Deep similarities: A contrastive analysis of two research papers

Deep similarities: A contrastive analysis of two research papers

Introduction to structural analysis

In the first research article presented for analysis Gimbel, Lopes, and Nolan Greer (2011) investigate about ¨ the teacher and principal perceptions of the role of the principal in fostering teachers’ professional growth¨ (para.1). Similarly, in his research publication Smith Anderson-Bill (2011) analyses ¨ the demographic, behavioral, and psychosocial characteristics of Web-health users recruited for an online social cognitive theory (SCT)-based nutrition, physical activity, and weight gain prevention intervention, the Web-based Guide to Health (WB-GTH) (para.1).  At first sight, these two articles seem to share no similarities since the former research is based on the field of education while the later is based on the field of medicine.  However, if the comparison goes beyond fields of studies and content, the similarities clearly override the differences.  For the purpose of this comparative study, a structural analysis will be carried about in order to expose the similarities between the two research articles.  For the aforementioned analysis, three sections - namely introduction, literature review and method - will be compared in terms of text structure and grammar with appropriate exemplifications from the texts.

Established standards in introductions

Apart from presenting the topic of analysis, the introduction is the crucial moment to gain a potential reader by attracting their attention since it is at the beginning of the reading process that the attention span is at the highest level.  This characteristic is favored by a rhetorical organization of the information provided by what Swales and Feak (1994) name the “Create a Research Space Model (C.A.R.S)” (as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p.27).  Different genres unfold into different patterns of informational organization.  The parts of a genre are organized in a pre-established fashion. In the case of introductions, the three moves they contain are arranged following the general-particular pattern.  While the first move is characterized by the creation of an area for research, the second move establishes a deficiency to be later solved in the third move (Swales & Feak, 1994; cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010).  Swales and Feak (1994) further explain that in order to arrive at the specific final information (move 3) - for example, the statement of a thesis - it is necessary to previously analyze the available information ( move 1 ) on the topic to be dealt with to later state what aspects/states of the topic trigger the present research ( move 2) (cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010).

C.A.R.S. model in the fields of education and medicine

In their research paper, Gimbel, Lopes and Nolan Greer (2011) structure the information following the three moves of the C.A.R.S model.  The research territory is established in the first two paragraphs of the introduction section.  This is, in turn, followed by a short statement (paragraph three) of a gap existing in the literature reviewed.  Finally, the purposes of the study are stated and some important findings are announced.  Smith Anderson-Bill (2011) also structures the text according to the three moves of the C.A.R.S. model.  However, move two appears to precede the actual exploration of previous research.  The relevance of the topic under research is clearly outlined in the first paragraph of the introduction section, which is followed by a reference to deficiencies of previous research studies in the field (paragraph two).  Not until the development of paragraphs three, four and five is reference to previous literature made.  The purpose of the study is briefly stated in the last paragraph of the introduction section.

Structural and organizational considerations

Although the number of paragraphs and the content in the different paragraphs vary, both articles follow the same organizational G-P pattern.  As regards tenses, the article on education uses in the first move Present Simple and Perfect, in the second move Present Simple and in the third move Present Simple.  For the article on medicine, the tenses used are Present simple and Perfect for the first move, Present Perfect for the second move and Past Simple for the third move.  Finally, a slight difference might be mentioned for the comparison.  While the former article displays a descriptive move three, the later reveals a purposive/ descriptive move.  None of the articles presents the literary review as a separate section.  Nevertheless, while Gimbel, Lopes and Nolan Greer’s (2011) paper introduces it in move one, Smith Anderson-Bill (2011) chooses to present it once the niche has been established.  In the former research paper, the authors use mainly in-text citation while in the latter, the author uses statistics from previous researches.

Componential analysis of method sections

Regarding method sections in the research articles under study, a number of similarities can be highlighted.  Firstly, both papers expose process paragraphs which “keep the language simple and repeat key directions” (Canavan, J.P., 1979; as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p.22).  In both sections, a detailed account of what has been done is orderly presented and chronologically arranged.  By the same token, none of the research articles differentiate participants, material and procedure with corresponding subsections.  And, even though in the medicine article the method section is much more exhaustively described, both present the three elements.  One final parallelism to observe involves the recurrent use of past passive voice tenses in the sections analyzed.  A slight difference between the two articles is the complexity of the methods used.  While in the education paper a 20-question questionnaire was employed, the medicine study made use of frequency questionnaires online and participants’ observation.

Conclusion  

A lightweight reflection on research articles belonging to different academic fields may yield a number of superficial differences.  However, when committing into deep structural analysis, the specific academic requirements ruling the production of research papers become apparent.  The large similarities between both articles and the slight differences mentioned in this comparative study reveal that the unfolding of genres are heavily canonical at a deep level and becoming aware of them is a matter of analysis.

References

Canavan, J.P. (1979). Paragraphs and themes. Lexington, MA: D.C. Health and Company.

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 May 2011, from http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/Newsletters/JSP_Winter2011.FINAL.pdf

Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 2: The research article: Introduction, literature review and method sections. Retrieved April 2011, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=8517

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, volume 13. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1551 http://www.jmir.org/2011/1/e28/

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