A Comparative Analysis Between Two Academic Papers from Different Fields

            

            The purpose of this paper is to provide a comparative analysis of the introduction and methods sections of two research papers belonging to two completely different areas, namely the fields of education and medicine. The text on education follows the organization pattern which research papers should contain to present their introduction.
The three moves of the Create a Research Model (C.A.R.S.) stated by Swales and Feak (1994), creating a research page, establishing a niche and occupying it, are neatly organized and clearly depicted. On the other hand, the text on medicine does not follow those requirements so clearly.

            In Sun and Chang`s (2012) educational paper, both authors make reference to all the previous research that has been carried out in the field using the present perfect tense and the present simple tense to describe the characteristics of blogs. The key term blog is is defined by means of a purpose statement or generalisation which introduces the main idea of the text from a general point of view.  The authors also establish a contrastive definition, which makes the rader realize that the word blog differs from the terms listservs, discussion boards and wikis. As it was mentioned before, the three moves of the the C.A.R.S are clearly expressed in the text referring to blogs. The first move, whose aim is to create a research paper, clearly refers back to previous studies which have been made in this field of using blogs to facilitate the development of a second language writing community. The authors make reference to different past studies, as Sun`s (2009) study on examining speaking practice on blogs and Noytim`s (2010) study showing that meaning served as the prominent focus rather than form in the blogging environment. Through these examples, it is clearly seen  that  the literature review is embedded in move one of the introduction  making reference to previous research in this area. Making use of a negative opening and raising a question, Sun and Chang (2012)  state the gap they found in the literature review:

Though, past literature has shed the light on the ways blogs can be used to encorage language learning and learners´participation in writing practices, little, if any, empirical research has been done to examine how interactions in blogs help EFL graduate students develop academic knowledge and writer identities. That is, if blogs are powerful tools in language learning, how do EFL students´ blog interactions demonstrate and facilitate how they process the knowledge they receive and make sense ogf who they are as emerging  academic writers? (p. 44)

This last question will be the motivator for the authors to run the research and write about the present study.

            In contrast, not even a simple definition is mentioned in the introduction of Roth et al. ´s (2010) article which directly provide an outline of past research “in the implementation of vaccines to avoid mortality in low income in low income countries”. (p. 1). The text on vaccines show the beginning of the second move by raising the doubt about BCG vaccines having non-specific benefitial effects on overall mortality.In this way, the authors provide different examples which suggest that much of the previous research has been accomplished on assumption rather than on randomized studies, shedding a light of doubt on the effectiveness of the revaccination of BCG to avoid infant mortality. In this way they create the need to run their research because this lack of information leads to more investigation on that field.

            In relation to the methods section, it can also be stated that Roth et al.´s medicine article does not follow the patterns most researchers and writers coincide with, such as its division in three subsections: participants, materials and procedure. However, they do make use of process paragraphs, including passive voice clauses in order to describe a process. In contrast, Sun and Chang´s article does organize the methods section into participants and procedures, and these two subsections are described in detail. The materials subsection is missing, probably because not much information could have been included due to the nature of this research. It is also possible to find examples of passive voice in this article as well.

            After contrasting these two articles, it can be concluded that Roth et. al´s article seems to follow the requirements for this kind of writing, presenting the information in a clear and neat way in both its introduction and methods section, whereas Sun and Chang´s article does not. The information in this article turns out to be confusing for the reader because its organization is not very clear and it is loaded with too many details and description which, as Reid (1994) stated, should be avoided by good academic writers.

                                                    References

Noytim, U. (2010). Weblogs enhancing EFL students' English language learning. Procedia Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2(1),127-1,132.

Reid, J. (1994). The process of paragraph writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Roth, A., E., Stabell Benn, C., Ravn, H., Rodrigues A., Lisse, I., M., Yazdanbakhsh, M., Whittle, H., & Aaby, P. (2010). Effect of revaccination with BCG in early childhood on mortality: randomised trial in Guinea-Bissau. British Medical Journal, 340, pp. c671-c671. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c671

Sun, Y. C., & Chang, Y. (2012). Blogging to learn: Becoming EFL academic writers through collaborative dialogues. Language and Learning & Technology, 16(1), 43-61.

Sun, Y. C. (2009). Voice blog: An exploratory study of language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 13(2), 88-103. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num2/sun.pdf.

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