Disciplinary dynamics: a comparative study of move structures in research discussions
This study investigates the move structures employed in the research discussions of articles across academic disciplines, particularly science and non-science, focusing on the dynamics that shape disciplinary conventions. Based on a comparative analysis of selected articles from two distinct fields,...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH)
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://eprints.ums.edu.my/id/eprint/42957/1/FULL%20TEXT.pdf https://eprints.ums.edu.my/id/eprint/42957/ https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v9i12.3156 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | This study investigates the move structures employed in the research discussions of articles across academic disciplines, particularly science and non-science, focusing on the dynamics that shape disciplinary conventions. Based on a comparative analysis of selected articles from two distinct fields, this study aims to uncover how researchers in these fields discuss their research results, such as by articulating their findings, engaging with existing literature, and constructing arguments within their respective contexts. Through a qualitative content analysis approach, prevalent move structures were identified in the corpora, revealing both similarities and differences in the rhetorical strategies involved. Preliminary findings indicate that while certain move structures are universally recognised, each discipline exhibited unique patterns influenced by its academic conventions and discourse communities. These insights not only enhance our understanding of academic discourse but also highlight the importance of context in shaping research communication. The current findings essentially add to the growing body of knowledge on academic and research genre by providing a nuanced perspective on how move structures function as tools for the dissemination of knowledge. The implications extend to educators and researchers alike, offering guidance on effective writing practices that resonate with disciplinary norms. Ultimately, this comparative analysis fosters greater awareness of the complexities involved in research discussions, encouraging more effective and diverse cross-disciplinary research in the future. |
|---|