164 / Academic Writing for Graduate Students
Japanese speakers by Kobayashi (1984). In apparent contrast,
Huang (1985) seemed to show that at least good language
learners in the People's Republic of China adopted similar strategies
to those identified elsewhere (e.g., Rubin 1975). It is difficult
to draw conclusions from these findings, except perhaps to speculate
that background may affect performance but not learning
style.
What are your preferences regarding these issues in table 16? And
what are the preferences of your field?
TABLE 16. Analysis Chart
B D
Is the version general-specific (SG) or
specific-general (SG)
Is the main tense past or present?
Are the citations by name or number?
When citing by name, do the names occur
(a) as subject, (b) as agent, or (c) in
parentheses?
Is the version a summary or a critique?
GS SG
Unit Seven
Constructing a Research Paper I
Units Seven and Eight consolidate many of the aspects of academic
writing that we have stressed in earlier units. However, they also
break new ground. They differ from the previous units in one important
way. By this stage, we think it possible that you may now be
carrying out a research investigation of some kind. The purpose of
these units, therefore, is to prepare you for and help you with writing
up your own research. In order to do this, we have made two
further assumptions:
You will be using a typical organizational pattern for your
paper—in other words, the IMRD format (Introduction,
Methods, Results, and Discussion) or some variant of it;
You hope that your paper might be published.
So, where do we stand? As we can see from the following list, we
have already made good progress toward carrying out the difficult
task of writing a research paper.
Parts of the
Research Paper
Title
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discuission
Acknowledgments
References
Contributions so far
Unit Five, Summary Writing
Unit Two, General-specific
Unit Four, Problem-solution
Unit Six, Critiques
Unit Three, Process descriptions
Unit Four, Highlight statements
Unit Four, Qualifications
Unit Four, Explanations (of unexpected results,
etc.)
Unit Six, Literature comparisons
155
156 / Academic Writing for Graduate Students
We can also see from the list that there is some more work to be
done. The really difficult areas, especially Introductions and Discussions,
need considerable attention. We also need to consider writing
up Methods and Results for research papers (RPs), as opposed to,
say, lab reports. There are some smaller bits of business, such as
acknowledgments and titles to be discussed. Even so, enough has
been done to make it possible.
When you read an RP, you may think that it is a simple, straightforward
account ofan investigation—indeed, RPs are often designed
to create this impression. However, we believe that such impressions
are largely misleading. Writers of RPs, in our opinion, operate in a
strategic manner. This is principally because such writers know that
RPs have to justify themselves. They need to establish that the research
questions are sufficiently interesting. They need to demonstrate
that the research questions are, in theory, answerable. And
they need to compete against other RPs for acceptance and recognition.
As a result, RP authors are very much concerned with
positioning—with showing that their studies are relevant and significant
and have some new contribution to make.
Overview of the Research Paper
The overall rhetorical shape of a typical RP is shown in figure 10.
This diagram gives a useful indication of the out-in-out or
general-specific-general movement of the typical RP. As the RP in
English has developed over the last hundred years or so, the four
different sections have thus become identified with four different
purposes.
Introduction (I)
Methods (M)
The main purpose of the Introduction is to
provide the rationale for the paper, moving
from general discussion of the topic to the
particular question or hypothesis being investigated.
A secondary purpose is to attract interest
in the topic—and hence readers.
The Methods section describes, in various degrees
of detail, methodology, materials, and
procedures. This is the narrowest part of
the RP.
Constructing a Research Paper I / 157
Introduction (I)
Methods (and materials) (M)
Results (R)
Discussion (D)
General
Specific
Specific
\
General
Fig. 10. Overall shape of a research paper
Results (R)
Discussion (D)
In the Results section, the findings are described,
accompanied by variable amounts of
commentary.
The Discussion section offers an increasingly
generalized account of what has been learned
in the study. This is usually done through a
series of "points," at least some of which refer
back to statements made in the Introduction.
