Analyzing the Results, Discussions and Conclusions Sections in Research Articles in Medicine and in English Language Teaching

Introduction

Educational Research Articles (RAs) have been published in specialized journals for many decades now. English Language Teaching (ELT) is a field which has seen a dramatic increase in its literature – due to its changes in methodology – and it has become a respected academic community, which has fostered academic writing standards among its members. This evolution has permitted ELT RAs to be compared with those of the medicine field – a highly recognized academic field over many years.

RAs are usually divided into several sections. The Results, Discussions and Conclusions sections might be used to establish the academic capabilities of the writers. Researchers should not only respect standardized conventions, such as those established by the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010), but also attract the readers’ attention by presenting the most important findings in a clear and coherent fashion. The use of tables and figures and the cautious and critical linguistic tools follow this purpose. The Results and Discussions sections are descriptive. The former allows researchers to present their main findings, and the latter reveals the interpretation of the outcomes. Swales (1980) states that the Results section summarizes the data, the text, tables and / or figures and describes the findings that are related to the questions or hypothesis presented in the paper.

When analyzing results, there are important features the researchers should consider. They should select representative data, and use tables and charts according to the need in order to both highlight the main points of their findings and keep in mind the communication principle of simplicity. As regards discussions and conclusions, APA (2010) allows their separate or unified writing. It is the researcher’s task to assess whether the problem has been solved, and they will also need to set strengths and limitations regarding their current analysis. At this point they might also provide suggestions for further analysis on the issue at hand.

The following paper will attempt to establish a comparison in the way two RAs (in the fields of ELT and medicine) address the results, discussions and conclusions sections. It will also explore how researchers present their main findings by applying standardized rules and conventions.

Method

This paper bases its conclusions on the basis of the structure of the Results, Discussions and Conclusions sections found in two RAs, one in the medicine field by Di Angeleantonio et al. (2010), and the ELT article by Barrs (2012). These two articles have been chosen as representative examples of the sections previously mentioned.

Results

A deep analysis of the results section revealed that Di Angeleantionio et al. (2010) did not only summarizes the data by using tables and figures, but also seemed to describe the outcome that may be related to the main hypothesis of the researchers: “to quantify associations of chronic kidney disease stages with major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality in the general adult population” (Di angelantonio, Chowdhury, Sarwar, Apelund, Danesh & Dudnason, 2010, p. 1). In the case of the education RA, the results section summarized the data only with tables. There were, however, short reflections on that data. Those reflections – together with the original dialogues that had originated them – might have made the information clearer to the readers. The results sections in both articles seemed to describe the researchers’ main findings in an objective, comprehensible way.

Regarding the use of tables and figures, their use illustrated the points claimed by the authors and a comparison of data could be established in both papers. Furthermore, their use allowed for a large amount of information to be included in a small space. Specifically, as regards tables, in both articles the authors used them to highlight the main points. There was consistency with format, titles and terminology among them. However, the tables in the medicine RA seemed more complicated as they described technical and specific data, symbols and abbreviations that might be difficult for the layman. Tables in the ELT RA were simpler as they showed only one topic at a time and the information might be comprehensible at a quick glance – at least for the professional educator. Figures were also present in both RAs. In the medicine RA, there were scatter plot graphs, which illustrated the main findings and complemented the text. The explanations were created by the authors. The legends helped the intended audience’s reading comprehension. Figures in the ELT RA seemed simpler. It was only one chart synthesizing the “conceptualization of the action research process” (Barrs, 2012, p.13).

The Discussion section was also descriptive and researchers seemed to show their objective interpretations of the outcomes obtained in their research. In the medicine RA, this section was immediately after the results sections and the authors interpreted the results by comparing the outcomes with those found in past literature. They also included their strengths and limitations:

      We used qualitative urinary dipstick methods routinely used in clinical practice, but we

     did not have serial measurements on creatinine concentration or urinary protein (. . .).

     Although we used robust methods to ascertain disease outcomes (. . .) some random

     misclassification inherent in using disease registers would have underestimated

     associations (Di Angeleantonio et al., 2010, p. 6)

In addition to that, a very comprehensible chart was included to show existing known data on the topic and what their present study brought to the discussion. Barrs (2012) did not include a Discussions section, but a Conclusions section, where reflections and further studies could be found. There was, however, another section devoted to the description of their limitations.

The Conclusion section was the final important part of the RAs. In both RAs, the authors reflected upon what they had found, as well as they suggested further studies as a consequence of their limitations, as Barrs (2012) explicitly suggested: “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” (p.22) and once again by stating that “the nature of the interactions themselves could become an area of value for extended investigation” (Barrs, 2012, p. 22). As regards linguistic tools, both researchers followed the general principles provided by APA (2007), such as avoiding phrases like “in conclusion” or “to sum up”. Punctuation rules have also been respected.

Discussion and Conclusion

The present study has focused on three key sections of RAs: the Results, Discussions and Conclusions sections. By establishing the academic standards that each of them should accomplish, it might be possible to establish a comparison between ELT RAs and those found in the medicine field. Even though there is specialized jargon for each of these discourse communities (Swales, 1988), there are certain academic features which can prove useful for establishing the proposed standards. Some studies could still be carried out in order to determine whether ELT is already using most of the jargon it should in RAs, since more often than not, there seems to be ambiguity when terms need to be defined, for instance in methodology.

After careful consideration of APA’s (2007) requirements for academic papers, both Di Angeleantionio et al. (2010) and Barrs (2012) have managed to write cohesive, objective academic RAs. Therefore, ELT seems to be a developing academic field, able to produce its own literature, which can be shared among its members, thus allowing each of them to learn and grow.

References

American Psychological Association (2007).Concise rules of APA style. Washington, DC: Britich LibraryCataloguing-in-Publication Data.

Barrs, K. (2012). Action reseach. Fostering computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the classroom. Retrieved April 2012 from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/actionresearch.pdf

Di Angelantionio, E., Chowdhury, R., Sarwar, N., Aspelund, T., Danesh, J. & Gudnason, N. (2007). Chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: prospective population based cohort study. Retrieved April 2012 from doi:10.1136/bmj.c4986

Swales, J.M. (1988). Discourse Communities, Genres and English as an International Language. Retrieved September 2011, from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/71887/1/j.1467-971X.1988.tb00232.x.pdf