Analysis of Abstracts in the Medicine and Education Fields

Analysis of Abstracts in the Medicine and Education Fields

 In this article, two abstracts from the medicine field and two articles from the education field will be analyzed and compared. The main characteristics to take into account are the different types of abstracts: whether they are structured or unstructured, indicative or informative, conference abstract or Research Paper (RP) abstract (Swales and Feak, 1994). Other features to be analyzed are the linguistic specifications including the use of full sentences, past tense, impersonal passive, the absence of negatives and the avoidance of abbreviation and jargon (Swales, 1990; Swales and Feak, 1994). The last element relevant in the analysis of abstracts is tense use; conclusions tend to be written in the past tense, opening sentences in the present or present perfect, and results tend to show tense variation.

The first abstract to be considered has been extracted from Wijeysundera et al. (2010) from the medicine field. This is a structured abstract since it contains bolded headings which identify the main sections of an RA. It follows the IMRAD (Introduction- Methods-Results-And-Discussions) formula; it seems to be an RP and informative abstract since it is heavy on data, it looks to the past and describes what the researchers did (Swales and Feak, 1994; Swales, 1990). Its linguistics specifications include some use of full sentences, the use of impersonal passive, for example: “…score methods were used to reduce important differences between patients who did or did not undergo preoperative stress testing…” (Wijeysundera et al., 2010, Abstract, p.1). There is an absence of abbreviations and negatives and the Conclusion is written in the present tense. There is no such a tense variation in the sentences describing Results as it is generally expected (Swales and Feak, 1994; Swales, 1990). 

As for the second abstract in the medicine field, it has been extracted from Martínez, Assimes, Mine, Dell’Aniello, and Siussa (2010). This abstract shares the same characteristics Wijeysundera et al., (2010) abstract has. It is structured, it seems to be an RP abstract, it follows the IMRAD format, and it is informative. As far as its linguistic features are concerned, it is mostly written in full sentences, it is written in the past tense, and there is use of passive structures. The Conclusions are written in the past passive: “In this large, population based study, the use of venlafaxine was not associated with an excess risk of sudden cardiac death or near death…” (Martínez et al., 2010, Abstract, p.1). The abstract does not present abbreviations and negatives.

The third article is from the education field and it has been extracted from King (2002). This is an indicative abstract since it is a generalized summary of the information the article contains. As for its organizational format, it is an unstructured abstract, consisting of one unbroken paragraph comprising 114 words. Taking into account its linguistics features, the whole abstract is written in the present tense in full sentences, for instance, “With these special features, DVD films provide more pedagogical options and are a rich resource of intrinsically motivating materials for learners” (King, 2002, Abstract, p.1). It is also characterized by the absence of negatives and the avoidance of jargon, abbreviations, and symbols. The last sentence of this abstract is written in the passive form since it focuses on the receiver rather than the writer of the article: “Finally, selection criteria for choosing appropriate films to promote active viewing and engage involvement for making the most of DVD films are provided” (King, 2002, Abstract, p.1).

The fourth article is also from the education field and it has been extracted from Rammal (2006). As King’s abstract (2002), this abstract is indicative and unstructured. It is rather short since it contains less than a hundred words. Two long sentences constitute this paragraph, present tense is used for the first sentence: “this research project provides teachers of English as Foreign Language (EFL) with insights on developing materials and teaching methods...” (Rammal, 2006, Abstract, p.1); while future tense is used for the second one: “... emphasis will be on approaching the identity and culture of the native speakers of English...” (Rammal, 2006, Abstract, p.1).   In this abstract there is also use of full sentences and an absence of abbreviations and negatives. However, unlike King’s abstract (2002), there is no use of impersonal passive.

After analyzing these four abstracts, we can notice that even though they share some characteristics, they also present certain differences. Both abstracts from the medicine field are structured and follow the IMRAD format. Unlike these abstracts, the abstracts from the education field are unstructured and consist of only one paragraph. As for their linguistic specifications, the four abstracts are written in full sentences, there is use of impersonal passive and avoidance of abbreviations and negatives. Thus, we may conclude that depending on the field of study, abstracts may be of different types, present different formats and also vary in their linguistic specifications.

References

King, J. (2002). Using DVD feature films in the EFL classroom. [Abstract]. The weekly column, 88, 1-10.

