Discourse Communities: Similarities and Differences in Two RP

Academic research papers may show similarities and differences. Research papers from hard sciences- for example medicine- usually follow quantitative study; whereas studies in social sciences- such as education- are more likely to be conducted through a qualitative research; both types of research follow the IMRAD format (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion). The present paper will analyze the similitudes and dissimilarities in the results and discussion sections of two research papers, one from the field of education and one from the field of medicine. The former is a study in which experienced teachers were asked to reflect upon their first years as teacher, regarding the dynamics and interpretation of work-related information. The latter is a study which deals with the use of antioxidants for the treatment of ovarian cancer. Hartley (2008) points out that research papers need to have a coherent organization from the introduction to the discussion section. In both papers topics in the introduction are articulated with the results and discussion section as well. In Drisko, Chapman & Hunter´s (2003), this introduction presents their hypothesis: The addition of antioxidants to the chemotherapy treatment of ovarian cancer is beneficial. In the result section main findings are presented without being discussed (APA, 2010; Hartley, 2008; Hubbach, 1996). In Drisko et al. main findings of the chemotherapy treatment are described; their interpretation is left until the discussion section in which they provide further support for their findings by citing the literature on this topic. Kim & Roth (2011) claim that novice teachers can benefit by learning about the school culture and environment. The introduction presents the intention of the research, by explaining the reality that novice teachers find in the schools. The same topics are developed in the result section and in the discussion section. According to Hubbuch (1996), the results section consists of a report of the main findings and procedures. In Kim & Roth (2011) the results section is descriptive in nature; in addition, it is enriched with data from the participants’ interviews. Both research articles contain tables in the result sections; tables are used in the methods section. Even though the purpose of this paper is the analysis of the results and discussion section, it is worth noticing the use of tables in the methods section in both papers. In Drisko et al. (2003) the use of tables (Table 1 & 2), which illustrate the patients’ information, do not follow all the requirements of The American Psychological Association (APA): It is not on a separate page and vertical lines are used (APA, 2007, as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2011). One asterisk is used to indicate a specific treatment; two or three asterisks are used to indicate the results. Probably, the most outstanding difference with APA guidelines is that the readers need to place the sheets horizontally if they want to read them. Therefore, the tables are rather uncomfortable to read. Kim and Roth (2011) present only one table, which is referred to in the text as Table 1. It illustrates the participants’ basic information. Its title is brief and each column has a head. However, it is not on a separate page, vertical lines are used and there are no general or specific notes as suggested in APA, 2007, as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2011. As well as this, it is especially noticeable that in most of the methods section the writer does not set himself at a distance, as he frequently uses the personal pronoun “I”. Result sections start by relating the main findings to the hypothesis and methods which have been used (Hartley, 2008). Drisko et al. (2003) present the results and discussion sections separately. The distinction between discussion and results is sharp. The results section comes first and is factual in nature. Results go from the most relevant to the less important findings. The most significant result is that the first patient did not show evidence of developing ovarian cancer again. APA (2010) warns that authors should not hide “uncomfortable results by omission”. Negative findings such as nausea, numbness, fatigue, tingling hands and feet etc. are also reported in Drisko et al. (2003). There are certain patterns followed by researchers to write discussion sections. Hartley (2008) summarizes the description of the discussion section in Lewin et al. (2001) and Swales and Feak (2004) in five moves; (a) move one restates the findings, (b) move two evaluates how the results fit in with the previous findings, (c) move three offers an interpretation of these results, (d) move four lists potential limitations to the study, and finally (e) move five states the implications and recommend further research. The five moves mentioned above can be observed in the result section in Kim and Roth (2001). Move one restates that novice teachers could learn after becoming aware of the characteristics of the school culture; move two evaluates how the results