Data Analysis for Research Sub-Question 3

The purpose of data analysis for the third research sub-question was to elicit the professor participants’ awareness and their understanding of the textual findings. The professor participants were asked to reflect on why certain writing features were preferred or chosen in their writing and their account might suggest a social dimension of academic publication. The findings from this phase were to be used alongside the findings from the second phase (textual analysis). Therefore, this stage of data analysis was relatively brief in comparison to the two previous phases. However, the aim of this phase was to move onwards to the next stage of analysis to unfold the overarching research question and discuss the findings in relation to the theories from the literature review which I shall elaborate in the next section.

Because each professor participant received their own textual analysis report with the five sections about their writing development, the questions in the second interview session entailed their reflection and their interpretation around these topics.

To analyse the interview script in this phase, the codes were deductively developed from the topics of the textual reports (see Appendix J: Coding Frame in Phase 3). In other words, the codes mirrored the five sections of the textual findings in order to present the professor participants’ reflections on the textual findings in a coherent manner. These five codes were (a) referencing, (b) getting message across, (c) argumentation, (d) expressing attitude, and (e) being an academic author.

Figure 3.7 A screenshot of data analysis in Phase 3

3.5.4. Data Analysis for the Overarching Research Question and Discussion

Although I could answer each research sub-question with each set of findings, I still needed to look at the whole picture of the research problem so that I could discuss the findings with a better understanding of the research problem.

In this phase, therefore, I looked at the findings from each phase and treated them as data in order to explain them with social theories. My procedure followed a higher level of abstraction by working upwards to generate a theory. Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2014) offer three following steps:

 Moving from separate findings to interrelationships by connecting one discrete fact with other discrete facts

 Moving from interrelationships to constructs by grouping them to a comprehensible pattern

 Moving from constructs to theories by linking the empirical trenches to a more conceptual overview of the landscape

To do so, I first listed key findings from each phase and marked them with a code for easy identification along with a short label. For findings from Phase 1, I coded them with the prefix ‘#’. For findings from Phase 2, I coded them with the prefix ‘@’ and for findings from Phase 3 I coded them with the prefix ‘~’. Two examples are shown below (see Appendix K: Key Findings from Each Phase).

Academic authors distinguish comments and make judgements about how to revise their works. They cannot accept everything that everybody says. They need to see the point of such revision rather than they revise just to please the reviewers. [#7 Selective Revision] (Phase 1, Findings 7) There is a higher frequency in evidentials (or references) over time among all three professor participants’ sample texts. [@2 Higher

frequency in references over time] (Phase 2, Findings 2)

Argumentation is an exercise of persuasion. [~4 Argumentation as an

exercise of persuasion] (Phase 3, Findings 4)

After I completed the process of listing key findings from each phase with an identifiable code, I connected one finding to other findings to establish an interrelationship among them according to their relevance. Then, I created a name to best describe the interrelationship or the ‘construct’ of each group. Afterwards, I linked these empirical data to a more conceptual overview of social theories in the literature review. In order to make theoretical coherence, Miles et al. (2014) suggest that the findings from across more than one set of data need to be tied up to overarching propositions that account for the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ of the phenomenon. Therefore, I re-read each construct and re- grouped the interrelationship of findings in order that each construct contained at least one finding from each phase. This process helped me clarify the conceptual overviews which I developed through the empirical findings from all three phases in order to discuss the whole research. After the whole process, I achieved the following six constructs to be discussed in light of social theories as shown in Table 3.11 (see Appendix L: Interrelationships of Findings, Constructs and Conceptual Overviews).

Table 3.11 Six constructs to discuss the findings in relation to social theories

Construct Short Description Conceptual Overview The outstanding

quality and level of academic scholarship

The professor participants learned what counted as better and poorer quality in terms of authorship and research papers.

These issues are related to Bourdieu’s notion of dualistic typologies to make class distinctions among social groups. Title of nobility and ‘noblesse oblige’ or the obligation to live up to the title of nobility

The professor participants wrote and revised their works to live up to their title of authority, i.e. professorship.

These issues are related to Bourdieu’s concept called ‘noblesse oblige’, or the obligation to live up to the title of nobility. Recognition of legitimate academic discourse and symbolic power

The professor participants’ explanations for their writing features signalled their

inculcation of legitimate ways of writing.

These issues are related to Foucault’s concept of discourse, but more specifically related to Bourdieu’s legitimate discourse and symbolic power.

Dialogicality or writing papers as utterances

The professor participants wrote their papers with a message and to answer a question or a hypothesis.

These issues are related to Bakhtin’s notion of dialogicality.

Dealing with others’ words or worldviews

The professor participants learned to deal with their feedback and to use others’ words or worldviews

These issues are related to Bakhtin’s theory about heteroglossia and hybridity.

Expressing extra- linguistic

authorial speech

The professor participants learned to insert evaluative judgements in their writing as part of their worldview.

These issues are related to Bakhtin’s concept of evaluative accents in language use.

3.6. Research Rigour

Every research study should be conducted in a rigorous manner. Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2000) suggest that research rigour is often identified with validity and reality. Generally, validity refers to the fact that a particular research instrument measures what it purports to measure whereas reliability refers to the fact a particular research instrument gives similar results when it is used in a similar context.

However, Lincoln and Guba (1985) note that validity and reliability seem to follow a positivist paradigm and suit experiments. Validity and reliability do not correspond to a non-positivist paradigm in which the research setting is naturalistic and beyond control of the researchers. Moreover, in naturalistic settings, the researchers themselves have become part of the research world and they—not just the research tools—are the key instruments of research because their aim is often to understand the situation through the eyes of their participants and from their perspectives. Therefore, the rigour of naturalist inquiry lies in the notion of ‘trustworthiness’. There are four criteria to achieve trustworthiness as follows:

 Credibility: Since non-positivist paradigms acknowledge many truths, credibility refers to the match between the constructed realities of the participants and the realities as represented by the researcher.

 Transferability: There should be sufficient information about the research study so that the readers could establish the degree of similarity from this case to other cases.

 Dependability: In naturalistic inquiry where human beings are involved, the data may not always be reliable and consistent because people are complex and multifaceted and they can change at any given time. Therefore, the research process should be established and documented so that the methodological protocols are dependable.

 Confirmability: The research data and the findings need to be trackable to their sources to ensure that the data and the findings are free from the bias or figments of the researcher’s imagination.

As an alternative, Yin (2011) proposes three strategies for trustworthiness: (i) Transparency in which researchers conduct their research in a way that others can see, try to understand and follow the procedures provided; (ii) Methodic- ness in which there should be some order in the research design and the research procedures so that careless work, bias and distortion are minimised during the process; and (iii) Adherence to evidence in which conclusions should be drawn in reference to the research data.

The issue of trustworthiness is important for my research design. Therefore, I made every attempt to achieve all four criteria proposed by Lincoln and Guba. In terms of credibility, the question of prolonged engagement might be

questionable in this research but the professor participants had seen the interview scripts for verification, clarification and modification. Moreover, they had seen the findings of my textual analysis before they reflected on the findings. Through this approach, I hope to have co-constructed these realities with my professor participants in this research. In terms of transferability, I endeavoured to provide as much information as possible in this research so that the similarity of this study to other contexts can be judged but I also had to protect the anonymity of my professor participants. In terms of dependability, I went into detail about my data collection and analysis along with the interview schedules. Moreover, Hyland’s (2005) taxonomy of metadiscourse for textual analysis is well-established and flexible for elaboration in this study. Also in line with the notions of transparency and methodic-ness as proposed by Yin (2011), I provided the details of my research design so that other researchers can see, understand and follow the procedures. These are well-documented in this chapter. In terms of confirmability, my findings and conclusions were based on the research data and interviews in order to reflect the fact that I adhered to the data when I presented and discussed the findings.

