In-depth analysis of research articles

Comparative analysis: Academic research papers

In academic research, papers are means to communicate new findings in different fields as well as to trigger reflection, analysis and provoke an impact on the reader that of further investigation. Goals and perspectives are bound to change so are layouts and sections when writing academically. That is to say, writers may tend to organize their research papers considering section division as they see most appropriate; accordingly, organization will vary depending on the kind of purpose in mind and the kind of research adopted.

The research articles analyzed and compared in this paper have distinctive purposes, conditioning the research strategy. Shear’s (2010) research paper is contained in the field of education, being both descriptive and explanatory. It portrays the use of educational television in the third grade classroom for science. It exposes the traits of teachers applying technology in their lessons, outlining the assets, in particular, of educational television which the researcher distinguishes from instructional television. This is shown by the use of general-specific texts such as comparative definitions. The second research paper shows another kind of format and purpose. Michele, Pettit, Jacobs, Kyle & Porras (2010) set their research at an exploratory level, which limits the literature scope. The authors, in this case, attempt to describe and correlate two variables:”emotional intelligence factors and eating disorders symptoms among college students” (Pettit et al., 2010, p.47).

Structured in the table of contents, Shear (2010) delimits the introduction as a part of the paper division. It does not follow the create-a-research-space-model (C-A-R-S) as proposed by Swales and Najjar (1987). Previous research as regards the topic chosen is dealt with in isolation. The gap in the field is opened negatively referring back to “a limited amount of research about the use of educational television in the classroom” (Shear, 2010, p.7). The writer then “occupies the niche” by a purposive statement and problem-solution paragraphs as regards to the status of educational television in the classroom. Pettit et al. (2010), on the other hand, embeds the literature review before setting the subject of query in the paper. It presents the current state of studies by a negative opening: “with the exception of a few studies (…)” (Pettit et al., 2010, p. 47). In addition, an outline of the research structure is no possible since the paper is categorized as an exploratory study.

Whereas Pettit et al. (2010) do no include a literature review on the basis of the research design, in Shear’s (2010) design this section stands separately. It is divided between general-specific (G-S) texts such as extended definitions and process texts to trace the rise of television and its later adoption for educational goals. The author restores to the past simple tense to narrow the context and present passive to specify her theoretical stance. It should be pointed out that the American Psychological Association (APA) advises researchers to use simple past or present perfect for this section (APA, 2010). Interviews are part of technique for collecting data which may be reported in the methods section (Sampieri, Collado & Lucio, 2008). The author has opted in this case for explaining in detail the technique used: Interview with an expert within the literature review section.

Pettit et al. comply with some characteristics for the methods section as proposed by APA (2010). Although the word which labels the section is not centered, the participants are mentioned by the title of sample. It conveys the guidelines of process paragraphs to describe the steps for sample gathering. Procedure and materials are headed after collection of data which presents the quantitative tools such as attitudes scales and surveys devised. Both research papers use the same headings and present process paragraphs which are written in the past tense. Still, in Shear’s (2010) work the title: Method is centered. Moreover, the researcher positions herself as a participant within the process. A point of difference since Pettit et al. employ a singular detached tone, emphasizing a qualitative method in data gathering composed of attitudinal scales and statistical surveys.

Drawing on APA format requirements, both articles indent paragraphs and make use of a readable font and size. However, Shear includes a title page, and double-spaced paragraphs. Unlike the former, Pettit et al. (2010) starts the abstract on a separate page neither contains a title page. Page numbers, moreover, are not aligned at the top right corner but are placed at the bottom right part of the page. Reference entries do also differ. Shear puts the list on a separate page from the main text (APA, 2010). Furthermore, it is alphabetically ordered and double-spaced (APA, 2010). Both researcher papers provide author(s), date of publication, titles, volume numbers, publisher and other retrieval data. What differs in both cases is the arrangement of information. Pettit et al. (2010) gives date at the end of the reference entries, with semi-colons for volume numbers. Further still, superscript numbers are used which refer back the audience to the reference entries at the end of the paper.

Ultimately, there is consistency in structure as well as report style in the information collected. Both research works produce knowledge, considering key prerequisites in writing. There is specificity which is “essential in scientific writing” (APA, 2009, P. 71). Presentation of ideas is kept by Shear (2010) as well as Pettit et al. (2010) Continuity is best noticed in these articles by the use of punctuation and transitional words (APA, 2010). Nevertheless, these research papers have not included the same number of section or the same order. Requirements on format aspects change accordingly, being subdued to organizational rules for paper submission. Comprised in different field, namely the Humanities and Medicine, these articles are scientific and academic despite the fact that each one incorporates sections which do not overlap.

References

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication Manual (6^th ed.). Washington: APA

Pettit, M. L., Jacobs, S. C., Page, K. S., & Porras, C. V. (2010). An assessment of perceived emotional intelligence and eating disorders among college students. American Journal of Health Education, 41 (1), 46-52. Retrieved April 2010, from http:// http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ871145&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ871145

Shear, A. (2010). Implementing Educational Science Television in the Third Grade Classroom. Retrieved April 2011, from ERIC database. (ED 510636)

Swales, J., & Najjar, H. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication 2 (4), 175-191. Retrieved May 2010, from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68973/2/10.1177_0741088387004002004.pdf