fit with Flores (2004) who describes school atmosphere as paradoxical . . . They also refer back to the introduction about how “This study provides school-based context from which experienced teachers reflected on work related information . . .” Move three and four are written together, first they provide suggestions and evaluate the limitations of their work. Finally, in move five, they suggest further research. The moves described in Hartley (2008) are also developed in Drisko et al., but with a different order. The opening statement in Drisko et al. (2003) supports their original hypotheses: “Antioxidants may improve the efficacy of chemotherapy . . .” they also show the similarities and differences between their results and the work of others. Besides, each point provides further understanding of the results. Unlike Kim and Roth’s paper, limitations to the study and further research are not mentioned. They indicate research being carried out as consequence of the results of their study. The use of tenses and certain phrases in Drisko et al. (2003) and in Kim and Roth (2011) is representative of their discourse communities since they use the jargons of their respective disciplines. In the former, more factual language is used; abundant statistics can be found as well. In both papers probability is shown through modal verbs – can, may and could- present tenses and terms such as “suggest and seem”, “the prevailing opinion”, “apparently”, and “likely”. In the latter modal verbs are used in the discussion in order to signal possibility not facts. Researchers need to follow academic conventions in order to reach their academic communities. In Drisko et al. (2003) references to medical terms and cancer-related lexis cannot be fully comprehended by readers out of this community. In Kim & Roth (2011), most of the rules of academic writing have been respected, with some exceptions, such as the table mentioned above, the use of the first person personal pronoun “I”. Since they are organized according to the IMRAD format and they present a specific terminology, genre and style, it can be concluded that the two research articles analyzed fulfill the requirements stated above and belong to a particular academic community. References Drisko, Chapman & Hunter (2003). The Use of Antioxidants with First-Line Chemotherapy in Two Cases of Ovarian Cancer. Journal of the American College Nutrition, Vol. 22, No. 2, 118-123 (2003). Retrieved from http://www.jacn.org/content/22/2/118.abstract Hartley, J. (2008). Academic writing and publishing. Routledge. New York. Hubbuch, S. M. (1996). Writing research papers across the curriculum. (4th ed.). Harcourt Brace: Fort Worth, TX. Kim, K. & Roth, G. (2011). Novice Teachers and Their Acquisition of Work-Related Information. Current Issues in Education, 14 (1). Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/viewFile/268/152 Pintos & Crimi(2011). Unit 3: The Research Article: Results, Discussions and Conclusions. Universidad CAECE. Buenos Aires, Argentina. Retrieved April 2011 from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=8526 Abstracts: format and linguistic features Academic writing requires critical thinking and some rhetorical devices to convince the member s of the academic community. According to Hubbuch (1996), research papers in the hard and soft sciences (. . .) have a fairly distinctive format (p. 9). One of the key elements in a Research Paper (RP) is the abstract which is either a summary of the data or a brief account of what the researcher has done (Swales & Feak, 1994). Generally speaking, structured abstracts following the Introduction Methods Results and Discussion (IMRAD) format are used in the medicine field and “now [are] appearing in many social science articles [and] can be adapted for most normal purposes (as cited in Hartley, 2008 p. 31). It is the purpose of this paper to compare and analyze the format and linguistic devices of four abstracts, two from articles which belong to medicine and two from education. There are some coincidences and differences, as well, between the two abstracts from the medicine articles. Becket, Peters, Fletcher, Staessen, Dumitrascu, Liu, (. . .) Bulpitt (2008) conducted a research about hypertension; the other study by Jorgensen, Zahl and Gotzseche (2009) dealt with breast cancer. Both abstracts seem to be structured, result driven, and indicative as they provide a summary of the data. However, the former is easier to read, the reader may have an overview of the whole article at a first glimpse. The information is organized under subheadings following the IMRAD format. Despite dealing with the same kind of data, the latter seems to demand the reader more concentration in order to scan it as it presents the same information through seven headings: Objectives, Setting; Design, Participants, Main outcome measures, Results and Conclusion. If we assume that readers know what each section of the abstracts consists of, the abstract by Becket et al. (2008) could be rearranged: Objectives and Setting would provide the Background; Design, Participants and Main outcome measures would suit the