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)