Similarities in All Academic Research Articles
Similarities in All Academic Research Articles
Hyland argues that in research articles, writers’ attempts to be persuasive involve:
- establishing the novelty of one’s position,
- making a suitable level of claim,
- acknowledging prior work and situating one’s claims in a disciplinary context,
- offering warrants for one’s view based on community-specific arguments and procedures, and
- demonstrating an appropriate disciplinary ethos and willingness to negotiate with peers (12).
There is more than one way to interpret a piece of data. Readers can always reject a claim. Thus, the writer makes rhetorical choices to:
- galvanize support,
- express collegiality,
- resolve difficulties and
- avoid disagreements in ways which most closely correspond to the community’s assumptions, theories, methods, and bodies of knowledge (13).
Readers reject statements for
- Failing to meet adequacy conditions (claims don’t seem plausible given the beliefs of the discipline). Writers respond by using the specialized vocabulary and argument forms of the discipline.
- Failing to address acceptability conditions (meet the expectations of participants with a credible attitude toward readers and the information being discussed). Writers respond by demonstrating disciplinary credentials, showing themselves to be reasonable, intelligent co-players in the community’s efforts to construct knowledge and well versed in its tribal lore. They display proper respect for colleagues and balance the need to demonstrate their own expertise with humility as a disciplinary servant. (13)