Abstracts analysis: Comparison and requirements in the fields of medicine and education

Research papers (RPs) are composed of different elements: title, abstract, introduction, literature review, methods, results and conclusion. Among those the Abstract is one of the most challenging parts when writing an RP as it comprises in “a brief, comprehensive summary (…) the contents of the article” (APA, 2001, p. 12). According to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) (1979), "[a] well-prepared abstract enables readers to identify the basic content of a document quickly and accurately, to determine its relevance to their interests, and thus to decide whether they need to read the document in its entirety" (as cited in Day, 1998 p. 29)

Although abstracts are found at the beginning of the RPs, they are written at the end as they summarize what has been done. Day (Ibid.) states that “[t]he Abstract should (1) state the principal objectives and scope of the investigation, (2) describe the methods employed, (3) summarize the results, and (4) state the principal conclusions” (p. 30). This paper will analyse the internal structure of four RP abstracts, two in the field of medicine and two in the field of education in order to find similarities and differences as regards linguistic features, tenses and structure.

Swales and Feak (1994) identify two major approaches when writing abstracts: the results-driven abstract and the RP summary abstract. The former “concentrates on the research findings and what might be concluded from them”(p.210). The latter “provide[s] one- or two- sentence synopses of each of the four sections. Day (Ibid) also adds that this type of abstract “(…) can and should briefly state the problem, the method used to study the problem, and the principal data and conclusions.” (p. 30). In both cases, the abstracts will be either informative or indicative” (Swales and Feak, 1994, p. 210-211).

In the papers of the medicine field, the choice of abstracts is the informative while in the education field the indicative or descriptive abstracts according to the classification made by Swales and Feak (1994). There is, perhaps, a good reason why Jorgensen, Zahl and Gotzsche (2010) and Becket et al. (2008) chose the informative type of abstract and why Almerich et al. (2005) and King (2002) have decided to write their abstract as indicative. It might be suggested that the different choices lie in the fact that in the medicine field papers are written following strictly-structured requirements while in the education field the requirements are more flexible.

In addition, abstracts can also be written following a specific format. Wallwork (2011) points out that there are at least four types of abstracts: unstructured, structure, extended and conference. Unstructured abstracts are written in a 100-250-word single paragraph which includes summarizes the main sections of the paper. Structured abstracts are similar to unstructured ones but the main difference is that it “divided into several short sections” (p. 179). The third type of abstract that Wallwork (Ibid.) distinguishes is the extended abstract which he defines as “[a] mini paper organized in the same way as a full paper....but substantially shorter (two to four pages)”. Finally, the conference abstract “[n]ormally a standalone abstract (sometimes up to 500 words), designed to help conference organizers to decide whether they would like you to make an oral presentation at their conference” (p.179).

Taking into account the abovementioned, it can be observed that the abstract of the medicine paper is written in structured a format while in the field of education it is unstructured. Jorgensen, Zahl and Gotzsche (Ibid.) and Becket et al. (Ibid.) have written their abstracts dividing them into subheading whereas Almerich et al. (Ibid.) and King (Ibid.) have chosen to write their abstracts section in just one single block paragraph. There is a strong possibility that the structured format may be connected to a more strured vision of the subject, being medicine in the field of exact sciences.

As it might be seen in the both articles, Beckett et al. (Ibid) has different headings such as background, methods, results and conclusions. By the same token, in the article by Jorgensen, Zahl and Gotzche (Ibid.) has the following subheadings: objective, design, settings, participants, main outcomes, results and conclusions. It may be considered that both papers include the corresponding information under each respective heading, following a more scientific structure. Besides, it seems reasonable to assume that medical RPs abstracts are written following this kind of format because as they include a huge amount of information this internal subdivision might allow the readers to find the data easier. As Hartley (2008) states “nothing gets missed out” (p. 32).

The article by King (Ibid.) does not provide subheadings. It is to be noted that it only includes the background or objective but it does not talk about results and conclusions. Conversely, though the abstract by Almerich (Ibid.) presents results and conclusions, it is not divided into headings but it provides all the sections in the paper. It is probably that both abstracts do not follow such a rigid structure because writing in the humanities is more flexible. The education field allows researcher to be more descriptive and less factual.

Focusing on linguistic features of abstracts, full sentences are widely used in this part of RPs (Swales & Feak, 2001). It may be possible that full sentences are defined as clauses which contain subject and predicate, without elliptical grammatical constructions. Therefore, as we can see in the four abstracts mentioned, sentences of the full type are found such as in Almerich et al. (2005) ‘s article “The study is based in a survey design, whose population is made up of teachers from primary and Secondary educational institutions in the Comunidad Valenciana, both public as private ones” (p. 1).