Martínez, C., Assimes, T.L., Mines, D., Dell’Aniello, S., & Suissa, S. (2010). Use of venlafaxine compared with other antidepressants and the risk of sudden cardiac death or near death: A nested case-control study. [Abstract]. BMJ, 340 (c249), 1-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c249

Rammal, S. M. (2006). Video in EFL Classrooms. [Abstract]. Retrieved May 2012 from www.usingenglish.com

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Wijeysundera, D.N., Beattie, W. S., Elliot, R.F., Austin, P. C., Hux, J.E., & Laupacis, A. (2010). Non-invasive cardiac stress testing before elective major non-cardiac surgery: Population based cohort study. [Abstract]. BMJ, 340 (b5526), 1-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b5526

Comparing Results, Discussions and Conclusions in two Research Papers

Comparing Results, Discussions and Conclusions sections in Two Research Papers

Research papers are of outstanding importance since not only do they provide vast, profound knowledge about various topics, but also suggest a feasible solution to a certain issue, as in the case of action research papers. Even though research papers could be based on different academic fields, they are required to follow a particular structure. Thus, they generally contain the following sections: Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, and References. However, depending on the type of research, different patterns or features can be found. After analyzing and reflecting upon the Results, Discussions, and Conclusions sections of an article from the medicine field and another article from the education field, several similarities and differences have been found.

As regards Results and Discussions sections, the authors of both research papers have selected two different structures.  In his education article, Barrs (2012) has written the main findings of his research and the interpretation of their meanings in the same section. In other words, Results and Discussion sections are integrated. This is not the case with the article by Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) from the medicine field, in which the authors have written first the results, and the main analysis has been done in a separate section. In order to provide the reader with a more detailed interpretation of the results, these authors have written the main findings of their research in the Discussions section. In this section they have also included future studies needed to further investigate their question.

Moreover, the authors of both articles use tables and figures to present information which may result hard for the audience to understand in text format. There is a vast use of tables in Barrs’ (2012) research article while in Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) research article there are two tables and two figures. These tables are properly titled, for instance: “Association of renal function with coronary heart disease and non-vascular mortality” (Di Angelantonio et al., 2010). In Barrs’ article (2012), tables are titled accurately, for instance: “Total number and average of postings” (see table 1, p.15). In this article, legends and figures have not been used. In Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) research article, legends appear to be properly presented and figures correctly used, named and numbered. Past tenses and accurate language seem to have been used in this section in both research papers (Swales and Feak, 1994).

As for Discussions and Conclusions sections, Barrs (2012) and Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) have chosen different structures for their research papers. The former has not written the discussions in a separate section, but he has analyzed and discussed the outcomes in the results section under the heading Reporting, Writing and Presenting about the Research (Reflection). In this part of the paper, Barrs (2012) explains the main findings, relating this information to the thesis statement:

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. (p. 13)

 Linking the main outcomes of his research to the introduction, Barrs (2012) has succeeded in reminding the reader of the main purpose of his study outlined in the introduction. Conversely, in Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) research article the authors have elaborated the main findings on a separate section, the discussions sections, providing full details of the outcomes of their research; for instance, “For people without manifest vascular disease, we have shown that even the earliest stages of chronic kidney disease are associated with higher risk of coronary heart disease” (Di Angelantonio et al., 2010, p 5). Moreover, they have included a chart in which a comparison is made between what they have found and the findings of the past literature.

After analyzing both papers, they seem to fulfill the requirements of the Discussions, Results, and Conclusions sections. They provide summarized data in text, tables, and figures (Swales, 1990). The Results sections are logically ordered, complete and clearly stated. Furthermore, in both research papers, the main purpose of the studies outlined in the introduction appear to be restated either in the Discussions section or in the Results section.  However, they differ in their Results and Discussions sections since the original purposes of both articles were different. Di Angelantonio et al.’s (2010) paper belongs to the medicine field and it focuses on interpreting the results of their investigation by explaining the meaning of statistical findings as well as the results’ relevance. This is done in a separate section –the Discussions section– in which they also suggest future investigations to be done. Barrs’ (2012) paper belongs to the education field and it focuses on convincing the readers of the importance of her project.  This is why, the author presents persuasive arguments and, instead of interpreting the outcomes in the Discussions section, she includes the main findings of her investigation together with the reflections on the project in the Conclusions section.  

