19 Deconstructing Journal Articles

In order to figure out if you Should Believe It, you’ve got to be able to interpret a research article. This can be very difficult! The first step is figuring out the general layout for a social scientific communication research article. Here’s what your student textbook authors have to say. You’re lucky they wrote the examples in this section instead of me – far more entertaining.

Deconstructing Journal Articles

In order to understand how to deconstruct journal articles, we must first understand how they are set up. Journal articles follow a general layout:

(Disclosure: examples from this section are fictional and the information within was not found in a real research article).

1. Title 

• The title previews the information to be found in the article
  • ex: An assessment on the relationship between Dunkin Donuts opening in Downtown Iowa City and University of Iowa Student’s Academic success. 

2. Abstract 

• The abstract acts as a short summary of the entire article. It is important to note that the abstract is often limited to a certain word count so it should not be viewed as a perfect summary.
  • ex: Since its opening in the Summer of 2019, Dunkin’ Donuts has served over 2 million University of Iowa students (Dunkin’ Donuts, 2019). This article explores the relationship between the newfound access to cheap sugary coffee and the academic improvement in the University of Iowa Student Body. 150 students participated in the study, both Dunkin and Non-Dunkin drinkers. This article follows the Caffeine Efficiency Model (Coffee, 2014). Measured variables include: academic standings prior to Dunkin opening, academic standings post-Dunkin opening, attendance records before and after, (etc…)

3. Introduction

• The introduction introduces and outlines the research paper. This is often, but not always, where you might find an overaching research question.
  • ex: Before Dunkin’ Donuts opened, University of Iowa students relied on weak dining hall coffee, or expensive local coffee, or Starbucks. Students struggled to keep up with the demands of school work without a cheap and strong coffee option available to them (Student Health and Wellness, 2018). Many students invested in Keurig Coffee Machines and lived off of K-Cups (etc…)

        4. Literature review

• • synthesizes all the literature and supporting research used in the article. Hypotheses and Research Questions are often found at the bottom of this section.
    • ex: The Caffeine Efficiency Model (CEM) explores the correlation between caffeine and University of Iowa students. The model was developed in 2014 by Pharmacy students and remains the standard for understanding caffeine productivity at Iowa (etc…).
      • ex: RESEARCH QUESTION: How has the opening of Dunkin’ Donuts in downtown Iowa City affected the students’ academic standings?
      • ex: HYPOTHESIS: Because of the literature surrounding caffeine and productivity, we predict that the new Dunkin’ Donuts has improved student’s academic standings.

5. Methods

• The methods section explains the specific procedures and actions done and who they were done to (the participants).
• Typically includes the procedures, participants, and analysis.
  • ex:  In our experiment recorded the test scores before and after Dunkin’ was added to campus. Our participants were 150 students who were all members of the Social Scientific: Communication Research Methods Class. We specifically selected academic scores from tests… (etc).

6. Results/Findings (Conclusion, end results)

• In quantitative research articles, the Results section focuses on depicting the numerical values discovered in the experiment and assessing things based on the data received. This section can often be number heavy and dense to comprehend. In qualitative research the findings are generally text, for example, quotes from interview data.
  This is a whole lot more complicated than depicted but for now we’ll just focus on the main points until we get to our discussion of qualitative and quantitative research methods!

   

  • ex:

7. Discussion

• The discussion section breaks down the data listed in the results into more readable and comprehensible material, and links the findings from the primary research back to other research and/or theory.
  • ex: From the data we received we have concluded that Dunkin’ has indeed promoted the improvement of the Test Scores of University of Iowa Students. As seen in graph 1… (etc).

8. Bibliography/ References

• The Bibliography or Reference page cites all the references used to supplement the paper – basically, the list of the primary research reviewed during the secondary research process. This is an important section to turn to for further research on the matter and serves as a tool to determine the credibility of the primary research article.
  • ex: “Dunkin’®: America’s Favorite Coffee, Espresso and Donuts: Dunkin’®.” Dunkin’® | America’s Favorite Coffee, Espresso and Donuts, www.dunkindonuts.com/.
    I dunno, ya’ll. Dunkin research conducted by Dunkin? Seems kinda fishy. Gotta watch out for that proprietary research!

     

Remember that each section in an article serves a purpose. The literature review (or review of literature, or whatever they call it but it’s the section(s) before Methods in a social scientific article) has a job: Make a compelling argument for why we need THIS research study, back that up with research that’s already been done, and tell people the questions they plan on answering.

So, picture an article as a Scholar telling you the story of their Primary Research —

[Literature review] Once upon a time, we realized that something was missing. And we need to find the answers! Just so you know that we know what we’re talking about, here’s what other people found out about this. I’m going to show you that I did my secondary research and review the relevant preexisting scholarship. Now that you know that, here’s what WE want to find out:

[RQs/HYs] Often, but not always, near the end of the literature review.

**The METHOD is the part we’re working to teach you how to scrutinize. This is where we want to see you exercise that health internal skepticism (and then external skepticism if you’re thinking about if you should believe what another source, like a popular press (e.g., news) or blog is trying to tell you “based on research.”

Scholar Storytime Continues…

[Method] Now I’m going to tell you about just how we went about figuring out the answers to our questions.

I’m going to tell you about WHO/what we did the research on [participants/data sources]. I’ll tell you how we got them to be involved in the research as participants [recruitment], and how we decided on those people (sampling). I’ll tell you about the when and the where of data collection.

Next I’m going to tell you about how we got down to the business of collecting the data, the process, the form (interview, questionnaire/survey, observation), and important details ABOUT the form, for example, about the conceptualization and operationalization. If it’s a survey I’m going to tell you about the questions I asked, the number points people answered them on (1 to 5? Strongly agree to strongly disagree?), where I got them. I’ll tell you about my interview questions – a sampling of what I asked people. In quant studies I’m going to tell you the stats that reveal how “good” my operationalization/measures were.

Then, I’ll tell you about what I DID with all that information. For surveys (quant) I’ll have all those numbers (“1 to 5”), for interviews, I’ll have all those words. I’ll tell you what I did with that data in order to answer my questions (quant – statistics? qual – coding? thematic analysis?)

Then we move on to the next section

[Results] I’m going to regale you with my stats tests (quant) or my thematic analysis (qual) results, before I told you the details of what I was going to do. NOW I’m telling you what I FOUND. And I’m doing it in the language of my method (which can be very jargon-y so thankfully there’s a….)

[Discussion] Shew, that Results section was a bit of a brain melter in terms of reading, eh? In the discussion section I’m going to go back to using regular words, as regular of words as any academic ever uses ( 😉 ) – Remember those research questions (RQs) and Hypotheses (HY) I talked about four score and 27 years ago? The questions I, as the Scholar publishing this primary research had when I started this endeavor? I *did just answer those questions in the results, but now I’m going to go ahead and put that in words. The discussion section is kind of neat because we’re almost working in reverse, back to the results to explain it in words for a wider audience to understand, back to that first section, the lit review, to compare what I found in this new primary research to the secondary research I did. Remember when I said something was missing? Well now I get a chance to talk about the meaningfulness of what I found. Does it fill in the gaps? Remember when we talked about the criteria for science and research way back in the early units? Well I, as an ethical scholar, am going to tell you all about my limitations, where I could have done a better job, what’s still unanswered. Then I’m going to wrap it up talking about the implications of my new findings for the future, be it more research, or new programs or policy.

…Unit 1…Unit 2….Unit 3…Unit 4…Unit 5…Unit 6…Unit 7…Unit 8…Unit 9…Unit 10…Unit 11…Unit 12…Unit 13…Unit 14…Unit 15…Unit 16…

Unit 4: Scrutinizing the Purpose of the [Secondary] Research

• • Proprietary Research vs. Scholarly Research
  • Translation
  • Deconstructing Journal Articles
  • Should You Believe It?