Tense usage in abstracts has been extensively discussed among many authors (Swales, 1990; Swales & Feak, 1994; American Psychological Association, 2007). According to Swales and Feak (Ibid) [f]irst, the conclusions are nearly always in the present. Second, RP summary abstracts often use the present or present perfect for their opening statements. Third, there appears to be considerable disciplinary and individual tense variation with sentences dealing with results.” (p. 212). It would therefore seem that choice of tense can be related to type of subjects and strategic matters as well. For instance, choosing the present tense can convey an effect of contemporary significance and the past tense can be useful to “describe what they did/achieved and what conclusions they reached” (Wallwort, 2011, p. 187), as APA (Ibid.) suggests “[u]se the present tense to describe conclusions drawn or results with continuing applicability; use the past tense to describe specific variables manipulated or outcomes measured” (p. 26).

In the case of Jorgensen, Zahl and Gotzsche (Ibid), past simple and past passive are the unique tenses applied in the entire abstract. Conversely, in Almerich et al (Ibid.) and King (Ibid.)’s articles present perfect, present simple and present passive are selected for the elaboration of the abstracts. Along the same lines, in Becket et al. (Ibid.)’s piece of writing, a mixture of tenses is used according to the sections that the abstract develops. In the background section present simple and present perfect are present, expressing what they have done, whereas in the methods section past simple and past passive are introduced, resulting coherent with the presentation of the research they carried out. In the results section, past passive is seen when the authors report the results of the research and present simple is discovered for the conclusion section while they state their conclusions on the present investigation.

The advice on avoidance of abbreviation and symbols in abstracts given by Gaetz (1995) (as cited in Swales & Feak, Ibid., p. 212), refers to not to lead to confusion and misunderstandings. However, in all the abstracts being analysed, acronyms seem to take place. Analysing abstracts about social sciences first, it can be seen that in Almerich et al (Ibid.)’s article, there are two acronyms included: One of them is enclosed with its reference but the other is not defined for what we may agree that the paper can be addressed to a certain community which is familiar with that acronym otherwise the authors might have defined it. Similarly, in King (Ibid.)’s paper the acronyms “DVD” and “VHS” are seen, but we may affirm that people having access to that article on the web may already know what King (Ibid.) is referring to. Taking into account the abstracts on medicine, Jorgensen, Zahl and Gotzsche (Ibid.) and Beckett et al. (Ibid.) use a variety of acronyms. In the former paper, there are words such as “RR” and “CI” which are adjoined with their corresponding meaning whereas in the latter there are more examples of acronyms and some abbreviations without the pertinent definition such as “HG” and “P”. In this ulterior case, it may be possible to suggest that the audience to which the paper is addressed is considered to know the acronyms mentioned for what the authors seem to disregard their definitions.

Regarding word limits, it can change concerning the journal. According to American Psychological Association (2010), “[d]o not exceed the abstract word limit of the journal to which you are submitting your article. Word limits vary from journal to journal and typically range from 150 to 250 words” (p. 27). In the case of the social science articles, King (Ibid.)’s abstract has 115 words and Almerich et al (Ibid)’s section contains 161 words, following the piece of advice offered by APA (Ibid.) style. Instead, the medicine articles are much longer, considering Beckett et al (Ibid.)’s abstract of 338 words and Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche (Ibid.)’s abstract of 408. In this fashion, it may be argued that medicine abstracts seem to be more explicit and detailed due to the need of precise information whereas social science abstracts may consider general facts and results. Even so, Wallwort (Ibid) suggests to “be as concise as possible” (p. 191) to express clear ideas and identify quickly what the paper is about.

Having delved into the internal structure of abstracts-its types, language used, length and sections, there is a strong possibility that abstracts are not considered as reviews, nor do they evaluate the work being abstracted. They are self-contained, short and powerful statements which describe larger works. The analysis on how the components have varied according to the discipline, medicine or education can be useful to undertake future investigations on essential and defining features. It seems that the medicine paper follows a more rigid structure, extensive in length whereas educational papers are longer and more flexible. In this fashion, Jorgensen, Zahl and Gotzsche (2010) and Becket et al. (2008) have chosen to write an informative pattern and more extensive in length as they deal with statistical date whereas Almerich et al. (2005) and King (2002) prefer to write a descriptive abstract as their research is concerned with qualitative methodology.












