Comparing two academic articles within the fields of education and medicine: A focus on introductions, literature review and methods sections


Writing effective Research Articles (RA) appears to be not a simple task. On the contrary, it should be regarded as a complex academic ability that develops provided that writers become aware of these papers’ specific structure as well as linguistics aspects. Hence, delving into a deep analysis of RA’s introductions, literature review, and methods section becomes essential. Furthermore, despite being true that this kind of papers share structural and linguistic characteristics, it is also possible to identify certain differences depending on the field they belong to. Consequently, a contrastive analysis of an article with educational implications written by Yilmaz and Cetinkaya (2007) on the one hand; and an article in the medicine field developed by Van Gelder et al. (2010) on the other, turns to be an effective source of research whose findings might enhance future writing of RAs in the teaching field.
As far as introductions are concerned, they can be regarded as “ads” that pretend to attract consumers, readers in the case of articles. This is the reason why the information presented under this section should move “from the general topic of discussion to the particular situation under analysis” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 27). To achieve this purpose, introductions should be structured in three cycles or moves, as they are termed. Firstly, it is necessary to establish a research territory, i.e. refer to previous topic-related studies. Secondly, indicating a gap or establishing the niche is required. Lastly, such niche must be occupied by outlining the purposes for the current study.
As regards the first move, it can be clearly identified in the articles under analysis. On the one hand, Van Gelder et al. (2010) make reference to what has been done in their area of research by stating that “[p]revious studies have established that the rates of complications and death were similar in patients with (…)” (para. 5). On the other hand, Yilmaz and Cetinkaya (2007), after providing a general definition of portfolios followed by a specific reference to electronic ones, assert that “[i]n Turkey, graduate students are assessed based on their coursebook grading and the qualifying exam results…” (para. 5). Thus, the authors present the current state of arts in their area of study.
As already stated, grammatical features characterize each move. Continuing with the analysis of the first one, it is possible to identify a specific use of tenses to introduce previous studies in both articles. As the direct quote presented above suggests, Van Gelder et al. (2010) seem to be using the present perfect since they are not referring to single studies; rather, they refer to a wide area of inquiry which, according to the writers’ perspective, does not deserve to be named. Nevertheless, a present tense can be identified in Yilmaz and Cetinkaya’s (2007) expression. In this case, the authors’ purpose would be to refer to the state of current knowledge without alluding to a specific research activity.
As far as the second move in introductions is concerned, both articles’ authors manage to develop it effectively. To illustrate this point, the following quotes might be enlightening: “[t]he optimal level of heart-rate control, however, is unknown, as is whether strict rate control is associated with an improved prognosis as compared with a more lenient approach” (Van Gelder et al., 2010, para. 5); and, “[g]iven that education is generally regarded as a process of bringing desired change in behaviours; (…) students’ academic success and progress need to be evaluated in a more comprehensive way (…)” (Yilmaz & Cetinkaya, 2007, para. 5).
As the discussion above suggests, writers appear to aim at pointing out that there are certain issues on which previous research has not focused on; thus it is necessary to continue enquiring (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). In other words, the gap found in both areas of study is indicated. In order to achieve this effectively, authors retort to grammatical tools that aid the establishment of the niche. Among others, negative connectors are useful. This is likely to be the case in Van Gelder et al.’s (2010) introduction where the presence of “however” reveals it. On the contrary, Yilmaz and Cetinkaya (2007) would state that there is contrastive aspect regarding students’ current way of assessment and the conception of education by means of using an emphasizing inversion of order.
As regards the third move, it is time to describe what the present study entails, i.e. “fill the hollow that [was] discovered in Move 2” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 31).On the one hand, Van Gelder et al. (2010) outline purposes and state the nature of their research by claiming “we conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial to test the hypothesis that lenient rate control is not inferior to strict control in preventing cardiovascular events (…)” (para. 5). On the other hand, Yilmaz and Cetinkaya (2007) let readers know about their study’s purpose by simply announcing main findings. In doing so, they assert “developing a portfolio indicates students’ knowledge and skills on the subject at hand, and provides opportunities for students to reflect on their learning (…)” (para.7).
As for this move’s grammatical and text-structure features, the quotes above reflect the presence of two types of statements: descriptive and purposive. In the case of Van Gelder et al.’s (2010) article, a mixture of both can be identified. In other words, the statement is descriptive since authors refer to the type of investigation making use of the past tense; moreover, it is purposive since they present what they pretend to achieve by stating their hypothesis using the present tense. As regards Yilmaz and Cetinkaya’s (2007) paper, there is no clear reference to the type of study; however, it could be claimed that their statement is rather purposive, i.e. after a deeper analysis, it can be concluded that they pretend to demonstrate the usefulness of applying e-portfolios to assess students. In doing so, they make use of the present tense.
Investigating and reviewing previous works related to the topic of investigation might be regarded as crucial to support research. In addition, it prevents researchers from focusing on aspects which have already been discussed. In order to produce a reliable paper, such findings are to be properly reported. As for the articles under analysis, Van Gelder et al. (2010) opt for including the literature review in the first move of their article’s introduction. By the same token, Yilmaz and Cetinkaya (2007) present previous studies when establishing the territory of their research. However, probably due to investigation topic’s specifics, they extend their literature review section by adding a subsection where portfolios’ types, content and design principles are discussed in detail.
Once introductions as well as literature reviews have been analysed, methods sections need to be developed. Broadly speaking, they constitute separate sections within papers where clear and concise explanations related to the techniques and processes followed to collect data are specified. Moreover, information about participants is likely to be included. This appears to be the case in the medicine paper under analysis. The methods section has been divided into five subsections: a) study design, b) study participants, c) randomization and treatment, d) outcomes, and c) statistical anlysis.
Within these subsections, how-to-do paragraphs give enough detail indicating chronological steps (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). For instance, the study’s denomination followed by an explanation is provided in the first section: “The Rate Control Efficacy in Permanent Atrial Fibrillation: a Comparison between Lenient versus Strict Rate Control II (RACE II) study (…)” (Van Gelder et al., 2010, para. 6). Similarly, participants’ age, place of residence, health conditions as well as eligibility criteria are specified in the second section. Under the third section, details about participants’ assignment to groups and the techniques used to carry out such task are given. Treatment’s results are provided within the fourth section. Analysis’s parameters and obtained rates are revealed in the last section.
Contrary to expectations, there is no separate section describing methods in Yilmaz and Cetinkaya’s (2007) article. It is possible to think that no specific techniques were used to conduct research. Nevertheless, details about the implementation of portfolios to evaluate a particular course are provided under a separate heading. Under this section, authors define a distant learning program in which portfolios have been used to assess students: “The Institutional Technology Master’s of Arts Degree (ITMA) program is a distance learning program which was established in 1998” (para. 26).
Additionally, specifications about the students participating in the program are given: “it was originally designed for K-12 practitioners in the State of Virginia (…)” (Yilmaz & Cetinkaya, 2007, para. 26). Last but not least, the standards under which students’ portfolios are evaluated are pointed out: “These standards have been used by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) (…) and are divided into five interrelated domains: design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation” (Yilmaz & Cetinkaya, 2007, para. 30).
From a linguistic perspective, methods sections are characterized by their use of passive voice (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). As the quotes above suggest, both articles’ authors have mostly retorted to past passive voice. Some examples more might be enlightening. Van Gelder et al. (2010) declare “[t]his study was initiated and coordinated by (…)” (para. 7), “[t]he study was conducted in 33 centres (…)” (para. 8), “all trial participants were randomly assigned” (para. 9), “[a]ll reported primary-outcome events were adjudicated by (…)” (para. 13), “[t]he trial was designed to determine whether a strategy of lenient rate control was as effective (…)” (para. 12).
Similarly, Yilmaz and Cetinkaya (2007) explain “ultimate goal for this course was to be able to determine (…)” (para. 30). Though this is true, plenty use of present passive voice can be identified in these writers’ article. To illustrate this, Yilmaz and Cetinkaya (2007) point out “all courses are offered online” (para. 26), “[t]here is a two-level assessment conducted in the ITMA program” (para. 27), “[t]hese domains and sub-domains are represented in Figure 1” (para. 30), “[t]hese performance indicators can be found at (…)” (para. 32).
Summing up, Research Articles (RA) are likely to share specific features, especially those regarding style and genre. Otherwise, the field to which an RA belongs to seems to determine distinctive structure and linguistic aspects that have already been discussed. As a result, it becomes essential to acknowledge them if accurate research papers are to be developed in the field of education. In a nutshell, a contrastive analysis of articles provides room for reflection and becomes a source of self-initiated, autonomous knowledge as not only enriching conclusions can be drawn, but also reporting techniques are put into practice.


References

Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 2: The research article: introduction, literature review and methods section. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Universidad CAECE. Retrieved 1st April, 2010, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730

Van Gelder, I. C., Groenveld, H. F., Crijns, H. J. G. M., Tuininga, Y. S., Tijssen, J. G. P., Alings, A. M., et al. (2010). Lenient versus strict rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine, 362 (15).
Retrieved 17th April, 2010, from
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/362/15/1363

Yilmaz, H., & Cetinkaya, B. (2007). Using an online portfolio course in assessing students’ work. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET), 6 (4).
Retrieved 14th December, 2009, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730