References

Barrs, K. (2012). Fostering computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 16, 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. British Medical Journal, 341, 1-7. Doi: 10.1136/bmj.c4986

Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

A Contrastive Analysis of Two Research Papers

A Contrastive Analysis of Two Research Papers

 Title, abstract, acknowledgements, introduction, literature review, methods, results, discussions, recommendations, references, and appendixes are the main parts of Research Papers and Research Articles. A research article is written by researchers to make specific findings known to the scientific community. In this paper, Introductions and Methods sections of two research papers from the medicine field and the education field are analyzed and described.

As far as the introductions are concerned, both articles follow the Create a Research Space Model (C.A.R. S.), which has been created under the principle that writers use organizational patters to present their introduction. Consequently, they are structured in a general-specific manner.  Both are similarly structured though Sun and Chang’s (2012) article is more extended. Both articles seem to follow the three moves in research paper introductions which are establishing the research territory, establishing the niche and occupying the niche (Swales and Feak, 1994). As regards the first move, in Sun and Chang’s (2012) study, vast literature has been consulted; more than ten authors have been cited in this section. In Roth et al. (2010) paper, the authors reviewed several previous researchers’ results and findings. However, the citation of authors is not as abundant as in Sun and Chang’s (2012) research article. As far as the second move is concerned, the authors of both articles indicate a gap in previous studies which motivates them to conduct further research. With reference to Sun and Chang’s (2012) paper, the gap is indicated when the authors state that the blogs were only seen as a medium for the development of language skills. In Roth et al. (2010) study, the authors found a gap between their beliefs and previous literature review since no other researcher had examined the impact of mortality of revaccination with intradermal BCG vaccination. As to the third move, both authors outline the purposes for their studies. Sun and Chang's (2012) aim is to “…explore what kinds of writing-related topics the students blog about [.] ”(p. 43). In Roth et al. (2010) article, the authors expected to determine if BCG revaccination reduces mortality in children at 19 months of age (Roth et al., 2010) and indicate the structure of their papers. As for their content, Sun and Chang’s (2012) paper can be labeled as a purposive study since it specifies the main purposes of the study and in Roth et al. (2010) article as a descriptive study as it describes the study, according to the move 3, occupying the niche.  As for the use of tenses, it has been carefully treated throughout the sections since present perfect was used to show the importance of the study, past simple was used to refer to what the researchers did and present tenses were used to what has been found.

Reflecting upon the methods section, both articles have subdivisions.  Sun and Chang’s (2012) field study is divided into three sections: participants, procedures and data analysis. In the participants’ section, the number of participants, the level of proficiency, the frequency of classes and the duration are described. No descriptions of materials used in the study have been stated and the actual questionnaire is included in the previous section called “Research questions”. There is a brief comment of the questions at the end of the data analysis section. The tenses used are mainly past simple active and passive. Regarding Roth et al. (2010) article, the sections are divided into sixteen short sections. Every detail is thoroughly described and treated. The participants are presented as Study Population and relevant demographic information is included. It is important to highlight that in this study, the participants are chosen and divided into groups by means of a randomized trial. The materials used are described in the Study Design section as well as Follow-up and Informed Consent. Moreover, both authors include many graphic organizers in the form of tables and graphs to show the statistics. In Sun and Chang’s (2012) article, these are included in the data analysis section and in the Roth et al. (2010) research paper, they are added in the statistical analyses section. The tenses which are widely used are present perfect and past simple passive and active.

The main characteristics of two research articles have been analyzed and conclusions have been drawn. The introduction and methods sections have similar features as regards content included but the length of the sections is dissimilar. Although there are a number of superficial differences, when analyzing their structure deeply, it is evident that the specific academic requirements for research papers are present in both articles.

References

Roth, A.E, Benn, C.S., Ravn, H., Rodrigues, A., Lisse, I.M., Yazdanbakhsh, M, et al. (2010). Effect of revaccination with BCG in early childhood on mortality: randomised trial in Guinea-Bissau. British Medical Journal, 340, 1-11. Doi: 10.1136/bmj.c671

Sun, Y. & Chang, Y. (2012). Blogging to learn: becoming EFL academic writers through collaborative dialogues. Language Learning & Technology, 16, 43-61. Retrieved April 2012 from

http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/sunchang.pdf

Swales, J.M. & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbour, MI: The University of Michigan Press.