As a result of these different purposes, the four sections have taken
on different linguistic characteristics. We summarize some of these
m table 17. The first line of the table shows, for instance, that the
Present tense is common in Introductions and Discussions, but uncommon
in Methods and Results.
Task One
In 1993 Dorothea Thompson published a useful RP on Results sections
in biochemistry articles. She was particularly interested in
158 / Academic Writing for Graduate Students
TABLE 17. Frequencies of Selected Items in RP Sections
Present tense
Past tense
Passive voice
Citations/references
Qualification
Commentary
Introduction
high
mid
low
high
mid
high
Methods
low
high
high
low
low
low
Results
low
high
variable
variable
mid
variable
Discussion
high
mid
variable
high
high
high
what kinds of comments researchers made in their Results sections
and whether researchers followed the guidelines in manuals. Here
are eight sentences from her paper. Based on table 17 and on your
own knowledge, can you guess from which of the sections they come?
Mark each one /, M, R, or D. There are two sentences from each
section. Work with a partner, if possible.
1. Only further research can determine the applicability of
this study's findings to scientific disciplines outside bio-
chemistry.
— 2. The data were analyzed both qualitatively and quan-
titatively.
3. Short communications and mini-reviews were excluded
from the sample because these publications have different
objectives and use a different format from that of the experimental
research article.
4. The assumptions underlying this study are grounded
largely in sociological accounts of the scientific enterprise
(Knorr-Cetina, 1981; Latour, 1987; Latour and Woolgar,
1979).
5. These style guides are, at best, superficial descriptions of
the content of these sections.
6. In 15 of the sample articles, these methodological narratives
included explicit justifications for the selection of
certain technical procedures, laboratory equipment, or alternatives
to standard protocols.
7. Scientific style manuals reinforce the conception that Results
sections simply present experimental data in a
Constructing a Research Paper I / 159
"cold," purely objective, expository manner (Council of Biology
Editors, 1972; Day, 1988; Mitchell, 1968; Woodford,
1968).
8. In 38% of the JBC Results sections sampled, Kornberg
and his co-authors directly relate their findings to those of
earlier studies, as the following illustrate: . . .
Methods
You might have expected us to begin our discussion of RP sections
with the Introduction. Instead, we are beginning with Methods. This
is usually the easiest section to write and, in fact, it is often the
section that researchers write first.
In Units Seven and Eight, we will involve you in the writing up of
a very small research investigation of our own. Among other things,
we hope in this way to illustrate certain strategic aspects of RP
writing. We summarize our miniproject in Task Two.
You will remember from Unit One that sentence connectors are
words like however and therefore. We became interested in the position
of sentence connectors in written academic English sentences.
We became curious about this since we found that the standard
grammars of English had little to say on this topic. We are currently
writing up our small-scale investigation. Like many other academics,
we started with Methods.
Task Two
Here is our draft. Please read it and answer the questions that
follow.
Methods
x
In order to investigate the position of connectors, we examined
their occurrence in academic papers published in three journals.
2
The sample consisted of all the main articles appearing in the
third issues of the 1992 volumes of College Composition and Communication,
English for Specific Purposes, and Research in the
Teaching of English. 3
(See Appendix A for a list of the articles
160 / Academic Writing for Graduate Students
studied.) 4
The sample amounted to about 230 running pages of
text, comprising 12 articles (four from each journal). 5
Each occurrence
of a connector was identified, highlighted, and then coded
for one of three positions in a clause. 6
If the connector was the
first or last word in the clause, it was designated "initial" or "final"
respectively. 7
If it occurred in any other position, it was classified
as "medial." 8
The following examples illustrate the coding sys-
tem:
A t-test was run;
however, the results were insignificant. Initial
the results, however, were insignificant. Medial
the results were, however, insignificant. Medial
the results were insignificant, however. Final
9
For the purposes of this study, the category of sentence connector
was interpreted quite broadly. 10
We included items like
unfortunately that are sometimes considered to be sentence adverbs.
u
We included such items as as it were and in turn, which
have an uncertain grammatical status. 12
We also counted conjunctions
like but as connectors when they occurred as first elements
in sentences, because they seemed to be functioning as
connectors in these contexts.
