Genre analysis of abstracts in research articles

In a research article (RA), the abstract, which appears as the first section in the paper, outlines the rationale behind the study approach by conveying the basic facts of the objective, methods, results and conclusions of the project in a brief statement (Pintos & Crimi, 2010).
The internal structure of abstracts has been depicted by many researchers, i.e.: informative, indicative, structured or unstructured (Swales and Feak, 1994, cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010).
Moreover, organizations like the American Psychological Association (APA), have issued guidelines for writers to compose abstracts under academic requirements. This paper aims to compare and contrast the abstracts in four different RAs, from the fields of medicine and education, applying APA guidelines (2001) and Swales and Feak’s (1994) classification.
In Almerich, Suárez, Orellana, Belloch, Bo & Gastaldo’s (2005) paper, a solid paragraph forms the abstract. It seems to be unstructured - a long solid paragraph- and informative –heavy on data, descriptive- (Swales & Feak, 1994, cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010). Length is respected; the introduction-methods-results-and-discussion (IMRAD) formula has been used and data about the research findings has been provided to inform the audience.
On the contrary, the abstracts in the three medicine articles appear to be informative and structured -containing sections with sub-headings, i.e.: there are bolded subheadings for the IMRAD formula (Swales & Feak, 1994, cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010). Paragraph length looks like excessive, i.e.; Jorgensen, Zahl & Gotzsche’s (2010) section contain: objective, design, setting, participants, main outcome measure, results and conclusions.
As regards format of abstracts, the title in the educational RA is centered and bolded, with no use of italics or underlining. The fact that the title for the keywords, which could have been included with the purpose to “help researchers find the work in databases and web sites” (APA guidelines, 2010, as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p.33), resembles the former, imply that the writers might have selected other guidelines than APA (2001).
Conversely, the organizational structure of the abstracts in the medicine RAs seem to observe a different academic convention. For example, in Martínez, Assimes, Mines, Dell’Aniello and Suissa’s (2010) paper, the title for the abstract and the several subheadings that follow are left-aligned -non-centered. The length of the abstract, which involves many paragraphs, exceeds the APA (2001) standard parameters -125 to 150 words long.
Concerning discursive elements, Almerich et al (2005) denote use of present tenses in the conclusions of the study, probably to aim at challenging future research on the topic. Text composing involves past tense to indicate results, impersonal passive and full affirmative sentences (Graetz, 1985, cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010). Acronyms like “ANOVA model” are unexplained (Almerich et al 2005); perhaps to express common usage in the field area.
Wijeysundera, Beattie, Elliot, Austin, Hux and Laupacis (2010) possibly signal modern relevance of the research (Swales & Feak, 1994, cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010) by using present tense in the conclusions. Acronyms are defined in the text to prevent misleading. Negatives are avoided (Graetz, 1985, cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010). It seems likely that the use of full sentences is limited to the results and conclusions to credit facts.
All in all, the four RAs share a same informative type of structure and evidence some similar organizational characteristics than those depicted by Swales and Feak (1994, cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010); for example, use of past and present tenses, full sentences, acronym clarification, absence of negatives and impersonal passive –conceivably to focus on factual features. Yet, the main differences tend to lie in abstract layout. It might be suggested that medicine RAs obey a different methodological approach than educational RAs.




References
Almerich, J., Suárez, J. M., Orellana, N., Belloch, C., Bo, R., & Gastaldo, I. (2005). Diferencias en los conocimientos de los recursos tecnológicos en profesores a partir del género, edad, y tipo de centro. RELIEVE, 11 (2), 127-142. Retrieved from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=5750
American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Jorgensen, K. J., Zahl, P.H., & Gotzsche, P.C. (2010). Breast cancer mortality in organised mammography screening in Denmark: Comparative study. BMJ, 340 (c1241), 1-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1241
Martínez, C., Assimes, T.L., Mines, D., Dell’Aniello, S., & Suissa, S. (2010). Use of venlafaxine compared with other antidepressants and the risk of sudden cardiac death or near death: A nested case-control study. BMJ, 340 (c249), 1-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c249
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 4: Research Articles: Abstracts. Universidad CAECE: Buenos Aires, Argentina. Retrieved May 22, 2010 from: http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=4691
Wijeysundera, D.N., Beattie, W. S., Elliot, R.F., Austin, P. C., Hux, J.E., & Laupacis, A. (2010). Non-invasive cardiac stress testing before elective major non-cardiac surgery: Population based cohort study. BMJ, 340 (b5526), 1-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b5526