The Process of Writing a Research Paper: Format and Linguistics Features
Research papers (RPs) are the final outcome of a long process. In general, RPs possess a standard format which facilitates communication and organise information. The typical organisational pattern is called IMRD format (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) (Swales & Feak, 1994). Each section is characterised by rhetorical and specific linguistics characteristics as well as a clear purpose. The American Psychological Association (APA) (2008) explains that research papers ‘‘consist of distinct sections that reflect the stages in the research process (…)’’ (p.7). However, it is worth mentioning that depending on the field of investigation and requirement of publications research articles may have some differences. The purpose of this paper is to compare and analyse sections from two research papers which belong to the educational and medicine fields.
The first section of the IMRD model is the introduction. Writing an introduction demands the presentation of problem under study. ‘‘The main purpose of the introduction is to provide the rationale of your paper, moving from general discussion of the topic to a particular question or hypotheses being investigated’’ (Swales & Feak, 1994, p.156). In addition, the APA (2008) explains that a good introduction states the importance of the problem, the relation between the hypotheses and the problem under investigation, the theoretical implications and theoretical propositions under investigation. This will ‘‘give the reader a firm sense of what was done and why’’ (APA; 2008, p. 16). Generally, the presentation of these issues is done through special linguistics features which will create a sense of worth reading on the reader. That is to say, the writer of an introduction should try to establish that his or her particular area of research is significant. (Swales and Najjar, 1987).
The paper chosen from the educational field was written by Elola and Oskoz (2010) and it investigated the use of technologies in the classroom to foster collaborative writing among students. Whereas the medicine paper was written by Eddens(2009) and its main purpose was to communicate the results of a descriptive study of online cancer survivor stories. It is clearly evident that each paper is written for different audiences and they respect different citation styles. However, some similarities can be found as regards formats.
The introduction section will be analysed under the rules of Swales and Feak’s (1994) model called Create-a-Research-Space (CARS). The author stated that, in general, introductions follow this pattern which is divided into MOVES. Each move has a purpose in itself as well as some particular linguistics features. Move 1 is characterized by ‘introducing and reviewing items of previous research in the area’ (Swales & Feak, 1994, p.175). Move 2 indicates a gap in the research stated at move 1 or the necessity of further investigation. In Swales’ words move 2 ‘establishes a niche’ (Swales, ibid). Generally, move 2 will be marked by the use of a contrastive connector like however, or it is also possible to find some negative elements. The main function of move 3 is to express the purpose of the paper or its nature. The writer should explain the approach chosen to solve the problem and provide a clear and formal statement of the hypotheses (APA, 2008).
Regarding Elola et al (2010)’s paper, the introduction is a clear example of the model previously explained. The author presents the main issue of the paper, the research territory in addition to citations of previous research. Background information is provided in order to evidence and sustain the problem under investigation. Move 2 is signalled by the use of the phrase ‘a question that remains to be answered, however, (...)’ (Elola et. al., 2010, p.1). The use of this sentence implies that there is a niche, that the research topic is not completed yet. Moreover, ‘it also establishes the motivation for the study’ (Swales & Feak, 1994, p.185). After clearly establishing the niche, Elola et al (2004) express the paper’s purpose. The authors decide to refer to the type of text by using descriptive statements in present tense.
In comparison, Eddens’ paper (2009) does not clearly exemplify the moves of CARS model as Elola’s paper does. Previous research is presented, however with little information and specifications. It is worth mentioning that the author indicates a niche by using a negative opening statement: ‘this issue has received much less attention…’ (Eddens, et. al., 2009, para 1) and it clearly finishes by stating the need of the paper. According to Swales and Feak (1994) negative subjects indicate that ‘Move 1 has come to an end’ (p.188). In addition, further specification of the paper’s purpose is stated as well as the specification of the research territory. It is possible to say that both papers present their introduction by the use of a general- specific text. Swales and Feak (1994) define general-specific (G-S) text as ‘texts [which] move from broad statements to narrower ones’ (p.33).
The method sections is also present in both papers. ‘The method section describes, in various degree of detail, methodology, materials and procedures.’(Swales & Feak, p.156). It should describe in detail the conduction of the study in order to allow the reader to evaluate the method as well as the results. In other words, it should tell the reader what was done and how. (APA, 2008). Analysing the papers previously mentioned, the medicine paper presents a method section divided into sampling, eligibility, coding, and measures. Whereas the educational paper does not clearly state the word method but instead, the phrase background information is found. After that phrase, categories such as procedures and analysis are presented.
It can be said that both papers differ in their method section as regards categories and titles assigned to each category. In addition, Elola’s method section contains explicit details and procedures. The author also makes explanations of each step in the method taken and in general terminology is repeated. Within this section, tables are used to expand and exemplify information. The process and procedures are presented through a problem-solution text. In general, this type of text ‘describes procedures and processes’ (Swales & Feak, 1994, p.61). Problem- solution texts are characterised by the use of past tense as well as passive voice. Elola’s method section is a clear example of a problem-solution text. It is also possible to recognise the use of passive voice as well as past tenses. However, in Edden’s paper, no tables are presented in this section. Instead, explicit information about the sampling, dates, selection criteria, among others variables are presented.
Regarding terminology, it is possible to say that Edden’s paper supposes a necessity of background information from part of the reader in order to understand certain terms. All in all, both method sections have similarities and differences. In general, in social sciences the main purpose of RP is to announce development in the method whereas in medical research, the method section relies on standard practices and established methods. (Swales & Feak 1994). This main difference postulated by Swales can be indentified in the papers under analysis.
On balance, the analysis of both papers gives as results differences and similarities among research articles from different fields. The educational paper clearly represents in its introduction the IMRD model whereas the medicine paper does not provide such distinction. Regarding method sections, both Elola and Edden’s papers present clear and precise information. But the latter requires some background information from part of the reader in order to understand some specific terms. To sum up, both papers try to convince the reader that their research paper is worth reading and that they contribute useful information to their corresponding fields.
References
American Psychological Association (2008) .Publication Manual (5th Ed.).Washington DC
Elola, I and Oskoz, A. (2010) Collaborative Writing: Fostering Foreign Language and Writing Conventions Development. October 2010. Volume 14, number 3. Pp.51-71. Retrieved April 2011, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol14num3/elolaoskoz.pdf
Swales, J. M., and Najjar, H. (1987). The writing of research articles introductions. Written Communication. 4: 175-92. Retrieved May 2011 from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68973/2/10.1177_0741088387004002004.pdf
Swales, J.M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor , MI: The University of Michigan
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario