MAESTRÍA EN INGLÉS

ORIENTACIÓN LINGÜÍSTICA APLICADA

CURSO: ANÁLISIS DEL GÉNERO: LENGUAJE ACADÉMICO

TRABAJO FINAL

FECHA DE ENTREGA: 09/02/15

 Research Article Analysis: Method sections of management research articles: A pedagogically

motivated qualitative study, by Jason Miin Hwa Lim (2006)

In this report, I will analyze a research article at the rhetorical level and the linguistic level. The

study is set within the context of Genre Theory (Swales, 1990; 2004) and the framework for the

linguistic analysis is mainly provided by Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) (Halliday, 1994).

I have selected the paper Method sections of management research articles: A pedagogically

motivated qualitative study, by Jason Miin Hwa Lim (2006), because I am interested in both the

topic it deals with – i.e. pedagogical implications of analyzing the method sections of research

articles – and the structure the author has followed, which is the typical structure of a research

paper (Swales, 1990): Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion. For each of these sections, I

will provide an analysis at the rhetorical level by describing the different rhetorical moves and

constituent steps used by the writer to present his ideas, and a linguistic analysis concentrating on

different aspects in each section. In the Introduction, I will concentrate on citations, in the

Method section, on processes, in the Results section, on tense, and in the Discussion section, on

interpersonal resources.

In the Introduction of the cited paper, following the CARS model by Swales (1990), I identify the

following moves and steps, and, among others, the following examples:

i) Establishing a territory – Claiming centrality: “The increasing demand for

management courses at both public and private universities in Asian countries has

generated great interest in how teachers of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) can

2
 enable learners to systematically acquire the academic English used in management

texts.”

ii) Establishing a territory – Reviewing items of previous research: “Studies of these

aspects have focused largely on the Introduction (e.g., Gledhill, 2000; Samraj, 2005;

Swales, 1990) or the Results and Discussion/Conclusion sections (e.g., Brett, 1994;

Holmes, 1997; Hopkins & Dudley-Evans, 1988; Williams, 1999; Yang & Allison,

2003), and comparatively less attention has been given to Method sections (e.g.,

Bruce, 1983; Swales, 1990) which form an important component of both quantitative

and qualitative studies on management.”

iii) Establishing a niche – Indicating a gap: “Despite the importance of mastering the

English used in the Method sections of research articles, scant attention has been paid

to the pedagogical implications of analyzing the generic structure of these sections in

management articles.”

iv) Occupying the niche – Outlining purposes: “Given the lack of previous research

and teaching materials that deal thoroughly with rhetorical and linguistic features of

Method sections, the specific objectives of the present study are: (1) to identify the

communicative functions of the Method sections in management research articles as

reflected in rhetorical moves and constituent steps; (2) to discover how individual

moves and constituent steps are realized in lexical and syntactic choices.”

At the linguistic level, I will analyze the citations used in the Introduction section. As Charles

(2005: 311) states, “Citation plays a key role in academic writing. It shows how a new piece of

research arises out of and is grounded in the current state of disciplinary knowledge and thus

3
constitutes an overt manifestation of the ongoing conversation of the discipline.” In this paper,

citations are realized by naming the researchers and the actions they carried out or by naming the

researcher followed by a reporting verb and a that-complement, i.e., following Swales (1990),

“integral citations with a human subject”. In this type of citation “attribution is highly specific

and the author is highly visible” (Charles, 2005:317). The following are some examples of such

kind of citations present in the Introduction of the paper I am analyzing: “Brett(1994) pointed out

that the Method sections in his corpus appeared to have three rhetorical moves or ‘‘tasks’’…”;

“Nwogu (1997) analyzed 15 articles on medical research and identified three moves with their

constituent elements for medical Method sections:…”

The next section of the paper, the Method section, is divided into two subsections: Data

collection procedure and Data analysis procedure. Both subsections are mere descriptions of the

procedures carried out to complete the research work. Following Lim (2006), the rhetorical

moves I can identify here are the following:

i) Description of the sample and materials used: “…a total of 20 articles were

selected from two high-status management journals: Journal of Management (JM) and

Academy of Management Journal (AMJ).”

ii) Description of the sampling technique: “The articles were chosen: (1) so as to

represent a range of authors, issues, and subject areas, and (2) on the basis that each

article should contain all the four major sections, namely the Introduction, Method,

Results and Discussion (IMRD) sections.”

iii) Description of procedures to carry out the study: “The division of each text into

smaller units was done by identifying the boundaries of moves… After the moves had

4
 been identified, four specialist informants from the Science University of Malaysia

were consulted to provide views on the generic structure of the Method sections in

management research articles.”

iv) Description of the variables studied: “An analysis was also conducted to study the

relationships between rhetorical categories and salient linguistic features… Basically,

this study is qualitative and pedagogically motivated in that it (1) includes detailed

descriptions and explanations of the rhetorical moves and constituent steps, and (2)

discusses the steps in relation to the associated linguistic choices which need to be

highlighted in the preparation of teaching materials and during the process of teaching

itself.”

At the linguistic level, I will focus on the kinds of processes used by Lim (2006) in this Method

section, according to Functional Systemic Grammar. Since the content of this section is the

description of the procedures followed for the data collection and analysis mainly, the processes

that prevail are material: “were selected”, “were chosen”, “was done”, “had been identified”,

“were consulted”, “were recorded”, “was conducted”. Also, the past passive was consistently

used to avoid naming the doer of the action, but the identity of the underlying agent is always that

of the experimenter. However, there are some instances of relational processes in active voice for

some descriptions of the sample itself, the specialist informants or the kind of study the

researcher is carrying out: “represent”, “contain”, “were”, “is based”, “is”, “includes”.

Regarding the Results section of the paper I am analyzing, we can see that, as Swales (1990)

states, there is a repetitive pattern in paragraph organization, grammatical structures and lexical

5
choice. This is because this section just communicates the findings: in this paper, the different

rhetorical moves found in the Method sections of the papers analyzed in the study and their

linguistic realizations. Thus, the rhetorical moves I can find in this section are mainly descriptive,

with very few instances of interpretation of data:

i) Description of findings: “Most Method sections in the corpus contain three major

moves: ‘describing data collection procedures’, ‘delineating procedures for measuring

variables’ (i.e., describing them in detail), and ‘elucidating data analysis procedures’.

These moves are largely congruent with the main aspects specified by the four

specialist informants who highlighted the descriptions of:…”

ii) Reference to figures and tables: “Table 1 shows these moves and their constituent

steps, and Table 2 the occurrence of the categories in each article.”

iii) Interpretation of data: “…the use of active verbs with such pronouns is prominent

in Move 1 of more recently published RAs particularly those in AMJ. A plausible

explanation is that in recently published issues, the Editorial Board has specified

clearly that the use of the first-person pronouns could further the objective of

‘vigorous, direct, clear and concise communication’.’’

There are no other moves that might appear in the Results section of a research article, such as

methodological justifications, comparison with pre-established studies, calls for further research

(Thompson, 1993). All these appear in the Discussion section of this paper.

From the linguistic point of view, I will analyze the tense and voice of the processes used to

express findings in this Results section. In general, findings are expressed by means of relational

processes in the past tense and in the active voice, since the knowledge they communicate is

6
unique of the study they support and they are usually left to speak by themselves. In the article I

am analyzing, all the verbs used for describing findings are in the active voice, but in the present

tense. I assume this is because Lim (2006) decided to present them as a general description of

what the Method sections of management research articles generally look like based on his

research. Thus, the verbs that prevail throughout this section are: “occur”, “explain”, “indicate”,

“appear”, “exhibit”, “consist of”; with a few instances of passive constructions when the author

refers to how linguistic features have been used, detaching the agent from the action: “are used”,

“is characterized”.

