Research Papers: An Overview on Results, Discussions and Conclusion Sections

Research articles share common patterns regarding the results, discussions and conclusion sections. However Research Papers may differ depending on the field of study. This paper will analyze two articles on the medicine and educational fields with the purpose of providing the reader with an insight on the different features which characterize research on these areas.

Swales (1998) states that the result section can comprise the main information obtained during the process of research by making use of text, tables, and/or figures. Furthermore, it describes the outcomes of the hypothesis of the paper. For instance, Kudlacek, Jesina and Flannagan (2010) present the results of their research in a paragraph and mention some slants showing their view on the issue of the medicine R.P. as most result sections commonly do. By contrast, Ingram (n.d.) shows the results of his educational research by means of tables as well as a summary of responses to open-ended questions which accounts for the fact that it is part of a qualitative as well as quantitative research.

Tables in the aforementioned paper only follow some basic rules of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2007). They are numbered, and they have an individual title on the left margin which explains the content of the table. They have headings and comparable values and notes to explain abbreviations. However, they are included within the main text, they contain vertical and horizontal lines, and they are not properly referenced in the article. Both research papers depict outcomes using past tenses and are logically ordered.

Regarding the main analysis of the research articles in medicine and educational fields, Kudlacek, Jesina and Flannagan (2010), and Ingram (n.d.) blended the discussion and conclusion sections in a single paragraph, and, in fact, they are alike in several aspects. Writers explain the importance of the research and restate the initial hypothesis in order to remind readers of the goal of the study. The discussion section can be visualized in Kudlacek, Jesina and Flannagan (2010) since they compare outcomes with past literature on the subject.

By and large, even though there are many characteristic which make R.P. different according to the kind of study. Kudlacek, Jesina and Flannagan (2010) and Ingram (n.d.) have similar features, particularly in the discussions and concluding remarks. However, Ingram (n.d.) does not compare the goals of the research with previous information on the study.  These sections describe the meaning of the results and the possible courses of action to be taken in order to solve or support the hypothesis.

References

American Psychological Association (2007). Concise rules of APA style. Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

Ingram, P.D. (n.d.). Attitudes of Extension Professionals Toward Diversity Education in 4-H programs. University Park, Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1999february/a3.php

Kudlacek, M., Jesina,O. & Flannagan,P. (2010) Advances in rehabilitation. European Inclusive Physical Education Training, 3 (14-17). Retrieved May,2011, from http://www.gfmer.ch/Medical_journals/Free_medicalSub1.php?param1=disabilities&fnct=selectParMotCle&param3=And

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