It is the
purpose of this paper to delve into the analysis of two Research Articles (RAs)
belonging to the medical and educational disciplines respectively: “Designing
and Evaluating an Interactive Multimedia Web-Based Simulation for Developing
Nurses’ Competencies in Acute Nursing Care: Randomized Controlled Trial”
written by Liaw, Wong, Chan, Ho JTY, Mordiffi, Ang, Goh, Ang (2015) and
“Applying Communicative Approach in Teaching English as a Foreign Language: a
Case Study of Pakistan” written by Ahmad, and Rao, (2013). Results, Discussion
and Conclusions sections will be examined separately on each paper, and analyzed
according to conventions for RA writing set by Swales’ (1994). This may also
implicate identifying significant similarities and differences between them.
The main findings of the research article are depicted in the Results
section. Swales (1994) states that the results section should summarize the
data with text, tables, and/or figures. Researchers do not present the raw data
they collected but they use text to state the results of their study. This text
should be logically ordered and then refer the reader to a table or figure
where they can see the data, which allows the writer to present an overall
pattern of results at a quick glance, as established by APA (2007). Results
section generally does not include interpretation of the meaning of the
outcomes.
In the medical article under analysis, the results section is isolated
from the rest of the sections. The main findings are exposed through a text and
a figure properly numbered and embedded in the passage. Such figure, which is
a multiple bar graph, depicts and emphasizes the differences between the
experimental and control groups regarding their clinical performance in pre-
and post-test stages, thus comparing data in two different stages of research
for the participants involved. There is a caption beneath the figure, but
neither further explanation nor notes or legend following the caption are
included, since the symbols used correspond to standard terms, which are, in
turn, consistent with the ones used in the body of the paper . Moreover, the
word “figure” and the number are not in italicized, which is one of the
requirements for the formatting of tables and figures devised by APA (2007). As
regards linguistic features, the use of past tense indicates the relation
between the results presented and the hypothesis of the paper.
In the educational RA, conversely, the Results section is embedded in
the Methods section, under the heading “research methodology”. It follows the
conventions as both descriptive language and past tense are used: “Some
interviewees expressed their apprehension [...]” (Ahmad & Rao, 2013, p.
198). As mentioned above, the results section summarizes the data with text,
tables, and/or figures. Tables are self-explanatory and highlight the
information presented. Ahmad and Rao’s (2013) article presents tables which are
correctly numbered but present italicizing problems. On the other hand, titles
adequately explain the content of the tables but are not flush left with the
table margin. As results are imbedded in the methods section, tables are
accompanied by texts and not set in separate pages; not all tables columns and
rows have headlines set in sentence caps. The authors followed regulations for
empty cells, since they have left them blank. Ahmad and Rao (2013) did not use
notes, possibly because the tables are immediately followed by explanations.
Table headings are descriptive, brief and explanatory and follow APA guidelines
except for their location and for they are in bold. In general terms, tables
are consistent the along paper: with similar formats, titles, and headings, the
same terminology. Any kind of illustration, except for tables, is considered a
figure. Nevertheless, Ahmad and Rao (2013) did not include any kind of figure
in their paper.
The discussion section is characterized by portraying the interpretation
of the outcomes introduced in the previous passage of the paper. It might
be fused with the conclusions section, or presented separately from it. In the
case of the article written by Liaw et al. (2015), the discussion
section appears alone as a separate section. The first paragraph restates
the main findings with reference to the hypotheses and reminds the reader of
the overall purpose of the article: “This randomized controlled study
provided evidence of the effectiveness of a Web-based simulation in improving
hospital nurses’ acute care competencies [...]” (Liaw et al., 2015,
Discussion section, para. 1). As the passage is developed, the results
are interpreted in the light of the literature reviewed for the study and
reasons for the data patterns are established, as stated in the following
excerpt: “Our findings are consistent with several previous studies that
demonstrated the effectiveness of WBL in improving learning outcomes when
compared with no intervention.” (Liaw et al., 2015, para. 4 )
As opposed to general conventions, this section is not written using the
present tense; instead, the past tense is employed, since the results presented
are directly related to the hypotheses of the paper, and its literature review.
