Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 9:2 (2020) ► pp.283–301

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Ideology in positivist research articles on issues of teaching English as a foreign language

 | Ilam university
 | Ilam university
 | Arak university
Published online: 28 October 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19006.kha
Abstract
The research articles(RAs) as the dominant genre of academic writing can be accounted as the sites of reproduction of unequal power relations and dominance. Through critical discourse analysis of epistemological and ontological underpinnings and subsequently methodological aims and values of positivist paradigm as social structures, this article aims to foreground power and ideology stricken latent aspects of empiricist RAs. Research as a social practice mediates between the social structures and the RAs as social events. Textual analysis of practical arguments presented mostly in the pedagogical implications part revealed that the scientific world views manifest themselves as the premises of these arguments. The premises can provide reasons for actions (Searle, J. 2010. Making the social world. The structure of human civilization. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, social ontology theory). The reasons can signify the empiricist interests as the global concerns. They exclude the rival paradigms or ways of understanding the world. These world views maintain the dominance of Western societies on global academic and social discourses.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature review
  • Method
    • Method of analysis
      • Practical argumentation (reasoning) framework
      • Nature of data
    • Data sampling
      • Procedures
    • Quality criteria
  • Text
  • Analysis of the text
  • Evaluation of text (normative critique)
  • Explanatory critique
  • Conclusion
  • References
References (40)
References
Angus, L. B. 1986. Research traditions, ideology and critical ethnography. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 7:1, 61–77, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Apple, M. W. 2006. Educating the ‘right’ way: Markets, standards, God and inequality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2009. Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In Argumentation and education (pp. 127–144). Springer, Boston, MA. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biesta, G. 2004. Educational research, evidence-based practice and professional judgement in education. Paper presented at the Faculty of Education of Stellenbosch University, Postgraduate Students Colloquium, 26 March 2004, 1–22.
Brickhouse, N. W., Stanley, W. B., & Whitson, J. A. 1993. Practical reasoning and science education: Implications for theory and practice. Science & Education, 2(4), 363–375. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caterina, D. 2018. Investigating hegemony struggles: Transdisciplinary considerations on the role of a critical discourse analysis of practical argumentation. Critical Discourse Studies, 15(3), 211–227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cobb, T. 1997. Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System, 25(3), 301–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, J. M. 2012. Research on argumentation in science education in Europe. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science Education Research and Practice in Europe: Retrospective and Prospective (pp. 253–289). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 2001. Language and Power (2nd ed.). London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1989. Language and Power London: LongmansGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. Critical Discourse Analysis, London: LongmansGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. Language and Power (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, I., and Fairclough, N. 2012. Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Argument, Deliberation, Dialectic and the Nature of the Political: A CDA Perspective. Political Studies Review, 11 (3). pp. 336–344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frederickson, M. 2004. Surveying gender: Another look at the way we teach United States history. The History Teacher, 37(4), 476–484. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gorur, R., Hamilton, M., Lundahl, C. and Sjödin, E. S. 2019. Politics by other means? STS and research in education, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(1), 1–15, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., and Wajcman, J. 2008. Introduction. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies, third edition (pp. 1–9). London, England: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
KhosraviNik, M. 2010. Actor descriptions, action attributions, and argumentation: towards a Systematization of CDA analytical categories in the representation of social groups. Critical Discourse Studies, 7: 1, 55–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lim, L. 2014. Ideology, rationality and reproduction in education: a critical discourse analysis, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(1), 61–76, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, T. C., Lin, T. J., and Tsai, C. C. 2014. Research Trends in Science Education from 2008 to 2012: a systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1346–1372. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luke, A. 1995/96. Text and discourse in education: An introduction to critical discourse analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21(1), 3–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parkinson, J. 2011. The Discussion section as argument: The language used to prove knowledge claims. English for specific purposes, 30(3), 164–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pennycook, A. 2001. Critical applied linguistics: a critical introduction. London. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rapanta, C., & Macagno, F. 2016. Argumentation methods in educational contexts: Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Educational Research, 791, 142–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ramsden, P. 1992. Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rangachari, P. K. 1994. Quality education for undergraduates in pharmacology: a Canadian experiment. Trends in pharmacological sciences, 15(7), 211–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samaie, M., Sahragard, R. and Parhizkar, R. 2006. – A Critical Analysis of Learning and Teaching Goals in Gardner’s Theory of Attitudes and Motivation. Asian EFL Journal, 8(4),151–191.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. 2004. Research Genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shaw, P. 2000. Towards Classifying the Arguments in Research Genres. In Trosborg (ed.). Analyzing professional genres. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. 2010. Making the social world. The structure of human civilization. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uzuner-Smith, S. and Englander, K. 2015. Exposing ideology within university policies: a critical discourse analysis of faculty hiring, promotion and remuneration practices, Journal of Education Policy, 30(1), 62–85, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. 1998. Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London. Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359–383. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. 2018. Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B. J., and Meuffels, B. 2015. Effectiveness through reasonableness: A pragma-dialectical perspective. preliminary steps to pragma-dialectical effectiveness research. In van Eemeren, H. (Ed). Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse. Springer International Publishing Switzerland. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waghid, Y. 2006. University education and deliberation: In defence of practical reasoning. Higher Education, 51(3), 315–328. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, D. 2013. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, R. 2001. What CDA is About: A Summary of its History. Important Concepts and Its Developments. In Wodak, R. and Meyer, C. (Eds.). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London. Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yoon, H., & Hirvela, A. 2004. ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of second language writing, 13(4), 257–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Sadeghi, Karim & Javad Belali
2025. Implementing practical argumentation framework as an analytic/evaluative tool in research Articles: The role of critical discourse analysis in language education. Social Sciences & Humanities Open 12 ► pp. 101769 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue