Part of
Ethnographies of Academic Writing Research: Theory, methods, and interpretationEdited by Ignacio Guillén-Galve and Ana Bocanegra-Valle
[Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 1] 2021
► pp. 21–38
Edited by Ignacio Guillén-Galve and Ana Bocanegra-Valle
[Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 1] 2021
► pp. 21–38
Chapter 2What is (and could be) thick description in academic writing research?
One hallmark of ethnographic research is its use of thick description, a concept often associated with the use of multiple sources of data, collected over time, ideally aiding the researcher in understanding participants’ perspectives on the data. This chapter explores the roots of thick description in ethnographic research, and then reviews how thick description has been used in studies of academic writing through close analysis of 21 studies published in international journals. The chapter concludes by considering the implications of varying interpretations and enactments of thick description as well as the potential role of thick participation in helping researchers achieve thick description.
Keywords: thick description, ethnographic research, writing research, emic perspectives, thick participation
Article outline
- Introduction
- What is thick description?
- What is thick description in academic writing research?
- Multiple data sources
- Sustained engagement
- Emic perspectives
- Reflexivity
- Interpretation/theorization
- What is and what might be thick description in academic writing research?
-
Notes -
References
References (40)
Anderson, D. D. (2002). Casting and recasting gender: Children constituting social identities through literacy practices. Research in the Teaching of English, 36(3), 391–427.
Bauer, E. B., & García, G. E. (2002). Lessons from a classroom teacher’s use of alternative literacy assessment. Research in the Teaching of English, 36(4), 462–494.
Cimasko, T., & Shin, D. (2017). Multimodal resemiotization and authorial agency in an L2 writing classroom. Written Communication, 34(4), 387–413. 
Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: Negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 663–688.
Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive interactionism (2nd ed.) [eBook edition]. Sage.
Dressen-Hammouda, D. (2008). From novice to disciplinary expert: Disciplinary identity and genre mastery. English for Specific Purposes, 27(2), 233–252.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.
Hirvela, A., & Du, Q. (2013). “Why am I paraphrasing?”: Undergraduate ESL writers’ engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 87–98.
Honig, S. (2010). What do children write in science? A study of the genre set in a primary science classroom. Written Communication, 27(1), 87–119.
Kim, M., & Belcher, D. D. (2018). Building genre knowledge in second language writers during study abroad in higher education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 56–69.
Lammers, J. C., & Marsh, V. L. (2018). “A writer more than…a child”: A longitudinal study examining adolescent writer identity. Written Communication, 35(1), 89–114.
Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2015). Thick description. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of language and social interaction (Vol. 3, pp. 1515–1520). John Wiley & Sons.
(2019). Thick description. In P. Atkinson, S. Delamont, M. A. Hardy, & M. Williams. (Eds.), Sage research methods: Foundations [Online]. Sage.
Lillis, T. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and “deep theorizing”: Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25(3), 353–388.
Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2006a). Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English medium texts. Written Communication, 23(1), 3–35.
(2006b). Re-framing notions of ‘competence’ in multilingual scholarly writing: From individual to networked activity. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 53, 63–78.
Lonon Blanton, L. (2002). Seeing the invisible: Situating L2 literacy acquisition in child-teacher interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(4), 295–310.
Lunsford, K. (2002). Contextualizing Toulmin’s model in the writing classroom: A case study. Written Communication, 19(1), 109–174.
Noy, C. (2015). Writing in museums: Toward a rhetoric of participation. Written Communication, 32(2), 195–219.
Paltridge, B., Starfield, S., & Tardy, C. M. (2016). Ethnographic perspectives on academic writing. Oxford University Press.
Paulson, E. J., Alexander, J., & Armstrong, S. (2007). Peer review re-viewed: Investigating the juxtaposition of composition students’ eye movements and peer-review processes. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(3), 304–335.
Paxton, M. (2007). Tensions between textbook pedagogy and the literacy practices of the disciplinary community: A study of writing in first year economics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 109–125.
Prior, P. A. (1995). Tracing authoritative and internally persuasive discourses: A case study of response, revision, and disciplinary education. Research in the Teaching of English, 29(3), 288–325.
Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Ethnographic approaches and methods in L2 writing research: A critical guide and review. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 44–70.
Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.
(1971). The thinking of thoughts: What is ‘Le Penseur’ doing? Retrieved on 2 June 2021 from [URL]
Salter-Dvorak, H. (2019). Proofreading: How de facto language policies create social inequality for L2 master’s students in UK universities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 39, 119–131.
Sarangi, S. (2006). The conditions and consequences of professional discourse studies. In R. Kiely, P. Rea-Dickins, H. Woodfield, & G. Clibbon (Eds.), Language, culture and identity in applied linguistics (pp. 199–220). London: Equinox.
Sánchez-Martín, C., & Seloni, L. (2019). Transdisciplinary becoming as a gendered activity: A reflexive study of dissertation mentoring. Journal of Second Language Writing, 43, 24–35.
Sarangi, S. (2005). The conditions and consequences of professional discourse studies. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 371–394.
(2007). The anatomy of interpretation: Coming to terms with the analyst’s paradox in professional discourse studies. Text & Talk, 27(5–6), 567–584.
Scott Jones, J. (2010). Origins and ancestors: A brief history of ethnography. In J. Scott Jones & S. Watt. (Eds.), Ethnography in social science practice (pp. 13–27). Routledge.
Seloni, L. (2014). “I’m an artist and a scholar who is trying to find a middle point”: A textographic analysis of a Colombian art historian’s thesis writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 79–99.
Severino, C. (1993). The sociopolitical implications of response to second language and second dialect writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2(3), 181–201.
Smidt, J. (2002). Double histories in multivocal classrooms: Notes toward an ecological account of writing. Written Communication, 19(3), 414–443.
Starfield, S. (2013). Researcher reflexivity. In C. A. Chapelle. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 4931–4937). Wiley-Blackwell.
Swales, J. M. (2019). Ethnographies of academic writing: The writing on the wall? Plenary presented at Ethnographies of Academic Writing Conference, University of Zaragoza (Spain), 16–17 May.
Woodward-Kron, R. (2008). More than just jargon – The nature and role of specialist language in learning disciplinary knowledge. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 234–249.
(2009). “This means that…”: A linguistic perspective of writing and learning in a discipline. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(3), 165–179.
Zacher, J. C. (2008). Analyzing children’s social positioning and struggles for recognition in a classroom literacy event. Research in the Teaching of English, 43(1), 12–41.