ALLENDE, LACANNA, RODRIGUEZ EXPLORING RESULTS DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS SECTIONS IN RAs Results, Discussions and Conclusions Sections

in Research Articles.

Research Articles (RAs) writing is of vital importance in every professional field. Consequently, a deep analysis of diverse papers components may render itself useful both to explore thorough investigations as such and to aid prospective RAs writers in dealing with discursive structure. The present papers deliberate intention is to analyse and compare aims at analysing and comparing three section of two RAs' , that is, results, discussions and conclusions. The selected papers belong to different fields, the medicine and the education ones. The education article has been written by Barrs (2012), while Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) are the authors of the medical article. First and foremost, the very nature of these papers studies is utterly different; while Barrs (2012) epitomises an experimental report, fostering as it does changes in practicum, DiAngelantonio at. al.s (2010) presents an interventional clinical study which aim, as defined by Chapman & Hall (as cited in Rhrig et. al. , 2009, p. 3) is to "...to compare treatment procedures within a patient population, which should exhibit as few as possible internal differences, apart from the treatment " . Besides, ethical issues related to randomization of data in order to avoid bias in results are much more regularised by law in the medicine field. Moreover, the medicine paper activates specialists schemata in order to respond cooperatively to it whereas Barrs research does not demand such a specialist understanding. Medicine papers in general present a high degree of nominalization; the educational field in turn demands more narrative because the discussions are more philosophical than otherwise.

Swales & Feak (1994) do not distinguish between discussions and conclusions, but rather between results and discussions (or conclusions, depending on the field requirements): If Results deal with facts, then Discussions deal with points; facts are descriptive, while points

EXPLORING RESULTS, DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN RAs 2 are interpretive. P. 195. For discussions and conclusions Swales & Feak (1994) propose writers utilise three moves to develop their paragraphs during move one the objective is to consolidate [] research and this is obligatory, in move two, the point is to indicate limitations of [] study and this is optional; finally, for move three, which is also optional, the idea is to identify useful areas of further research. P. 197 Table 22. Although there might be sections for results commentary neither Barrs (2012) nor Di Angelantonio (2010) include a separate section; anyhow, within the discussions and conclusions sections these authors refer back to results and make comments about them.

Both RPs include the results within a separate set of paragraphs; this aids the reader in his or her scanning of the text. Besides, the hitherto mentioned section, offers the audience useful information to evaluate the investigation. The data has been presented not only in the text but also through the use of tables and figures, as it usually the case with RPs. While Barrs (2012) seems to employ mainly tables, Di Angelantonio (2010) uses tables as well as figures. Indeed, Barrs' (2012) tables are appropriately numbered and they have an individual, italicized title including each word capitalized. Equally, Di Angelantonio (2010) includes figures, which are equitably numbered and they all include a title with a legend and caption giving enough explanations to offer the readers the opportunity to estimate results. In Barrs (2012) paper, the Results section is isolated and it has been subdivided into two different periods of action research, each with its corresponding subheadings and development. In Di Angelantonio et al.s (2010) article, the Results section has also been isolated as well as subdivided into sub-sections. Di Angelantonio et al.s (2010) paper has a separate Discussions section, whereas the article by Barrs (2012) contains two sub-sections devoted to analysis and reflection. For instance, in its first period of action research, there is a Reflection section where the data

EXPLORING RESULTS, DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN RAs 3 collected have been thoroughly analysed and reflected upon. Moreover, in the second period of action research, Barrs (2012) presents a detailed reflection of its main findings. In brief, the medicine article by Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) has a separate main Discussions section where there is a detailed interpretation of the outcomes of their research, whereas the education article by Barrs (2012) has its two periods of action research with their corresponding interpretation of outcomes embedded in them. Additionally, overall evaluation of the exploration which has been already conducted is done in order to establish future research actions. Modals verbs are mostly used to signal possibility and advice respectively. Of course Barras (2012) and Di Angelantonio (2010) give emphasis to the necessity of explorating new valuable areas of inquiry that have appeared as a consequence of the present study. As regards the presentation of data in terms of figures and tables, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) make use of these tools to accurately represent the data collected, and by so doing, they acutely reflect the quantitative nature of their study. In the case of Barrs (2012), the author has included eight tables as well as some examples of exchanges in her papers Results section. For instance, there is a sample three-part interaction exchange, a single initiation-reply example, and an excerpt of a continued threaded discussion. In spite of the fact that Barrs (2012) article presents statistical data, the qualitative nature inherent in the action research that guided the study may make its results not generalizable to large populations, but just applicable to certain specific and reduced contexts. While Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) explain the potential limitations of the study, Barrs (2012) asserts that gathering data in such an investigation may result extraordinarily difficult. All the same, its contribution to the field should not be ignored.

EXPLORING RESULTS, DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN RAs 4 On average, multiple comprehensive RAs features were deeply considered so as to have a better overview of papers whose main function is to provide data corresponding to distinctive fields. Basic distinctions have to do with subject dependant characteristics like nominalization in medicine papers and with the different nature of this researchs aims. By and large, in spite of the fact that Barrs (2012) article presents statistical data, the qualitative nature inherent in the action research that guided the study may make its results not generalizable to large populations, but just applicable to certain specific and reduced contexts. While Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) explain the potential limitations of their study, Barrs (2012) asserts that gathering data in such an investigation may result extraordinarily difficult, given the conditions under which the action research project was carried out. Ultimately, Barrs (2012) and Di Angelantonio (2010) emphasize the need to explore new and valuable areas of inquiry that have emerged as a consequence of their present studies. As a consequence, both papers contributions to each field should not be ignored but highly valued.

EXPLORING RESULTS, DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN RAs 5 References Barrs, K. (2012). Action research: fostering computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the classroom. Language Learning and Technology. 16(1), 10-25. Retrieved April 2013, from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/actionresearch.pdf Di Angelantonio, E., Chowdhury, R., Sarwar, N., Aspelund, T., Danesh, J. and Gudnason, V. (2010). Chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: prospective population cohort study. BMJ Online First. Retrieved April 2013, from http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4986.pdf%2Bhtml Rhrig, B. , du Prel, Wachtlin, D. and Blettner, M. (2009). Types of Study in Medical Research. Part 3 of a Series on Evaluation of Scientific Publications. NCBI. Retrieved in April 2013, from http://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/archive/article?id=64227

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

EXPLORING RESULTS, DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN RAs 6