A descriptive analysis of research article abstracts
Hubbuch (1996) defines abstracts as “brief summaries of the major points made by an author in a book or article” (p.126). In fact, abstracts allow readers to delve into a summary of the whole research article (RA) as well as to be able to have a clear perspective of the main topics being discussed. It is expected that they follow broadly accepted academic guidelines. Moreover, abstracts may be classified in terms of their structure and content and, analyzed with respect to their linguistic features and approach to writing.
This paper attempts to compare and contrast four research paper abstracts in order to find differences and similarities as regards their structure, linguistic features, the use of tenses and any other relevant conventions that may contribute to this academic analysis. The examined texts deal with diverse topics related to the fields of medicine and education, namely non-invasive cardiac stress testing (Wijeysundera, Beattie, Elliot, Austin, Hux, & Laupacis, 2009), the treatment of hypertension in elderly patients (Beckett, Peters, Fletcher, Staessen, Liu, Dumitrascu, Stoyanovsky, Antikainen, Nikitin, Anderson, Belhani, Forette, Rajkumar, Thijs, Banya, & Bulpitt, 2008), the video in the classroom (Kokonis, 1993) and the use of DVD in the EFL classroom (King, 2002).
When taking into consideration the classification of research paper abstracts that Swales and Feak (1998) present, Wijeysundera et al. (2009) have provided their research paper with an informative kind of abstract. By means of detailed information, it attempts to describe the most relevant aspects of the corresponding study such as the objectives, the design, the participants as well as the results. Indeed, it is the results section the most detailed one since it contains specific numerical data indicating ratios, indexes as well as differences: “Testing was associated with improved one year survival (hazard ratio (HR) o.92, 95% CI o.86 to 0.99; P=0.03) (....)”(Wijeysundera et al., p. 1). On the other hand, concerning structure, this abstract seems to bear most of the characteristics of the structured kind of abstracts.
An aspect that shows Wijeysundera et al.’s research paper could be considered a structured one is the fact that it is rather unbalanced with a long results section which seems to stand out from the rest of the the abstract. This feature corresponds with one of the most important characteristics of structured abstracts that Graf (2008) describes: “The structured abstract contains more detail about methods and results, so it is possible to make a tentative critique of the quality and value of the study” (p. 3). What is more, another feature for which it is possible to consider that said abstract falls into the structured classification is the fact that each heading is bolded and makes reference to the most relevant parts of the researh paper. However, when taking into consideration the characteristics of structured abstracts that Swales and Feak (1994) provide, it does not follow the Introduction-Methods-Results And-Discussion formula (IMRAD) closely.
As in most informative abstracts, Wijeysundera et al. (2009) seem to succintly refer to the results of their study through the use of the past simple tense both active and passive: “ Of the 271082 patients in the entire cohort, 23991 (8.9%) underwent stress testing (....)” ( p. 1). Regarding the linguistic specifications formulated by Swales and Feak (1990), there is one with which the authors do not comply; that is, the use of full sentences. In fact, in the majority of the sections of their paper abstract, Wijeysundera et al. (2008) employ long complex sentences and prefer to use full sentences both in the results and conclusion sections. “Non-invasive cardiac stress testing performed within six months before surgery” (Wijeysundera et al., p. 1) is an example of such kind of phrases. Regarding the conclusion, the researchers employ the simple present tense coinciding with a tendency in tense usage that Swales and Feak (1994) cites when referring to the characteristics of abstracts in research papers: “Preoperative non-invasive cardiac stress testing is associated with improved one year survival and length of hospital stay (....)” (Wijeysundera et al., p. 1). Besides, these results seem to be current and ongoing by having been presented in said verb tense (Swales and Feak, 2009, p. 5).
As in the paper written by Wijeysundera et al. (2009), in the informative abstract included by Beckett et al.(2008) there appears to be a lack of balance among its different moves: background, methods, results and conclusion. The authors employ longer grammar structures and specific statistical data in the results section which appears as the longest part as well as it includes the most specific details. That is why, it
is in that part of the abstract in which acronyms referring to ratios, percentages and measurements were included: “active treatment was associated with a 30% reduction in the rate of fatal or nonfatal stroke (95% confidence interval [CI] 1 to 51, P=0.06 (....)” (Beckett et al., p. 1887). Unlike Wijeysundera et al. (2009), Beckett et al. (2008) include a more detailded account of the methodology applied in their abstract. In fact, in the methods section, they provide a summary of both the participants’ characteristics and the different stages in which the study was performed: “The angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor perindopril (2 or 4 mg), or matching placebo, was added if necessary to achieve the target blood pressure of 150/80 mm Hg.” (Beckett et al., p. 1887). Besides, these researchers also fulfill the IMRAD formula in the layout of their research paper abstract. Both papers follow the results-driven approach (Swales & Feak, 1994) with outstanding long results sections.
In their research article, Beckett et al.( 2008) formulate an abstract that can be considered to bear most of the linguistic characteristics that Swales and Feak (1994) describe. It is formed by full sentences with an absence of negative statements as well as there seems to be a predominance of the past tense: “The active treatment group (1933 patients) and the placebo group (1912 patients) were well matched (....)” (Beckett et al., p 1887). At the same time the very short conclusion section is written in the simple present tense: “The results provide evidence that antihypertensive treatment with indapamide (sustained release), with or without preindopril, in persons 80 years of age or older is beneficial. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00122811). (Beckett et al., p. 1887). Thus Wijeysundera et al. (2009) as well as Beckett et al. (2008) seem to succed in writing effective abstracts that bear the main features that Driscoll (2011) state: well-developed paragraphs, precise chronology, logical connections between materials along with the use of the introduction-body-conclusion structure.
With respect to the type of abstract written by Kokonis (1993), it can be classified as an indicative one. This is because in this abstract, a generalized summary of the article is provided. Besides, the specific or more detailed results are not included in this part of the RA. What is more, through this abstract, the author tries to describe in general terms what the researchers intended to do when carrying out their study. This part of a RA might also be classified as an unstructured abstract. In other words, the already mentioned feature accounts for the fact that this abstract consists of one long, unbroken paragraph very similar to the way in which informative abstracts are presented.
Some of the linguistics specifications mentioned by Swales and Feak (1994) are also shown in this part of the paper. It is characterized by the utilization of full and long sentences. Kokonis (1993) describes the research using the simple present form. Examples of such use can be found in sentences like “this paper suggests ways in which video can be used (…)” or “narratologists posit three terms for the textual analysis of narratives (…)” (p.1). The author also uses the present passive voice: “Selected excerpts from the film text are provided to illustrate theoretical concepts” (p. 1). There is an absence in the utilization of negatives as well as an avoidance of abbreviations and jargon in the whole abstract.
Similarly to the abstract written by Kokonis (1993), the one developed by King (2002) might be considered an indicative abstract. The author starts this part of the RA providing a general summary of the topic of research taking into account past events that support the investigation. King (2002) does not refer to any specific results. In the last part of the abstract, the steps followed by the researcher to carry out her investigation are explained in a few words: “This paper starts off by discussing film-viewing approaches (…)” and then she continues “[and] then assessing the use of captioned and non-captions films with different level learners”. In the same way as the abstract developed by Kokonis (1993), it shows the main feature of an unstructured abstract. In other words, it was written in an only one unbroken paragraph.
As for linguistics specifications, this abstract is characterized by the use of full sentences. There is also an absence in the use of negative as well as the use of impersonal passive. The avoidance of jargon and abbreviations is another feature of this part of the RA. Considering verb tenses, the present tense is mostly used in the whole abstract: “With these special features, DVD films provide more pedagogical options (…) “, “This paper starts off by discussing film-viewing approaches”. The opening sentences are written in the present tense. For instance, a present perfect form is used when King (2002) starts writing her abstract “DVD has vastly replaced traditional VHS as the movie medium of the millennium.”
All in all, differences according to articles’ field of study are likely to surpass similarities among the abstracts under analysis. Hence, being aware of such issues as well as putting the knowledge gained after contrasting RAs from different disciplines into practice would be regarded as crucial if participation in the academic world is to be achieved. In other words, RP’s writers need to grasp the idea that abstracts are neither reviews nor evaluations of the work being abstracted; rather, they are to be considered original pieces of writing. To conclude, writing efficient abstracts seems to demand hard work, but it would repay authors with increased impact on intended audiences by enticing people to read the whole publication. Some important characteristics concerning the objectives, linguistics features as well as classification of abstracts have been taken into account. By making a profound description, this paper could also reflect on the essence of these abstracts, thus offering a deep and comparative analysis of them.
References
Beckett, N., Peters, R., Fletcher, A., Staessen, J., Liu, L., Dumitrascu, D., Stoyanovsky, V., Antikainen; R., Nikitin, Y., Anderson
Driscoll, D. (2011). Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL) (2011). Writing Report Abstracts. Retrieved June 2011 from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/656
Graf, J. (2008). Center for Teaching and Learning English Writing Lab. Handbook of Biomedical Research Writing. Retrieved June, 2011 from
Hubbuch, S. M. (1996). Writing research papers across the curriculum. (4th ed.). Harcourt Brace: Fort Worth , TX
King, J. (2002). Using DVD Feature Films in the EFL Classroom [Abstract]. The Weekly Column, 2002(88). Retrieved June, 2011 from http://www.eltnewsletter.com
Kokonis, M. (1993). The Video in the Classroom: Agatha Christie’s “Evil Under the Sun” ant the Teaching of Narratology through Film [Abstract]. Retrieved from ERIC Education Resources Information Center. (ED393427).
Swales,J., & Feak, C. (2008). Journal Article Abstracts. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor. Michigan. USA. Retrieved June, 2011 from http://turkey.usembassy.gov/uploads/images/WX6duzqT06rI9geYcx3UrA/FeakAbstracts_and_the_Writing_of_Abstracts_March_2.pdf
Wijeysundera, D.N., Beattie, W. S., Elliot, R.F., Austin, P. C., Hux, J.E., & Laupacis, A. (2009). Non-invasive cardiac stress testing before elective major non-cardiac surgery: Population based cohort study. [Abstract]. BMJ, 340 (b5526), 1-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b55
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario