Analysing Introduction and Method sections of Research Papers

Analysing Research Papers: delving into the Introduction and Method sections

As Copley, Greenberg, Handley, and Oaks (1996) contend “a research paper is more than the sum of your sources, more than a collection of different pieces of information about a topic” (para. 1). Accordingly, a Research Paper (RP) is a unified text composed by different parts which are meant to pave the way towards the development of a topic. This paper delves into the Introduction as well as the Method sections of an article from the social sciences written by Rammal (2006) and an article from the natural sciences written by Wijeysundera, Beattie, Elliot, Austin, Hux, and Laupacis, (2010) in order to characterize and contrast them taking under consideration the field they belong to.

As regards the Introductions, both papers fulfill the purpose of this section: to attract the readers’ attention, though in a different way on account of the conventions of the fields they belong to. In the study from the social sciences, the use of adjectives with positive connotation serves to attract the readers' attention. For instance, “effective,”  “rich,” “exciting”. Conversely, in the study from the natural sciences, facts prove to be what it is required to be accepted and recognised in the area. Additionally, it can be said that both of them follow the Create a Research Space Model (C.A.R.S.) (Swales and Feak, 1994, p. 174) being structured in a general-specific manner. The analysis of the three moves characterized by semantic and syntactic features help identify the structure of these sections.

 In the first place, Move 1 is the longest in both studies; however, the use of tenses presents the main difference. Rammal (2006) has chosen the present tenses:  present perfect is used to emphasise the importance of the topic and passive present simple as well as present simple are used to present the literature review by stating current knowledge. On the other hand, Wijeysundera, et al. (2010) has used different tenses according to the information stated: present perfect refers to areas of inquiry and, together with other present tenses, acknowledges what has been found. There is a reference to previous research so that the past tense points this out. Both authors succeed in creating a research space by choosing the appropriate tense according to their intentions.

With reference to Move 2, the researchers signal the gap found in the literature review to establish the niche by presenting contrastive statements as in Rammal (2006), "Authentic video material, especially that which represents what goes on in a non ELT environment, designed for its entertaining value rather than language teaching is a rich and exciting source of video software for instruction in English as a second language (ESL) classroom."(p.1). Equally Wijeysundera, et al. (2010) explains, “Given the potential benefits of preoperative stress testing but the lack of proved impact on outcomes, we undertook a population based cohort study of non-invasive cardiac stress testing in Ontario, Canada.” (p.1). These two sentences illustrate how moves 1 and 3 are linked.

 Especially noteworthy has been the choice of purposive statements in both RPs to outline the intention of the present studies; nevertheless, they differ not only in the selection of tenses made but also in the length of Move 3. Rammal’s (2006) piece is constituted by three sentences written in the present tense which set the main purpose of the research while including the secondary aims. It can be read, “…I have devised a language teaching lesson…,” “Besides, the lesson and the accompanying activities are intended to improve…,” “Finally, by using the videotaped segments, I aim at focusing on….” (p.1). As far as Wijeysundera, et al. (2010) is concerned, one sentence in the past tense reveals the main objective of his study. Accordingly, it says, “Our objective was to determine whether stress testing….”(p.1).

From the analysis of the Method sections of both papers, it is concluded that whereas the natural science article adheres to American Psychological Association (APA) guidelines, the social science one does not. Rather than being placed in a centre position as proposed by APA, the heading method in Rammal’s (2006) piece is aligned on the left. Besides, this stage is not properly divided into the sub-sections suggested: participants, methods and procedure. Readers have to infer the participants and materials employed; the author provides very little information on the individuals participating in this project. Regarding the Procedure sub-section, every step undertaken at the background stage of the research has been appreciated. However, a description of how the project was developed in the classroom setting is neglected. Contrarily to APA style, the tense chosen is present perfect as shown by the phrases “have asked”, “have videotaped” or “have tried”, among others. The impersonal passive is not approached at all; for instance the author states “I adopted the following method…”, “I studied the functions… until I got used to the equipment” or “I have acquainted myself…” (Rammal, 2006, p. 2).  

Conversely, an analysis of the Method section of the paper in the field of medicine reveals its adherence to APA guidelines. This section is organized into two subsections, namely, “Cohort” and “Analyses”. In the former sub-section, NWijeysundera, et al., provides a thorough description of the sample including details of the number of participants, demographic data about them as well as where information was obtained from. The latter sub-section conceals a comprehensive coverage of the materials and procedures employed in the research. The research tools represent a selection of methods and measurements, such as “a two tailed P value of less than 0.05”, “bivariate tests”, “propensity score methods”, or “the standardised difference” measure. The procedures performed are signalled by the use of past passive voice mainly, as proposed by APA; for example: “the original propensity score was modified to include an estimate of unmeasured disease burden” and “an additional subgroup analysis was performed”.

After careful examination and comparison of these two research papers, each belonging to a particular field of knowledge, it can be concluded that both papers were similarly organized in a general-specific pattern, moving from general ideas to specific details, which makes them attractive to readers. Their Introduction sections were composed of three moves as encouraged by APA but their Method sections present several sound differences. Whereas the research paper from the natural science succeeds in coping with APA conventions the educational research fails in this attempt. These differences between both papers, which lie on the subheadings, the tense choice as well as the organization of information, could be recognized as natural differences among opposite fields of knowledge.

References

American Psychological Association, (2010). APA formatting and style guide. Retrieved from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

Copley, C., Greenberg, L., Handley, E. & Oaks, S. (1996). The Writer's Complex. Empire State College.

Rammal S. M. (2006). Videos in EFL classroom. UsingEnglish.

Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

 Wijeysundera, D. N., Beattie, W. S., Elliot, R. F., Austin, P. C., Hux, J. E. & Laupacis, A. (n.d.). Non-invasive cardiac stress testing before elective major non-cardiac surgery: population based cohort study. BMJ 2010;340:b5526 doi:10.1136/bmj.b5526