Blending sections: When sections blend for a specific purpose

Blending sections: When sections blend for a specific purpose

When the concept of genre comes to discussion, Swales (1990) argues that it is theoretically understood as “a disreputable formulaic way of constructing (…) particular texts” (p.33).  However, when practical analysis of genres is carried out by the inspection of sample texts, the idea of mechanical structural construction seems to hold little, if any, validity.  Swales (1990) also states that “communicative purpose has been nominated as the privileged property of a genre.  Other properties, such as form, structure and audience expectations, operate to identify the extent to which an exemplar is prototypical of a particular genre” (p. 52).  This theoretical stance can be illustrated by the structural comparative analysis of two research articles, one in the field of medicine and the other in the field of education.  A special concern of this analysis involves the presupposition that different sections in the research genre are not canonically organized or discretely presented.  On the contrary, they can blend according to the communicative purpose that the author aims at.  For this particular study, the result, discussion, conclusion and recommendation sections will be analyzed in an attempt to evidence that even when sections in a text are organized differently, they may have the same purpose.

 The results section is characterized by the objective presentation of the resultants of the research carried out.  According to Mackey and Gass (2009), “[r]esults sections usually provide objective descriptions without interpretation” (p. 12).  However, considerations pertaining the presentation of the collected data appear to be ultimately determined by the author himself.  The function of the results section is to reveal the outcomes that will either support or refute the original hypothesis of the research.  As stated by Swales (1990), the collected data of the research should not be used directly; it should be processed to make the paper feasible to read.  In order to summarize the obtained information, the research article writer presents some generalizations further developed by tables, and/or charts. 

In their research paper Gimbel, Lopes and Nolan Greer (2011) appear to merge the results and discussion sections in order to present and examine the gathered data simultaneously.  Such section displays the pattern generalization + table + evaluation with resort to past tenses for results' outlining and present tenses for meaning interpretation.  Results thus depicted seem to comply with the requirements of the field.  Of utmost significance is the observable coherence between the process-like specification of data collection in the methodology section and the descriptive character of the results/discussion section.  However, when it comes to analyzing the use of tables to display information, reading and data interpretation are somewhat obscured. The use of bar charts could have been more suitable to establish comparisons.  Besides, most tables show some duplication of the information, which renders them redundant.  The sections could be described as unbalanced due to the fact that the amount of information presented seems to outweigh the depth of the discussion. 

 Different is the example provided by Smith Anderson-Bill's (2011) research paper where the results section is presented in isolation with significant discussion percolating throughout.  Smith Anderson-Bill (2011) begins her results section by referring to the enrolled participants eligible to be engaged in the study.  In this sense, the Purdue Online Writing Lab (2010) states that “[s]ometimes it is necessary to provide a preliminary discussion (…) about your participant groups.  In order to convince your readers that your results are meaningful, you must first demonstrate that the conditions of the study were met” (para. 9).  In her article, Smith Anderson-Bill (2011) uses a table and figures to complement the information previously introduced in a more effective way.  However, unlike Gimbel, Lopes and Nolan Greer’s (2011) paper, the medical study does not seem to comply with the American Psychological Association’s (2007) basic formatting rules.  Even though most titles succeed in describing the table and figure contents, they are neither located flush left nor in italics or in heading caps.  By the same token, Smith Anderson-Bill’s (2011) article fails to present tables and figures on separate pages.

Regarding the last sections of the articles under study, Gimbel, Lopes and Nolan Greer (2011) present an implications section which appears to fulfill the function of the conclusion section as it refers back to the hypothesis presented in the introduction.  There is also a comparative reference of the obtained results with the information of the reviewed literature.  The implications section is followed by a recommendations section which states possible solutions to the problem analyzed throughout the paper and might exert a persuasive effect on the reader.  Conversely, Smith Anderson-Bill (2011) introduces a discussion section whose function seems to be fulfilled up to a certain extent.  While certain elements - namely data interpretation and comments of previous research in the field - are overtly expressed, the ultimate statement of a conclusion that would tie the paper together is altogether absent from the article.  It is precisely this flaw that leaves the reader with an uncomfortable feeling of incompleteness.

Based on the aforementioned analysis, one can conclude that canonical conventions, significant as they may be, are not always decisive in the regular proceedings of the trained scholar.  The communicative purpose of the specialized study appears to set the conditions under which the written genre will unfold.  Different purposes will need to comply with certain pre-established forms, leading the author to make informed choices as to the selection of a specific macro-structure.  Likewise, the audience's particular expectations should at no point be overlooked.  The present comparative description intended to support the assumption that, even though authors can approach result, discussion and conclusion sections from different angles arranging them in different ways, there are basic criteria that should not be disregarded.  Not only should summarized data be conveniently presented and clearly interpreted, conclusions and/or recommendations for future actions should be provided as well.  Only when these aspects have been considered will the research paper achieve its final outcome.

References

Gimbel, P. A., Lopes, L., & Nolan Greer, E. (2011). Perceptions of the role of the school principal in teacher professional growth. Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 7(4). Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/Newsletters/.FINAL.pdf

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2009). Language research: Methodology and design. New Jersey, USA: Routledge.

Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL). (2010). Writing the experimental report: Methods, results and discussion. Retrieved January 17, 2012 from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/670/04/

Smith Anderson-Bill, E. (2011). Social cognitive determinants of nutrition and physical activity among web-health users enrolling in an online intervention: The influence of social support, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and self-regulation. Journal of Medical Internet Research 13. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1551 http://www.jmir.org/2011/1/e28/

Swales, J. (1990). Chapter 3: The concept of genre. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. London, UK: Cambridge Applied Linguistics.