Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes
Vol. 1:2 (2020) ► pp.92–119

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

Discipline and methodological paradigm

A case study of EAL scholars’ perceptions of research writing in political science

 | National Research University Higher School of Economics | University of Helsinki
Published online: 30 November 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.20004.shc
Abstract
In contemporary academia, multilingual scholars using English as an additional language (EAL) are actively engaged in knowledge construction producing more research texts in English than native speakers ( (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 311, 58–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Having a more general purpose to gain insights into the factors that influence multilingual scholars’ research writing practices in English, this case study seeks to explore how EAL users perceive disciplinary norms of epistemic stance expression in political science. It is based on interviews with 5 Russian political scientists and on the analysis of their research texts. The findings suggest that the participants do not seem to have a shared understanding of disciplinary norms regarding epistemic stance expression; however, their narratives highlight the importance of the methodological paradigm the texts belong to for their writing practices. The study is a contribution to the discussion of the role of the discipline in EAL scholars’ research writing practices and linguistic and rhetorical variability of research texts within one discipline. The results of this study have pedagogical implications for ERPP course designers and practitioners.
Аннотация
В современном академическом сообществе английский язык стал основным языком научных публикаций. При этом количество текстов, создаваемых учеными, для которых английский не является родным, превосходит количество текстов, написанных носителями английского языка (Hyland, 2016). Данное исследование, которое ставит перед собой более общую цель изучения факторов, влияющих на практики научного письма на английском языке, нацелено на выявление восприятия авторами дисциплинарных норм выражения эпистемической позиции в текстах научных статей по политологии. Работа построена на основе интервью с пятью российскими учеными-политологами, а также на анализе текстов их научных статей. Полученные результаты показывают, что у интервьюируемых отсутствует единство в понимании дисциплинарных норм выражения эпистемической позиции в тексте, однако позволяют проследить явное влияние методологической парадигмы исследования на практику письма и тем самым вносят вклад в дискуссию о вариативности научных текстов внутри дисциплины.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Participants and settings
  • 3.Data and methods
    • 3.1Text analysis
    • 3.2Interviews
    • 3.3Analysis of the interviews
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Participants’ perceptions of disciplinary norms of epistemic stance expression
    • 4.2Epistemic stance expression in interviewees’ texts
    • 4.3Factors other than discipline influencing writers’ epistemic stance expression
      • 4.3.1Methodological paradigm
      • 4.3.2The influence of writers’ educational, teaching, and research experience
      • 4.3.3L1 influence
  • 5.Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (60)
References
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Open University Press/SRHE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories. Open University Press/SRHE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (2005). Writing the qualitative dissertation: what motivates and sustains commitment to a fuzzy genre? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 41, 187–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blakeslee, A., & Fleischer, C. (2019). Becoming a writing researcher. (2nd ed.). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bondi, M., & Lorés-Sanz, R. (Eds.). (2014). Abstracts in academic discourse. Variation and change. Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinkman, S. (2013). Qualitative interviewing. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 661, 15–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coates, J. (1987). Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the Philological Society, 85(1), 110–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural rhetoric in the writing classroom. University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curry, M. J., Lillis, T. (2019). Unpacking the lore on multilingual scholars publishing in English: A discussion paper. Publications, 7(2), 27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fløttum, K. (2012). Variation of stance and voice across cultures. In K. Hyland et al. (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 218–231). Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fløttum, K., Dahl, T., & Kinn, T. (2006). Academic voices. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J., & Costley, T. (Eds.). (2017). Discipline-specific writing: Theory into practice. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garton, S., & Copland, F. (2010). ‘I like this interview; I get cakes and cats!’: The effect of prior relationships on interview talk. Qualitative Research, 10(5), 533–551. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gnutzmann, C., & Rabe, F. (2014). “Theoretical subtleties” or “text modules”? German researchers’ language demands and attitudes across disciplinary cultures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 131, 31–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Habibie, P., & Hyland, K. (Eds.). (2019). Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers. Palgrave Macmillam. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harwood, N. (2009). An interview-based study of the functions of citations in academic writing across two disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(3), 497–518. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harwood, N., & Petrić, B. (2012). Performance in the citing behavior of two student writers. Written Communication, 29(1), 55–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistic articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 431, 2795–2809. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Disciplinary and paradigmatic influences on interactional metadiscourse in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 391, 12–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 311, 58–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251–274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hynninen, N., & Kuteeva, M. (2017). “Good” and “acceptable” English in L2 research writing: Ideals and realities in history and computer science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 301, 53–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jenkins, J., & Mauranen, A. (Eds.). (2019). Linguistic diversity. Insider accounts of the use of English and other languages in universities within Asia, Australasia, and Europe. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 161, 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaufhold, K., & McGrath, L. (2019). Revisiting the role of ‘discipline’ in writing for publication in two social sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 401, 115–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakić, I., Vuković, M., & Živković, B. (2015). Academic discourse across cultures. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lancaster, Z. (2016). Using corpus results to guide the discourse-based interview: A study of one student’s awareness of stance in academic writing in philosophy. Journal of Writing Research, 8(1), 119–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Le, T. N. P., & Harrington, M. (2015). Phraseology used to comment on results in the Discussion section of applied linguistics quantitative research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 391, 45–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorés-Sanz, R. (2016). ELF in the making? simplification and hybridity in abstract writing. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 5(1), 53–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Vol. 21. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacDonald, S. (1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manathunga, C., & Brew, A. (2014). Beyond tribes and territories: New metaphors for new times. In P. Trowler, S. Murray, & V. Bamber (Eds.), Tribes and territories in the 21st-century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education (pp. 44–56). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martín-Martín, P. (2008). The mitigation of scientific claims in research papers: A comparative study. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 133–152.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mur-Dueñas, P., & Ŝinkūi̇enė, J. (Eds.). (2018). Intercultural perspectives on research writing. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Odell, L., Goswami, D., & Herrington, A. (1983). The discourse-based interview: A procedure for exploring the tacit knowledge of writers in nonacademic settings. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing (pp. 221–236). Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olinger, A. R. (2014). On the instability of disciplinary style: Common and conflicting metaphors and practices in text, talk, and gesture. Research in the teaching of English, 48(4), 453–478.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petrić, B., & Harwood, N. (2013). Task requirements, task representation, and self-reported citation functions: An exploratory study of a successful L2 student’s writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 121, 110–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shchemeleva, I. (2019). “It seems plausible to maintain that…”: Clusters of epistemic stance expressions in written academic ELF texts. ESP Today, 7(1), 24–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silver, M. (2012). Voice and stance across disciplines in academic discourse. In K. Hyland, & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 202–217). Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tribble, C. (2017). ELFA vs. Genre: A new paradigm war in EAP writing instruction? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 251, 30–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trowler, P. (2014a). Depicting and researching disciplines: Strong and moderate essentialist approaches. Studies in Higher Education, 391, 1720–1731. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014b). Disciplines and interdisciplinarity: Conceptual groundwork. In P. Trowler, M. Saunders, & V. Bamber (Eds.), Tribes and territories in the 21st century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education (pp. 5–29). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tusting, K., McCulloch, S., Bhatt, I., Hamilton, M., & Barton, D. (2019). Academic writing: The dynamics of knowledge creation. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 83–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vold, E. T. (2006b). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and crossdisciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 61–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, J., & Jiang, F. (2018). Epistemic stance and authorial presence in scientific research writing: Hedges, boosters and self-mentions across disciplines and writer groups. In P. Mur-Dueñas, & J. Ŝinkūi̇enė (Eds.), Intercultural perspectives on research writing (pp. 195–216). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilder, L. (2012). Rhetorical strategies and genre conventions in literary studies: Teaching and writing in the disciplines. Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wu, X., Mauranen, A., & Lei, L. (2020). Syntactic complexity in English as a lingua franca academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 431, 1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Anikina, Zhanna, Ksenia Girfanova & Liubov Goncharova
2025. “Writing for English-medium publication is a journey to nowhere — no route and no tools”: Russian academics’ perceptions of the existing publication support. Higher Education 89:6 ► pp. 1587 ff. DOI logo
Friedman, Debra A.
2025. Theorizing and practicing the discourse-based interview in research on multilingual writers. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 4:2 ► pp. 100214 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 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