1. As is customary, the main tense in our Methods section is the
past. In one sentence, however, the main verb is in the present.
Which one is it and why?
2. Consider the following subject-verb combinations from sentences
in our Methods section:
1. we examined . . .
5. each occurrence was identified .. .
6. it was designated . . .
7. it was classified . . .
9. the category was interpreted . . .
10. we included . . .
11. we included . . .
12. we counted . . .
Constructing a Research Paper I / 161
These eight sentences describe what we did. As you can see, in
four cases we used the past passive, and in four cases we used
we and the past active. Is this switching acceptable to you?
Could you do this in your field? What would your advisor or instructor
recommend? Do you think we should have been consistent?
In other words, do you think we should have used either
the passive or we all the way through?
In a classic 1981 paper, Tarone et al. argue that the choice of
passive versus we + active is not always a "free" stylistic
choice. According to Tarone et al., the passive in the astrophysics
papers they examined is used for standard procedures,
while the use of we signals something new or unexpected. Do
you think this might be true of your field?
3. Do you think the third paragraph should come before the
second? What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a
change?
4. As it happens, our account of Methods is not quite accurate. In
actual fact, we conducted a pilot study on one journal. When
that experience appeared to work out, we extended the sample.
Is there any good reason for mentioning this part of the (true)
story? When you write up a Methods section, is it appropriate
to simplify or straighten out the actual process? Is it OK to
"tidy up" in this way?
5. Finally, would you like to guess what our results were? What
percentage of connectors were initial, medial, and final?
Language Focus: Imperatives in Research Papers
In the Methods section in Task Two, sentence 3 currently reads:
(See Appendix A for a list of the articles studied.)
We could, of course, have written:
(A list of the articles studied is given in Appendix A.)
162 / Academic Writing for Graduate Students
Command-like imperatives are common in textbooks, manuals, lectures,
and labs.
Analyze the results in figure 1.
Complete the following sentences.
Notice the relationship between A and B.
Prepare 5cc of distillate.
Carry this total forward.
In RPs, however, imperatives are less commonly used because
they may be offensive. They may upset the fragile relationship between
the writer and the reader, since the reader (instructor, advisor,
or someone outside) can be expected to have a status comparable
to or higher than the author.
However, one verb is widely used in many RP fields. Indeed, it
may account for up to 50% of all the (occasional) uses of the imperative
in research writing. As you may have guessed by now, that verb
is let.
Let p stand for the price-cost ratio
Let N equal the number of consumers
A few other imperative verbs can be found in mathematical arguments,
such as suppose, substitute, and assume.
A rather more difficult case occurs when you want to direct your
readers' attention to some particular point, as we did when we wrote
"(See Appendix A for a list of... )." We wanted the readers to know
at this point in our paper that we have elsewhere provided full
details of our data.
In RPs would you accept imperative uses of the following, and, if
so, can you provide an example?
1. Notice
2. Consider
3. Imagine
4. Note
5. Refer
6. Compare
7. Recall
Constructing a Research Paper I / 163
8. Observe
9. Take the case of, etc.
10. Disregard
Ifyou think that an imperative might cause offense by being impolite,
there are easy ways of escape.
Imperative
Passive
Now compare the results in tables 4 and 5.
The results in tables 4 and 5 can now be com-
pared.
Conditional. If we now compare the results in tables 4 and
5, we can see that . . .
Writing Up a Methods Section
One of us (John) interviewed a student planning her first research
paper for her masters in social work. Mei-Lan said that the provisional
title for her research paper was "Chinese Elderly Living in
the United States: A Problem-free Population?" She said that she
had chosen this topic because of some "prevailing myths" that the
Chinese communities would always look after their elderly and that
such elderly would not accept help from outsiders. She believed that
certain traditional Chinese attitudes, such as "filial piety," were
beginning to change in U.S. communities. She added that all the
research to date had been conducted in the large communities in big
cities on the East and West Coasts. She wanted to study smaller
communities in a midwest town. John then asked her about meth-
odology.
John Swales: How are you going to collect your data?
Mei-Lan: By face-to-face interviews. I want to do one-on-one interviews
because I think if other family members are there the
interviewees will not reveal their deep feelings and real prob-
lems.
JS: How will you find your subjects?
ML: I'll use friends and acquaintances in the local Chinese community
to introduce me.
JS: Will you record the interviews?
164 / Academic Writing for Graduate Students
ML: Yes, but of course I will ask permission first.
JS: Will you use English?
ML: The interviewees can use any language they prefer—
Mandarin, Taiwanese, or English. Whatever is most comfortable
for them.
JS: How long do you plan the interviews to last, and do you have
a fixed list of questions?
ML: About an hour. I have a list of questions but I do not want to
follow them very exactly. I will use what sociologists call "semistructured"
interviews. Part planned, part "go with the flow," as
the Americans say.
JS: Finally, how many people will you interview?
ML: Because of limited time and contacts, only about ten. So I
will be doing a qualitative analysis. There will not be enough
subjects for statistics.
Task Three
Now with a partner draft the first sentence of Mei-Lan's Methods
section. Remember to use formal style. You may wish to consider
which of the following elements should be included.
1. methodology
2. the purpose of the methodology
3. the sample
Task Four
Now write a Methods section of your own. If you do not have any
suitable material, you could—as an alternative—complete MeiLan's
Methods section for her. In this case, assume that she has now
completed the work.
Methods Sections across Disciplines
The two Methods sections we have been working on so far would fall
under the broad category of "social science." Studies show that most
Methods sections in social science disciplines share a number of
characteristics:
Constructing a Research Paper I / 165
They are explicit about details and procedures.
They are slow paced since they do not presume much background
knowledge.
They contain justifications, explanations, and (sometimes) ex-
amples.
The terminology is often repeated.
In social science, education, public health, and so on, methodology is
often a very important and hotly debated issue. Indeed, in some
cases in these areas, the main point of an RP will be to announce
some development in method. However, in science, engineering, and
medical research, standard practices and established methods are
much more widely available. As a result, Methods sections in these
fields may be very different.
Task Five
Read this opening to a Methods section and answer the questions
that follow.
Methods for Analysis and Functional Properties
The standard AOAC1
methods (AOAC, 1975) were used for the
determination of total solids, nitrogen, crude fat, ash, and Vitamin
C. Total sugars were determined by the method of Potter et
al. (1968), and the total carbohydrates (in terms of glucose) were
assayed according to the procedure of Dubois et al. (1956). The
method of Kohler and Patten (1967) was followed for determining
amino acid composition.
(Quoted by Knorr-Cetina 1981, 157)
1- What field do you think this extract comes from?
2- What differences can you note between this Methods section
and the one given in Task Two? What evidence can you find
here of shared background knowledge? What is striking about
the ways in which the methods in this passage are described
(or, more exactly, not described)?
= Association of Operational Analytic Chemists
166 / Academic Writing for Graduate Students
3. Would a Methods section written like this be possible in your
field?
Task Six
We can conclude that Methods sections vary greatly in what we
might call "speed."
Type 1 Slow (as in our own draft)
Type 2 Fairly slow
Type 3 Fairly fast
Type 4 Fast (as in the paper quoted by Knorr-Cetina)
Here is part of a Methods section written by one ofour students. She
is working on a Ph.D. in physiology. What "speed" would you give it?
Suppose Jun's advisor suggested that it could be "speeded up" a
little. What advice do you have? There are also a couple of small
mistakes toward the end. Can you correct those as well?
