Data report: A comparative analysis of research articles

In a research article, the text of the results section depicts objectively the data collected. The Discussion section presents the interpretation of those study findings. The conclusion, which can be embedded in the previous section or not, summarizes the overall information the article, describes (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). This paper aims to compare these sections in two different field research articles using Swales’ criteria (1998, cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010).
Analysis of the results section in a medicine article indicates the inclusion of four tables that were correctly numbered and acknowledged though the layout did not follow the data presentation sequence in accordance with Swales’ (1998) pattern (cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010). For example, tables 1, 3 and 4 were outside the margins of the results sections and not below the informative paragraph in order to clarify the data.
Conversely, in this example: “Table 2. Cox regression (…)” (De Oliveira, Watt & Hamer, 2010, p.3) the author inserted the table in the correct place and it served the purpose to help to define the variables involved. It is important to consider that for paper publishing requirements some manuscripts can suffer format transformations in order to fit certain academic journals web sites requirements.
In contrast, the education article used neither tables nor figures, which may suggest that the relevance of the study was placed on the overall results and not on the figures obtained during the research work –the type of research could be mixed: qualitative-quantitative. The section introduced a part entitled “Quantitative data analysis highlighted (…)” (Seliem & Ahmed, 2009, p.19), listing percentages and a brief description of study findings.
Additionally, in the same article, Seliem and Ahmed (2009) used direct quotes to support the study findings but failed to acknowledge those sources in the references list (Pintos, 2009). For example, “Dr. Lamiaa said: my students were actively involved (…)” (Seliem & Ahmed, 2009, p.20). It could be the case that the quotes addressed belonged to other colleagues/ researchers who also took part in the research work.
Regarding the Discussion section, Seliem and Ahmed (2009) considered the interpretation of the study results and provided “reasons for the data patterns turning out the ways they did” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p.20). Use of modals like “should” seems to suggest advice to follow in possible future studies; present tense signaled the discussion (Pintos & Crimi, 2010), probably to stress the contemporary relevance of the study. However, the rest of the in-text citations addressing the background theory followed academic requirements (Pintos, 2009).
The medicine article exhibited present passive voice and present tenses use to relate to the discussion explanations. The text incorporated confirmations of previous studies, cited in the references list, plus some suggestions and topic associations that completed the framework. The Discussion section included strengths and limitations of the study, conclusions,
contributors, funding, competing interests, ethical approval and list of references.
Contrastively, the Conclusion section in Seliem and Ahmed’s text (2009) looked brief, perhaps because the results were not as they were expected to. Though “unnecessary” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p.20), the paragraph opened with the concluding phrase “in conclusion” and re-assumed the concept conveyed throughout the study. Conversely, the Conclusion section in the medicine article began re-stating the confirmation of the medical findings.
In all, both articles presented a brief but accurate description about facts in the results sections. Illustrative materials, like charts and graphs were excluded with the exception of tables. Tenses use to signal either results or discussions was respected, the same as the principle of simplicity in communication (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). The main differences can be found in the Conclusion sections since both articles represent different pattern styles.



References
De Oliveira, C., Watt, R., & Hamer, M. (2010). Toothbrushing, inflammation, and risk of cardiovascular disease: results from Scottish Health Survey. British Medical Journal, 340
(c2451), 1-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c2451
Pintos, V. (2009). Unit 4: Reporting and Reviewing. Universidad CAECE: Buenos Aires, Argentina. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/index.php?id=54
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 3: The Research Article: Results, Discussions and Conclusions. Universidad CAECE: Buenos Aires, Argentina. Retrieved April 24, 2010
from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=4692
Seliem, S., & Ahmed, A. (2009). Missing: Electronic feedback in Egyptian EFL essay writing classes. Paper presented at the CDELT Conference of the Faculty of Education, Ain Shams University, Egypt. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=3782