In the
last twenty years, the study of different text types in the light of genre-based
analysis has become a central issue for linguists and English language
teachers. This has been partly due to the dominant role of English as the
language of international research literature and to the ¨North-South imbalance
in the world¨ (Swales, 1987, p.43) by which nonnative speaker academicians from
underdeveloped countries have not been able to actively participate in their
discourse communities at an international level. Given these
circumstances, many recent studies have focused on the analysis of the
structure and linguistic features of the Research Article (RA).
Even though most journals from diverse scientific fields have adopted the
Introduction, Methods,Results and Discussion ( IMRAD)
format for structuring their RAs, it is noteworthy that ¨scholarly
discourse is not uniform and monolithic…. It is an outcome of a multitude of
practices and strategies, where what counts as convincing argument and
appropriate tone is carefully managed for a particular audience.¨ (Hyland,
2004, p.3). Consequently, numerous attempts have been made to analyse and
compare the sections of RAs within specific fields with the aim of helping
nonnative speaker scholars better understand the specificities of academic
discourse. However, rather less attention has been paid to the potential
of comparatively analyzing sections of RAs from different fields as a tool for
studying written discourse for academic publishing ends. Great gap!
The aim
of this paper is to explore the possible variations in the Results, Discussion
and Conclusion sections between two RAs in the fields of medicine and
education: Bhatt et al. (2014) and Crossley and McNamara (2013).
This paper seeks to enrich the understanding of similarities and differences in
these sections pursuant to disciplinary variations. Specifically, we
analyze the sections based on the genre analysis models proposed by Swales (
1990) and Swales and Feak (2004). The plan of this paper is as follows:
first, there is an analysis of the Results Sections of the two RAs; next, a
comparison of the Discussion and Conclusion Sections is provided; and finally,
some conclusions are offered.
As far as the analysis of the Results
Section (RS) is concerned, Swales (1998) states that the first paragraphs are
used to introduce the general results of the researcher's findings, tables and
figures. Regarding the medicine RA, the title of this section appears in bold
with capital letters on the left margin. Not only did the authors separate the RS from the rest of their work,
but also they subdivided it in two subtitles: ¨Door-to-Needle Times¨ and
¨Clinical Outcome¨, where they expose their main findings and mainly use past
simple and active voice to describe the procedure of their study.
Although
it can be assumed that Bhatt et al. (2014) adhered to the style conventions set
by the American Medical Association Manual (2007) in order to get their RA
published, it should be pointed out that the manner in which results are
displayed seems to mirror the majority of the rules established by the American
Psychological Association (APA) (2007). However,
if seen from the perspective of the latter conventions, there are some
inconsistencies: the titles are not italicized and each table does not
begin on a separate page. The authors use two types of figures: a bar and a
line graph. They include the words ¨Figure¨ and the corresponding number but
they are neither in italics nor double spaced, as required by APA (2007).
In the
education RA, the RS is separated from the rest of the article and the
title appears in bold with capital letters on the left margin. Another
difference that can be noticed when comparing the two RAs is that the education
one does include tables but not figures.
The most striking difference with the medical RA, however, is that the
tables are not only present in the RS, but also in other parts of the paper. Thus,
it can be assumed that this RA does not comply with the APA (2007) rules
as these conventions establish that the tables and figures should be written in
the RS and that each table and figure must be separated on different pages. In
this case, the section is divided in several subsections and they all contain
tables exposing the results.
Even though genre analysts do not
distinguish between the Discussion Section (DS) and the Conclusion Section
(CS) , it should be noted that the two RAs do establish these separate
sections. Such distinction ¨ is partly conventional, depending on
traditions in particular fields and journals¨ (Swales & Feak, 2004,
p.268). According to these authors, there are three discussion
moves: move 1, by which RA writers consolidate their research space; move
2, in which the limitations of the study may be indicated; and move 3, in
which areas of further research or courses of action are recommended.