References
American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication Manual (5th ed). Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication Manual (6th ed). Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

Day, R. A. (1998). How to Write & publish a Scientific Paper (5th ed.). Phoenix, Arizona. The Oryx Press.


Hartley, J. (2008). Academic Writing and Publishing: A Practical Handbook. New York, NY. Routledge.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students. Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Wallwork, A. (2011). English for Writing Research papers. New York. Springer Science + Business media.

An overview of academic styles in two research papers

A research paper (RP) presents the final product of an investigation on a selected topic after a long process of gathering information, interpreting sources and developing organized ideas, being those steps the main actions that a researcher in the process of researching (Purdue Owl, 2010). RPs generally lie in the following components: title, abstract, an introduction, literature review, methods, results, discussions, recommendations, references and appendixes (American Psychological Association, 2010). The aim of this paper is to present a comparative analysis of two RPs by examining their results, discussions and conclusions sections. On one hand, Oh, Rizo, Enkin and Jadad (2005) investigate about the term e-Health and how it is used by different individuals and organizations whereas Sharp (2010) researches about the impact of the teacher performance assessment.

According to APA (2001), the results section of a RP comprises a detailed summary of the findings obtained after an investigation. It “summarizes the data collected and the statistical or data analytic treatment used” (APA, 2001 p.20). The information may be presented by means of tables, graphs or figures. Day (1998) affirms that “[t]he Results need to be clearly and simply stated because it is the [r]esults that constitute the new knowledge that [a researcher is] contributing to the world” (p.44). Wallwork (2001) also adds that “results are representative and (…) [the researcher must] organize them in a sequence that highlights the answers to the aims, hypotheses or questions that are set at the beginning of the paper.” (p.233)

Based on the RPs which are being analysed, the paper on medicine uses four tables to present the data collected which are organized into tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 because they show quantitative data about definitions for the term eHealth while the educational paper does not use tables in order to present the findings. This may be inferred by two possible reasons. The data collected in the medicine paper records a great amount of consulting sources and deals with much more statistical information while the education paper focus its data collection on three student teachers. Here, statistical information is presented through narrative to talk about the results based upon the teachers’ pedagogical processes.

The first paper, as clearly stated by APA (2001), uses the tables to present the data gathered in a concise way. In this case, table 1 includes the heading summary of database searches, the second table a summary of google searchers, the third one definitions of eHealth presented in a chronological order and last but not least table 4 is about the themes found in definitions of eHealth. As stated previously, the second paper does not make use of tables. Nevertheless, it provides the collection of data through an exhaustive description of the pedagogical thought process of the three participating student teachers.

Regarding discussion section, it seems to be noted that it may either follow the results or may alternatively be integrated in the results section. This is a matter of style although the former style tends to be easier for the writer thus writing this section first. According to APA (2001), in the discussion section the RP writer provides an interpretation and an evaluation of the results of the study by focusing on the question(s) or hypothesis presented in the research paper. In addition, it should serve to compare the results to previous research which “should clarify and confirm [the writer’s] conclusions” (APA, 2001. p. 26). Additionally, Swales(1994), states that “if results deal with facts, then Discussions deal with points; facts are descriptive, while points are interpretive.” (p. 195).

In the discussion section Oh, Rizo, Enkin and Jadad (2005) begin their interpretation of their findings by clearly reminding the reader about the initial questions and the aims of their study “attempt to answer this unanswerable question and to determine the contexts or settings in which the term has been used” (para.2). The author examines how the use of the term eHealth varies according to the different contexts not only those concerned with health but also with other fields such as technology and commerce. In the same fashion, Sharp (2010) states at the beginning of her paper’s discussion section the key objective of her investigation, referring back the reader to the initial hypothesis of her research. However, Sharp (2005) uses an introductory statement thus clearly reminding the reader about the aim of her study, “(…) the purpose of this inquiry was to help the professor gain better insight into student teachers’ pedagogical thought processes and perceived impacts on students learning (…)” (p.23).

Another important part in RPs is the conclusion section. Wallwork (2011) affirms that “they must be clear and concise, and leave the referee with a good impression (…) providing a clear and high-impact take-home message for readers.” (p. 259). The conclusion section may be written together with the discussion section or isolated. One manner of writing the conclusion section is referring back to some points that were specified in the introduction section, disregarding a “cut and paste” method and including real analysis of the paper itself.. It is certain that concluding paragraphs in both papers under analysis are integrated to the discussion section and regarded as just one section. Though, it can be observed that there are differences related to the use of signals in the concluding paragraphs.

