Abstract

This study aims to delineate the rhetorical organization of research article (RA) discussion sections in an engineering discipline and explore the variations that distinguish discussion sections of high-impact and low-impact RAs. Research questions: What is the rhetorical organization of RA discussions in chemical engineering? What are the similarities and differences in the use of rhetorical moves and steps in RA discussions of high-impact and low-impact articles? Literature review: Some studies have been conducted using Swales' move analysis with regard to the identification and textual comparisons of RA discussion sections. However, it remains to be determined whether RA discussions of the high- and low-impact articles within a single discipline display the variation in rhetorical patterns. Research methodology: A total of 40 RA discussions published between 2005 and 2015 were chosen based on five-year journal impact factor and citations of the articles in which they were published. Swales' move analysis was used to compare rhetorical moves and steps in both sets of RA discussions. Results and discussion: The study identified the rhetorical organization of RA discussions in the field of chemical engineering. The findings indicate that discussion sections of high-impact articles tend to make use of the “comment on results” move. Explanations of the similarities and differences in the employment of moves and steps are provided. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Journal
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Published
2018-03-01
DOI
10.1109/tpc.2017.2747358
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (3)

  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  2. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  3. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication

Cites in this index (3)

  1. College Composition and Communication
  2. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  3. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Also cites 29 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.09.004
  2. 10.1017/CBO9781139524827
  3. Informing automated writing evaluation using the lens of genre: Two studies
    CALICO J  
  4. 10.1057/9781137350466
  5. 10.4324/9780203122761
    Handbook of Automated Essay Evaluation Current Applications and New Directions  
  6. 10.1177/0033688215609230
  7. 10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00001-5
  8. 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.08.004
  9. 10.1016/j.esp.2004.08.003
  10. 10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.008
  11. 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.08.004
  12. 10.1016/j.jeap.2005.10.002
  13. 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.007
  14. 10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.001
  15. 10.1075/scl.70.03nor
  16. 10.1016/j.esp.2010.05.001
  17. 10.1016/0889-4906(94)90024-8
  18. 10.1080/00335638409383686
  19. 10.1016/0889-4906(88)90029-4
  20. 10.1016/j.esp.2014.08.002
  21. 10.3998/mpub.2173936
  22. 10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80125-8
  23. 10.5040/9781472541734
    Scientific Discourse and the Rhetoric of Globalization The Impact of Culture and Language  
  24. 10.1093/applin/12.3.319
  25. 10.1016/j.jeap.2009.07.001
  26. 10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00050-7
  27. 10.2307/3587930
  28. 10.1093/applin/amm021
  29. 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.004