Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 15:6 (2024) ► pp.905–928

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

Negotiating academic conflict in discussion sections of doctoral dissertations

 | University of Urmia
 | University of Exeter
Published online: 1 December 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.22060.esm
Abstract
This study explores how doctoral students negotiated academic conflict (AC) in discussion section of their dissertations and what engagement resources they utilized to convey academic conflict. To this end, discussion chapters of 30 doctoral dissertations in Applied Linguistics (15 samples by each writer group) were analyzed using Huston’s (1991) academic conflict framework and Martin and White’s (2005) engagement system of Appraisal Theory. The functional analysis constituted discovering components of academic conflict and engagement resources in the discussions. We found that components of academic conflict determined engagement values used to convey them. The linguistic background of the authors was less of an issue in resolving conflicts. The two writer groups managed academic conflict and related engagement resources more or less similarly in different components of academic conflict. They mainly expressed their novel contribution readily and identified the flaws of previous research; however, both writer groups showed little tendency to explain controversial points. The findings have pedagogical implications for academic writing courses highlighting the importance of developing awareness of AC and resolving the conflicts.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 2.1Hunston’s Framework of Academic Conflict
    • 2.2Engagement system
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Materials
    • 3.2Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Employment of AC in the discussion sections of Ph.D. dissertations
      • 4.2.1Engagement values in specific components of AC in the discussion section of Ph.D. dissertations
        • 1.CR through outlining the differences in study objectives and methodologies
        • 2.CR through explanation of discrepancies in sample groups
        • 3.CR through emphasizing differences in study contexts
      • 4.2.2Comparisons between the two graduate writer groups in their employment of engagement resources in AC components
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (45)
References
Anderson, T., Alexander, I., Saunders, G. (2020). An examination of education-based dissertation macrostructures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 451,
Askehave, I., & Swales, J. (2001). Genre Identification and Communicative Purpose: A Problem and a Possible Solution. Applied Linguistics, 22 (2), 195–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Can, T., & Cangir, H. (2019). A corpus-assisted comparative analysis of self-mentions markers in doctoral dissertations of literature studies written in Turkey and the UK. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 421, 10796.
Cheng, F., & Unsworth, L. (2016). ‘Stance-taking as negotiating academic conflict in applied linguistics research article discussion sections’. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 241, 43–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies. SAGE Publication.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
El-Dakhs, D. (2018). Why are abstracts in PhD theses and research articles different? A genre-specific perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 361, 48–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fløttum, K., & Dahl, T. (2011). Climate Change Discourse: Scientific Claims in a Policy Setting. Fachsprache 34(3), 205–219.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giannoni, D. S. (2005). Negative evaluation in academic discourse: A comparison of English and Italian research articles. Linguistica e Filologia, 201, 71–99.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gil-Salom, L. & Soler-Monreal, C. (2014). Writers’ positioning in literature reviews in English and Spanish computing doctoral theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 161, 23–39. 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, 411, 497–518. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holliday, A. (2010). Complexity in cultural identity. Language and Intercultural Communication, 10, 2, 165–177, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow, England: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Bringing in the Reader: Addressee Features in Academic Articles. Written Communication, 18 (4). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. J. Pragmat, 341, 1091–1112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 71, 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunston, S. (1993). “Professional conflict: disagreement in academic discourse” In Baker, M., G. Francis and E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.). Texts and Technology. In Honor of John Sinclair. Amsterdam. John Benjamins. 115–134. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coul-thard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 191–218). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.) (2000). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Itakura, H., & Tsui, A. (2011). Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese and English book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics 431, 1366–1379. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jalilifar, A. R., Hayati, A. M., & Namdari, N. (2012). A comparative study of research article discussion sections of local and international applied linguistic journals. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(1), 1–29.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lim, J. M. (2012). How do writers establish research niches? A genre-based investigation into management researchers’ rhetorical steps and linguistic mechanisms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 111, 229–245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, C. & Lau, K. (2021). “I found it very special and interesting”: Evaluative language in Master’s thesis defenses in Taiwan universities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 531, 101035.
Loi, C., Lim, J., & Wharton, S. (2016). Expressing an evaluative stance in English and Malay research article conclusions: International publications versus local publications. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 211, 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loghmani, Z., Ghonsooly, B., & Ghazanfari, M. (2020). Engagement in Doctoral Dissertation Discussion Sections Written by English Native Speakers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1008511.
Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 201, 114–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kwan, B., & Chan, H., & Lam, C. (2012). Evaluating prior scholarship in literature reviews of research articles: A comparative study of practices in two research paradigms. English for Specific Purposes, 31 (3), 188–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martín-Martín, P., & Burgess, S. (2004). The rhetorical management of academic criticism in research article abstracts. Text, 24 (2), 171–195.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mei, W. S., & Allison, D. (2003). Exploring appraisal in claims of student writers in argumentative essays, Prospect 18 (3).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mei, W. S. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6 (3), 254–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, R., Mitchell, T. D., & Pessoa, S. (2014). Valued voices: Students’ use of Engagement in argumentative history writing. Linguistics and Education 281, 107–120. 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
Pho, P. D., Musgrave, S., & Bradshaw, J. (2011). Establishing a niche in applied linguistics and Educational Technology research articles. In F. Salager-Meyer, & B. A. Lewin (Eds.), Crossed words: Criticism in scholarly writing (pp. 283e305). Bern/Berlin: Peter LangGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ravelli, L. J., & Eliss, R. A. (2005). Analyzing academic writing: Contextualized framework. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiying, Y., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 221, 365–385. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Qui, X., & Jiang, K. (2021). Stance and engagement in 3MT presentations: How students communicate disciplinary knowledge to a wide audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 511, 10097.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sadeghi, K., & Alinasab, M. (2020). Academic conflict in Applied Linguistics research article discussions: The case of native and non-native writers. English for Specific Purposes, 591, 17–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, F. (1999). Contentiousness in written medical English discourse: A diachronic study (1810–1995). Text, 19(3), 371–398.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, F., & Alcaraz Ariza, M. A. (2004). Negative appraisals in academic book reviews: a cross-linguistic approach. In Intercultural aspects of specialized communication. Christopher N. Candlin & Maurizio Gotti, eds. Bern: Peter Lang. 149–172.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, F., & Beverly. A. Lewin. (2011). Crossed words: criticism in scholarly writing. Bern: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of master’s thesis across disciplines with a focus on introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 71, 55–67.
Soliday, M. (2005). Mapping genres in a science in society course. Genre Across the Curriculum, 12(23). 65–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Starfield, S., & Ravelli, L. J. (2006). “The writing of this thesis was a process that I could not explore with the positivistic detachment of the classical sociologist”1: Self and structure in New Humanities research theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5 (3), 222–243.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, P. (2012). Achieving a voice of authority in PhD theses. In K. Hyland & C. Sancho-Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genre (pp. 119–133). London: Palgrave MacMillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue