Comparing Results, Discussions and Conclusion sections
in two RAs
According to Swales
and Feak (1994), Research Papers (RPs) usually follow a typical “organizational pattern (…),
the IMRD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) or some
variant of it” (p. 155). In this Paper we
will focus on three sections: Results, Discussions and Conclusions. We will
attempt to compare two RAs: Barrs's (2012) RA on education and Di Angelantonio
et al.'s (2010) on medicine to find whether some common features in their
design can be found as well as some differences, since they belong to different
fields and are aimed at different audiences.
The Results
section summarizes the data with text, tables and/or figures: “The findings are described, accompanied by variable
amounts of commentary” (Swales &
Feak, 1994, p.157). In this section authors refer to the results that are
associated to their hypothesis, may summarize problems and attempt to find
solutions.
Barr’s (2012) is an
Action Research (AR) Report; this type of research is undertaken by teachers
who seek to solve educational problems and improve practice (Sagor, 1992).
Barrs’s (2012) AR reports the results of the research conducted in her class
where she analyzed the behaviour of 28 students during 8 weeks: a small group sample
during a short period of time.
In contrast, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) undertook a different type of research: a
correlational study (Sampieri, Collado & Lucio, 1998) to measure the
relationship between chronic kidney
disease with major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality. This experimental design made it necessary to have a
larger population sample and a longer period of testing.
Ogier (1998)
describes qualitative research as one which involves collecting and analyzing
“data concerned with meanings, attitudes and beliefs rather than data (…) from
which statistical inferences can be drawn” (p.39). The latter, which focuses
more on figures, is used in quantitative research. Di Angelantonio et al.'s
(2010) analysis of the data was quantitative and statistic, due to the large
number of participants and since the objective of the research was to
"quantify associations of chronic kidney disease stages with major
cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality in the general adult population"
(p. 1).
Barrs (2012)
selected representative data and analyzed it both qualitative and
quantitatively. Three tables presenting the results are included; they are
followed by a text commenting on the results. The tables do not seem to adopt
the American Psychological Association (APA) (2007) style completely. According
to APA (2007), tables should be numbered, each should have an individual title,
italicized and presented with major words capitalized; further, each table
should be begin on a separate page, and should be double-spaced. Barrs (2012)
complies with the some APA (2007) conventions for Tables; however, they appear
one after the other, not on separate pages and the elements within them are not
double-spaced. The tables seem to be easy to read and present the data
collected quite clearly.
Di Angelantonio et
al.’s (2010) Results section is descriptive, as it refers to the data that is
illustrated in both tables and figures. There are four tables with a similar
format but different amount of data. The tables are numbered and each has an
individual title. However, they do not seem to follow APA (2007) style, as the
titles are not in italics and major words are not capitalized. The figures are
also numbered and the legends explain the data.
The results and
discussion sections in Barrs’s (2012) research are blended together: The author
compares the results and interprets their meanings. This is shown by the choice
of words: “Disappointingly, the majority of interactions (93%) involved a
simple one or two sentence initiation followed by a single reply, at which
point the communication ended” (Barrs, 2012, p. 16). This problem of lack of
sustained interaction led the researcher to conduct a survey to find the cause
of the problem. The results are presented in tables 4 and 5. Barrs (2012)
states that "As can be seen in Table 4 , the preliminary investigation
revealed that the two distinct issues (a) a lack of time, and (b) a lack of
interest in the discussion topic, contributed to the low amount of interaction
on the site" (p.17).
Unlike Barrs
(2012), Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) decided
to write the Results, Discussion
and Conclusions sections separately. These authors also encountered problems
during the analysis of the results that required a solution. According to
Swales and Feak (1994), problem-solution texts are not as descriptive but more
evaluative. Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) evaluated that "the possibility
existed of a weakly positive hazard ratio in people without chronic kidney
disease who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 90 ml/min/1.73 m 2
or above" (pp. 3-4). This required further information and adjustments:
"The incremental value of information on chronic kidney disease status was
lower when added to more elaborate risk prediction models that used information
on additional risk factors" (Di Angelantonio et al., 2010, p. 7).
In the
Discussions section, the authors of both RPs evaluate whether or not a solution
to their problem has been found. In this section, the readers are reminded of
the questions, hypotheses and aims that gave rise to the investigation.
Moreover, the authors present arguments to emphasize the importance of their
research and the contributions it has made.
According to
Swales and Feak (1994), researchers need to be cautious about the results
yielded by the data. For this reason, they suggest writers should use distance
to avoid strong (and perhaps) unjustified claims. In the conclusion, both Barrs (2012) and Di
Angelantonio et al. (2010) avoid making generalizations, and also suggest that
their research may lead to further investigations. For instance, Di
Angelantonio et al. (2010) state: "Further studies are needed to
investigate associations between chronic kidney disease and non-vascular
mortality from causes other than cancer"(p.6).
Similarly, Barrs
(2012) comes to this conclusion as regards Computer-Mediated Communication
(CMC):
Although not
investigated here, such CMC programmes could be of benefit to the students in
possibly maintaining and even developing their L2 skills, despite the
interruption of out-of-class periods. Indeed, this could be an area of further
investigation in that a teacher may like to research whether or not there is a
development in English ability through the use of such a programme (. . .).
Further, the nature of the interactions themselves could become an area of
value for extended investigation (p. 22).
The conclusion
section in Barrs's (2012) R.A. summarizes the research, re-states the aim of
the project, and shows the resolution of the problems. He suggests that 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. In addition, Barrs
(2012) attempts to persuade his readers that the research and its conclusions
are important: "This would suggest that CMC projects such as this one can
be of value in increasing opportunities for L2 interaction and positively
engaging students in target-language practice while out of the
classroom"(p.22).
All in all, the
R.As analysed seem to follow a similar format, and to adhere to the principles
of clarity and honesty, since the authors describe the limitations of their
research. Both RAs develop
the three sections, although Barrs (2012) has chosen to blend Results and
Discussions. In each case, despite differences in the scope of the research and
amount of data, relevant information has been presented and analysed. In the conclusion
the need for further investigation is stated. Both Barrs's (2012) and Di Angelantonio et al. (2010)
indicate that the results should not be generalized, due to the fact that they
were conditioned by the context.
References
American
Psychological Association (2007). Concise rules of APA style. Washington,
DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
Barrs, K. (2012).
Action Research. Fostering computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the
classsroom. Language Learning & Technology,16 (1), 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. BMJ
2010. doi:10.1136/bmj.c4986
Ogier, M.
(1998). Reading research. (2nd ed.). Bailliere Tindall: London, UK.
Sagor, R.(1992) How To Conduct Collaborative Action Research. [Abstract] Retrieved December 2012 from ERIC database (ED360257)
Hernández
Sampieri, R., Fernández Collado, C., & Baptista Lucio, P. (1998). Metodología
de la investigación. (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill: México.
Swales, J. M. (1994). Academic writing
for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
