A Comparative Analysis: Are all Abstracts the Same?

            When looked up in a dictionary, the term abstract is simply defined as “a short summary of a report, speech, or academic paper” (The Macmillan English Dictionary, 2002) or “a short written statement containing only the most important ideas in a speech, article, etc.” (Longman Online Dictionary, 2011). Such definitions do not acknowledge some distinguishing aspects, such as structure, purpose and language, which play a big part when it comes to defining abstracts. This paper aims at describing those aspects, based on Swales and Feak’s (1994) theory of academic writing, and carrying out a thorough analysis of four abstracts from medicine and education papers. The degree to which those features are present in one field of study or the other will be analyzed, and a conclusion as to how much field-related they might be will be reached.

            Depending on their format, abstracts can be classified as structured or unstructured. Both types are organized into sections in correspondence with the main parts of the paper, i.e. Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. However, they show a central difference: whereas structured abstracts are rather long and provide separate paragraphs with headings for each section, unstructured ones are composed of one single paragraph with a couple of sentences for each section. On the basis of the data provided by the abstracts analyzed in this work, it can be suggested that structured format seems to be preferred in medicine papers, in which the steps of research are detailed and the findings seem to be the most relevant information from the very beginning. On the other hand, abstracts in education papers appear to be unstructured and shorter, the results are mentioned by the end of the abstract - as it is the case in Almerich et al.’s (2005) abstract – or they are not mentioned at all – as in King’s (2002) text.

            A brief digression from the main topic is allowed here to mention the fact that the abstracts from medicine analyzed here do not use the term Discussion to introduce their last section; Conclusion is used instead. Although there seems to be some substantial difference between these two concepts, Swales and Feak (1994) prefer not to go deep into classification, “we will not distinguish between these two terms, since the difference is largely conventional, depending on traditions in particular fields and journals” (p.195). As this analysis is carried out in the light of Swales and Feak’s (1994) theory – and medicine is not our field so as to delineate a definition of the terms – it has been decided to keep them as synonyms for the purpose of our study; we acknowledge, though, they may differ from one field to another.

            Swales and Feak (1994) suggest a second criterion for classification depending on the information provided in the abstract. In the light of their theory, abstracts can be indicative or informative. “Indicative abstracts merely indicate what kind of research has been done. Informative abstracts additionally give the main results.” (p. 81). As it was stated above, medicine abstracts are prone to highlight the results of research; thus, they could be well classified as informative. In the field of education, however, there seems to be a preference for indicative abstracts. On the limited data available, we have found general summaries in which results are briefly mentioned – as it is the case in the paper on Information and Communication Technologies – or they are not mentioned at all – as in the paper about DVDs.

            Another aspect which seems to be relevant when analyzing abstracts is language. Graetz (1985) proposes the following items:

1.     The use of full sentences

2.      The use of the past tense

3.      The use of impersonal passive

4.      The absence of negatives

5.      The avoidance of abbreviation of abbreviation, jargon, symbols and other language shortcuts that might lead to confusion. (as cited in Swales & Feak, 1994, p. 212)

Swales and Feak (1994), however, disagree on the second item. They claim that “tense usage in abstracts if fairly complicated” (p. 212) and that present simple and present perfect are also used in Research Papers (RP) summaries, especially in opening sentences and conclusions. The following opening sentences and conclusions from abstracts illustrate their point:

The integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in education supposes that faculty must possess competencies for it. […] Therefore, the personal and contextual factors influence in the knowledge of techno-logical resources on the part of faculty (Almerich et. al, 2005 p.127).

Whether the treatment of patients with hypertension who are 80 years of age or older is beneficial is unclear. It has been suggested that antihypertensive therapy may reduce the risk of stroke, despite possibly increasing the risk of death [...]. The results provide evidence that [...] (Beckett et. al, 2008, p.1887).

            The abstracts analyzed in this work are made up of full sentences and self-contained structures. Nevertheless, incomplete sentences can be found in the Methods section of the abstract about cardiac stress testing, in which some nominal phrases are used: “Setting: Acute care hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between 1 April 1994 and 31 March 2004” (Wijeysundera et al., 2009, p.1). The same can be seen in the subsections Design, Setting, Interventions and Main outcome measures. As regards the use of impersonal passive, a linguistic resource “necessary to describe process” (Swales & Feak, 1994, p.63), our analysis suggests that they are more frequent in medicine than education RP abstracts. This could be explained on the basis that, in medicine, the process of research and the results are far more relevant than who carries them out, the agent.

            Another aspect mentioned above is the avoidance of negative structures. It is advisable to use “appropriate negative forms” (Swales & Feak, 1994, p.18) such as little or few instead of not much or not many. Only one negative structure is found in the abstracts analyzed herein: “score methods were used to reduce important differences between patients who did or did not undergo preoperative stress testing” (Wijeysundera et al., 2009, p.1). Nevertheless, alternative words, as the ones suggested, seem to be used in most cases in spite of negative sentences. Finally, abbreviation, acronyms and shortcuts are in general avoided in the four abstracts. In those very few cases in which acronyms are used, they are either well-known to the reader, such as “DVD has vastly replaced traditional VHS as the movie medium of the new millennium” (King, 2002, p.1), or clear reference to their meaning is provided so as to make reading smooth “[i]n an analysis of subgroups defined by Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) class” (Wijeysundera et al., 2009, p.1).

            On the basis of the present analysis, it can be concluded that abstracts are more than short summaries. They are complex texts, with their own linguistic and structural rules. As Swales and Feak (1994) put it, “[s]ometimes [...] writing a summary becomes a task in itself” (p. 105). Slight differences may be found from one field to another, depending on the characteristics of research and the purpose of the text. Medicine abstracts, for instance, seem to be long, structured and informative; whereas abstracts in the education field appear to be short, unstructured and indicative, in some cases. There seems to be no difference as regards the linguistic features analyzed, though. Passive voice, complete sentences and absence of negatives appear to be some of the characteristic structures shared by RP abstracts, regardless of their field of studies. Whether the findings of this work can be extended to all medicine and education abstracts is subject for further study based on extensive data, probably, and in the light of alternative theories.

References

Almerich, G., Suárez, J. M., Orellana, N., Belloch, C., Bo, R. & Gastaldo, I. (2005). Diferencias en los conocimientos de los recursos tecnológicos en profesores a partir del género, edad y tipo de centro [Abstract]. Relieve, 11 (2), 127-146. Retrieved May 2011 from http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v11n2/RELIEVEv11n2_3.htm

Beckett, N., Peters, R., Fletcher, A., Staessen, J., Liu, L., Dumitrascu, D., … Bulpitt, C. (2008). Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older [Abstract]. The New England Journal of Medicine. Retrieved May 2011 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18378519

King, J. (2002). Using DVD feature films in the EFL classroom. [Abstract]. ELT Newsletter, 88. Retrieved May 2011 from http://www.eltnewsletter.com/back/February2002/art882002.htm

Longman Online Dictionary. (2011). From http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/abstract_2

Macmillan English Dictionary (1^st ed.). (2002). Macmillan Publishers Limited

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

Wijeysundera D. N., Beattie, W. S., Elliot, R. F., Austin, P. C., Hux, J. E., Laupacis, A. (2009).

Non-invasive cardiac stress testing before elective major non-cardiac surgery: Population based cohort study. [Abstract]. BMJ Journals. Doi: 10.1136/bmj.b5526. Retrieved May 2011 from http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.b5526.full

How to go about research findings: two cases analysis

            Research papers (RP) follow an organizational structure which makes them particular pieces of writing. As Swales and Feak (1994) put it, “[e]ven short pieces of writing have regular, predictable patterns of organization.” (p. 10). RPs, for instance, are divided into sections which explain the purpose and the process of research, as well as the findings and the interpretation of those findings. This paper aims at analyzing and comparing two research papers, one from the field of education, the other from the field of medicine. The analysis will focus on the last sections of RPs – i.e. results, discussion and conclusion. From the broad array of theory available on academic writing, it has been decided to base this work on specifications provided by the American Psychological Association (APA) Publication manual (2010) and Swales and Feak’s (1994) theory. A short theoretical description will be offered before close analysis of the afore mentioned RPs is carried out.

            Although the existence of three sections in the final part of RPs has been mentioned before, the American Psychological Association (2010) solely acknowledges two: reference and discussion sections. Whenever there is a hint of reference to conclusions, the term is either used in its most ordinary denotative sense, “[s]omething you decide after considering all the information you have” (Longman Online Dictionary, 2011) or as part of other section in the paper, “[u]se the present tense [...] to discuss implications of the results and to present the conclusions” (APA Manual, 2010, p.66) but not as a section itself. Swales and Feak (1994), on the other hand, do mention the existence of a whole section named conclusions. They prefer not to distinguish it from the discussion section, though, claiming that “the difference is largely conventional, depending on traditions in particular fields and journals” (p.195).   

            There seems to be much less controversy as regards results and discussion sections. This may be so because finding out results and analyzing them is at the core of research and it cannot be omitted. Both, APA (2010) and Swales and Feak (1994) devote whole pages in their works to discuss these sections. The former, presents them as separate parts, “[i]n the [r]esults section, summarize the collected data and the analysis performed on those data relevant to the discourse that is to follow.[...] Discussing the implications of the results should be reserved for presentation in the discussion section” (APA, 2010, p. 32). The latter also presents them as separate sections, “the [r]esults section of an RP should simply report the data that has been collected [...] all evaluation and commentary should be left until the [d]iscussion” (Swales & Feak, 1994, p.170) but they acknowledge the fact that both sections can be combined, “research shows that this distinction between [r]esults and discussion is not as sharp as commonly believed” (Swales & Feak, 1994, p.170).

            In the following paragraphs, the theory described above will be contrasted with the research papers. To begin with, the results section seems to be identified with a heading in bolds in the medicine paper. The information included in this section is factual rather than evaluative. Descriptions such as “[t]he general direction of the ligament was from the cervico-vaginal junction, curving posteriorly on the side of the rectum, to reach the sacroiliac joint.” (Vu, Haylen, Tse, & Farnsworth, 2010, p. 1124) are based on empirical observations. Moreover, there are some subtitles which contribute to the provision of factual data. In the RP from education, however, the case seems to be the opposite. The heading “[t]he same correlation appears” (Gorard, 2006, p. 3) does not anticipate the kind of information that follows. It is the graphic and some expressions what reveals the nature of the text, which is not purely descriptive – but descriptive and evaluative. Both, results and discussion sections are merged into one single section, facts and evaluation are brought together under the same subtitle.

            As regards conclusions, Vu et al.’s (2010) prefer to open a new section for their conclusions in the medicine paper, with a heading in bold and separate from the results and discussion sections. In the RP from education, however, Gorard (2006) presents his conclusions under the heading discussion. Although it has been suggested that discussion and conclusions could be combined into one section, “[d]iscussions can be written in isolation or together with the conclusions” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p.20),  it was found that only conclusions are introduced in the discussion section, whereas the discussion of the results itself is held in a different section and under a different heading, as it was outlined above. Finally, it is worth noticing that, although it is recommended not to use phrases such as “in conclusion” or the like (Pintos & Crimi, 2010), the author refers to “two kinds of conclusions” (Gorard, 2006, p. 4) first, and “[t]he second kind of conclusion” (Gorard, 2006, p.5) later.

            So far so good, there seems to be a lot of data for further analysis. The empirical observations made in this work, however, seem to be enough to suggest that writers in the medicine field stick to prescriptions of information distribution and organization much more than those from education. In medicine RPs, results are clearly stated, whereas discussion and conclusions are dealt with in different sections. This may be explained in terms of the type of research carried out in each field. In medicine, research tends to be quantitative – with numbers and statistics at the core of it. Thus, results are pinpointed in an isolated section. On the other hand, qualitative research is frequent in education, as in most social fields. This allows for interpretation or evaluation to be carried out as the results are being presented, combining both sections into one.  

           

References

APA (2010). American Psychological Association Publication Manual (6th ed.). American Psychological Association. Washington, DC.

Gorard, S., (2006). Re-analysing the Value-added of Primary Schools. Retrieved April 2010 from http://www.york.ac.uk/media/educationalstudies/documents/research/Paper15Value-addedinprimaryschools.pdf

Longman Online Dictionary. (2011). From http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary

Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 3: The research article: Results, discussions, and conclusions. Universidad CAECE, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Retrieved May 2011, from

http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=8526

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

Vu D., Haylen B. T., Tse K. & Farnsworth, A. (2010). Surgical Anatomy of the Uterosacral Ligament. Department of Educational Studies. International Urogynecology Journal, 21, 1123-1128.   Doi:10.1007/s00192-010-1147-8. Retrieved April 2010 from http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/SOMSWeb.nsf/resources/POM1002/$file/Sept2010.pdf

Is There a Common Pattern for Research Papers?

In academic writing, Research Papers (RP) and Research Articles (RA) are structured in several sections. This paper will analyze the introduction and the method sections of two research reports, one belonging to the field of education and the other to the field of medicine. Comparisons between the two papers will be discussed and analysed.

According to Swales and Feak (1994), effective introductions should be written to grab the reader’s attention (as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010b). In order to accomplish this purpose, the writer should follow some structural patterns when composing. For example, an introduction opens with a general discussion of a topic and gradually moves to the specific details in question. The Create a Research Space model (CARS) developed by Swales and Feak (1994) involves three main moves that depict this progress from the general to the specific issues when writing introductions.

The first move identified as creating a research space “introduce[s] previous research in the area” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010b, p. 28) and expresses the state of the arts of the fields of studies under analysis. In the RPs analyzed in the present work, this move is placed in the very first paragraphs of the introductions. Key phrases such as “[m]uch has been written about” (Gorard, 2006, p. 3) or “[t]here have been some previous studies to identify the USL’s anatomical relationships” (Vu D., Haylen B. T., Tse K. & Farnsworth, 2010, p. 1123) are used by the authors to make it clear that the topic addressed has been studied before, though some gaps in the theory call for further studies, and make their work worth considering, as suggested by the second move.

