Comparing Introductions and Methods Sections in two RAs.

Research Articles (R.A.) are organized and divided into different sections; Swales and Feak (1994) state that Papers follow a “typical organizational pattern (…) the IMRD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) or some variant of it” (p. 155). This Paper focuses on two of those sections: Introduction and Methods. Two RAs will be compared: Roth et al.’s (2010) on Medicine and Sun and Chang’s (2012) on Education, in order to analyze their characteristics and find similarities and differences.

Research papers are structured in a similar way, being the introduction their first element. Swales and Feak (1994) state that General Specific (GS) texts "move from broad statements to narrower ones. However, they often widen out again in the final sentence" (p.33). GS texts are used in the Introduction, where writers try to gain not only research space but also readers. Swales and Feak (1994) call the pattern followed in this section the Create-a-Research-Space (CARS) model, which states that there are three moves in introductions: Move one allows writers to create a research space, move 2 establishes the niche, and move three enables writers to occupy the niche.

Sun and Chang (2012) use the CARS model to introduce their topic (i.e. Blogging to learn). This part of the text is General Specific (GP). First they define blogs using a contrastive definition and then go on to show how blogs have changed the way people use the internet. The authors emphasize the relevance of the topic when they make a description of blogs as “the best received applications in the Web 2.0 era” (p. 43) and their assertion that “blogs have fundamentally changed the way we use the Internet” (p. 43). Then they move onto a more specific setting, the pedagogical one, showing how “the effective use of blogs enables knowledge sharing through connecting learners to contexts beyond the classroom” (Sun & Chang, 2012, p.43 ). In this move, which establishes the state of the art, the authors include several studies that have been carried out that emphasize the advantages of using blogs in foreign language classrooms.

According to Swales and Feak (1994), “probably the most common way to indicate a gap or niche is to use a "negative" subject ( …) because they signal immediately to the reader that Move 1 has come to an end” (p. 189). Sun and Chang (2012) establish the niche in move 2 through the words “though”and “little” which indicate the gap that the authors have found in the literature review:

Though past literature has shed light on the ways blogs can be used to encourage language learning and learners’participation in writing practices, little, if any, empirical research has been done to examine how interactions in blogs help EFL graduate students develop academic writing knowledge and writing identities ( p. 44).

In the other RA, Roth et al. (2010) also use a GS text to introduce their research. They move from the general topic of vaccines to specific ones such as the Bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccination and the Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DPT) vaccine. The three moves outlined by Swales and Feak (1994) are also present in Roth et al.´s (2010) introduction. These authors argue that "routine infant vaccines currently used in low income countries were not tested in randomised trials for their impact on overall child survival before their introduction" (p. 1). Thus they present the state of the art, that is move one. Then, they establish a niche: "The impact on overall mortality of revaccination with intradermal BCG vaccination has not been examined"(p.2). Then they occupy the niche by presenting the aim of their research: to test whether a BCG revaccination would help to reduce child mortality if applied after DPT booster vaccination.

Sun and Chang (2012) occupy the niche through purposive and descriptive statements: “[T]he current study (…)views blogs as a social medium for knowledge and identity construction and aims to explore what kind of writing-related topics the students blog about” ( p. 44). They also include a study framework to support their work and research questions to guide it. In contrast, Roth et al. (2010) do not include these elements.

As regards the Methods section, both articles follow a similar structure and have been written using the past passive, since they authors were explaining the procedures already carried out. However, they differ as regards content, type of data and participants for they belong to different types of research.

Roth et al. (2010) conducted a correlational study (Sampieri, Collado& Lucio, 1998), and within Methods, Roth et al. (2010) include not only participants, materials and procedure but also outcomes. In addition, they clearly state the objective of their study, which is “to examine whether BCG revaccination would reduce child mortality by 30%” (p. 2). As regards participants, the authors provide clear descriptions of the sample population, which was large (about 2,000 children), divided into two groups. It is also stated that the guardians of the participants were informed about the study. The procedure is clearly outlined and tables are used to illustrate the data. It was also explained that the trial was suspended temporarily due to the fact that there was a sudden increase in mortality between November 2003 and March 2004. This was done in order to “prevent a possible but unknown risk to more children” (Roth et al, 2010, p. 5).

Sun and Chang’s (2012) Methods section is shorter. It includes procedures and participants, as well as analysis of the data, but the materials used are not specified. For their research the authors did not use a scientific experiment, but a case study “to explore the EFL writer’s development as academic writers through collaborative dialogues in the blogosphere” (p. 46). Therefore, the number of participants was not large. Details of the students’ levels and needs are simply and clearly described. The procedures include the task to be performed by the participants clearly and step by step. Sun and Chang (2012) also state the way the project would be evaluated and the role of the teacher:“The course instructor served as a facilitator to guide students as they embarked on the blog project” (p. 46).

Although the research papers analyzed belong to different fields of study, they were structured in similar ways. Both of them include Introductions and Methods sections and they also refer to previous literature. Within their introductions, the authors followed the CARS model in both papers. In the Methods sections the authors did not make assumptions about the readers´ background knowledge; on the contrary, they made proper descriptions, provided examples and followed the principles of process paragraphs.

The nature of the content of the articles made it necessary for the authors to gather and present the information rather differently. For instance Roth et al. (2010) used more tables and specific figures since they were making use of quantitative methods. As Sun & Chang (2012) were carrying out a case study, they used interviews and a qualitative method.

Analyzing and comparing Research Articles, while trying to find similarities and differences in them, might lead us, as future researchers, to comprehend the underlying structures of papers in a better way. Concentrating not only on the content, but also on the structure, might help us improve our future research practices.

References

 

Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández Collado, C., & Baptista Lucio, P. (1998). Metodología de la investigación. (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill: México.

Roth, A. E., Bell, C. B, Ravn, H., Rodrigues, A., Lisse, I. M., Yazdanbakhsh, M. & Aaby, P. (2010). Effect of revaccination with BCG in early childhood on mortality: randomized trial in Guinea-Bissau. BMJ 2010. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c671.

Sun, Y. & Chang, Y. (2012). Blogging to Learn: Becoming EFL Academic Writers through collaborative Dialogues. Language Learning & Technology, 16-1, 43-61.

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