A Rhetorical Analysis Of Graham's Clinical Study

For many years, researchers have studied the effects and origins of Helicobacter pylori on peptic ulcers. In 1992 Graham et al. conducted a clinical study, “Effect of Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection on the Long-term Recurrence Gastric or Duodenal Ulcer”, where they tested treatments for the bacterium Helicobacter pylori in patients with gastric and duodenal ulcers. The aim of this study was to provide a new, effective method which reduced recurrence in patients with gastric or duodenal ulcers. A rhetorical analysis on the study reveals the varying degrees of success with which the authors present an extensive argument. In the study, they seek to portray to their audience that their question is valid, their methods are well thought out, and that their research is important enough to add knowledge to the field. As shown throughout the study, the authors claim that their study is accurate through the use of organization model, use of simple tenses, and facts.

A common rhetorical move we often see in many scientific journals, is the way in which they decide to organize their research. A common organizational technique known as the IMRAD format is often used. This format consists of four major parts, including an introduction, methods section, results, and discussion. “Thus, the IMRAD format mirrors the basic logic of scientific method”. Nevertheless, the article follows this common format to organize their argument. Graham et al. begin by making a general statement of peptic ulcers and its treatment. The researchers have compiled enough evidence to demonstrate that their new method produces far more accurate results. After the introduction section, the article devotes itself to explaining their new method and analysis of the new treatment. In the end, the Graham et al. devote an entire section, the discussion section, discussing their new data and the importance. Now, the logic the article uses connects back to the scientific method where the article involves asking a question, providing an answer the question, reporting and interpreting data, and explaining its significance.

Now, when it comes to the introduction in journal articles, there three common strategies or moves in which authors use in order move their argument. These three moves include establishing the topic and significance, the need for present research, and introduce the present research. These moves are seen throughout in Graham et al. ’s brief introduction on their research. They begin the article by making a general statement about peptic ulcers and treatments. Next, Graham et al. point out gaps in previous research; for example, there has not been a study done on gastric ulcers before. They also question previously done studies which lacked control conditions. Lastly, Graham et al. utilizes move three to introduce the new features in their study such as control conditions and randomized samples, and they finish off with its purpose, which is to observe the recurrence of ulcers with the new treatment. Ultimately, they use these three strategies in order convince their audience that the topic is important, and it does contribute to the field’s knowledge.

Traditionally what follows after the introduction, is the methods and materials section in many scientific journal articles. The methods section plays an immense role when it comes to the development of the argument the authors to make in their report. To move their argument forward with the methods and material sections, Graham et al. places the method section right below the introduction. In placing the method section right after the introduction, Graham et al. hint at the reader to pay as much attention to this section. Another technique they utilize in this section, is the use of the passive and active voice for concrete information. The purpose of using these simple past tenses allows the reader to have clarity and readability. In all, the method section frames the results. It also gives the author a chance to explain that their methods are valid and well carried out. Therefore, ensuring the reader the accuracy of the results.

When it comes to composing research articles, the use of active and passive voice in research articles has become very common. The passive voice tends to have an impersonal tone, where the reader just assumes who is doing the action. Whereas in the active voice, who is doing the action is explicitly stated. When looking at the article, they are several instances where they use active and passive voice in their study. This is seen in both the introduction and method section. “We report the results of a randomized, controlled trial in which we evaluated the effect of therapy designed to eradicate…”. This statement is taken from the introduction where the authors clearly signal their objective to the reader in the active voice. We know it is active because they speak in first person. “Ulcers were identified by endoscopy using Fuijinon video endoscopes”. Now, in this statement the authors are using the passive voice because we are not sure who is doing what. There is no first person in the statement. The passive and active voice can often affect the rhetorical value of the article’s contents. The active and passive voice increases readability, while the passive increases ambiguity. However, the passive voice is more accepted in the sciences than it is in the world of literature.

The results section is very critical to the author’s main claim in the article. This is where the results are reported and address the questions left in the introduction. Now, often in many studies researchers tend to obtain a large sum of data that can take quite some time for the reader to understand and read. Therefore, many articles today summarize their data instead. This is shown in Graham et al. ’s article where they report their data with a series of tables and graphs. Condensing the data, the researchers can point out the trends they want their audience to notice. In addition, their use of graphs and tables allows the authors to direct the readers to notice trends and patterns in their summarization of the data. For example, they direct us to see in the graph pattern of how the triple therapy is deemed more effective on the Helicobacter pylori with patients with gastric and duodenal ulcers. In using these moves, Graham demonstrates that they do not let the data speak for itself by interpreting the data for a reader. They present their results clearly by using tables and graphs, to show that their data is necessary and useful to the field.

The discussion is where the author brings up the main question once again. They also discuss how it has been answered, and how it adds new knowledge to the field. For example, in the article we learn a lot of new information that was gathered during the study. In the second paragraph of the discussion section, they confirm that smoking is not a risk factor for people to get ulcer recurrence even after the suppression of H. pylori. Another example of a piece of information we gain in last paragraph of the discussion, is that their research is not perfect. However, they provide us with new information regarding the treatment of ulcers. As far as the rhetorical content in their argument, there is the fact that they leave room for rebuttals that other researchers may have. For example, in paragraph three, they recognize that some may say that their research may be biased, however, Graham et al. argues that their data shows otherwise.

After a careful analysis on the article, Graham and colleagues were very familiar with their topic, which gave them enough credibility to persuade those in their audience. Their use of methodical organization, simple tenses, and logics they were able to successfully argue their claim that their method was more accurate and organized. Overall, this goes out to show how many journal articles out there go on and present an argument to their fellow peers out there.