Binding Assay and Down Regulation Study
Cells were cultured in 24-well plates. Receptor binding was determined
by incubating the intact cells with (3H)NMS in 1 ml buffer
A at 4°C or 370
C. Non-specific binding was defined in the presence
of atropine. Incubation was terminated by washing the cells with
ice-cold saline three times. Cells were scraped in 0.5ml water and
suspensions were put into 5mm bio-safe scintillation fluid and
then counted in a Beckman liquid scintillation counter. For the
study of down regulation, cells was pre-incubated with 10mm M
CCh for different periods time and then washed with a buffer A
three times. The binding assay was performed as described above.
(Jun Yang, unedited)
Where on the "speed" scale (Types 1-4) would you place your own
methods descriptions and those typical of your field?
Constructing a Research Paper I / 167
Language Focus: Hyphens in Noun Phrases
Notice that Jun's first sentence ends with the noun phrase "24-well
plates." Hyphens are often used to clarify how complex noun
phrases are to be interpreted. In Jun's case, her hyphen indicated
that she was using plates containing 24 wells. Without the hyphen,
the phrase could be interpreted as 24 plates containing an unspecified
number of wells. What differences can you see between the
following pairs of noun phrases?
small-car factory / small car factory
blue-lined paper / blue lined paper
university-paid personnel / university paid personnel
Read the above pairs aloud. Can you make a distinction between
them in terms of stress and intonation?
Can you think of one or two similar pairs from your own field?
How would you indicate what you meant by the following noun
phrases? All three are ambiguous, at least out of context.
artificial heart valve
rapid release mechanism
strong acting director
Results
The other section we will deal with in this unit is the Results section.
Again we will begin by asking you to read the Results section of
our own paper. As it stands at present, it is an incomplete draft.
Results
A total of 467 sentence connectors was found, averaging just over
two per page. Eleven of the 12 articles used connectors with some
frequency, with totals ranging from 24 to 58. The one exception
was the only article in the sample that dealt with literary texts,
168 / Academic Writing for Graduate Students
which used only nine connectors. The scarcity of connectors in
this paper may be due to its heavy use of commentary on literary
passages.
Seventy different sentence connectors occurred in the sample.
This large number is somewhat surprising, even taking into account
our broad interpretation of "connector." Those that occurred
four times or more are listed in decreasing frequency of use in
table 18.
TABLE 18. Frequency of Connectors
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
17
19
22
25
Item
however
first, second, etc.
thus
also
for example
in addition
finally
therefore
on the other hand
then
nevertheless
for instance
furthermore
moreover
in particular
but
in fact
yet
that is
in contrast
in other words
further
similarly
of course
as a result
Total occurrence
62
52
33
30
29
20
19
16
14
12
11
9
8
6
5
4
Constructing a Research Paper I / 169
There are a number of surprises in the frequency data. There
was unexpectedly heavy use of the "informal" connectors but
(nine instances) and yet (eight instances). Although these are
known to be frequent in newspapers and correspondence, we were
somewhat surprised to find so many in refereed scholarly journals.
In contrast, there was minimal use of "conclusives," such as
in conclusion. Under 2% of all the connectors fell into this category.
Finally, very uneven frequencies in certain other categories
were noted.
Contrasts: however, 62 nevertheless, 11 all the same, 0
Results: thus, 33 therefore, 16 hence, 1
We now turn to the positional data. Of the 467 connectors
found, 352 occurred in initial position (75.4%), 109 in medial position,
and only six in final position. Clearly, final position is very
rare in this kind of writing, and we will not discuss it further. If
we now examine the positional data in terms of individual connectors,
we find that different connectors behave somewhat differently.
In table 19 all connectors occurring four times or more are
categorized for percentage of occurrence in initial position. (Informal
uses of but and yet have been excluded.)
TABLE 19. Positional Categories of Connectors
Category Connectors Occurrence
B
C
D
First, second, etc., in
addition, nevertheless,
finally, that is, as a result
moreover, thus, in
particular/in fact, in other
words, of course
however, for instance, on the
other hand, furthermore
also, for example, therefore,
then
100% in initial position
Between 75% and 99% in
initial position
Between 50% and 74% in
initial position
Between 25% and 49% in
initial position
170 / Academic Writing for Graduate Students
Task Seven
Go back and read through the Results section ofour paper, underlining
all the occasions where we have used numbers (ignore percentages).