Oh, Rizo, Enkin and Jadad (2005) begin the concluding paragraph by stating that the qualitative analysis of the definitions of the term eHealth is just the first step in the research. The authors point out that the findings can be a useful resource in order to facilitate communication and discussion. However, Sharp (2010) starts her concluding paragraph by making use of a signal which is not an appropriate style for academic writing. In closing RPs, none of them was finished with a close end, but the authors consider their research as the startpoint for further study and analysis. As Oh, Rizo, Enkin and Jadad (2005) claim, “[t]ime, patience, and further research will provide at least provisional answers to these questions, and to the myriad of questions still unasked” (p. 8). By the same token, Sharp (2010) argues that “[t]he insights illuminated in this article will hopefully spawn new interest and dialogue in the evaluative possibilities of the TPA (...)”.

In conclusion, after having studied the results, discussions and conclusions sections as part of RPs, it may be possible to choose the correct kind of research according to different topics and investigations. However, it is to be noted that although both RPs are from different fields, there are not many differences as regards structures and content in each section. It is, therefore, of outstanding importance, to follow a certain pattern to write different types of RPs so as to speak the same language when formatting the papers and be able to understand each section and step, despite the content in itself.












References

American Psychological Association (APA). (2001). Publication Manual 5th ed.). Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

Day, R. A. (1998). How to Write & publish a Scientific Paper (5th ed.). Phoenix, Arizona. The Oryx Press.
Purdue OWL. (2010). Writing a research paper. Retrieved April 2011, from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/658/01/

Oh, H., Rizo, C., Enkin, M. & Jadad, A. (2004). What is eHealth (3): A systematic review of published definitions. Retrieved May 2011, from http://www.jmir.org/2005/1/e1/

Sharp, K. A. (2010). The teacher performance assessment: Reflections on the pedagogical thoughts process of three student teachers. Current Issues in Education, 13(1). Retrieved May 2011, from http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/435

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Papers Analysis (APA 6th ed)

Academic Research: A comparative analysis

Research papers are an essential feature of the academic world. The writing associated with academic research is demanding and challenging, with a methodology and discipline all of its own. For that reason, different sections are comprehended within a Research Paper (RP), including title, abstract, introduction, literature review, methods, results, discussions, recommendations, references and appendixes. In this paper, two articles in the educational and medicine field correspondingly will be analysed. On one hand, the integration of inter-culture education into intensive reading teaching for English majors through project-based learning is considered, whereas assessment of perceived emotional intelligence and eating disorders among college students is also figured. Taking into account the articles’ introduction, literature review and methods, components and structures will be scrutinized so as to draw conclusions on similarities and differences between them.

It is widely known that writing introductions is an arduous and crucial task. According to Plato, the Greek philosopher, “[t]he beginning is half of the whole” (as cited in Swales & Feak,1994, p. 173). In that fashion, introductions set the foundations of the RPs so as to express the onset of the investigation. As Wallwort (2011) states “[t]he introduction presents the background knowledge that readers need so that they can appreciate how the findings of the paper are an advance on current knowlegde in the field” ( p. 195). It would seem to be that introductions also have a purpose to focus on when elaborating them. Thus, the main objective of introductions is “to provide the rationale for the paper, moving from general discussion of the topic to the particular question or hypothesis being investigated. A secondary purpose is to attract interest in the topic-and hence readers.” (Swales & Feak, Ibid. p. 156). Thus, regardless the field, RPs seem to pursue the same structure and general purposes either on Wu and Meng (2010)’s educational article or in Pettit, Jacobs, Page and Porras (2010)’s medicine paper.

In order to obtain acceptance and recognition, writers should write their introductions following a certain organizational pattern. “Swales and Feak (Ibid.) describe what they characterise as “moves” in the various sections of academic articles. Basically, a “move” is a stage in the development of the text that all writers go through. Swales and Feak (Ibid.) identify three “moves”: Establishing a research territory, establishing a niche and occupying the niche (p. 175). In Wu and Meng ( Ibid.)’s article, the introduction does not seem to follow Swales and Feak (Ibid.)’s description of moves rigidly. In the first part of the introduction after the same title, the authors show which the area of interest and research is to be analysed in their paper, skipping the literature review suggested by Swales and Feak (Ibid.). After that, Wu and Meng (Ibid.) narrow the scope and set the area of their analysis, indicating the gap in previous research as well as stating their purpose of investigation.

By comparison, Pettit, Jacobs, Page and Porras (Ibid.)’s article neither seems to pursue Swales and Feak (Ibid.)’s description of introductions thoroughly. Unlike Wu and Meng (Ibid.)’s title of the first part of the paper, Pettit, Jacobs, Page and Porras (Ibid.) divide the introduction into background and purpose. However, although the authors change the organization of the introduction, they develop the stages suggested by Swales and Feak (Ibid.). It may be considered that within the background section of the introduction, general research is shown as well as a revision of previous analysis and indication of a gap in earlier investigations whereas in the purpose section the authors outline thir purposes of their present research.

As regards literature reviews, both papers have their own styles and formats. Wu and Meng (Ibid.)’s paper has a separate division with its own headline named literature review. This part includes varied subtitles such as “Definition of inter-culture education”, “Language and culture are inter-connected”, “Project-based Learning: Means of integrating inter-culture education into intensive reading teaching” and “Programs related to the present study” having subsections in which the information is organized according to more specific topics. It might be suggested that Wu and Meng (Ibid.) consider the fact of including many authors to support their research of utmost importance due to the extension and meticulous organization of their literature review.

As opposed to Wu and Meng (Ibid.)’s article, Pettit, Jacobs, Page and Porras (Ibid.) include the literature review within the background section, entitled as such. It may be probable to indicate that a wide range of authors are cited in the body of the introduction, supporting the authors’ thesis and providing a theoretical background to the research. Consequently, Wallwort (Ibid.) states that “[t]he amount of detail you need to give varies inmensely from discipline to discipline” (p. 207), an issue which argues in favour of the difference in length between both papers. Considering Wallwort (Ibid.)’s statement, it might be possible to agree that the literature review in the medicine article by Pettit, Jacobs, Page and Porras (Ibid.) is shorter and less rigorous.

Concerning methods sections, Swales and Feak (Ibid.) state that "[t]he methods section describes, in various degrees of detail, methodology, materials, and procedures, [being] (. . .) the narrowest part of the RP." (p. 156). In contrast to introductions, this section is the easiest to write and “it is often the section that researchers write first” (Swales & Feak, Ibid., p. 159). According to the American Psychological Association (APA) (2010), “[i]t is both conventional and expedient to divide the Method section into labeled subsections.” (p. 29). That is the case of Pettit, Jacobs, Page and Porras (Ibid.)’s article in which subtitles can be seen such as sample, data collection and data analysis. Within the sample headline, participants are described and analysed in terms of numbers and percentages, whereas in the data collection title investigation techniques are developed as well as in the data analysis headline the gathering of information is described.

Likewise, Wu and Meng (Ibid.)’s RP contains subtitles in the body of the method section, though this part of the article is called research design. The subtitles mentioned in this paper are: research questions, participants, instruments, procedures of project-based learning and data analysis. In the first subsection, questions asked to participants are included and in the second subsection participants are described regarding the number of students, the frequency pupils have the classes, the amount of time they study outside the classes and how long the program extended. Within the instruments subsection, the researchers claim to collect quantitative and qualitative data while in the procedures of project-based learning part the development of the project is explained. Finally, in the data analysis subsection Wu and Meng (Ibid.) comment and emphasize the type of analysis they carried out, mentioning each of them but without going deeper into details. Broadly speaking, although both RPs differ on the headlines for each of the stages of the method section, it might be possible to agree that the two papers consider extremely valuable to analyse the methods thoroughly so as to enable the reader to judge whether the content of the paper is appropriate, reliable and worthy.

Having analysed the aforementioned RPs, it would seem that although the fields may vary, the way in which papers are written and structured are similar to each other. It might be suggested that there is a remarkable consistency regarding academic writing, following the usual sections and components of RPs. On account of some format aspects, there seems to be some minor changes which do not alter the original requirements for academic papers but they can be related to the type of journal the authors are applying to. Altogether, despite proper differences of each particular field and type of submission according to addressed audiences, the findings of this paper suggest that the RPs analysed are scientific and academic as well as they follow appropriate rules so as to be part of an academic context.















References
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication Manual (6th ed). Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
Pettit, M. L., Jacobs, S. C., Page, K. S., & Porras, C. V. (2010). An assessment of perceived emotional intelligence and eating disorders among college students. American Journal of Health Education, 41 (1), 46-52. Retrieved April 2011, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ871145&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ871145
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students. Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Wallwork, A. (2011). English for Writing Research papers. New York: Springer.

Wu, S. & Meng, L. (2010). The integration of inter-culture education into intensive reading teaching for English majors through Project-based Learning. US-China Foreign Language, Volume 8, No.9. Retrieved from
http://0www.eric.ed.gov.novacat.nova.edu/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED514716&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED514716