Comparative Analysis of Two Research Articles 

A research article (RA) reports on the work undertaken by researchers, who are supposed to demonstrate deep understanding of a topic, critical thinking skills and knowledge of the structure of an RA. An essential part of the RA is the introduction, which is intended to attract readers’ attention and whose purpose “is to establish a framework for the research, so that readers can understand how it is related to other research” (Wilkinson, 1991, p. 96, as cited in Pajares, 2007, p. 1). A second important part of the RA is the methods section, which follows the introduction and is written to provide a detailed account of the method or tools used to collect and process data.

Scholars and researchers in the academic field, among them Swales and Feak (1994), have analyzed the structure and governing rules of research articles for a long time. However, few studies have aimed at comparing academic articles across fields.

The purpose of this paper is to deeply analyze and compare the introduction and methods sections of an article in the field of medicine by Devereaux et al. (2014) and one in the field of education by Wang and Smith (2013). An important factor which inspired this analysis is the fact that students in academic settings are expected to produce different genre types, including research papers (Jordan, 1997). A detailed comparison like this one will hopefully contribute to broaden students’ knowledge on the subject. 

The article by Devereaux et al. (2014) respects the three “moves” or cycles of the introduction section proposed by the Create a Research Space Model (C.A.R.S) (Swales & Feak, 1994, p.174), according to which information is organized in a general-specific pattern; i.e., from general statements related to the topic of discussion to the situation under study. The introduction begins by explaining why the topic chosen by the researchers is of vital importance, and employs the Simple Present tense. This first paragraph is followed by a second one mostly written in Present Perfect to refer to the areas of inquiry, and this one, in turn, is succeeded by a third paragraph in present tenses to make reference to the state of current knowledge. The literature review is not included in the introduction by means of in-text citations but by means of endnotes. The researchers move on to step two and establish a niche at the end of the third paragraph: “Uncertainty regarding the risks and benefits of aspirin underscores the need for a large perioperative trial” (Devereaux et al., p.1495). The negative connotation of the word uncertainty prepares the ground for the purpose of the research, made clear in the final portion of the introduction. Here, the Simple Past tense is used to state why the research was conducted and what type of research it was: a trial.

The article written by Wang and Smith (2013) presents a comparatively longer introduction, divided in sub-sections with clear subtitles. It might be said that the information in the introduction of the article is organized in a ‘funnel shape’, i.e. from general concepts to more specific details. The introduction begins with a lengthy description of the technological context and the use of mobile phones in Japan —where the research was conducted—, and makes reference to current pedagogical theories. This description in present tenses helps to establish a context for the study. The second part of the introduction provides a host of examples in Simple Past referring to what previous researchers did, which means that the literature review has been included in Move 1. Move 2 (the establishment of a niche) starts with a negative connector: despite. In Move 3, the authors extend on the previous research data, describe the type of research done (a project), state the questions that functioned as a motivating force behind the study, and conclude with the purpose of their work, which is clearly indicated by a purposive statement which begins as follows: “This paper aims to redress the gap in current research […]” (Wang & Smith, 2013, p. 119).

The methods section in the article by Devereaux et al. (2014) presents the main elements that should be included in the section: participants, materials and procedure. The authors describe the study design and specify that participants’ consent was obtained before recruitment. Under the title of “Study Oversight”, funding sources and the roles of the different researchers during the study are explained. A step-by-step description of the procedures is also provided, and further details are included in an appendix at the end of the article, which contains the research outcomes as well. A table is used to display the participants’ characteristics, and the methods section concludes with a statistical analysis.

The second article also includes all the elements of the methods section: there is a clear description of the development of the materials used supported by figures; participants’ characteristics are mentioned together with information on their voluntary participation, and the procedures and data collection are very detailed and also backed by figures. All additional information on data collection is included in an appendix at the end of the article. Moreover, both the RA on medicine as the one on education employ the Simple Past tense to describe their procedures in the methods sections.

In conclusion, both articles respect the rules that should be followed when writing a scientific research paper. The methods sections are quite detailed and thorough in their descriptions of the processes developed. However, a marked difference can be observed between the introductions. The article on medicine presents a rather shorter introduction with a literature review referred to by endnotes, whereas the article on education has a comparatively longer, more descriptive and detailed introduction. Even though the former does include a literature review, the fact that it is not embedded in the introduction and that no in-text citations or paraphrasing techniques are used seems to show that the researchers were more interested in the following sections than in the opening part of their paper. As Wiersma (1995) states, “The review of the literature provides the background and context for the research problem. It should establish the need for the research and indicate that the writer is knowledgeable about the area” (p. 406, as cited in Pajares, 2007, p. 3).

References 

Devereaux, P.J., Mrkobrada, M., Sessler, D.I., Leslie, K., Alonso-Coello, P., Kurz, A.,… Yusuf, S. (2014). Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. The New England Journal of Medicine. [e-published ahead of print]. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1401105
Jordan, R.R. (1997). English for Academic Purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers. (Cambridge language teaching library series). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Pajares, F. (2007). Elements of a proposal. Retrieved from http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/proposal.html

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

Wang, S., & Smith, S. (2013). Reading and grammar learning through mobile phones. Language Learning & Technology, 17(3), 117–134. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2013/wangsmith.pdf