After the state of the arts is acknowledged in the first move, the gaps in the available theory are highlighted and the necessity for further investigation is posed. Swales and Feak (1994) coin the phrase “establish the niche” (as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010b, p. 28) to refer to this move in which authors “turn to present their motivations for the study” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010b, p. 28). One more time, there seems to be a parallel between the two papers analyzed herein, since both authors make overt reference to this need for further study. Gorard (2006) argues that “researchers should be more concerned with developing and using indicators of the scientific importance of their results” (p. 3) and he adds that “they could ask whether what they have found fits observations elsewhere” (p. 3). Similarly, Vu D. et al. (2010) go on to say that:

The published descriptions of the anatomy of the USL have differed widely. The proximal attachment has been the subject of controversy with some believing it connects to the sacrum while others postulating an attachment o the sacrospinous ligament and coccygeus. While some authors, distinguish between the USL and the

so-called (as there is controversy over terminology) cardinal ligament (CL), others refer to a less defined “uterosacral-cardinal ligament complex. (p. 1123)

Finally, it is in the third move that the purpose of the paper is clearly announced. Once the gap is revealed, researchers introduce their own investigation work to fill the gap in theory or, Swales and Feak (1994) would put it, to occupy the niche (as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010a, p. 28). Once again, there exist some key phrases such as “our aim is” (Vu D. et al., 2010, p. 1124) or “this paper illustrates these points” (Gorard, 2006, p. 3) to introduce the aim of the researchers, and both papers seem to coincide in this aspect too.

Regarding the methods section of RPs, Pintos and Crimi (2010b) state they are mainly characterized by “following the principles of process paragraphs [and by] mak[ing] use of passive voice” (p.p. 33-34). These linguistic and textual features are illustrated in both papers; in the case of medicine, for example, the observations and procedures carried out during the medical research are registered using the past passive while in the paper of education the past passive is used to compare the findings of the two correlational studies. 

Another textual feature found in the method section is the use of headings to open the new section of the paper. Swales and Feak (1994) divide this section in three: “a) participants, b) materials, c) procedures” (as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010b, p. 34). Even though the methods sections in both papers are included under the heading methods, the medicine RP includes materials and methods under the same headings and uses subheadings to refer to the specific terminology used and the procedures conducted during research. On the other hand, the three subheadings are not included in the paper of education - the participants, the materials and the procedure are integrated as part of the main section. 

One last characteristic of methods sections seems to be that they take account of the types of research studies being conducted. In the education paper, for example, the researchers analyze the relationship between two variables and how they correlate, features commonly covered in correlational researches and especially found in the Social Science (Water, n.d., cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010a). In contrast, the medicine paper seems to have many of the distinguishing characteristics of a descriptive research study since it describes the specific features of the phenomenon under analysis and the “interrelationships of phenomena and changes that take place as a function of time” (Key, 2002, cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010a, p.11).

All in all, after both research papers have been analyzed and contrasted, it can be concluded that whereas their introductions are alike – in terms of general to specific organization of information and moves distribution – and their methods sections share a style in the use of passive voice and some formal linguistic patterns, there are still some differences as regards the use of headings, maybe due to field-specific prescriptions. What is more remarkable, the kind of research carried out. The medicine paper is purely descriptive but the education paper undertakes correlative research. What remains to be analyzed now is whether the characteristics outlined above can transcend this work and be regarded as field specific, i.e. from medicine or education, or they simply apply to the two particular cases considered here.

Reference

Gorard, S., (2006). Re-analysing the Value-added of Primary Schools. Retrieved April 2010 from http://www.york.ac.uk/media/educationalstudies/documents/research/Paper15Value-addedinprimaryschools.pdf

Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010a). Unit 1: Defining concepts in research. Universidad CAECE. Buenos Aires. Argentina. Retrieved April 2010, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=9459

Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010b). Unit 2: The research article: Introduction, literature review and method sections. Universidad CAECE. Buenos Aires. Argentina. Retrieved April 2010, from www.caece.campusuniversidad.como.ar/mod/resource/view.php?.d=8517

Vu D., Haylen B. T., Tse K. & Farnsworth, A. (2010). Surgical Anatomy of the Uterosacral Ligament. Department of Educational Studies. International Urogynecology Journal, 21, 1123-1128.   Doi:10.1007/s00192-010-1147-8. Retrieved April 2010 from http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/SOMSWeb.nsf/resources/POM1002/$file/Sept2010.pdf