Analyzing “Running Performance in Australopithecus afarensis”
The article “Running Performance in Australopithecus afarensis” presents a detailed analysis of evidence from the fossil and biomechanical modeling used in the understanding of the Australopithecus afarensis also known as “Lucy”, an early species thought to be the early evolution of a human. It is structured in a scientific, scholarly format that aligns closely with the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) format commonly found in research articles in the natural and social sciences. The introduction gives a brief summary of the study. It provides background information on Australopithecus afarensis and why it’s important in understanding the evolutionary process. The purpose of the study is explained, pointing out why we should try to understand the difference in running capacity of this species in order to make a contribution to the human evolution debate. In this analysis I will be pointing out the voice tense, way the article way structured, and the use of hedging and non hedging verbs.
In the introduction, a present active voice is mostly used. Verb tenses such as “aims,” “addresses,” and “is” are used to describe the current focus of the research. These words are constructed to directly show the actions and studies of the subject. However, in the methods section, a past passive voice is used with words like “were analyzed” and “was modeled.” This is typical for scientific writing in the methods section, where the focus is on the procedure rather than the individual actions of the researchers. The past tense is used throughout to indicate actions that have been completed, reflecting that the data collection and analysis have already occurred.
The methods section shows the approach used to investigate the running performance of “Lucy” and then compares the running to a modern day runner. The authors describe the techniques used to demonstrate and project Lucy’s running by analyzing specific fossils of “Lucy” and then methods of comparison with average humans of today. The technical data in the methods section is sufficient enough to allow for quick and easy results. Finally, the results section organizes the findings of the study by making use of tables, graphs, and figures for demonstrating findings achieved from the data. For example, it is noted that “Lucy” likely had a less efficient running ability than modern humans, based on its anatomical features. The section is rich in data and avoids speculation, offering straightforward observations based on the models and analyses.
Throughout the article, the authors use both hedging and non-hedging verbs. Hedging is shown in the discussion section, with phrases such as “It is possible that” or “may suggest” are used to show the uncertainties in the study. This hedging really demonstrates how most past research usually can’t completely be confirmed, and conclusions are often based on incomplete or imperfect data. But, the introduction and methods sections use more non-hedging verbs, with the focus of both sections being to present the research questions and describing the methods. The verbs in the introduction and methods sections are more direct, with the authors mostly explaining their objectives and procedures. However, even in the methods section, passive voice is used to show the data isn’t 100% true, demonstrating certain uncertainties in the study itself.
In conclusion, the article “Running Performance in Australopithecus afarensis” closely uses the IMRAD format and maintains a formal, objective tone throughout. The writing style effectively balances passive and active voice, depending on the section’s purpose, and uses appropriate verb tenses to indicate past research actions or present conclusions. Hedging is used strategically to convey uncertainty in the interpretation of results, ensuring that the conclusions remain open to future revision as more evidence becomes available. This scholarly article’s approach to the study combined with the detailed presentation of methods and results, supports the scientific idea of the study.
References:
Bates KT, McCormack S, Donald E, Coatham S, Brassey CA, Charles J, O’Mahoney T, van Bijlert PA, Sellers WI. 2024. Running performance in Australopithecus afarensis. Current Biology. 35(1):224-230.e4. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.11.025. [accessed 2025 Jan 31]. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982224015665.
