Results, discussion and conclusions sections in research articles: A paper in the education field and an article in the medicine field in contrast


Behaving as a researcher would imply not only collecting data, but also presenting, analysing as well as evaluating such information critically and objectively. This seems to be the reason why results, discussion and conclusion sections might be regarded as very important components of Reasearch Articles (RAs) (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). Although the sections mentioned above seem to share characteristics regarding structure and style, there appear to be certain features that would differentiate them depending on the field in which the research has been conducted. Hence, an article developed in the medicine field by Van Gelder et al. (2010) and a paper with educational implications produced by Ogan-Bekiroglu and Gunay (2008) contrastively analysed might become a fruitful source of reflection and knowledge, aiding in the personal development of future academic papers.
Broadly speaking, the function of the results section would be to present the data the researcher/s consider representative in an objective as well as concise form. Furthermore, key findings are likely to be introduced in a logical sequence by means of both, illustrative materials such as tables and figures, and text (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). As for the articles under analysis, it might be argued that they reveal the presence of the features mentioned earlier in this paragraph; i.e. figures, tables and text would complement each other to introduce key findings. However, there seem to be certain differences as regards layout and organisation as well as amount and type of data that deserve being pointed out.
Whereas in both papers the section has been developed under the heading “Results” written in bold type on the left margin, it is in the medicine article that subheadings have also been included. To illustrate this, Van Gelder et al. (2010) have classified their findings according to specific areas such as patients’ reactions, heart rates recorded, incidence of a primary outcome and, other reported outcomes. Needless to say, the amount of information presented in this paper’s results section appears to be larger than that in the educational one. As for the quantity of data in the medicine paper, it might be argued that authors need to present great deals of supportive information if their research hypotheses are to be properly contrasted as well as sustained. By the same token, it could be claimed that the number of variables contrasted and measured in Van Gelder et al.’s (2010) medical study reaches to eight; while Ogan-Bekiroglu and Gunay (2008) do not compare any variables.
As the discussion above suggests, there seem to be occasions when a great number of data is to be included in reduced spaces. Consequently, tables and figures become reliable as well as useful tools to accomplish such task successfully. However, overusing them might turn it difficult for readers to comprenhend ideas (Pintos & Crimi, 2010); thus, impoverish the paper as a whole. Taken together, these concepts would explain the reasons why Van Gelder et al. (2010) have opted for including a variety of figures and tables; whereas Ogan-Bekiroglu and Gunay (2008) have just made use of a single table. In other words, it is arguable that the discussion presented in the medicine article would require more statistical data to convey clear ideas; in turn, key findings as well as their relations appear to be more effectively explained if text is used in the education paper.
When reference to a specific table or figure is made in the body of both pieces of writing, authors have opted for different citing styles. By illustration, Van Gelder et al. (2010) state “[a] total of 614 patients were enrolled (...) 311 in the lenient-control group and 303 in the strict-control group (Table 1 and Figure 1)” (para.19); moreover, they claim “[d]ata recorded at the end (...) are reported in Table 2” (Van Gelder et al., 2010, para. 20). Conversely, Ogan-Bekiroglu and Gunay (2008) refer to a table applying just one style by signalling “[t]he students’ perceptions on portfolio assessment are presented in Table 1” (p. 3). It seems to be worth noting that the fact of using words rather than quantitative information hinders the last two authors from the possibility of including more tables or figures; thus of vaying citing forms.
As for the discussion and conclusion sections, they might be regarded as the parts of RAs where results are interpreted in the light of what was already known about the subject of investigation;i.e. the literature previously revised and the hypotheses posed at the beginning of the study are connected to the findings. As Pintos and Crimi (2010) point out, “[d]iscussions can be written in isolation or together with the conclusions” (p. 20). Hence, it appears not to be rare to find both sections embedded in one in the papers under analysis. Otherwise, authors have decided to use different headings. On the one hand, Ogan-Bekiroglu and Gunay (2008) have opted for the words conclusion as well as implication of the study; on the other hand, Van Gelder et al. (2010) have developed the section under the word discussion.
In the light of this, it might be stated that writers have given priority to different aspects of their investigations. Though it is true that key findings with reference to initial questions appear to be restated at the beginning of the section: Ogan-Bekiroglu and Gunay (2008) claim “[r]esults of the study show that the students appreciate for the positive effects of portfolio assessment on learning” (p. 6), Van Gelder et al. (2010) point out “[w]e found that lenient rate control was noninferior to strict rate control in (...)” (para. 26); the focus seems to difer as the section develops. Whereas Van Gelder et al. (2010) devote more that five paragraphs to analyse results, Ogan-Bekiroglu and Gunay (2008) prefer to highlight the positive aspects of utilising portfolio assessment.
Contrary to expectations, both articles’ writers have started concluding paragraphs with “In conclusion”, which could be regarded as unsophisticated; at least, as far as serious academic writing is concerned (Pintos & Crimi, 2010). In turn, it might be argued that even though conclusions have been signalled explicitly in both papers, authors can be said to have succeeded in accomplishing this section’s primary aim: in Pintos and Crimi’s words “to tie the paper together” (p. 20). In doing so, writers make reference to ideas stated earlier in introductions. To illustrate this point, Ogan-Bekiroglu and Gunay (2008) agree “[p]ortfolios do not only address students’ porgress but also increase their learning” (p. 6); similarly, Van Gelder et al. (2010) claim “as compared with strict rate control, lenient rate control was noinferior in terms of major clinical events” (para. 32).
To sum up, it may be pointed out that the results, discussion and conclusion sections of the articles under analysis share certain characteristics that appear to be relevant for RAs: to restate the problem, present and evaluate the solution/s, provide arguments properly supported by key findings and, claim for the importance of the investigation. Nevertheless, there seem to be some aspects that differenciate such sections depending on the field in which the papers have been produced. In a nutshell, information treatment as well as relevance assignment to such data are likely to be the two issues that would reveal certain degree of contradiction.





References

Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Gunay, A. (2008, February). Physics students’ perceptions on their journey through portfolio assessment. Paper presented at the Conference of Asian Science Education, Kaohsiung, TW.
Retrieved 14th December, 2009, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730

Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 3: The research article: results, discussions and conclusions. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Universidad CAECE.
Retrieved 17th 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