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.