The last section of this paper that is left to analyze is the Discussion. At the rhetorical level, I will

examine it using Holmes’ (1997) list of moves and I will provide an example for each one:

i) Background information: “Looking at the pedagogical significance of studying

linguistic features in relation to communicative functions, we should first

acknowledge the importance of establishing a connection between ESP and General

English.”

ii) Statement of result: “In conclusion, in our attempt to identify disciplinary

differences between Method sections in management and those of other disciplines, it

is essential to begin considering the differences between rhetorical moves before

proceeding to find out any distinction between the possible constituent steps used to

fulfill their various communicative functions.”

iii) Reference to previous research (explicit indication of comparison in

disagreement): “For instance, even though Moves 1 and 3 in this sample resemble

‘describing data-collection procedures’ and ‘describing data analysis procedures’ in

7
 Nwogu’s (1997) sample of medical research methods, Move 2 (i.e. ‘delineating

procedures for measuring variables’) in this sample of management research methods

differs from ‘describing the experimental procedures’ in his corpus involving

descriptions of medical laboratory tests.”

iv) Generalization: “Subsequently, in order to demonstrate the close relations between

the writers’ communicative intentions and the linguistic choices employed to fulfill

these intentions, it would be vital to move deeper into the constituent steps belonging

to each move. More precisely, if linguistic choices are to be closely linked with

communicative functions, it is necessary to show how two constituent steps are related

to each other and yet different in terms of specific rhetorical functions and their

associated linguistic features.”

v) Recommendation: “The model presented in this study can be used as a reference for

trainees intending to acquire the possible generic knowledge of the text-type. It is

recommended that novice writers study the occurrence of all the possible rhetorical

categories identified in the present study and seriously consider the ways in which the

communicative intentions are achieved linguistically.

At the linguistic level, I will analyze the interpersonal resources used by the author in this

section. For this purpose, I will examine the use of first person and hedges. The first person is

only used in two instances: “…in our attempt to identify disciplinary differences…, it is essential

to begin…”; “Looking at the pedagogical significance of studying…we should first acknowledge

the importance of…”. The rest of the section is mostly written in an impersonal way, using

passive voice structures: “…it appears possible to show that…”; “it would be vital to move

8
deeper into…”; “it is necessary to show how…”. I believe these choices may be explained by

what Martinez (2001: 228) calls “the tension between the writers' need to distance themselves

from the text to present findings objectively, and the need to approximate to it, in the appropriate

style in order to persuade readers of their validity.” Regarding the use of hedges, as Salager-

Meyer (1994) found out in their study, the Discussion section is the most heavily hedged section

of a research article, since it is in the interpretation of the results found that the author needs to be

vague and tentative so as to leave space for negotiation with others or for different interpretations

which might enrich theirs. Thus, in the paper I am analyzing, we can find that the author chose to

tone down his argument mainly through the use of the kind of hedges Salager-Meyer (1994) calls

“shields”, i.e. modal verbs expressing possibility, semi-auxiliaries, probability adverbs and their

derivative adjectives, and epistemic verbs. The following are some examples taken from the

paper under analysis: “it would be vital”, “it is necessary to”, “may differ”, “may have resulted”,

“may be attributed”, “appear to merit attention”, “it appears reasonable”, “it appears possible to

show that”.

As a conclusion to this analysis, I can argue that Lim’s (2006) paper Method sections of

management research articles: A pedagogically motivated qualitative study is a good source to

find examples of the typical structures and linguistic resources of research articles that have been

widely studied by linguistics researchers within the framework of Genre Theory.

References:

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.

9
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Halliday, M. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: E. Arnold.

Lim, J. (2006). Method sections of management research articles: A pedagogically motivated

qualitative study. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 282-309.

Charles, M. (2006). Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-based

study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 310-331.

Thompson, D. (1993). Arguing for experimental “facts” in science. A study of research article

results section in Biochemistry. Written Communication, 10(1), 106-128.

Holmes, R. (1997). Genre Analysis, And The Social Sciences: An Investigation Of The Structure

Of Research Article Discussion Sections In Three Disciplines. English for Specific

Purposes, 16(4), 321-337.

Martı́nez, I. (2001). Impersonality in the research article as revealed by analysis of the transitivity

structure. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 227-247.

Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written

discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149-170.

10