Move analysis of research articles across five engineering fields: What they share and what they do not

While many genre researchers have examined the rhetorical structure of research articles in various disciplines, few have investigated the complete structure of articles for students in engineering, a discipline that includes a wide range of fields. Using Swales’ move framework (1990), this paper an...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Sayako Maswana, Toshiyuki Kanamaru, Akira Tajino
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2015-01-01
Series:Ampersand
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221503901500003X
id doaj-dd0f06e933e44837940679b3f7b32dea
record_format Article
spelling doaj-dd0f06e933e44837940679b3f7b32dea2020-11-24T21:51:54ZengElsevierAmpersand2215-03902015-01-012C11110.1016/j.amper.2014.12.002Move analysis of research articles across five engineering fields: What they share and what they do notSayako Maswana0Toshiyuki Kanamaru1Akira Tajino2Waseda University, JapanKyoto University, JapanKyoto University, JapanWhile many genre researchers have examined the rhetorical structure of research articles in various disciplines, few have investigated the complete structure of articles for students in engineering, a discipline that includes a wide range of fields. Using Swales’ move framework (1990), this paper analyzes the rhetorical structure of 67 engineering research articles from five subdisciplines: structural engineering, environmental engineering, electrical engineering, chemical engineering, and computer science. Six engineering researchers participated in the study by coding texts of full-length papers into moves and steps. The study found that the abstract, introduction, and concluding sections and some of their moves were conventional across all subdisciplines. The finding of no common move patterns throughout the papers across the subdisciplines is explained by the differences in the nature of research in each field. There were, however, limited subdisciplinary similarities such as the use of Move 5, Step 2 observed in environmental, electrical, and chemical engineering. The study results provide practical pedagogical resources, a theoretical background to guide writing in an engineering school, and implications for collaboration with researchers in specialized fields.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221503901500003XMove analysisRhetorical structureEngineering research articlesSubdisciplinesDisciplinary variation
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Sayako Maswana
Toshiyuki Kanamaru
Akira Tajino
spellingShingle Sayako Maswana
Toshiyuki Kanamaru
Akira Tajino
Move analysis of research articles across five engineering fields: What they share and what they do not
Ampersand
Move analysis
Rhetorical structure
Engineering research articles
Subdisciplines
Disciplinary variation
author_facet Sayako Maswana
Toshiyuki Kanamaru
Akira Tajino
author_sort Sayako Maswana
title Move analysis of research articles across five engineering fields: What they share and what they do not
title_short Move analysis of research articles across five engineering fields: What they share and what they do not
title_full Move analysis of research articles across five engineering fields: What they share and what they do not
title_fullStr Move analysis of research articles across five engineering fields: What they share and what they do not
title_full_unstemmed Move analysis of research articles across five engineering fields: What they share and what they do not
title_sort move analysis of research articles across five engineering fields: what they share and what they do not
publisher Elsevier
series Ampersand
issn 2215-0390
publishDate 2015-01-01
description While many genre researchers have examined the rhetorical structure of research articles in various disciplines, few have investigated the complete structure of articles for students in engineering, a discipline that includes a wide range of fields. Using Swales’ move framework (1990), this paper analyzes the rhetorical structure of 67 engineering research articles from five subdisciplines: structural engineering, environmental engineering, electrical engineering, chemical engineering, and computer science. Six engineering researchers participated in the study by coding texts of full-length papers into moves and steps. The study found that the abstract, introduction, and concluding sections and some of their moves were conventional across all subdisciplines. The finding of no common move patterns throughout the papers across the subdisciplines is explained by the differences in the nature of research in each field. There were, however, limited subdisciplinary similarities such as the use of Move 5, Step 2 observed in environmental, electrical, and chemical engineering. The study results provide practical pedagogical resources, a theoretical background to guide writing in an engineering school, and implications for collaboration with researchers in specialized fields.
topic Move analysis
Rhetorical structure
Engineering research articles
Subdisciplines
Disciplinary variation
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221503901500003X
work_keys_str_mv AT sayakomaswana moveanalysisofresearcharticlesacrossfiveengineeringfieldswhattheyshareandwhattheydonot
AT toshiyukikanamaru moveanalysisofresearcharticlesacrossfiveengineeringfieldswhattheyshareandwhattheydonot
AT akiratajino moveanalysisofresearcharticlesacrossfiveengineeringfieldswhattheyshareandwhattheydonot
_version_ 1725877964480970752