Analyzing and comparing common structures of two research papers

    After a scientist or an education expert does some research on a specific topic, the results obtained or the answers they get are expected to be shared with the community. Not only the presentation of the results per se is important but also the analysis they imply. Analyzing, comparing, inferring and concluding are tasks the researchers need to perform in order to produce useful knowledge. The main purpose of this comparative essay is to explore, analyze and contrast the results, discussions as well as the conclusions sections of two research papers in the fields of medicine and education.  They were written by Gorski, P. (2008) and Kelders,  Van Gemert-Pijnen, Werkman,  Nijland, Seydel (2011) respectively and they shall be compared in terms of their underlying structure, linguistic characteristics as well as American Psychological Association (APA) (2010) standards for the formatting of research papers.

     In their research paper, Kelders et al.(2011) separate the results section from the discussion one. Both of them are highly descriptive. In fact, the results section presents the findings of the research and includes several subsections. Kelders et al (2011) also make use of several tables to present specific data and make comparisons between data aspects. There are also specific mathematical expressions which were included in the descriptive analyses of baseline variables: “Mean scores were respectively 2.2(SD 0.6) versus 2.1 (SD 0.6)(F1,267=4.109, P=.044)”(Kelders et al., 2011, p. 40). As to the use of verb tenses, the predominant verb form may be the past simple active voice. Kelders et al. (2011) have also occasionally used the passive form. In fact, in the Effectiveness section they state: “In addition, ITT analyses were performed on all outcome variables” (Kelders et al., 2011, p. 42). Besides, they include the passive form with modal verb could in order to refer to the differences between pretest and posttest scores. They remark that “these differences could not be attributed to the intervention according to the ITT analyses” (Kelders et al., 2011, p. 42).

        Taking into account the APA (2010) standards for the formatting of tables, the ones included by Kelders et al. (2011) in the results section of their paper only meet some of these guidelines. Indeed, all of them are numbered; they include horizontal lines to separate information and all their elements are double spaced. However, these tables do not begin on separate pages. Their headings and titles are identical, either. Although titles express the contents of the tables, they are not presented with each word either italicized or capitalized. Headings are not positioned flush right, either. Nevertheless, there are two important APA requirements that Kelders et al. (2011) took into consideration when designing the tables of their paper. All of them describe the results of pertinent quantitive data as well as present a large proportion of information in a small amount of space so that the reader can easily understand and compare the data stated in tabular form. 

    In the paper written by Gorski (2008), on the other hand, the results section is introduced under the name Findings in a separate section. The author opted to write the results first and then, discuss them in a separate section. In the findings or results one, the data is summarized in a text. What is more, Gorski (2008) includes the most important data and aspects of his research in four paragraphs. After that, the researcher includes a section called A New Typology of approaches to Multicultural Teacher Education  in which the emergence of five approaches is clearly explained and analyzed both in a table and  in different subsections that hold the different titles.

   In the results section, Gorski (2008) also includes a table to describe some general information about the new approaches to MTE. Besides, the data included is  double-spaced and it has a brief and concise title which introduces the reader to the new information. Each column has a specific column heading. The titles of these columns are Approach, Contextualizing frameworks, Objectives and Course organization. Regarding the use of abbreviations, the one which is mostly used is exempli gratia (e.g) to exemplify something that has already been explained. Parenthesis are used to  separate  comments from the rest of the ideas: “Most often organized by dimension of systemic oppresion (e.g. racism, sexism, heterosexism, and so on) (....) “ (Gorski, 2008, p. 312). There is also an expression in italics showing emphasis on what it is described, “With and emphasis on deconstructing and  acting against oppresion.” (Gorski, p. 313).

    With respect to the use of verb forms as well as other types of symbols in the above mentioned results section, different kinds of them have been included. The past simple is the predominant tense. In fact, Gorski (2008) describes the outcomes that are related to the main questions or hypothesis of the paper by making use of different past forms. For instance, when Gorski (2008) states the results, he utilizes the past passive voice: “A majority of the syllabi -58%- were dominated by elements of “critical multiculturalism” (p. 312). He also makes ample use of modal verbs will and would to express future possibilities: “One notes that participants would be aware of and understand the various values (....)” (Gorski, 2008, p. 313). The existance of percentages is also common in this section, “The fact, for example, that 71 % of the syllabi describe “multicultural education” courses that appear inconsistent with basic theoretical principles (…)” (Gorski, 2008, p.312).

          Another important part of a research paper is the discussion section. It is in this section of their paper that Kelders et al. (2011) include the main findings with reference to the initial questions that gave rise to the research study. The sentence which opens this section shows this connection; “The results showed that the HWA was not used as often as intended” (Kelders et al., 2011, p. 43). There are also some references to the reviewed literature as Kelders et al. (2011) compare results with those obtained in the previous studies: “This finding might seem contributive but it concurs with recent findings on the motivation to use e-consultation” (Kelders et al., 2011, p. 44). They also tie the paper together by alluding to aspects included in the introduction. In fact, in the discussion section the researchers state: “The most frequently mentioned reason for wanting to use the intervention was to gain insight into one’s own behavir (60%). It might be that this goal was reached after using HWA once (....)” (Kelders et al., 2011, p 44).  Regarding verb forms, Kelders et al. (2011) use a variety of verb tenses. In fact, although the predominant verb tense is the simple past, simple present, present perfect as well as past perfect are also used. What is more, there is ample use of modals such as might, should, can, could and would in order to emphasize possibility and advice. “We should try to take into account the specific barriers and opportunities of e-health interventions (....)” (Kelders et al., 2011, p. 46) is an example of the way in which the  authors employ  these kinds of modal verbs.

    In the educational paper written by Gorski (2008), in turn, the discussion section can be found before the conclusions section. In this one, Gorski (2008) evaluates and analyzes that the problem in question has not been solved yet. What is more, the researcher compares the outcomes with those that he has found in other proven literature, for example when he states “Overall, this study suggests, like the literature preceding it, that most multicultural education courses are not designed to prepare teachers to do the full work of multicultural education” (Gorski, 2008, p. 317). As regards verb forms, there is a variety of verb forms used in this section. However, the most common verb tenses are the simple present and the simple past. An example in the simple present can be “it requires us to help teachers understand that respecting diversity means little if this respect does not inform practice” (Gorski, 2008, p. 316).

     Taking into account the already mentioned use of the past simple in the discussion section of the corresponding paper, the following example can be mentioned: “As I reported earlier, many of the syllabi that reflected the Teaching as Resistance and Counter-Hegemonic Practice approach contained elements of other approaches” (Gorski, p. 316).  Besides, Gorski (2008) also makes a frequent use of the modal might to express uncertainty. For instance, this can be reflected in the sentence “only twelve syllabi (26.7 %) seemed designed to prepare teachers to be what might be called authentic multicultural educators” (Gorski, 2008, p. 316).   The simple past passive voice is also utilized in this section: “Most of the courses were not designed to prepare teachers to identify or eliminate educational inequities” (Gorski, 2008, p. 316).

     The conclusion section is another important part to be taken into consideration in this analysis.  While Kelders et al. (2008) do not include any section under that name, in the article written by Gorski (2008),  its title is Conclusion and moving forward. In this part, he states the problem but provides  his deductions and recommendations about the main issues in his research. An example of a conclusion drawn by the author is “this study uncovered several points related to MTE which are ripe for scholarly attention: (....)” (Gorski, 2008, p. 317). Moreover, the modal verb must in the passive voice is employed to express a kind of recommendation from the researcher “the typology itself must be strengthened and defined through additional inquiry (…)” (Gorski, 2008, p. 317). It is also important o mention that Gorski (2008) ends his paper with two questions: “What exactly, do these courses intend to teach teachers to do and be? And waht are the implications of this for educational equity and social justice-the roots of multicultural education?” (p. 317). Thus, he both paves the way for new discussions and invites readers to reflect on further causes and possible solutions to the issues previously analyzed. 

   To sum up, comparing and analyzing the results, discussions and conclusions sections of both articles has fostered a deep reflection on each of the characteristics of said  parts of these research papers.  What is more, the ways in which these researchers describe, analyze, discuss and evaluate the different issues in their fields of enquiry have lead these papers to be considered clear and appropriate examples of research articles.  Although one paper is related to the field of medicine and the other is concerned with an educational issue, in both of them, the most essential aspects and sections of research studies have been described and taken into detailed consideration.

 References

American Psychological Association (2010). APA formatting and style guide. Retrieved May 2011 from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

Gorski, P. C. (2008). What we´re teaching teachers: An Analysis on Multicultural  Teacher Education Coursework Syllabi.  Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 309-318. Retrieved May 2011 from http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tate.

Kelders, S., Van Gemert-Pijnen,  J. , Werkman,  A., Nijland, & N., Seydel, E. (2011). Effectiveness of a Web-based Intervention Aimed at Healthy Dietary and Physical Activity Behavior: A Randomized Controlled Trial About Users and Usage. Journal of Medical Internet  Research, 13, 32. Retrieved May 2011 from http://www.jmir.org/2011/2/e32/.