The research article as genre

Genre is a multi-faceted term that has been used in a myriad of ways within the study of discourse. Hyon’s (1996) classification of genre studies into three traditions – English for Specific Purposes (ESP, e.g. Swales, 1990), New Rhetoric (e.g. Freedman, 1994) and SFL – has helped to situate studies.

In the ESP tradition the research article is considered a genre. This tradition has produced descriptions of the organisation of sections (Myers, 1994), the moves of abstracts (Martín, 2003; Samraj, 2005) the introduction section (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Samraj, 2005; Swales, 1990); the methods section (Lim, 2006); the transition from the results section to the conclusions (Yang & Allisson, 2003), the results section (Brett, 1994; Hopkins & Dudley-Evans, 1988), and the discussion section (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995, Holmes, 1997). More recently attention has been drawn to the wide range of macro-structures of research articles (Lin & Evans, 2012). In particular Lin and Evans note that writing guides are limited in their explanations of research article macro-structures and fail to explain sections such as the literature review. Studies carried out in the ESP Swalesian tradition of moves have been criticised by Hood (2010) because the separation of text into moves is based upon intuitive, common sense criteria rather than linguistic.

In SFL genre is defined as a staged goal-oriented social process (Martin & Rose, 2003). Martin and Rose (2008: 6) reformulate this definition in functional linguistic terms: “what this means is that genres are defined as a recurrent configuration of meanings and that these recurrent configurations of meaning enact the social practices of a given culture”. Thus genres are seen as operating at the stratum of the culture. At the stratum below genre, the resources of register – field, tenor and mode – are seen as generalising across genres (Martin & Rose, 2008:16) (figure 2.2, p 10).

Within SFL there is some inconsistency in the way the research article is treated in relation to genre. Martin and Rose (2008: 200), for example, classify research articles written by research scientists as procedural recounts. On the other hand Hood

24

(2010: 37) considers the research article to be a macro-genre, i.e. a larger text made up of shorter genres (Martin & Rose, 2008: 218). Despite the ambiguity of the status of the research article in relation to genre, Martin and Rose (2008: 207) propose a six- stage structure for a research article in the field of science (table 2.3), and they break down some of the linguistic resources used at each stage in an analysis of one from the scientific field of metallurgy. However, these stages clearly would not apply in a non- empirically oriented research article such as in the field of history, as evidenced by results from work on the research article in the ESP tradition (e.g. Lin & Evans, 2012) and implied by Martin and Rose’s (2008: 99-139) topography of genres in history. Perhaps the research article is best seen from an instantiation perspective as a text type, the genres that constitute it depending on field.

Abstract A brief summary of the experimental method and the results and discussion

Introduction Locates the text in the development of the field by reference to previous

research. Establishes a problem that previous research has not dealt with. States intention of current research.

Experimental Details (i.e. Method)

Lists experimental methods used, including equipment and procedures. Results and Discussion Presents experiment results in graphic and mathematical form. Interprets

these results verbally. Reasons about the probable cause of the problem.

Conclusions Summary of reasoning

References Previous research

Table 2.3 Stages of the research article (Martin and Rose, 2008:207)

Hood (2006; 2010) has identified the generic stages in research article introductions from an SFL perspective. The macro-genre establishes a warrant for research, and the stages are shown in table 2.4. The shift in genre is marked by a shift in field, the boundaries of which are signalled by a hyper-Theme. At the same time, considerable interpersonal meaning is being developed at each stage as the writer draws on lexicogrammatical resources first to persuade the reader that the object of study is of significance, then that there is room for new knowledge in the field, and finally that the writer’s own study will contribute to new knowledge.

Macro-genre Establishing a warrant for research Genre Descriptive report of object of study Genre Descriptive report of other research Genre Description of writer’s own study

25

While the control of objective structures to replace overtly subjective or spoken registers is often considered the mark of competent professional academic discourse (Hood, 2010), also important is the need to engage critically with the material, which implies subjective positioning. These two apparently conflicting needs need to be met if the writer is to be deemed professional (Hood, 2010). Hood’s (2006; 2010;) work on evaluation in research article introductions illustrates the variety of resources that are drawn upon to position the writer as a credible member of the discourse community. For example she finds that when reporting other people’s research, writers tend to invoke attitudinal values by means of the resources of Graduation rather than inscription, and this contributes to a more objective sounding text. A second insight from her research is that there is an interplay between two fields in the introduction of a research article: the field of research can be seen to be projecting the field of the object of study, each field favouring different resources from Appraisal. While the field of research favours invoked evaluative resources, the field of the object of study draws on both invoked and inscribed attitude.

The importance of interpersonal choices coupled with ideational selections in research articles as the writer seeks to align himself with like-minded academics and disalign himself with others has also been highlighted by Ventola (1998). She proposes a cline of alignment/bashing similar to the concepts of burnishing and tarnishing (Hao & Humphrey, 2012), which could equally be applied to the research article.

Other work on research articles in an SFL tradition has highlighted differences in Thematic choices according to the section. Martínez (2003) notes a higher proportion of multiple Themes and marked Themes in the discussion section of research articles in biology than in the methods section. She attributes this difference to the purpose of each section. The purpose of the methods section is to recount procedures, so it makes greater use of the object of research as Theme. The discussion section is more argumentative, and the differences in Theme reflect movement from fact to interpretation, due to differences of purpose. She also finds that the discussion section makes greater use of grammatical metaphor as Theme than does the methods section.

26