Results and conclusions in the natural and the social sciences: An in-depth analysis

Results and conclusions in the natural and the social sciences: An in-depth analysis

When investigators embark upon writing a research article (RA), they do so with the ultimate purpose of learning more about a specific subject. Therefore, they will take special interest in the outcomes of the study at issue: What information did they gather after having applied the methods described in the Methods section? Did the research support or refute the hypothesis presented in the conclusion? What conclusion did the researchers reach after conducting their study?

These inquiries are answered in the final three sections of RAs: Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. In this paper, two RAs will be analysed in order to contrast the aforementioned sections in texts written for the natural sciences and for the social sciences. For the former, the chosen article will be Chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: prospective population based cohort study (Di Angelantonio, Chowdhury, Sarwar, Aspelund, Danesh & Gudnason, 2010), and for the latter, Fostering computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the classroom (Barrs, 2012).

Results

In their RA, Di Angelantonio et. al. (2010) wrote the result first and included the discussion in the following section. Besides, the authors chose to subdivide the results section in three subsections, “Baseline associations”, “Hazard ratios with disease outcomes”, “Chronic kidney disease and coronary heart disease risk prediction”. This subdivision helps the reader understand the different aspects dealt with. There is no such division in the Methods section, yet it can be seen that these variables are mentioned in that portion of the RA. Furthermore, the data gathered by the researchers are presented by means of three tables and line charts so as to present a large proportion of information in little space.

These graphic representations do not comply with certain basic APA rules since the titles are not italicized, the tables are not on separate pages, nor are all of its elements double spaced. Notwithstanding, other APA rules have been respected, namely the use of horizontal lines to separate information and make it clearer, adequate titles to explain the content of the tables, a smaller font but readable enough, and the use of general and specific notes. Finally, the Results section contains a description of the steps taken by the researchers to interpret the data, written in the first person plural and following the conventions of the use of the simple past tense,

After we took inappropriate reclassification into account, however, the overall net reclassification improvement was 1.04% (−0.93% to 3.02%; P=0.301). When we calculated the average absolute improvement in prediction of risk without categorisation into risk groups, the integrated improvement in discrimination was 0.0022 (0.0010 to 0.0033; P<0.001). This denotes an improvement equivalent to about 0.2% in predicted absolute risk for a typical screened person on addition of information on chronic kidney disease status to other risk factors. (Di Angelantonio et. al., 2010, para. 11)

Barrs (2012) also subdivided the Results section, but in this case he made a distinction between “The 1st Period of Action Research” and “The 2nd Period of Action Research”, and both stages are described thoroughly, in the past tense. This distinction mirrors the description of the study in the Methods section, most probably to enable the reader to follow the presentation of information more easily.

Eight tables organize the data collected throughout the investigation, which clearly comply with most basic APA rules. Although the tables are not on separate pages, they are numbered and referenced in the text of the paper, their titles are italicized and they adequately explain the contents of each table, all its elements are double spaced, horizontal lines have been used to separate information and make it clearer and columns present comparable values down all rows. It should be highlighted, though, that the font is not smaller than that of the text of the paper.

It is also interesting to note that the last paragraph in this section anticipates some elements of the discussion, since they have included a reflection on the scope of their RA,

The statistical data in terms of number of postings/replies shows that the project fostered high levels of independent and target language-focused participation, but it is difficult to report on the effect of the project on classroom dynamics. Although it was hoped that the project would help to foster positive group development processes (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003, p. 4), this was not a specific research question for this investigation. (Barrs, 2012, para. 14)

The Results sections of these RAs are similar in a number of ways. Both presentations of results are in logical order: Di Angelantonio et. al.'s (2010) article is arranged into sub-headings that focus the discussion on each of the variables studied, whereas in Barrs’s, there are paragraphs devoted to different moments in the action research, with the answers to the researchers' questionnaire placed between them. Also, both articles present a summary of the data, and feature text and tables, although figures are only present in Di Angelantonio et. al.

Additionally, and adhering to the established set of APA conventions, the past tense is used to describe the steps taken in the collection of results. Besides, even though one cannot be absolutely certain of the extent of the data collected for each of these RAs, it can be assumed that the data presented in these papers are representative of the research being conducted, and that the investigators have omitted irrelevant information.

Discussions

Di Angelantonio et. al. (2010) outline and summarise the findings of the study in the Discussion portion of their RA. They enumerate the main findings one by one and include an interpretation of the results in light of these discoveries. The authors also include a subsection called Strengths and limitations, where a comparative analysis of the strong and weak points of this research can be found. Finally, they have decided to include the conclusion as yet another part of the discussion and not as an independent section.

In Barrs’s (2012) RA, some elements of the Discussion can be identified in the final section of the Results. Moreover, the segment that discusses and interprets the results is called Limitations, rather than Discussion. This may be so because in this part, the author presents the main reasons why it would be difficult to apply the results of this action research to other situations. Had he included a more conventional title, the reader might not be predisposed enough to read about the negative aspects of the study.

The main difference that can be seen in the treatment of the Discussion sections in these two RAs is that Barrs (2012) has included the conclusion within the discussions, yet Di Angelantonio et. al. (2010) have decided that it should be separate from this section. Not only that, Di Angelantonio et. al have used the conventional title for this part, whereas Barrs has chosen another one that reflects his attitude towards the research he has conducted: by naming it Limitations, he has directed the reader's attention to the restrictions on the possible application and scope of their study. In both papers, however, the simple present and present perfect tenses have been used to develop the authors' interpretation of the results and their relevance in connection with the hypothesis.

Conclusions

As stated before in the analysis of the Discussion section, Di Angelantonio et. al. (2010) have included the conclusion as a component of this part of the paper. As a result, it can be seen that it is rather short in comparison with the rest of the sections. Consequently, one may infer that the authors intended to give more importance to other parts of the article and let the results and their discussion speak for themselves, thus finding no need for a lengthy conclusion. Di Angelantonio et. al. also mention an alternative for the continuation of research in this area: “Further studies are needed to investigate associations between chronic kidney disease and non-vascular mortality from causes other than cancer” (para. 16).

Barrs (2012) has chosen to name this section Conclusion and Reflections. It is a five-paragraph summary of the interpretation of the data. If he had not decided to recapitulate the methods used to obtain his evidence in this section, it may have been less repetitive and more pertinent. Providing a conclusion for the article, the author states that “the project can be seen as beneficial both to the students in terms of their language learning, and to the institution and teachers in terms of being able to increase the ways in which students can be engaged in L2-focused practice” (Barrs, 2012, para. 43). In the final paragraph, the author refers to the possibility of further research, thus using the correct space in his paper to indicate future steps in the investigation of computer-mediated interaction in educational settings.

Barrs's (2010) conclusion is brief and concise, while Di Angelantonio et. al. (2012) have devoted an independent and longer paragraph to this section. Nonetheless, both conclusions appear to have the same aim, which is to provide closure for the article and make references to the direction further research might take, should anyone wish to continue exploring the topic under discussion in their respective RAs.

Conclusion

This scrutiny of RAs in the natural sciences and the social sciences has shown that, despite being different in several ways, both papers share many features, which are relevant to the readers and researchers who consult them. Not only do the authors present and interpret the results of their investigation, but they also describe, sometimes critically, the scope of their research and provide suggestions for those who wish to continue investigating in their area.

The comprehensive analysis performed has attracted our attention to the importance of using appropriate academic conventions in this sort of papers. Having made a thorough comparison of Barrs (2010) and Di Angelantonio et. al (2012), it is our contention that a clear organization and a suitable presentation of the information gathered are among the most significant factors in the writing of RAs, which cannot be neglected if researchers of any discipline aim at making a relevant contribution to the growth of a discourse community.

References

Barrs, K. (2012) Fostering computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the classroom. Language learning & technology 16 (1), 10-25. Retrieved April 2013 from: http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/actionresearch.pdf

Di Angelantonio, E. et. al. (2010) Chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: prospective population based cohort study. BMJ 2010 341 doi:10.1136/bmj.c4986. Retrieved in April 2013 from: http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4986.pdf%2Bhtml

Purdue Online Writing Lab. APA tables and figures. Retrieved in April 2013 from

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/20/

A scrutiny on Research Papers in the fields of medicine and education

 A scrutiny on Research Papers in the fields of medicine and education

Research is a key component of any science, and one which is particularly important as regards the improvement of methods, the identification of knowledge gaps and the facilitation of further developments. Notwithstanding, the methods and conduction of research are different in the social and natural sciences. This can be clearly seen in the Research Papers (RP) that present findings and conclusions to the community.

A clear instance of this diversity can be found when examining and comparing this kind of text within the fields of medicine and education. In this paper, a detailed analysis and succeeding comparison of two articles, one from each discipline, will be carried out, paying special attention to their introductions, literature reviews, and methods sections. The following articles will be analysed: How Teacher Turnover Harms Student Achievement (Loeb, Ronfeldt & Wyckoff, 2012), an educational RP, and An Internet-Based Virtual Coach to Promote Physical Activity Adherence in Overweight Adults: Randomized Controlled Trial (Watson, Bickmore, Cange, Kulshreshtha & Kvedar, 2012), which belongs to the area of medicine.

Introductions

Watson et. al. (2012) present a description of the current situation in the US as regards obesity, “With 65% of US adults being overweight, and a third meeting the criteria for obesity, health professionals have been spurred to develop innovative strategies to address this epidemic” (para. 1). This use of figures and statistics is characteristic of scientific RPs and it is a reflection of the quantitative research often involved in these disciplines.

In this section, the authors also include the objective of their study, claiming that they “sought to understand the effectiveness of virtual coaching compared with the use of a pedometer and website alone in improving activity levels in overweight or obese participants” (Watson et. al., 2012, para. 6). This segment of the article also includes the hypothesis that guided their research.

In the research article by Loeb et. al. (2012), it can be noted that the introduction begins by highlighting a problem in education and the setting in which it has been known to occur, “teacher turnover rates can be high, particularly in schools serving low-income, non-White, and low-achieving student populations. Nationally, about 30% of new teachers leave the profession within 5 years (...)” (para. 1).

The authors also specify that “three research questions guide the investigation” (Loeb et. al., 2012, para. 16) and explain that “The article proceeds as follows. We first describe the data and methodological approach. We then present the results and conclude with a discussion of the implications of the findings” (Loeb et. al., 2012, para. 18).

Both introductions are quite similar, since they include a description of the current situation in which the researchers have observed a certain phenomenon that motivated the study, a description of the context, and the aim of the research they set out to discuss. In spite of belonging to different disciplines, both authors make use of figures and percentages to characterise the situation and present the problem to the reader.

The aforementioned description proves that both introductions have been structured in a general-specific manner, in which a research space was created, a niche was established and, finally, that niche was occupied. By specifying the motivations for the study, the authors expound on what their research is about. They also state the structure of the paper and the nature of the present research.

Literature reviews

In Watson et. al. (2012), most of the literature review can be found in the introduction, where the authors have paraphrased the findings of other scientists in several studies that are relevant to the topic. This has been done to provide a theoretical background to the study and to show the readers the need for this investigation in particular; thus indicating the gap found in the Literature Review, raising questions about that gap and expanding previous knowledge. Although there are no instances of direct quotations, each paraphrase has been connected with a source in the reference list. This section seems to be more of an introduction to the topic than a full literature review.

On the other hand, a lengthy and comprehensive literature review can be found in the introduction of Loeb et. at. (2012), containing paraphrases of other authors with their corresponding citations. This review contains two subsections: “Compositional” Explanations and “Disruptive” Explanations, which expound on two tendencies in which teacher turnover affects students’ performances.

In both RPs, the literary review shares several features: both are included as part of the introduction and include quantitative data, which is used to support the need for the study. Furthermore, in both articles this segment includes paraphrasing and citation of the sources. Nonetheless, in the latter it can be noted that the literature review appears to be not only much longer but also more developed than in the former, through the use of subheadings that organize the information obtained from other studies.

Methods

The methods section of the medicine research paper under analysis is further subdivided in seven headings: Eligibility Criteria, Setting, Interventions, Primary and Secondary Outcomes, Study Size, Randomization, and Statistical Analysis. In the first part of this section, there is a detailed account of the participants’ characteristics,

Participants were between 20 and 55 years old (inclusive); had a body mass index (BMI) between 25 and 35 kg/m2(inclusive); were fluent in spoken and written English; had a primary care physician; had access to a personal computer with an available USB port, speakers, and Internet access; and either answered no to all 7 questions on the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q) or obtained written permission from their primary care physician to take part in the study. (Watson, et. al. 2012. para. 7)

Furthermore, the authors provide detailed information about the setting in time and place. They describe the activities in which the subjects participated throughout the study, as well as the technology used to measure the results.

The article by Loeb et. al. (2012) is organized according to the three research questions mentioned at the end of the introduction. Each of these is developed in a subsection, and the authors have included an elaborate description of their approach for each of the issues thereby raised. Especially noteworthy is the comprehensive way in which the authors have discussed the methods and strategies they have applied to measure each of the aspects of teacher turnover, including two formulas that reflect the different variables that the researchers will measure,

To better understand the nature of observed effects, we examine whether the relationship between teacher turnover and student achievement varies in different kinds of schools. As described in the Introduction, many have suggested turnover to be a particularly pernicious problem in schools with historically underserved student populations, (…). To test this, we run models separately in low- versus high-performing schools and in low versus high percentage Black schools. (para. 32)

The present analysis shows that the methods section in both cases is well-developed, with exhaustive descriptions that give the readers a complete picture of the way in which each research was conducted. There is relevant information about the participants and the setting as well, which provides a much-needed context where to interpret the data obtained in light of the questions posed by each of the investigators.

Notwithstanding, the layout of the article by Watson et. al. (2012) better approaches the agreed conventions of RPs as regards the sections included in this segment of the paper, namely a) participants, b) materials and c) procedure. Even though, there are more subheadings, the expected ones have been included. One more thing to highlight is the fact that instead of using the word subjects, the word participant has been chosen.

In relation with the paper by Loeb et. al. (2012), the way the Methods section has been organized differs completely from the agreed conventions mentioned above. It must be admitted, though, that the organization of the sections under discussion clearly explains the way the research was carried out. In this case, neither participant nor subject has been used. Instead, the word teacher has been chosen to refer to the participants in the study.

Conclusion

The two papers examined in this work show that, even though the main aim and the structure is to contribute to their corresponding field of studies and at first sight they may look quite similar, there are a number of basic differences between the texts written for the social and for the natural sciences. Within the educational RP, the information provided and its analysis is of a predominantly qualitative nature and, as a result, this RP is quite descriptive. In contrast, the text in the field of medicine shows that the authors relied heavily on figures and objective information, thus rendering the results of the investigation more quantitative and analytical.

Even though the paper by Loeb et. al. (2012) shows the general features of a research paper, such as title, abstract, introduction, literature review (as part of the introduction), methods, results, discussions, references and appendixes; no subheadings in the methods section have been used, neither recommendations as a part of the paper has been included. The driving questions included in the methods section used to organize the text may respond to the fact that the authors tried to be as pedagogical as possible, while at the same time, respecting the conventions of RPs.

On the other hand, the article by Watson et. al. (2012) proves to be a perfect example of a research paper, with all the expected sections included. It should be noted that the recommendations are stated within the conclusion, as it reads, “Further work should examine the long-term benefits of virtual coaching and the extension of this application to a wider patient population” (para. 42), and that acknowledgements are placed at the end of the paper.

Of great concern is it for academic writers to be aware of the requirements of a research paper and of the different features it must have according to the discipline in which the researcher works. This is of utmost importance if they wish to make a significant addition to their discourse community. As it has been shown in this paper, the authors of the two articles analysed have proved to comply with the aforementioned requirements and make a meaningful contribution to their discourse community.

References

Loeb, S., Ronfeldt, M. & Wyckoff, J..(2012) How Teacher Turnover Harms Student Achievement. American Education Research Journal 50 (1), 4-36. doi: 10.3102/0002831212463813. Retrieved in April 2013 from: http://aer.sagepub.com/content/50/1/4.full

Watson, A., Bickmore, T., Cange, A., Kulshreshtha, A., Kvedar, J. (2012) An Internet-Based Virtual Coach to Promote Physical Activity Adherence in Overweight Adults: Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research vol. 14. Retrieved in April 2013 from http://www.jmir.org/2012/1/e1/

A new beginning

To my readers

I started this blog as a part of an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) class at CAECE University last year. And here I am, updating it for my English for Specific Purposes (ESP) class.

Many things have remained, such as my interest in becoming a better writer, my passion for teaching and the English language, and my commitment to my studies. Yet some other things have changed, as well. Firstly, I can say now that am now a more experienced writer, with more knowledge of the academic world and its requirements. Secondly, I am also a more experienced reader,  as I have been exposed during the last term to many new reading texts. And finally, I am now part of a collaborative writing team, with my colleague Analía Chao.

Collaborative writing will be, I am sure, a very interesting experience, in which we will have to work together, using our energy and knowledge to reach a common goal.
I am looking forward to this new challenge!