If all written practices are rhetorical and constructed, demonstrating values and conventions of a Discourse or discourse community, they serve a purpose. Try to figure out why the disciplines Hyland studied use some of their rhetorical conventions. For example, why do you think that sociologists use so many more citations than physicists? Why do you think that philosophers are the only academics who routinely use more integral citation than nonintegral citation? Why do different disciplines use different verbs when introducing quotations and paraphrases?

Ask a professor in your major if they would be willing to spend thirty minutes talking with you (make an appointment). Ask them questions related to Hyland’s findings, such as these: (1) When you write a research article, how many citations do you usually include? Why do you do this? (2) When you relate information from others in your research papers, do you generally quote them directly, paraphrase them, or just refer generally to their ideas? Why? When you cite someone in your paper, do you usually mention them by name directly in the sentence (i.e., “John Jones says X”) or do you just state their ideas and cite them in parentheses? Why?

Using some of Hyland’s categories, analyze papers from two different disciplines. How do these two disciplines compare in terms of their citation practices? Do your findings agree with Hyland’s findings?

Hyland notes that research papers do share some things in common, even though they are quite different in many respects. Find a scholarly research paper on a topic in your major and analyze the ways that the author tries to create credibility, using the categories that Hyland outlined on the first page of this handout. For example, how does the author acknowledge the work of other people and then try to situate his or her own claim in relationship to it? How does the author try to suggest that his or her own work is novel and important? How does the author try to pay “proper respect” to his or her colleagues?