Regarding
Bhatt et al.’s (2014) RA, it is noteworthy that while moves 1 and 2 are
developed extensively (there are six paragraphs devoted to summarizing results
and stating conclusions on the clinical benefits of rapid administration of
intravenous tissue plasminogen activator and one paragraph under the section
¨Limitations¨), move 3 is absent. Crossley and McNamara (2013), in turn,
fully develop their findings and claims in fourteen paragraphs (move 1) and
explain the need for further studies in the last paragraph of the conclusion
section (move 3). However, references to the limitations of their study
(move 2) are scarce in the latter RA.
Because
¨the structure of the discussion section is closely correlated to both the
number and kind of research questions posed in the introduction sections of the
paper¨ (Belanger, 1982, as cited by Swales, 1990, p. 171), DSs tend to present
cycles through which each research question is passed. Swales
(1990) identifies the following eight-move scheme: background information,
statement of results, (un)expected outcome, reference to previous research,
explanation, exemplification, deduction and hypothesis, and
recommendation.
In
relation to this, Crossley and McNamara (2013) begin the DS by generalizing
their results and highlighting their implications in the first paragraph and
then dedicate all the other paragraphs to discuss their findings from the angle
of the different, specific variables considered during their study (each of
them introduced by their respective subheading). Although some of these
subsections are succinct, others are more developed and, thus, evidence some of
Swales’ (1990) cycle moves. For instance, under the subheading ¨Speaking
Proficiency¨, there are two paragraphs: In the first paragraph, some
theoretical information is provided in order to define speaking proficiency
(move 1: background information). The second paragraph begins with
a statement of results (move 2) when it is stated that ¨Our analysis focuses
solely on language organization and demonstrates that …¨ (Crossley and
McNamara, 2013, p. 187). Having said that, the authors go on by making
reference to previous research with the aim of providing support to their claim
(move 4) : ¨An important component of our study is that the tested features
adhere to the relations hypothesized … (i.e., speaking proficiency or
communicative competence; Shin, 2005)¨ (p. 187). Immediately after this,
Crossley and McNamara (2013) close the paragraph by making a claim about the
generalizability of some of the reported results (move 7: deduction and
hypothesis) when they state that: ¨Given this, we have confidence that our
models have not only predictive validity, but also face validity.¨ (p. 187).
Bhatt et
al.’s (2014) RA, on the contrary, does not display as many cycles as
the article on education. The reason for this may be that Bhatt et al.
(2014) posed a single research question in the introduction related to the
administration of a drug within a specific time frame after hospital
arrival. Consequently, the DS is more linear and refers to the
authors’ results (move 2), though references to previous initiatives and
guideline recommendations are quoted in this section (move 4).
The
analysis carried out in this paper has revealed that even though there are some
similarities in the generic structure of the RSs, DSs and CSs of the two RAs,
many differences surfaced when examining them in detail. As it was
explained early in this paper, some differences found might have been related
to the different style conventions followed by the journals in which these RAs
were published. Another significant finding was that the DS and CS moves
of the two RAs did not completely correspond to the genre analysis models
proposed by Swales and Feak (2004). However, the fact that so many traces
of such models could be identified in two RAs which belong to very different
disciplinary communities confirmed the claim that Swales' (1990) and Swales and
Feak’s (2004) models of analysis contribute to a better understanding of how
information and knowledge are structured in RAs.
Because this paper has compared only two RAs from different fields, the results
of this analysis cannot be generalized to all the RAs in the medicine and
education disciplines. In spite of this, it should be possible to gain
greater awareness on how different disciplines write by contrasting a larger
corpus of RAs from the medicine and education fields in terms of Swales’(1990)
and Swales and Feak's (2004) genre analysis models.
References
American Psychological Association. (2007). Concise rules of APA
style. Washington,DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
Bhatt, D.L., Fonarow, G., Hernandez, A.F., Peterson, E., Reeves, M.J.,
Saver J., … Zhao, X. (2014). Door-to-needle times for tissue plasminogen
activator administration and clinical outcomes in acute ischemic stroke before
and after a quality improvement initiative. JAMA, 311(16),1632-1640.doi:
10.1001/JAMA.2014.3203
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions
in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Swales, J.M. (1987). Utilizing the literatures in teaching the research
paper. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1),
41-68. doi: 10.2307/3586354
Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and
research settings. (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J.M. (1998). Other floors, other voices: A textography of a small university building. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. (2004) Academic writing for
graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (2nd ed.) Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press
