As Swales (1990) and Swales and Feak (1994) asserted the process of writing introductions is a time consuming, hard and vexatious task (cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p27). Through the introduction the readers’ attention should be attracted, or in other words, the product should be sold to the prospective readers and the problem that the article addresses should be described (Swales & Feak, 1994, cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010).
Therefore introductions are structured in a general-specific manner, following the Create a Research Space Model (C.A.R.S.), which help the writers to organize their work from the general topic to the particular hypothesis. The C.A.R.S Model provide a pattern that determines upon the use of three moves to organize introductions: Establishing a research territory, establishing a niche and occupying the niche. Each of them is characterized by different kinds of statements and concise use of genres (Swales and Feak, Ibid., cited in Pintos & Crimi, Ibid., p27).
The purpose of this paper is to analyze thoroughly the main features in the introduction section of a medicine research article under the theory settled down by Swales and Feak (1994) and (cited in Pintos and Crimi, 2010, p.27) and the academic style guideline in the American Psychological Association manual (APA 2008). To achieve the mentioned purpose each movement will be analyzed separately and semantic and syntactic features will be considered into each of them.
Regarding the first move the authors appear to have respected the required tenses since present perfect seems to indicate their intention to give credit to previous studies, i.e.: “Comprehensive systematic reviews (…) have estimated that mammography reduces breast cancer mortality by 15-16%” and at the same time highlight the relevance of a new study to update the conclusions: “Furthermore, there have been advances in treatment since the trials were completed and breast awareness has increased” (Jorgensen, Zahl, & Gotzsche, 2010).
Other features that seem to be reflected in this move are the use of impersonal language that could be used to show the authors detachment from what they are stating and thus, contribute to demonstrate their professionalism and the appearance of data corresponding to previous research which could be a signal that the literature review is “embedded in move 1” (as cited in Pintos, & Crimi, 2010, p. 30). It is almost certain that the past tense chosen to refer to previous researches is past passive.
Move 2 is indicated by a contrastive connector “However, there are three important concerns about this result” (Jorgensen et al., 2010). The use of this negative connector links the problem established, the literature review and move 3. Therefore, although it is a relative short move it is considered the most important element in the introduction because it states the author’s concern for the study and reveals the readers what is going to come in the next move (Swales & Feak, 1994, cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p30).
Within this move an in-text citation appears but its pattern does not seems to follow APA guidelines (2008), the different format could be adopted by the researchers due to the use of another style manual. The use of hyphenation through out the text can be noticed too, and this is another feature which is not allowed in APA (2008) style. Taking into account grammar points the most important tense of this movement is past simple and listing connectors were used to describe the data collected up to the present study.
In move 3 the niche is occupied by a non standard pattern “We hypothesized that if the reduction (. . .)” (Jorgensen et al., 2010). This choice could be regarded to the author’s purpose. Perhaps they wanted to highlight that some kind of logical compatibility between Copenhagen and other cities be proved to consider the Olsen´s work reliable.
In conclusion I would say that although the authors have found more than one gap in previous research, and the idea of mentioning all of them does not help the readers to understand the introduction easily, they have managed to unify all of the gaps in a well thought hypothesis and so, the introductions’ aim have been fulfilled, it attracted the readers attention and addresses the problem clearly.
References
Jorgensen, K. J., Zahl, P.H., & Gotzsche, P.C. (2010). Breast cancer mortality in
organised mammography screening in Denmark: Comparative study. BMJ, 340
(c1241), 1-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1241
Pintos, V., Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 2: The Research Article: Introduction, Literature
Review and Method Sections. Universidad CAECE: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Retrieved April 3, 2010, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=4692
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario