Page 327 - English for Writing Research Papers

316

18.6 Why and how should I compare my work with that
of others?
Dr Greg Anderson and Dr. Donald Dearborn of Bates College (Maine, USA) give
the following advice to their students:

You may find crucial information in someone else’s study that helps you interpret your own

data, or perhaps you will be able to reinterpret others’ findings in light of yours. In either

case you should discuss reasons for similarities and differences between yours and others’

findings. Consider how the results of other studies may be combined with yours to derive a
new or perhaps better-substantiated understanding of the problem.
A good structure for doing this is:

1. Make a general statement regarding your findings

2. Mention another author’s work that relates directly to your findings

3. Make a link between her/his work and your work

4. Clearly state how your work differs from her/his work

5. State the conclusions that can be drawn from your results in light of these considerations
The following text is an example of how to compare your work with others in the
Discussion. It comes from a paper entitled Exploring Stock Managers ’ Perceptions
of the Human Animal Relationship on Dairy Farms and an Association with Milk
Production by Catherine Bertenshaw and Peter Rowlinson.
The authors did a postal survey of 516 UK dairy (i.e. milk) stockmanagers
(i.e. farmers) about how they believed humans could affect the productivity, behav-
ior and welfare of cows and heifers (young female calves that have not given birth).
Nearly half said they called their cows by name – such cows had a 258 liter higher
milk yield than those who that were not called by their name. About 10% said that
a fear of humans resulted in a poor milking temperament.
Below is the beginning of the Discussion section:

(1) Our data suggests that UK dairy farmers largely regard their cows as intelligent beings,
capable of experiencing a range of emotions. Placing importance on knowing the indi-
vidual animal and calling them by name was associated with higher milk yields.
(2) Fraser and Broom [1997] define the predominant relationship between farm animals and

their stock managers as fear.

(3) Seventy-two percent of our commercial respondents thought that cows were not fearful of

humans, although their reports of response to an approaching human suggest some level
of fear, particularly for the heifers. With both cows and heifers this would appear to be
greater in response to an unfamiliar human. Respondents also acknowledged that negative
experiences of humans can result in poor behavior in the parlor.

(4) Hemsworth et al. [1995] found that 30–50% of the variation in farm milk yield could be
explained by the cow’s fear of the stockperson, therefore recognizing that fear is important
for animal welfare, safety, and production.