English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.

47-59, 1994
Copyright 0 1994 The American University
Pergamon Elsevier Science Ltd. Printed in the USA
0889-4906194 $6.00 + .oO

A Genre Analysis of the Results Section of

Sociology Articles
Paul Brett

Abstract - This study uses a genre-based analysis of 20 research articles @As)

from the discipline of sociology to present a provisional, pedagogically usable
description of the communicative categories or “moves” (Swales 1981, 1990)
found in the Results sections. These categories are described in terms of func-
tion, lexis, and grammatical form, and a model of the typical, cyclical patterns
formed by combinations of the categories is given. The categories found extend
and refine previous models of this section, reveal certain similarities with the
Discussion sections of hard science RAs, and provide evidence of disciplinary
variation.

Introduction

Genre analysis, as a type of discourse analysis, has been of growing interest

to applied linguists (Hopkins & Dudley-Evans 1988; Swales 1981, 1990). It
offers a system of analysis which allows observations to be made on the
repeated communicative functions found in genres and the linguistic exponents
of these functions. This type of discourse analysis readily lends itself to the
pedagogic concerns of those involved in the communicative ESP and EAP
classroom. The communicative functions and their linguistic exponents can be
purposefully exploited through tasks and materials which directly reflect those
texts that learners have to comprehend and produce.
Genre analysts have largely concentrated their investigations on texts from
the “hard” and “applied” sciences, for example, neuroscience, (Belanger
1982), electronics (Cooper 1985), and biology (Hopkins & Dudley-Evans
1988). Swales (1990), in an overview of completed textual studies of the genre
of the research article (RA), says “it is easy to see that some fields are much
less well represented than others; for example, there is very little on disci-
plines such as economics or sociology” (p. 132). The purpose of this investi-
gation was to examine 20 sociology RAs, using genre analysis, to be able to
provide a pedagogically useful description of the writing of this discourse com-
munity.
Initial, informal investigations of the corpus showed the Results section -
conventionally the third section of the IL4 in an Introduction, Method, Results,
Discussion structure - to possess characteristics which would merit further
investigation and description. It was here that writers chose to make their new
knowledge claims through the presentation, explanation, and interpretation of

Address correspondence to: Paul Brett, 17, Sakney Close, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, SY2 6SQ, UK.

47
 P. Brett

numerical data. This reflects a particular disciplinary problem arising from

sociologists’ application of a positivist epistemology. The methods of quantita-
tive sociological research involve the definition of people and abstract concepts,
such as “ethnic identification,” or “satisfaction,” as numerical data. These are
then manipulated according to accepted statistical practices (e.g., multivariate
analysis), to produce more numerical information. The methodological circle is
completed by the researcher explaining, interpreting, and reconstituting these
statistics to produce meaningful statements about humans and their behaviour.
The numbers in isolation are meaningless, and sociology has no objective,
substantive means of proof or evidence. To reconstitute these data in order to
be able to show results requires considerable rhetorical craft, space, and a
range of communicative options. It follows that a description of the communi-
cative purposes expressed in the Results section would be of value to appren-
tices who were learning to read and write such texts. Genre-based analyses of
the RA have focused mostly on the Introduction section, (Cooper 1985; Dud-
ley-Evans 1986; Swales 1981, 1990), with some investigation into the Results
section (Weissberg & Buker 1990) and Discussion section (Belanger 1982;
Hopkins & Dudley-Evans 1988; Peng 1987).
This paper first reports on the overall organisation of sociology RAs. It then
provides a description of the communicative categories or “moves” (Swales
1981, 1990) found in the Results section, the lexis and grammar associated
with each category, and a model of the patterns formed by combinations of
these communicative categories. Finally, it discusses the extent to which cur-
rent models of Results are adequate for learners and shows that Results in
sociology have some of the roles of Discussion in Science and Technology.

How are Sociology RAs Organised?