Can you determine the rules we followed for when to write
numbers as digits (12, etc.) and when as words (twelve, etc.)? What
are the rules you use in your field?
Task Eight
Notice that our Results section is not complete. Suppose we asked
you what we could include in the concluding paragraph to our Results
Section, based on the information in table 18? What highlighting
statements would you suggest? Refer back to Unit Four if necessary.
Give your suggestions in order, from the first statement to be
included to the last.
Commentary in Results Sections
It is often said that the Results section of an RP should simply
report the data that has been collected; that is, it should focus exclusively
on the present results. Indeed, many of the books and manuals
aiming at helping students and scholars to write research
papers offer this kind of advice. These books argue, particularly,
that all evaluation and commentary should be left until the Discussion.
However, research shows that this distinction between Results
and Discussion is not as sharp as commonly believed. For example,
Thompson (1993) studied the Results sections from 20 published
biochemistry papers. Table 20 presents what she found.
This is part of Thompson's conclusions:
My research demonstrates that scientists—in this case biochemists—do
not present results only in a factual expository
manner; they also employ a variety of rhetorical moves to argue
for the validity of scientific facts and knowledge claims.
(P. 126)
Constructing a Research Paper I / 171
TABLE 20. Commentary Found in Results Sections
Type of commentary
Number of papers
(max. = 20)
Justifying the methodology
Interpreting the results
Citing agreement with previous studies
Commenting on the data
Admitting difficulties in interpretation
Pointing out discrepancies
Calling for further research
19
19
11
10
8
4
0
Authors often include commentary because they are aware of their
audience. They can anticipate that their readers may be thinking,
"Why did they use this method rather than that one?" or "Isn't this
result rather strange?" For obvious reasons, authors may not want
to postpone responding to such imaginary questions and critical
comments until the final section.
Task Nine
Carefully read a Results section that you have written or read from
your field and our draft on sentence connectors, marking any commentary
elements. In your estimation, which of the following types
are the passages most like?
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Gives straightforward description of the author's results;
includes no commentary at all (no comparisons
with the work of others, no justifications, no—or very
few—obvious highlighting statements).
Is mostly restricted to present findings, but includes a
few minor uses of commentary.
Consists of both description of findings and a number
of commentary elements; uses several of the categories
mentioned by Thompson.
Makes heavy use of commentary; uses most of the categories
found by Thompson; could almost be taken for
a discussion.
172 / Academic Writing for Graduate Students
Be prepared to discuss your findings in class. Bring the passage
from your field with you.
Task Ten
Produce a Results section from your own work (or part of one if your
work is extensive). If your results are not yet complete, create some
findings on your own. Alternatively, you may complete the final
paragraph ofthe Results section for the sentence connector mini-RP.
Unit Eight
Constructing a Research Paper II
In this final unit, we deal with the remaining parts of a research
paper in the following order:
Introduction sections
Discussion sections
Acknowledgments
Titles
Abstracts
Introduction Sections
It is widely recognized that writing introductions is slow, difficult,
and troublesome for both native speakers as well as nonnative
speakers. A very long time ago, the Greek philosopher Plato remarked,
"The beginning is half of the whole." Indeed, eventually
producing a good Introduction section always seems like a battle
hard won.
Writing the Introduction of an RP is particularly troublesome. In
some kinds of texts, such as term papers or case reports, it is possible
to start immediately with a topic or thesis statement
The purpose of this paper is to ...
This paper describes and analyzes . . .
My aim in this paper is to ...
In this paper, we report on ...
However, this kind of opening is rare and unusual in an RP (probably
under 10% of published RPs start in this way). In fact, statements
like those above typically come at or near the end of an RP
Introduction. Why is this? And what comes before?
We believe thatthe answerto these questions lies intwointerconParts.
The first half of the answer lies in the need to appeal to
readership. In a term paper assignment, the reader is set. (In-
173