A Comparative Analysis of Abstracts in the Fields of Medicine and Education

Abstracts are short and descriptive texts that contain a summary of the information the readers may find in a research article (RA). They are also expository, as they are written clearly, concisely and neatly in order to transmit information in an objective way.  Hubbuch (1996) defines abstracts “as brief summaries of the major points made by an author in a book or article” (p. 126). Abstracts are the first section that appears in an RA, however, they are written as the final stage of the research. The length and type of abstracts may vary, but the most important objective of a good abstract is to summarize the relevant findings of a RP in no less than 150 or more than 200 words.

A well-written abstract will attract the readers’ attention and motivate them to go on reading the whole RA. The American Psychological Association (APA) explains that “[r]eaders frequently decide on the basis of the abstract weather to read the entire article” (APA, 2008, p. 21). APA manuals offer useful guidelines as regards conventions for abstracts to enhance researchers’ pursuit not only accuracy but also audience comprehension. However, researchers may find writing good abstracts a difficult task to accomplish, since not all of them follow the same basic conventions and requirements.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze and to compare two RA´s abstracts in the field of medicine and two in the field of education. This analysis will be based in terms of their structure, their classification, their linguistic characteristics and their approach to writing.

Method

Two articles have been chosen as representatives of their fields. In the medicine arena, Martinez’s et al. (2010) article presents a structured abstract, which summarizes the main sections of the RA. In the same way, Becket et al. (2008) also presents a well-structured abstract, which introduces the reader into the topic of discussion. In the educational field, specifically English Language Teaching (ELT), two research articles (RA) have been chosen to represent the field. King’s (2002) RA presents an abstract to introduce the main topic. Similarly, Rammal (2006) introduces his project by means of an abstract.

Results

The analysis of the abstract in the four RAs demonstrates that the abstracts in the medicine field have been carefully written, following standard rules, and taking into account the audience. Martinez (2010) divided the abstract into sections, making it a structured type. This may explain the fact that the author decided to use many paragraphs, instead of only one. The aim was to identify each main section in the RA. Bold type was used for each heading. The word “abstract” was not centered, bold type was used and it was capitalized. Passive voice was used throughout, even though the authors have decided to personalize it by using the second person plural pronoun twice. The word limit was not respected (244 words) and there were no key words.

The second RA in the medicine field did not respect the word  limit either (318 words). However, Becket et al. (2008) used a new page for their abstract. Full sentences, the past tense and passive constructions (also the second  person plural pronoun) were used.. The authors also avoided the use of negative constructions. However, they omitted adding keywords, and there were many abbreviations, symbols and specialized jargon. As regards layout, a four-paragraph organization was used to achieve the Introduction, Method, Results and Discussions (IMRAD) formula. The word ‘abstract’ was centered, and it was not underlined, indented or bold-typed; however, it was capitalized.

King’s (2002) article on using Digital Versatile Disks (DVD) in the classroom included an abstract of not more than 114 words, well below the required average. This abstract was written in a single paragraph in an unstructured style. Full sentences were used and the content might be considered attractive to the audience. There were many drawbacks as regards the following standards: King (2002) did not use a new page, key words were not included, the past tense was not used, but present tenses instead, the passive was used only once and the antecedent was ambiguous due to its distance from the verb. Some sentences did not seem to be objective, as when King (2002, Abstract) described DVDs: “DVD films provide more pedagogical options and are a rich resource of intrinsically motivating materials for learners”. The author did not follow the IMRAD formula. Abbreviations were used with no clarification of meaning: “DVD has vastly replaced traditional VHS as a movie medium”. (King, 2002, Abstract).

The second article chosen for this analysis was Rammal’s (2006) “Video in the EFL Classrooms”. The word limit was not respected (50 words) and the analysis showed that the abstract was not written as a description of the RA. Rammal did not use past tenses, but future tenses, instead. IMRAD formula did not seem to be attempted. As regards layout, the heading was not centered, it was bold-typed, and it was followed by a semi-colon. The whole RA, and also the abstract used roman numerals to indicate sections. Rammal did not use a new page for his abstract and no keywords were listed. He also used an abbreviation, which he clarified: “This research project provides teachers of English as Foreign Language (EFL) with insights on developing materials (…)”. (Rammal, 2006, Abstract).

Discussion and Conclusion

Martinez et al. (2010) have shown a careful planning for  the writing of the abstract for the RA. By dividing the abstracts into logical sections, and thus respecting the IMRAD formula, he has achieved a smooth cohesion, which allows readers to preview the content of the RA. Even though certain conventions have not been followed, such as the layout of the heading, which might be due to publishers’ requirements, the abstract surely invites readers to go on reading the RA.

Becket et al. (2008) have respected some of the content and layout requirements suggested by Paiz et al. (2012): “Begin a new page (…) center the word ‘abstract’ (no bold, formatting, italics, underlining or quotation marks (…) write a concise summary of the key points of your research”. (General Format, Abstract). Once again, publishers’ requirements might have allowed the authors to follow different guidelines as regards different formatting, e.g. for the word limit, use of symbols or abbreviations.

In comparison, the two EFL articles can be assessed as of poor quality as regards the above mentioned requirements. The most important flaw of not complying with a minimum of words  might have caused all the others. The authors did not seem aware of APA’s (2008) guidelines as regards writing abstracts. King’s (2002) use of present tenses and Rammal’s (2006) use of future tenses indicate that they were not acquainted with the necessary conventions. In fact, Rammal’s use of the future suggests that he had written the abstract before he wrote the RA.  King’s lack of objectivity might mislead potential readers, and his use of abbreviations with no clarification might make the reader feel that the text was not written by a well-informed author (and thus consider the whole text is not worth reading). Rammal’s (2006) misuse, abuse and lack of conventions in his abstract may surely alert the reader that the researcher has not undertaken this task professionally, let alone seriously.

Even though the two medicine RAs may have some drawbacks, mainly as layout and formatting is concerned, these may be attributable to publishers’ requirements, or at least this might be the reader’s feeling. Since the medicine field is highly respected as far as their researches are concerned, a few minor flaws might be contemplated.

Conversely, the educational field is still striving to find its place within the scientific community, this implies that more effort should be made on the part of the writers to comply with standard conventions and requirements when publishing papers. However, after this analysis, it seems that the effort that most members of the community are willing to make is reduced to ashes, when publishing houses publish RAs which do not follow standard conventions. If published RAs do not follow standards the community as a whole can be seen as non-academic. So it is not just a matter of personal choice, but a matter of respecting your colleagues.

 The effort to follow these conventions is worthwhile. Many members of this professional community have devoted their lives to researching and publishing RAs. More and more members are being recruited each day, and  there is evidence of the willingness to help others get inside the discourse circle, while also inviting publishing houses to join and help make this profession be seen as what it is: a highly respected professional community.

References

American Phychologcal Association (2008). Concise rules of APA style. Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-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

Becket, N., Petters, R., Fletcher, A., Staessen, J., Liu, L., Durmitrasco, D., Stroyanowsky, V., Antikainen, R., Nikitin, Y., Anderson, C. ., Belhani A,.Forette, F., Rajhurnar, C., Thijs, L., Banya, W. & Bulpitt, C. (2008). Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older. The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 358, No. 18. Retrieved May 2012 from  www.nejm.org

Hubbuch, S. M. (1996). Writing research paper across the curriculum. (4^th ed.). Harcourt Brace: Fort Worth, TX

King, J. (2002) Using DVD feature films in the EFL classroom. The Weekly Column. Art.88. Retrived May 2012

Martinez, C., Assimes, T., Mines, D, Dell´Aneillo & S., Suissa, S. (2010). Use of venlafazine compared with other antidepressants and the risk of sudden cardiac death or near death: a nested case-control study. Retrive May 2012 from  BMJ 2010;340:c249 doi:10.1136/bmj.c249

Paiz, J., Angeli, E., Wagner, J., Lawrick, E., Moore, K., Anderson, M., Soderlund, L., Brizee, A., Keck, R. (2012). Purdue Online Writing Lab. Webpage. Retrieved May 2012, from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

Rammal, S. M. (2006). Video in EFL Classrooms. Retrieve May 2012, from http://www.usingenglish.com/articles/video-in-efl-classrooms.html