This section looks first at the overall organisation of the RAs and then at
each of the four sections. Twenty RAs were selected at random from five
sociological journals (see Appendix B). The only criterion for selection was that
the articles used original data to further their arguments. All but one of the
articles in this corpus were written by North American authors. Sociology
journals also contain review-type articles not based on data, and research
notes. Those using original data are in the majority, reflecting the discipline’s
acceptance of the scientific, empiricist model.
The articles were first analysed for general organisation. All had a main title,
followed by an abstract, the main body of the text and a list of references.
Following Swales (1990), four sections were identified in each article, Intro-
duction, Method, Results, and Discussion (IMRD). However, a comment
about the labelling of these sections is necessary. The Introduction sections
were either unlabelled or had the headings, “Introduction,” “Theoretical Per-
spectives ,” “Models,” or “Recent Research.” The Methods section was la-
belled “Methods” in the majority of articles, although, “Data and Method,”
“Methodology, ” “Data and Measurement,” “Research Setting,” and “Re-
search Strategy” were also used. The third section displayed four variations of
 The Results Section in Sociology Articles 49

heading: “Results,” “Findings, ” “Analysis and Results,” and “Data Analysis.”

The final section had the headings, “Discussion, ” “Discussion and Conclusion,”
and “Summary.” The labelling of sections and the macro-structure of RAs in
sociology is not as standardised as that found in the “hard” sciences @wales
1990:175).
The sections, despite title variations, were grouped within the IMRD frame-
work. Table 1 presents a quantitative picture of the number of pages in each.
The existence of such sections in this sequence reflects the adoption of the
scientific epistemological paradigm by the discipline. The rhetorical organisa-
tion of the articles mirrors that of the “hard” sciences even though the posi-
tivist assumptions which back such research are and have been a source of
great debate within sociology (Lieberson 1992; Toulmin & Leary 1985).

Introductions
These account for 24% of the corpus and are much longer than the average
lengths of 424 words found in the Introductions to electronics articles by
Cooper (1985) and of between 100 and 150 words in the Swales (1981) corpus.
This reflects the authors’ need to review thoroughly previous ideas, theories,
and research in their chosen topic. As the research questions posed and an-
swered by sociology articles are formed by distilling previous research, this
section contains careful and thorough abridgments of noted sociological en-
deavour. Such summaries, in a field without unanimous agreement on its body
of accepted knowledge, need considerable space, and occupy the bulk of In-
troductions. An informal analysis of 10 of the articles (results not shown here),
using the Create a Research Space (CARS) model (Swales 1990: 141), re-
vealed a similar use of the three “moves.” However, these were all organised
cyclically, duplicating Crookes’ (1986) observation that the longer and diverse
Introductions are less likely to be linear.

Methods

This section occupies 20%, and is perhaps longer than its equivalent within
the “hard” sciences. There appear to be three tasks for the sociologist in the
Methods section. The first is to describe how the data which form the quan-
titative base for the study have been obtained. In some articles, they were
collected by the researchers, for example, 13, (all articles are numbered as in
Appendix B); in others, they were derived from external sources, for example,
10, which used government statistics. The second task is to explain how the

TABLE 1
The Number of Pages in Each Section of this Corpus

Introduction Methods Results Discussion Total

Totals 68.5 56.5 112.5 43.25 280.25

Percent 24 20 40 15.7 100
Average page length 3.4 2.8 5.6 2.16 14
 P. Brett

concepts and variables of the research were made operational. Many socio-
logical concepts (e.g., “well-being” or “sociopolitical orientation”) are intangi-
ble but have to be translated into numbers. For example, “skin tone,” was
derived by rating “skin color on a scale from one to five, with one indicating a
very dark brown skin color and five denoting a very light brown or very light
skin complexion” (1: 766). Lastly, the statistical techniques which are proce-
dural warranty for results in quantitative sociology (e.g., “multivariate analy-
sis” or “Pareto curves”) are stated but not explained, reflecting a shared
understanding and acceptance of these procedures within the discourse com-
munity (e.g., “we performed binomial tests on the frequency of deaths . . .”
(2: 1062). Huckin (cited in Swales 1990: 169) attests to the de-emphasising of
the Methods section in The Journal of Biological Chemistry, but it appears that
this is not happening in sociology. The greater length of the Methods section
in sociology, as compared to the hard sciences, reflects a discipline in which
there is less unanimity as to methodological practice.

Results

This is the largest section (40%), and typically includes tables, graphs, and
figures. These present the numerical products of the various statistical manip-
ulations which are the substance of the results. However, these numbers
would remain meaningless without the text; they have to be reconstituted to
represent the people and human behaviour from which they were originally
derived. It is here that new knowledge claims are made. These are stated
tentatively, suggesting that they will not be beyond dispute by other sociolo-
gists.

Discussion

This is the shortest section (15.7%), and it appears to be used to provide a

general summary of the article and also to comment on implications for future
research.

What Communicative Purposes are in the Results Sections

of Sociology RAs?
Whywas this section chosen for detailed analysis? Firstly, the space devoted
to Results makes it likely that a wide variety of communicative intentions
together with a range of patterning of those intentions are possible and ac-
ceptable to the discourse community. Secondly, initial readings of the articles
revealed that this section was the place where writers advance claims to new
sociological knowledge, aligning it with one of the goals of the genre of RA: to
further the knowledge of the discipline. Thirdly, new knowledge within soci-
ology is not as easily or objectively substantiated as the “hard” sciences,
scholars being concerned with covariance of patterns rather than physical out-
comes. This means that sociologists claiming new knowledge have to be able
 The Results Section in Sociology Articles 51

to use a set of communicative options which enable them to reconstitute

statistical data into rnea~~l statements about people and human behaviour.
Information about the types of communicative choices used to achieve this are
likely to be of value in the EAP classroom. Lastly, initial readings of the section
indicated that rhetorical choice was more complex than that suggested by the
model of Results by Weissberg and Buker (1990). In particular, there seemed
to be a wider range of communicative options, some of which had been found
by others in the Discussion sections. There were also ~o~u~~~ve catego-
ries not previously described by other researchers.

Studies of the Results and Discussion Sections

This section presents briefly the findings of two previous studies into the
Results and Discussions sections which will serve as a point of ~omp~son with
the findings of this present study in a later section. It appears that the division
between these two sections is not rigid, and so it is necessary to compare this
study of Results with previous research into both Results and Discussions.
Weissberg and Buker (Writi?zg up Research [19901, a textbook for use by
students writing research reports), based on the analysis of articles from a
range of disciples ~clu~g sociology, present a model for the Results section
which “consists of three basic elements of information” (p. 138). These are:
Element 1, a statement in the present tense that locates the figure(s) where
the results can be found; Element 2, past tense statements that present the
most important findings, of which there are three types (comparison among
groups, fluctuation over time, and relations~p between two or more vari-
ables); Element 3, statements that comment on the results, with three func-
tions: to generalise from results, to explain them or to compare with other
studies, using the past tense, modals, and tentative verbs (p. 138). They offer
two stylized patterns of organisation for Elements 2 and 3: either as Result --*
Comment or Result ---, Result -+ Result + Comment. All these elements were
found in the present corpus; however, as the later discussion details, it is too
simplistic a model to fully account for the communicative options in this corpus.
The analysis of the communicative options in Science/Technology Discussion
sections by Hopkins and Dudley-Evans (1988) serves as a point of comparison
with this study. They found a cyclical patterning of moves, with only one
mandatory move, the Statement of Result, which occurred at the start of a
cycle. The intricacy of the cycle was shown to be directly related to whether
and how neatly the results of the research dovetailed with those expected. The
11 moves which frequently made up these cycles are glossed as follows: (1)
Background Information, (b) Statement of Result, (c) (Un)expected outcome,
(d) Reference to previous research (Comparison), (e) Explanation of unsatis-
factory result, Q Exemp~cation, (g) Deduction, (h) Hypothesis, (i) Reference
to previous research (suppo~), (i) Reco~endation for future work, (k) Jus-
tification for the recommendation (1988: 118).
These two models, one of Results and one of Discussions, show a degree of
overlap. Hopkins and Dudley-Evans’ (1988) moves 2, 4, 7, and 9 have equiv-
52 P. Brett

alents in Weissberg and Buker’s (1990) Results, serving as a reminder of the

permeability of the different section headings. The similarities and differences
between these two models and the present study are discussed later.

The Communicative Categories of Results Sections in

Sociology RAs
Initial readings showed that a three-way split of the type of communicative
category, into Metatextual, Presentation, and Comment would aid analysis.
Metatextual defines parts of the text which refer to the data or to other written
sections; it is text about the text, not furthering the writer’s argument, but
guiding the reader to other parts of the writing, for example “The following
section estimates each model separately for men and women . . .” (13: 90).
Presentation categories are those which objectively and impersonally report,
present, or highlight the results or the ways in which they were obtained.
These serve to translate the figures and procedures into written text. For
example, “The increases in poverty between the two periods are generally
larger for the relative measure of poverty than for the absolute measure, but
are not statistically significant” (8: 544). Comment categories are those in
which authors offer their own interpretation of, or comment and opinion about
the results already presented, building upon the Presentation categories. Their
use is author-personal, subjective, and not readily suggested by the data,
although they are as important to the argument as Presentation categories.
These enable authors to explain, compare, summarise, raise further questions
about, and/or discuss implications of the results. For example, “. . . the health-
ier lifestyles of the more observant Jews may play a role in explaining their
better functional ability” (2: 1052).
The following 16 communicative categories were found in the Results sec-
tion. Each is given a numerical indicator and a title, and is followed by a
description of its function, with an example sentence (taken fromthe corpus and
numbered as in Appendix B). The lexical signals are italicized.
Metatextual Categories
0.1 Pointer. Indicates which data are to be discussed. Example: “Table 1
presents means, standard deviations and zero order correlations; Table 2 pre-
sents . . .” (18)
0.2 Structure of Section. Indicates the order and content of the text which
follows. Example: “We begin by . . . We then . . . Last we . . .” (9)

Presentation Categories
0.3 Procedural. Explains how and why data have been produced. Example: “To
evaluate the correspondence between . . . , we cross-classified . . .” (3)
0.4 H@othesis Restated. Restates the aims of the research, or creates further
hypotheses out of the findings that have already been discussed. Example:
“ . . . we aim to assess the applicability of five competing models . . ,” (14)
 The Results Section in Sociology Articles 53

1.1 Statement of Finding. Extracts meaning from the numerical data with a
written statement about it. The three ways of doing this provide the fo~o~g
three subcategories.
(a) Comparison. Compares two or more of the subjects of the study. Ex-
ample: “. . . indicate that annual cocaine use among Mexican and Puerto
Rican males is sZightZy higher than average.” (5)
fb) Tome-belted chase. Describes change in the subject of study over a
period of time. “In general the optical poverty trends for children since 1960
are similar to those for all individuals.” (10)
(c) Relationsh@ Between Variables. Indicates relationships between the vari-
ables in the study. Example: “There is a highly sign&ant inverse associa-
tion of 1982 public p~cipation in religion with ~nctional disab~ty in 1983,
1984 and 1985 . . .” (2)
2.1 Substantiation of Finding. Additional discussion of the results produced by
the other variables also analysed, which, as they do not produce significant
results serve to support or not to conflict with the major finding as presented
in category 1.1. Example: “Rates of deep poverty and relative poverty charged
& a s~milayfashi~ . . .” (9)
2.2 Non-validation of Finding. Accounts for data and analysis of other variables
that do not support the major Wing. Example: “‘However other results . . .
indicate that neither marital duration nor . . . have significant effects . . .” (2)

Comment Categories
3.0 Explanation of Finding. Suggests reasons for the finding. Example: “I
suspect ex-offenders are more aggressive because . . .” (18)
3.1 Comparison of Finding with Literature. Three ways of comparing findings
with the literature were found in the corpus.
(a) 3.1 + Same. Strengthens credibility of the findiigls under discussion by
reporting completed findings which concur. Example: “Consistent with Klep-
per, Nagin and Tiemey (1983) . . .” (4)
(b,i 3.1 ? Neither the Same nor Difierent. Indicates that current findings
neither agree nor disagree with previous studies. Example: “. . . some
&ons~t~t with available studies, some previously unseen.” (19)
(c) 3.1 - Different. Indicates that present findings diverge from previous
research. Example: “Contrary to Katner’s predictions about . . .” (9)
3.2 Evaluation of Finding re: Hypotheses. There were two ways of evaluating
bogs with regard to the hypotheses.
fa) 3.2 -t Same as the H@otheses. ConGrms that the finding(s) match the
original hypotheses. “‘Asexpected, occupational dissimilarity has a significant
positive relationship , , .” (12)
54 P. Brett

(b) 3.2 - D$eerent from Hypotheses. Indicates that findings are not in line
with the original hypothesis. Example: “. . . is contrary to the ex#ectutions
outlined earlier in the paper.” (8)

3.3 Further Question(s) Raised &yFinding. Probes a finding or raises questions

about shortcomings of a finding. Example: “The findings also raise the question
that . . .” (2)

3.4 Implications of Finding. Author provides his/her ideas about the implica-
tions an present/future consequences of the finding. Example: “This implies
that such women’s satisfaction might decline over time.” (15)

3.5 Summarising. Summa&es an accumulation of results and explanations.

Example: “Thus far we have determined that the often . . .” (7)

TABLE 2
The Lexical Signals and Grammatical Realisations Associated with the
Communicative Categories
._
No. Signalled by Realised by

0.1 Figureltablelgraphimodel; shows/presents/ Present Simple or Present Passive

appears
0.2 Anaphoric cohesive lexis; next/then/last/ Statements
fouowing
0.3 Mathematical verbs; classifyltestlevaluatei Reasons clauses + mathematical verb in
assess Past Simple
0.4 Variable Questions or statements
1.1 (a) Comparative/superlative adjectives or Single sentence; Subject of study +
adverbs, more likely to Comparative phrase + subject phrases
(b) Verbs of change in Past Simple; Subject of study + Verb of change +
increased/rose/declined/fell/slowed time period
declined; phrases of time
(c) Verbs of covariance; relates to/ Variable X + adjective of degree + verb
associated with/predicts/effects/affects (in Present Simple or Passive) +
variable I’
2.1 Thus/for example/in fact/together withii Longer sections of text with figures,
particular comparisons and examples in support of
finding
2.2 However/although/with the exception of Statements, usually containing numbers
3.0 Modals; likely tolmay/wouldlcouldlmight Tentative, qualified statements
Reporting verbs; appears to/suggests/
indicates
3.1 (a) Is consistent with/supports/backs/ Statements which include another author’s
comports with name
(b) Variable Statement
(c) In contrast to/contrary to/challenges Statement which include another author’s
name
3.2 (a) As expected/consistent with Statements
expectations/comports with/accords
with
(b) Is not consistent with/contrary to Statements
expectations
3.3 The word “question” Questions
3.4 Indicatesliplies/suggests/the need to Statements
3.5 Thus/ii sum/so far Statements
 The Results Section in Sociology Articles 55

Table 2 details some of the lexis and grammar regularly associated with each
of the categories. A longer example of part of a Results section with the
communicative categories highlighted, is given in Appendix A.
Only three of the categories appear in all of the articles: Pointer, Statement
of Finding, and Substantiation of Finding. Quantitatively, about 30% of cate-
gories used are Comment, reflecting sociologists’ need to urge and persuade
the reader, which extends beyond the mere presentation of numbers, in at-
tempt~g to establish rne~~l statements about humans and their patterns
of behaviour. The use of comment categories is, I suspect, greater in sociology
than in the hard sciences.

Patterns Formed by Combinations of the Categories

Analysis of the Discussions section (Du~ey-Eves 1988) indicated that the
“moves” were organised cyclically. Likewise, the patterns of organisation
formed by the communicative categories in this study can only be described
cyclically. A cycle consists of sections of the text with a Statement of Finding
as an obligatory element. The most frequent pattern created by combinations
of the categories was: Pointer + Statement of Finding + Substantiation of
Flog, found in all articles. This three-part pattern is the core or bu~~g
block of a cycle and is repeated as different variables are discussed and com-
pared. The Comment categories, or a combination of them, were usually
placed after this core pattern and formed part of a cycle which ended a series
of cycles, giving a pattern of Pointer + Statement of Finding -+ Substantiation
of Finding -+ Comment (3.0-3.5). The Comment categories follow and relate
to a set of results, rather than to ~~~du~ ones. The remainder of the cate-
gories were less frequent, but Structure of Section, Hypothesis Restated, and
Procedural all tended to occur before the three-category core of a cycle. The
final, infrequent category, Non-validation of Finding, occurred after a State-
ment of Finding but before any Comment categories.

Comparison with Previous Studies of the Results and

Discussions Sections
As expected, this model contains categories similar to those put forward by
Weissberg and Buker (1990) for Results sections and to categories found by
Hopkins and Dudley-Evans (1988) in Discussion sections. Direct equivalents
with Weissberg and Buker are: Pointer (O.l), S~tement of smug (1.1; with
the three types of comparison), and Implications of Finding (3.4), which is
equivalent to Comment generalisation. Categories which are more or less
equivalent with Hopkins and Dudley-Evans’ Discussion moves are: Statement
of Finding (1. l), Explanation of Fiiding (3.0), Comparison of Finding with the
Literature (3.11, Evaluation of Finding re: Hypotheses (3.21, and Implications
of the Finding (3.4).
Differences were found in the realisation of Explanation of Finding (3.0),
predominantly realised by “likely to” and rarely by “can/may.” The Comparison
of Finding (3.1) in this study accounts for (more comprehensively) all three
56 P. Brett

possible ways of making comparisons with results from other studies, that is,
the same, different, or neither. This study has also chosen to give separate
categories to Structure of the Section (0.2) and to Summarising (3.5), although
it could be argued that these are not genre-specific.
More significantly, the present study reveals the existence of communica-
tive categories not documented as appearing in either Results or Discussion
sections elsewhere and which merit further discussion. There were 59 occur-
rences of Procedural (0.3), which was found in all but 3 of the RAs. The
function of this category is to provide information on the methodological and
statistical techniques used to examine further explanations which had been put
forward or to investigate new questions suggested by the tindings. There was
a strong association in the cycles between this category and Further Ques-
tion(s) Raised by Finding (3.3), which normally preceded it. The quest for new
knowledge frequently raised further possibilities which needed investigation
before meaningful statements could be made. These extra avenues only be-
came apparent to the researcher after initial explorations of the data and find-
ings were declared. That there is a need to examine further and refine findings
perhaps reflects a discipline which, without the benefit of objective proof, has
difficulty in determining how conclusively the accumulated evidence supports a
theory. For example, “In order to test these explanations, we ran the 1984
model using just the sample of 1985 survivors . . . (2: 1068) or “We created an
interaction term using the product of the explanatory variables to represent the
joint effect we wanted to examine.” (7: 401)
The categories Substantiation of Finding (2.1) and Non-validation of Finding
(2.2) were also significant in that they appear in all the RAs and account for
comparatively large sections of the text. These categories follow the State-
ment of Finding (S of F; 1.1) which highlights a major finding. When analysing
the effect of any one of a number of variables on a dependent variable (multi-
variate analysis) some of the effects will always be more noteworthy than
others, and these yield the S of F. However, the effects of the variety of other
variables used in the analysis and presented numerically also have to be dis-
cussed and accounted for. This discussion, which deals with many more vari-
ables than just the ones shown and stated to be significant, takes up much more
space than the presentation of the S of F. There are the effects of many more
variables to be discussed. These may reinforce and substantiate the S of F
(Substantiation [2.13) or lessen and negate it (Non-validation of Finding [2.2]).
The grammatical realisations for these follow the three types specified above
for S of F. For example, an S of F which is then followed by Substantiation of
Finding, as in the following example, “. . . Jews were considerably less likely
than Catholics to become depressed between 1982-85. Few other variables
are predictive: the most important are functional disability in 1982 and change
in disability from 1982-85, but high alcohol use and being married in 1982 are
also significant or marginally so.” (2: 1067)
In sum, this analysis has suggested a model of the communicative options
used in the Results section of sociology articles. The Results section of soci-
ology articles serves some of the roles of Discussion section of Science/
 The Results Section in Sociology Articles 57

