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/