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