 Experimental Pathology research report structure

Research worlds  Research approaches:  Empirical: (e.g., scientific search for explanations. Quantitive. The researcher is independent of the object of research, looking at an external world). Implications for language?  Interpretive: (Hums/Soc Sci: investigation of competing interpretations of phenomena. The researcher is not independent of object of research. Qual/quant). Implications for language?

Research types  Research types:  Discovery: Highest status, (ref), new knowledge and understanding  Applied: Application of existing knowledge to solving problems  Integrative: Synthesising knowledge and understanding, e.g., textbooks. Can be cross- discipline.  (Scholarship of teaching and learning):

CARS

Sections of a research report  Abstract  Introduction  Methods  Results  Discussion  Conclusion

Rhetorical shape of a research report  Introduction (general --- specific)  Methods and materials  Results  Discussion (specific --- general) Adapted from Swales and Feak 2004

Purpose of each section - introduction  Introduction Rationale for the paper, hypothesis Moves from general discussion of topic to specific research questions Attracts interest in the topic Adapted from Swales and Feak 2004

How does the literature inform research?  Knowing the field  Understanding the problems  Identifying the gaps  Positioning your research within the field

Levels of critical engagement 1  1. Non-critical approach. Reader engages with material ‘on its own terms’, not commenting, challenging or drawing comparison with other sources. The emphasis is on describing and explaining what the material says. The knowledge is not treated as contestable. Knowledge claims are treated as descriptive (positive), and make claims about the nature, state of a process or system in the past, present or future).

Levels of critical engagement 2  2. Weakly critical approach. Attention to soundness of reasoning, strength of conclusions drawn: e.g., in a research report you check ‘methods’ are thorough, results accurate, looking for weaknesses in the account given and conclusions drawn.  You probably wouldn’t step back from the reasoning being presented and look at/name the assumptions, premises or values on which it is based (usually tacitly). Nor would you declare a position/interest that might affect the way you read and comments you might make. Weakly critical approaches take place from assumed shared positions within paradigms.

Levels of critical engagement 3  3. Strongly Critical Approach. You consider how material is constructed: what assumptions, whose values, which historical, intellectual and political frames (paradigms)? The content shifts from representing simply ‘knowledge’ to more of the status of ‘knowledge claim’.  Knowledge claims: normative or prescriptive, and thus grounded in evaluative/value-laden judgments.  Knowledge claims are not contestable just on the basis of flawed reasoning but also on the basis of contextual and critical awareness of how and why claims are being made in the first place. A strongly critical stance involves explicit recognition of one’s own position, values and assumptions; not simply a ‘personal’ position but one aligned with a collective viewpoint, that is itself open to scrutiny (e.g., a realist or Marxist or neo-liberal position….).

Purpose of each section - methods  Describes methods, materials, subjects etc.  Narrowest part of the RP Adapted from Swales and Feak 2004

Purpose of each section - results  Describes findings  Provides some commentary on the processed ‘typical’ results Adapted from Swales and Feak 2004

Purpose of each section - discussion  Moves from specific to general  Discusses the findings – moves to generalisations  Relates findings to the literature Adapted from Swales and Feak 2004

Links between sections in a research report Results Methods Discussion Introduction