Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 9:2 (2020) ► pp.283–301

Ideology in positivist research articles on issues of teaching English as a foreign language

| Ilam university
| Ilam university
| Arak university
The research articles(RAs) as the dominant genre of academic writing can be accounted as the sites of reproduction of unequal power relations and dominance. Through critical discourse analysis of epistemological and ontological underpinnings and subsequently methodological aims and values of positivist paradigm as social structures, this article aims to foreground power and ideology stricken latent aspects of empiricist RAs. Research as a social practice mediates between the social structures and the RAs as social events. Textual analysis of practical arguments presented mostly in the pedagogical implications part revealed that the scientific world views manifest themselves as the premises of these arguments. The premises can provide reasons for actions (Searle’s,2010, social ontology theory). The reasons can signify the empiricist interests as the global concerns. They exclude the rival paradigms or ways of understanding the world. These world views maintain the dominance of Western societies on global academic and social discourses.
Keywords: domination, ideology, positivist, power, practical reasoning research articles
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature review
  • Method
    • Method of analysis
      • Practical argumentation (reasoning) framework
      • Nature of data
    • Data sampling
      • Procedures
    • Quality criteria
  • Text
  • Analysis of the text
  • Evaluation of text (normative critique)
  • Explanatory critique
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 28 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19006.kha
References (40)
References
Angus, L. B. 1986. Research traditions, ideology and critical ethnography. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 7:1, 61–77, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Apple, M. W. 2006. Educating the ‘right’ way: Markets, standards, God and inequality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2009. Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. In Argumentation and education (pp. 127–144). Springer, Boston, MA. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biesta, G. 2004. Educational research, evidence-based practice and professional judgement in education. Paper presented at the Faculty of Education of Stellenbosch University, Postgraduate Students Colloquium, 26 March 2004, 1–22.
Brickhouse, N. W., Stanley, W. B., & Whitson, J. A. 1993. Practical reasoning and science education: Implications for theory and practice. Science & Education, 2(4), 363–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caterina, D. 2018. Investigating hegemony struggles: Transdisciplinary considerations on the role of a critical discourse analysis of practical argumentation. Critical Discourse Studies, 15(3), 211–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cobb, T. 1997. Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System, 25(3), 301–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, J. M. 2012. Research on argumentation in science education in Europe. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science Education Research and Practice in Europe: Retrospective and Prospective (pp. 253–289). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. 2001. Language and Power (2nd ed.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
1989. Language and Power London: LongmansGoogle Scholar
2010. Critical Discourse Analysis, London: LongmansGoogle Scholar
2015. Language and Power (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fairclough, I., and Fairclough, N. 2012. Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2013. Argument, Deliberation, Dialectic and the Nature of the Political: A CDA Perspective. Political Studies Review, 11 (3). pp. 336–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frederickson, M. 2004. Surveying gender: Another look at the way we teach United States history. The History Teacher, 37(4), 476–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gorur, R., Hamilton, M., Lundahl, C. and Sjödin, E. S. 2019. Politics by other means? STS and research in education, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(1), 1–15, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., and Wajcman, J. 2008. Introduction. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies, third edition (pp. 1–9). London, England: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
KhosraviNik, M. 2010. Actor descriptions, action attributions, and argumentation: towards a Systematization of CDA analytical categories in the representation of social groups. Critical Discourse Studies, 7: 1, 55–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lim, L. 2014. Ideology, rationality and reproduction in education: a critical discourse analysis, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(1), 61–76, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, T. C., Lin, T. J., and Tsai, C. C. 2014. Research Trends in Science Education from 2008 to 2012: a systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1346–1372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luke, A. 1995/96. Text and discourse in education: An introduction to critical discourse analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21(1), 3–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, J. 2011. The Discussion section as argument: The language used to prove knowledge claims. English for specific purposes, 30(3), 164–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, A. 2001. Critical applied linguistics: a critical introduction. London. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rapanta, C., & Macagno, F. 2016. Argumentation methods in educational contexts: Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Educational Research, 791, 142–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramsden, P. 1992. Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rangachari, P. K. 1994. Quality education for undergraduates in pharmacology: a Canadian experiment. Trends in pharmacological sciences, 15(7), 211–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samaie, M., Sahragard, R. and Parhizkar, R. 2006. – A Critical Analysis of Learning and Teaching Goals in Gardner’s Theory of Attitudes and Motivation. Asian EFL Journal, 8(4),151–191.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. 2004. Research Genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaw, P. 2000. Towards Classifying the Arguments in Research Genres. In Trosborg (ed.). Analyzing professional genres. John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. 2010. Making the social world. The structure of human civilization. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uzuner-Smith, S. and Englander, K. 2015. Exposing ideology within university policies: a critical discourse analysis of faculty hiring, promotion and remuneration practices, Journal of Education Policy, 30(1), 62–85, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. 1998. Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London. Sage.Google Scholar
2006. Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. 2018. Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Cham: Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B. J., and Meuffels, B. 2015. Effectiveness through reasonableness: A pragma-dialectical perspective. preliminary steps to pragma-dialectical effectiveness research. In van Eemeren, H. (Ed). Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse. Springer International Publishing Switzerland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waghid, Y. 2006. University education and deliberation: In defence of practical reasoning. Higher Education, 51(3), 315–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, D. 2013. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, R. 2001. What CDA is About: A Summary of its History. Important Concepts and Its Developments. In Wodak, R. and Meyer, C. (Eds.). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London. Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
Yoon, H., & Hirvela, A. 2004. ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of second language writing, 13(4), 257–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar