Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society: Online-First Articles

Negotiating academic conflict in discussion sections of doctoral dissertations

| University of Urmia,
| University of Exeter,
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.
Keywords: academic conflict, engagement resources, discussion section, doctoral dissertations, academic writers
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
Published online: 1 December 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.22060.esm
References (45)
References
Anderson, T., Alexander, I., Saunders, G. (2020). An examination of education-based dissertation macrostructures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 45 1, DOI logo
Askehave, I., & Swales, J. (2001). Genre Identification and Communicative Purpose: A Problem and a Possible Solution. Applied Linguistics, 22 ( 2 ), 195–212. DOI logoGoogle 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, 42 1, 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, 24 1, 43–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies. SAGE Publication.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, 36 1, 48–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fløttum, K., & Dahl, T. (2011). Climate Change Discourse: Scientific Claims in a Policy Setting. Fachsprache 34 ( 3 ), 205–219.Google Scholar
Giannoni, D. S. (2005). Negative evaluation in academic discourse: A comparison of English and Italian research articles. Linguistica e Filologia, 20 1, 71–99.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, 16 1, 23–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harwood, N. (2009). An interview-based study of the functions of citations in academic writing across two disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 41 1, 497–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holliday, A. (2010). Complexity in cultural identity. Language and Intercultural Communication, 10 , 2, 165–177, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow, England: Longman.Google Scholar
(2001). Bringing in the Reader: Addressee Features in Academic Articles. Written Communication, 18 ( 4 ). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. J. Pragmat, 34 1, 1091–1112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
(2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7 1, 173–192. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.) (2000). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itakura, H., & Tsui, A. (2011). Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese and English book reviews. Journal of Pragmatics 43 1, 1366–1379. DOI logoGoogle 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
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, 11 1, 229–245. DOI logoGoogle 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, 53 1, 101035. DOI logo
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, 21 1, 1–16. DOI logoGoogle 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, 100851 1. DOI logo
Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20 1, 114–124. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martín-Martín, P., & Burgess, S. (2004). The rhetorical management of academic criticism in research article abstracts. Text, 24 ( 2 ), 171–195.Google Scholar
Mei, W. S., & Allison, D. (2003). Exploring appraisal in claims of student writers in argumentative essays, Prospect 18 ( 3 ).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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, R., Mitchell, T. D., & Pessoa, S. (2014). Valued voices: Students’ use of Engagement in argumentative history writing. Linguistics and Education 28 1, 107–120. 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
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
Ravelli, L. J., & Eliss, R. A. (2005). Analyzing academic writing: Contextualized framework. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ruiying, Y., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22 1, 365–385. DOI logoGoogle 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, 51 1, 10097.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, 59 1, 17–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salager-Meyer, F. (1999). Contentiousness in written medical English discourse: A diachronic study (1810–1995). Text, 19 ( 3 ), 371–398.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
Salager-Meyer, F., & Beverly. A. Lewin. (2011). Crossed words: criticism in scholarly writing. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of master’s thesis across disciplines with a focus on introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7 1, 55–67.
Soliday, M. (2005). Mapping genres in a science in society course. Genre Across the Curriculum, 12 ( 23 ). 65–82. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logo
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar