Contrastive Analysis of Introduction and Methods Sections

By Paula Gabriela Ferrari

Over the past decade, the world of academic publishing has rapidly modernized and the intersection of research and publishing has become ever more complex (Swales and Feak, 2004). In order to participate in a given discourse community, potential researchers need to be acquainted with the different rhetorical features each section of the research paper has.  According to Bruce (1983, as cited by Swales, 1990, p. 133), most RAs are prepared according to the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) standard format because they follow the cycle of inductive scientific inquiry.  Even though many relevant aspects of  the RA sections in different fields have been pointed out by scholars in an attempt to reflect the characteristics of the genre itself (Swales, 1990; Swales & Feak, 2004; Hyland, 2004), more contrastive studies are needed to identify the specificities of each discipline.  The aim of this paper is to analyse and compare the Introduction and Methods sections of two Research Articles (RAs) in the fields of medicine and education: Vandelanotte, Sugiyama, Gardiner and Owen (2009) and Chen and Cheng (2013).

 

With reference to the Introduction section (IS), both RAs seem to follow Swales and Feak’s (2004) ¨Create-A-Research-Space (CARS) model¨, by which three moves should be included in the ISs so that researchers may gain recognition within their discourse community (p.243).  However, when analyzing these papers in detail some differences can be observed.  For instance, in move 1a authors are expected to include generalizations by stressing the centrality of a general research area (Swales & Feak, 2004).  While Chen and Cheng (2013)  do so in their first sentence: ¨Supervision is a fundamental part of teachers’ careers¨ (p.1), Vandelanotte et al. (2009) omit this rhetorical pattern and begin directly with move 1b (reviewing previous research) when they state that ¨Many studies have shown that…¨ (Introduction, para.1).  Furthermore, Vandelanotte et al. (2009) devote the entire first two paragraphs of the IS to perform this move.  In paragraph 1, most sentences are written in the present perfect to indicate areas of inquiry while paragraph 2 is written in the present tense with the aim of referring to the state of current knowledge.  Chen and Cheng (2013) on their part, accomplish move 1b in the next three sentences and they only write the last one in the present perfect to show that the definition of supervision provided there is the one close to the authors’ opinion.

 

Regarding move 2 ( establishing a niche), the main difference between Vandelanotte et al. (2009) and Chen and Cheng (2013) lies in the fact that Vandelanotte et al. (2009) instantiate this move by developing two paragraphs, whereas Chen and Cheng (2013) introduce a single sentence to signal that move 1 has come to an end by saying ¨However, few language teacher education studies investigated …¨ (p.1).  As far as the medicine article (Vandelanotte et al., 2009) is concerned, the authors subtly indicate a gap (move 2) in paragraph 3 of the IS in the following sentence: ¨Associations of health outcomes…remain largely unknown¨.  After this, these authors continue to refer to the state of current knowledge in the same paragraph.  In this sense, it is noteworthy that, in Vandelanotte et al.’s (2009) case, the Literature Review (LR) is not structured separately, but it is incorporated in the first three paragraphs of the IS.  Therefore, it could be assumed that paragraph 3 constitutes a transition before introducing further negative statements in paragraph 4 such as ¨Several studies have examined…with inconsistent outcomes.¨ (Vandelanotte et al., 2009, Introduction).  The niche is finally narrowed down in the last sentence of this paragraph when Vandelanotte et al. (2009) state that ¨However, to our knowledge no studies have evaluated…¨ (Introduction, para.4). 

In connection to move 3 (occupying the niche),  Chen and Cheng (2013) resort, again, to a single sentence written in the past: ¨To enrich our understanding of teacher supervision, this study examined … through the lens of sociocultural theory.¨ (p.2).  According to Swales and Feak (2004), the choice of this tense here might be attributed to the type of research the authors carried out (a study).   On the other hand, Vandelanotte et al. (2009) outline the purpose of their research with the following purposive statement: ¨The aim of this study is to …¨ (Introduction, para.6).  In this case, the use of the present tense signals the authors’ decision to refer to the type of text (Swales & Feak, 2004, p.264).  It is also important to remark that none of the two ISs include the structure of the RAs or announce principal findings, which are optional components of move 3.  Chen and Cheng’s (2013) paper seems to follow the conventions on the sixth edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2010) and, although this manual provides instructions regarding the structure of IS, there seems to be no specification as to whether the incorporation of these two elements of move 3 is encouraged or not.  Vandelanotte et al.’s (2009) paper, in turn, is published in a journal which follows the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (URMs), drawn up by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Even though these medical conventions say nothing regarding the inclusion of the structure of the RA in the IS, they expressly require researchers ¨not [to] include data or conclusions from the work being reported¨ (URMs, 2007, p.14).

As regards the LR, it should be pointed out that following the IS labeled ¨Introduction¨, Chen and Cheng (2013) go on to thoroughly review the literature in the sections ¨Sociocultural theory and language teacher supervision¨, ¨Roles and types of supervision¨, and ¨Previous research on language teacher supervision¨.  In the last paragraph of the LR, the authors restate the need for their research and the aim of their study by literally stating that ¨The current study intends to address this research gap…¨(Chen & Cheng, 2013, p.4).  Reference to the LR in the medicine RA has already been provided.

With regard to the Methods Sections (MSs), a major similarity found between the two RAs analyzed is that in both cases the authors divided the section into labeled subsections.  Although both papers provide information about the participants and describe the procedures employed, they bear distinctive characteristics.  Vandelanotte et al.’s (2009) MS displays many features pertaining to a ¨condensed approach¨ (Swales & Feak, 2004, p.227): most paragraphs are written in the past simple, passive voice; there are just a few ¨how¨ statements; the use of acronyms is dominant throughout the section (some of them are clarified while others are not, which might mean that they refer to tests or procedures widely known in the community); no definitions, examples or justifications are given; and linking phrases are scarce.  Conversely, the examination of Chen and Cheng’s (2013) MS reveals an ¨extended approach¨ (Swales & Feak, 2004, p.227): the methodology is described in considerable detail; two subsections are provided in which the authors describe the scenario; information is abundant in terms of the educational background of the participants; several justification are offered by means of purpose clauses; and the paragraphs are enriched with many linking phrases, such as ¨As mentioned earlier,…¨, ¨After the first month,…¨, ¨In sum,…¨(Chen & Cheng, 2013, p.6).

To conclude, this comparative analysis of the IS and MS of the two RAs reveals that, although they belong to completely different fields, on a superficial level, both papers share some general features regarding discourse structure and develop from general to specific following the CARS model principles.  Both papers make use of specific literature review so as to establish the research territory and the two MSs make reference to the participants and procedures.  However, on a less obvious level, some differences between the two papers have been detected. It is worth recalling that, given that manuscripts for publication should take the requirements of the intended journals into account, the two papers differ in terms of their conventionality and standardization (Chen & Cheng’s (2013) RA adheres to APA (2010) rules while Vandelanotte et al.’s (2009) RA follows URMs (2007) guidelines).  Another difference which should be considered is that while the medicine RA reflects its quantitative nature, the educational one constitutes an ethnographic study, which shows its qualitative inclination.

Contrastive Analysis of Introduction and Methods Sections by Paula Gabriela Ferrari is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Chen, C. W., & Cheng, Y. (2013).  The supervisory process of EFL teachers: a case study.  TESJ-EJ, 17(1), 1-21.  Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej65/a1.pdf

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (October, 2007). Uniform Requirements For Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals [homepage on the Internet]. Retrieved from:  http://www.webcitation.org/5UkMICor1

Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. (Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (2nd ed.) Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press

Vandelanotte, C., Sugiyama, T., Gardiner, P., & Owen, N. (2009).  Associations of leisure-time internet and computer use with overweight and obesity, physical activity and sedentary behaviors: cross-sectional study.  J Med Internet Res, 11(3):e28.  doi:10.2196/jmir.1084