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.