Technology RAs, as indicated by the presence of similar communicative cat-

egories. This analysis has also shown that perhaps a more extensive range of
communicative categories than those of Weissberg and Buker’s (1990) model,
which includes those extra categories discussed above as well as those more
commonly associated with Discussions, ought to be offered to apprentice re-
port writers, certainly to sociologists.

Conclusion
This study has put forward a description of the organisation of sociology RAs
and of the communicative categories found in the Results section for use in the
EAP classroom. It extends and refines previous descriptions of the communi-
cative categories of this section and shows that there are certain similarities
with Discussion sections of Science RAs. This analysis affirms that the mate-
rials and tasks used to increase learners’ comprehension and production of such
texts should be authentic and disciplinarily appropriate, the pedagogic genre
analyst should not readily accept models based on analyses of disparate disci-
plines. It also conIirrns what Swales suspected about disciplinary variation of
genres, “the major differences do not lie so much in Introductions and Discus-
sions (where I believe most people would expect it) but rather in the Method
and Results sections” (Swales 1990: 175-176). It is a matter for further re-
search as to whether other social science disciplines (e.g., social psychology),
exhibit similar communicative categories and as to what extent the Methods
section of sociology likewise shows evidence of disciplinary variation.

(Received April 1993)

REFERENCES

Belanger, M. (1982). A preliminary analysis of the structure of the discussion

sections in ten neuroscience journal articles (mimeo).
Cooper, C. (1985). Aspects ofarticle introductions in IEEE publications. Un-
published M.Sc. dissertation, University of Aston, UK.
Crookes, G. (1986). Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure.
Applied Linguistics, 7, 57-70.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1986). Genre analysis: An investigation of the introduction
and discussion sections of M.Sc. dissertations. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Tulk-
ing about text (Discourse Analysis Monographs No. 13, English Language
Research). University of Birmingham.
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, T. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the
discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific PUY-
poses, 7(2), 113-121.
Lieberson, S. (1992). Einstein, Renoir, and Greeley: Some thoughts about
evidence in sociology. American Sociological Review, 57, 1-15.
Peng, J. (1987). Organisational features in chemical engineering research ar-
ticles. E.L.R. Journal (University of Birmingham), I, 79-116.
58 P. Brett

Swales, J. (1981). Asfiects of article introductions.

Birmiigham, UK: The Uni-
versity of Aston, Language Studies Unit.
SwaIes, J. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
ToumIin, S. E., & Leary, D. E. (1985). The cult of empiricism in psychology
and beyond. In S. Koch & D. E. Leary (Eds.), A century of psychology as a
science. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Weissberg, R., & Buker, S. (1990). Writing up research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Appendix A
This shows a worked example of the communicative categories as they occur in a part of a
Results section. The lexical signals are in bold with category number on the left.
0.1 The General Model shows /the relative effect of each
variable. Sii of the explanatory variables are
significantly associated with disposition in this
1. UC) model. / Consistent with previous research,
3.1+ Cameron 1964; Hindelang 1978), retail value is
1.1(C) positively associated with disposition. /Sex,physical
resistance, Neighborhood SES, Dummy SES, and minority
security involvement in an apprehension also shape private
corporate justice. Males are significantly less likely to be
arrested because they were apprehended with items worth less
2.1 at retail than women (X = $64.69 for women, $51.45 for men). /
Given what is known about public police responses to
challenges to authority (Westly 1953; Hemandez 1989)
physical resistance of private police authority
3.1+ predictably increases the probability of arrest.
Evidence of skimmiig on the basis of social class (Klein
1976) is clear as apprehended shoplifters living in less
affluent areas were significantly less likely to be arrested
than those residing in less affluent zip codes. Apprehended
shoplifters with missing zip code information were more
1.1 likely to be arrested. / Contrary to Katner’s predictions
about people who are under-represented in groups (1977: 206
242), minority security not only made more apprehensions, /
3.1- they were more likely to arrest as well. / (7: 404)

Appendix B
1. Keith, V. M., et al. (1991). Skin tone and stratification in the black community. American
Journal ofSociology, 97, 76&777.
2. Idler, S., et al. (1992). Religion, disability, depression. American Journal ojSociology, 97,
1052-1073.
3. Albonetti, C. (1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems,
38, 247-262.
4. Barkan, E., et al. (1991). Punitive attitudes towards criminals: Racial consensus or racial
conflict. Soctizl Problems, 38, 287-294.
5. Bachman, J. M., et al. (1991). Explaining racial/ethnic differences in adolescent drug use: The
impact of background and lifestyle. Social Problems, 38, 333-349.
6. Teachman, J. D. (1991). Contributions to children by divorced fathers. Social Problems, 38,
357-369.
 The Results Section in Sociology Articles 59

7. Davies, M. G., et al. (1991). Private corporate justice: store police, shoplifters and civil
recovery. Social Problems, 38, 395409.
8. Duncan, G., et al. (1991). Persistent poverty among children. American Sociologicul Review,
56, 53%548.
9. Eggebeen, D., et al. (1991). Race, family structure and changing poverty among American
children. American Sociological Review, 56, 801-815.
10. Beck, E. M., et al. (1992). Racial violence and black migration in the American south, 1910
to 1930. Ametican Sociological Review, 57, 186194.
11. Teller, E. (1991). Residential segregation by skin color in Brazil. American Sociological Re-
view, 56, 188-194.
12. Sakamoto, C. (1991). Returns to schooling by establishment size. Americun Sociological
Review, 56, 75W69.
13. Hayes, B. C., et al. (1992). Marriage and political partisanship in Australia: Do wives make a
difference? Sociology, 26, 81-101.
14. Smith, F. T., et al. (1991). Sources of earnings inequality in the black and white female labor
forces. The Sociological Quarterly, 32.
15. Baron, J. N. (1991). Satisfaction? The psychological impact of gender segregation on women
at work. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 356387.
16. Hwang, S. S., et al. (1991). Ethnic enclosure or ethnic competition: ethnic identification
among Hispanics in Texas. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 469-476.
17. Ellison, C. G., (1991). Identification and separatism. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 477-494.
18. Felson, R. B. (1992). “Kick ‘em when their down”: Explanations of the relationship between
stress and interpersonal aggression and violence. The Sociological Quarterly, 33, l-16.
19. Clark, 0. L. (1992). Economic dependency and gender differences. The Sociological Quay-
terly, 33, 8398.
20. South, S. (1992). Relative well-being among children and the elderly. The Sociologicul Quar-
terly, 33, 115133.

Paul Brett has an MA in TEFL from the University of Birmingham and is

currently a Lecturer in EFL at the University of Wolverhampton. His current
interests include EAP, CALL, and self-access centres. He has taught EFL for
11 years, mostly with the British Council in Venezuela and the United Arab
Emirates, where he was Assistant Director of Studies.