3.7. Potential Difficulties

There are certain potential difficulties in this research as follows:

One potential difficulty in this research is that academic writers can adapt their writing to accommodate the demands of each outlet. Harwood (2008) notes that academic writers cite differently in different outlets. With textbooks and book chapters, academic scholars cite fewer references and only famous authorities. By contrast, they cite more references and several authorities in peer-reviewed articles to meet the policy of the journal. However, it should also be noted that each and every journal is not the same because they might have different policies for academic authors to accommodate.

Another potential difficulty is concerned with the joint authorship of academic publication. It has been long noticed that many academic papers, especially in natural science disciplines, are written in joint authorship. Previous research into identity and writing focuses mostly on single-authored papers written by undergraduate students and early career academic scholars. In the field of academic publication, sole authorship for a whole career can be rare. In this

study, Professor Woodworth has not been writing any papers single-handedly for a long time. To choose papers for textual analysis in this case, I asked her to choose the papers for which she had main responsibility in the textual process. In her case, there were four joint-authored papers and only one single-authored paper for the textual analysis (see Appendix D: The Sample Texts in This Study). Therefore, the models of academic writing and the issues of authorial identity in academic publication still need sharpening to extend towards the real world practice in which many scholars collaborate on one piece of written work for publication.

3.8. Research Limitations

This study into the development of authorial identity among academic scholars has certain limitations as follows:

First, this study cannot claim to make a generalisation about the development of authorial identity because this research study was based on a constructivist approach to social reality in which there are multiple realities created, constructed and co-constructed by the professor participants, the researchers and the social world (Pring, 2004). The findings may only claim ‘transferability’ in which the readers need to judge the extent to which the conditions of this research are applicable in other contexts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Furthermore, the findings from this research study cannot claim any significant similarities or differences among the professor participants. Yet, as Pring (2004) suggests, the findings can be ‘illuminating’. In educational research studies, everyone and every group are unique in some respect and not in others but in many other ways they are not unique. The object of research in education is to discourage too hasty a generalisation from the research data and findings. Another limitation of this research is the fact that the sample texts belong to only two disciplines—law and politics. Therefore, the findings from this research might be confined to only the disciplines to which the academic scholars belong and this means that the findings might be different in other disciplines. Therefore, the textual analysis of the sample texts in other disciplines and in other studies might give a different picture from this study.

Besides, the notion of authorial identity tends to be conceptually limited to the individuality of academic scholars. Initially, I intended to analyse only single- authored papers written by the same academic scholars over time. In real world research like this study, however, the fact that many academic papers were written in joint authorship was beyond my control. This limitation might prove a stimulus for a new area of research on how to reconceptualise the notion of authorial identity in academic publication written by two or more scholars in relation to social theories in the future.

3.9. Ethical Considerations

All research studies involve ethical issues but the character and importance of these often varies (Hammersley & Traianou, 2012). Some ethical issues are clearly related to research paradigms, as Cameron et al. (1992) mentioned, especially when researchers conceal their identity, disguise and distance themselves from the research context to follow a positivist assumption and to conduct research ‘on’ their subjects. This practice is regarded to be unethical because it does not ensure integrity and transparency from all persons involved in the research study (Hammersley & Traianou, 2012). Therefore, it is important to conduct research in an ethical manner.

For this study, ethical research approval was secured on the following grounds (see Appendix A: Ethical Research Approval).

3.9.1. Informed consent

In this research, all professor participants had been informed about the research project and that they could ask any questions and raise any concerns before participating in this research. They had also been informed that their participation was voluntary and that they might withdraw at any stage of the research. Before I started collecting the data and gathering their sample texts, I made sure that they did not have any doubts about this research and the research methods I followed. Moreover, all professor participants gave written informed consent before I interviewed them.