Methods and Results. As regards the linguistic features, Becket et al. (2008) meet the requirements of scientific prose as they utilize impersonal passive to show detachment, also in the use of full sentences. In the background section, the abstract acquires contemporary relevance through the present perfect and present simple (Swales and Feak, 1994, p. 212). Jorgensen, Zahl and Gotzseche (2009) make use of the imperative to introduce each section; another feature to be noticed is the third person we, possibly in order to make this abstract shorter and, thus, give it more pace (p. 212). In spite of these devices, the imperatives and the third person, Jorgensen, Zahl and Gotzseche’s abstract (2009) would require more attention to be analyzed in detail. Therefore, format seems to help writers to make their abstracts “map[s] in prose” (Hubbuch, 1996). In the case of the abstracts in the articles about education King (2002) and Kokonis (1993) offer their points of view about technology in the classroom: the DVD and the video. Both abstracts are unstructured and informative as their introductions state the present situation of the matters in question (cited in Swales & Feak, 1994). In King (2002), the abstract layout consists of a long unbroken paragraph of ten lines. It explains what has been done by the use of present perfect simple, in order to give this statement “contemporary relevance” (Swales & Feak, 1994, p.212). Kokoni´s (1993) abstract is laid out by the use of a long unbroken paragraph of about twenty-three lines. It starts by stating the suggestions of the paper, and its purpose. This is done through the use of present tenses, with a similar intention as that of King’s (2002), that is, to give this section contemporary relevance (Swales & Feak, p.212). Kokonis (1993) continues with a description of the main characteristics and possible uses of the video in the classroom. This is achieved through the use of present simple tense and full sentences. There are no abbreviations and specific vocabulary is used. There is also an extended description of narrative analysis, explained through the use of present simple and present passive voice. King (2002) states the purpose of the article with the use of present impersonal passive voice. The other sentences summarize the advantages of using this pedagogical tool, the approaches, and the importance of selection criteria. By comparing these two abstracts and in contrast with the structured ones, it could be argued that in some traditional abstracts the reader has the feeling that something is missing (cited in Hartley, 2008, p.32). This is what may be perceived by reading Kokonis (1993), where no results or conclusion may be identified. After having analyzed the four abstracts, it could be affirmed that there are differences between the two abstracts from medicine and also between those about education; the four pieces of writing share a formal detached style. The kind of research conducted may influence the choice of the format. Regardless the field they belong to, it is necessary that abstracts from research papers provide “a brief comprehensive summary of the contents of the article; [in order to] allow the reader to survey the contents of an article quickly” (as cited in APA, 2008, p. 12). In the hard sciences it is important to state the introductions, methods, results and conclusions, regardless of the order, as these sciences do empirical studies where the sections mentioned may not be left out. What is more, it is also important for abstracts from the social sciences to introduce the topic, making the objectives explicit, and arriving at a conclusion so that the reader may acquire the whole panorama in a quick view. Although King (2002) and Becket et al. (2008) are from different fields of studies, they offer clear examples of well-developed ideas in a brief and organized fashion. References Becket, N.; Peters, R.; Fletcher, A.; Staessen, J.; Liu, L.; Dumitrascu, D. ; Stoyanovsky, V.; Antikainen, R.; Nikitin, Y.; Anderson C.; Belhani, A.; Forette, F.; Rajkumar, 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, 358, 18. Retrieved from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=8534 Jorgensen, K.; Zahl, P. & Gotzseche, P. (2009). Breast cancer mortality in organized mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study. BMJ. Retrieved from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=8532 King, J. (2002). Using DVD feature films in the EFL classroom [Abstract]. The weekly column. Retrieved from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=10417 Kokonis, M. (1993). The video in the classroom: Agatha Christie’s “Evil under the sun” and the teaching of narratology through film [Abstract]. Retrieved from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=10415 Hartley, J. (2008). Academic Writing and publishing. Routledge. Hubbuch, S. M. (1996). Writing research papers across the curriculum (4th ed.). Harcourt Brace: Fort Worth, TX. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students. Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. My Blog: http://caveroslanguagecorner.blogspot.com/