An analysis into results, discussions and conclusions of research arcticles

Claiming centrality: An analysis into results, discussions and conclusions of research articles

Research articles provide a method for researchers to communicate the characteristics and results of a certain investigation. Typically, researchers use a standard format to organize and present the information. This format comprises: a title, an abstract, an introduction, a literature review, information about the methods used in the research, the results obtained, a discussion of the implications and limitations of the results, a conclusion, references and occasionally, appendixes. However, some research articles do not follow the same format. The purpose of this paper is to compare two research articles (RA), one in the educational field (Reupert, Hemming & Connors, 2010), and the other one, in the medicine field (Warmerdam, van Straten, Twisk, Riper & Cuijpers, 2008), and analyze their results, discussion and conclusion sections.

When analyzing the results section of a RA, it could be concluded that researchers tend to describe and compare the results obtained without interpreting their meanings. As Swales (1998) states, “the results section should summarize the data with text, tables, and/or figures. Researchers do not present the raw data they collected but they use the text to state the results of their study” (as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 18). After a deep analysis into the research articles mentioned in the introduction, it could be contended that the authors seem to comply with Swales’ (Ibid) statement. For instance, Warmerdam et al.’s (2008) results section presents statistical information but does not offer any interpretation of the results. “Attrition rates for the full sample were 30% (n =  79) at the 5-week assessment, 34% (n = 90) at 8 weeks, and 43% at 12 weeks (n = 112)” (Results, para. 1). Similarly, Reupert, et al. (2010) seem to have followed the same rule. As they state, “All the lecturers interviewed unreservedly identified themselves as inclusive educators within a tertiary setting” (Self-image as an inclusive educator, para. 1).

As far as similarities are concerned, the results sections of both articles have been described in the past tense. Some examples of this include: “No differences were found in quality of life scores between CBT [Cognitive Behavioural Therapy] and PST [Problem Solving Therapy] at each assessment” (Warmerdam, et al., 2008, Effects of the interventions, para. 3). And,  “The following themes and related sub-themes were identified (…)” (Reupert, et al., 2010, p. 124). Additionally, another similarity that could be drawn from both papers is that the data in the results sections is organized under different headings. Nevertheless, the use of tables and figures is a characteristic that differentiates the medicine article from the paper on education. Whereas Reupert, et al. present an explanation of the results obtained followed by examples, Warmerdam, et al. (2008) use tables, graphics of hierarchy and scatter plots to present specific data, statistical information and make comparisons. As regards the inclusion of figures and tables, Warmerdam, et al’s article seems to comply with the standards set by the American Psychological Association (APA), which asserts:

An informative table supplements –instead of duplicates- the text. In the text, refer to every table and tell the reader what to look for. (…) Each table should be an integral part of the text but also should be intelligible without reference to the text.  (APA, 2004, p. 154).

Moreover, every table in the medicine research paper is numbered and has an individual title, “positioned flush left with the table margin” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 23). Tables are referenced as follows: “Table 2 reports the estimated means ….” (Warmerdam, et al., 2008, Effects on Intervention, para. 1). As regards format, all the elements of the tables are double spaced and columns have a corresponding heading and report comparable values down all rows. Notes, which are in smaller font, are used to explain a particular item in the table: “Note: data is presented as a n (%) of participants unless otherwise indicated” as specified in Warmerdam, et. al. (Ibid).

According to Swales and Feak (1994), it is commonly believed that the results section of a research paper should concentrate exclusively on the present results. However, they claim that “research shows that [the] distinction between Results and Discussion is not as sharp as commonly believed” (p.170). With regard to the discussion section, there seem to be differences between both articles. On the one hand, the paper on medicine shows the discussion separately from the conclusion whereas in the article on education the conclusions are included in the discussion section. As characterized in Pintos and Crimi (2010), “Discussions can be written in isolation or together with the conclusions” (p.20).

As regards the use of modals in the discussion sections, “might” “may” and “could” are included in both papers to show possibility. Warmerdam, et al., (2008) make use of “may” when explaining the results of their study: “ the results may not apply to all depressed people” (Limitations, para. 2). The use of “could” is seen on the paper on education: “Another reason could be a lack of time for lecturers to collaborate with disability supports” (Reupert, et al., 2010, p. 130). Concerning the past literature, the researchers of both articles compare it to the present outcomes. But whereas Reupert, et al. integrate the reference to previous literature with the general discussion,  “This result is similar to other studies of lecturers in social work faculties (Cole & Cin, 1996)” (p. 129); Warmerdam, et al. present the previous literature under the subheading Comparison with prior work. Similarly, Reupert, et al. discuss the limitations of their research in the last paragraph of their discussion section by stating “An obvious limitation of the current study is that the views and practices of the interviewees could not be verified” (p.130). Conversely, Warmerdam, et al. describe the limitations of their research under the heading Limitations. By and large, the writers of both papers use the discussion section to make reference to the aim of the study: “The results from the present study show that the Internet-based CBT and Internet-based PST are both effective….” (Warmerdam, et. al., 2008, Principal Results, para. 1). “All the lecturers in this study identified themselves as inclusive educators …” (Reupert, et al., 2010, p. 129).

All in all, the conclusion section is used by the researchers to provide a reflection on their work, alluding to points mentioned in the introduction. The main difference found in both articles seems to be that whereas the paper on education does not present a conclusion section, the paper on medicine does. Nonetheless, the conclusion given in the latter is only two sentences long, which seems to indicate that most of the information has already been covered by the other sections in the paper. The results, discussion and conclusion sections analyzed in the research articles of this paper appear to show similarities as regards “the researcher’s ability to summarize, show a problem and its solution, evaluate the solution, present arguments and convince the readers that his/her conclusions are of utmost importance” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p.21).