Nevertheless, the conclusions passage, which is embedded in the aforementioned
section, was written using the present tense in a few statements: “[...] This
study provides evidence for the acceptance of this Web-based simulation for
continuing nursing education among hospital nurses.[...]” and “[...] Nurse
educators can use Web-based learning technology to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of educational intervention in the face of pedagogical
challenges, especially those posed by mannequin-based simulation. [...]” (Liaw
et al., 2015, Conclusions section, para. 1). Another linguistic feature
which is not found in this section is the use of modal verbs to indicate
advice, or provide suggestions; this is done through the use of present passive
voice: “[...] More research is needed [...]” (Liaw et al., 2015, Conclusions
section, para. 1). Moreover, the conclusion points to an aspect stated in
the introduction: the need to ensure the competency of all hospital
nurses in acute nursing care for optimal patient care outcomes (Liaw et al.,
2015, Conclusions section, para. 1) ; this aids the satisfactory completion of
the article.
Ahmad and Rao’s (2013) educational RA displays the Conclusion in a
separate section and, embedded on it, it is the Discussion as a subsection.
Conclusions present a summary of the whole RA, and make reference to some point
mentioned in the introduction. Accordingly, the introduction outlines: “The
purpose of the study was to evaluate implementation of a CLT approach in
teaching English in Pakistani schools and colleges at a higher secondary level
where the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) has been used for long.” (Ahmad
& Rao, 2013, p. 188) and it is restated in the conclusion as:
“[...] if provided with suitable conditions, Pakistani learners can
increase their communicative ability. The use of the CLT approach has shown to
increase motivation for learning.” (Ahmad & Rao, 2013, p. 202, para.
1). Serious academic writing avoids concluding paragraphs that begin with
"In conclusion" or its equivalent. However, Ahmad and Rao (2013) did
not observe the mentioned guideline for they used: “It can be concluded”
(Ahmad & Rao, 2013) in the conclusion of their RA. Discussion sections can
be compared to Results sections in that the latter depict a description of the
outcomes while the discussion sections depict the interpretation of outcomes.
One pattern generally followed in discussions is the set of the situation, the
problem and then the suggestion of possible solutions. The first part of a
discussion section generally serves the function of reaffirming the outcomes
referring to the hypotheses and reminding the reader of the overall aim of the
study. The educational RA in question does not follow this structure as Ahmad
and Rao (2013) open the discussion with a new idea. The first part of the
discussion reads: “Graduates with good communication skills are in a better
position to explore new avenues in this highly economized society”(Ahmad
& Rao, 2013, p. 202, para. 1). Discussions include suggestions or possible
solutions. In order to signal possibility and advice for the possible
solutions, it can be used “will” and “should” as in “The examination system
should not focus only on writing skills” (Ahmad & Rao, 2013, p. 202,
para. 3). Discussion sections are descriptive in nature and thus
use present tenses, seen in the educational RA in: “Further research is
needed to explore techniques” (Ahmad & Rao, 2013, p. 202, para. 3).
After a close scrutiny of results, discussions and conclusions sections
of RAs from medical and educational fields, it might be stated that the
conventions set for the production of academic articles are generally respected
by the authors. These articles present differences as regards the arrangement
of such sections which respond to the diversity of topics treated by each RA,
as Swales & Feak (1994) assert. The presentation of the three sections in
the RAs is done according to the writers’ ease to present the research
outcomes. One of the differences between the medical and educational RAs is
that whereas the former introduces the outcomes separately, the latter encloses
them within the Methods section. Similarly, the Discussion and Conclusions
passages are dealt with differently in each article: while in the
educational conclusions stand alone as a separate section, in the medical
article it is embedded within the Discussion section. Another difference
constitutes the representation and illustration of results; the educational RA
uses only tables and the medical article employs just figures. Nevertheless,
the compliance with regulations in the three preceding pieces clearly shows
that there are also common features to be found between these RAs, regardless
of the area of study they intend to contribute to.
References
Ahmad, S., & Rao, C. (2013) Applying communicative approach in
teaching English as a foreign language: a case study of Pakistan. Porta
Linguarum, 20, 187-203.
American Psychological Association (2007). Concise rules of APA style.
Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
Liaw, Wong, Chan, Ho, Mordiffi, Ang, Goh and Ang. (2015).
Designing and evaluating an interactive multimedia web-based simulation for
developing nurses’ competencies in acute nursing care: randomized controlled
trial. J Med Internet Res;17(1). Retrieved from: http://www.jmir.org/2015/1/e5/ May
10, 2015
Professional Writing Online. (2015). Retrieved from: http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/pls_1256647969_pwo/217/55692/14257225.cw/index.html May 10, 2015
Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994).
Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann
Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
