Abstract
With this small-scale qualitative investigation, we aimed to capture the views of a group of Turkish arts and science scholars’ construction of their RA introductions in their field-specific academic writings. Through our readings of the literature, we identified four main concerns for the semi-structured face-to-face interviews: (1) these writers’ construction process of RA introductions, (2) their descriptions of a specific single-authored RA introduction; (3) how they revised these introductions and the challenges/problems they experienced while revising and (4) while reviewing others’ introductions, what expectations they had and what problems they observed. The semi-structured face-to-face interviews enabled us to see how commonly the CARS model is followed by these authors. Other than the prototypicality of this three-part model, their statements stressed an awareness of the differences in academic conventions in national and international journals as a crucial concern to be considered while shaping the content of their writing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anthony, L. (1999). Writing research article introductions in software engineering: How accurate is a standard model? IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42(1), 38–46.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). A geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Toward a writing pedagogy of shuttling between languages: Learning from multilingual writers. College English, 68(6), 589–604.
Cheng, A. (2007). Transferring generic features and recontextualizing genre awareness: Understanding writing performance in the ESP genrebased literacy framework. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 287–307.
Cheung, Y. L. (2010). First publications in refereed English journals: Difficulties, coping strategies, and recommendations for student training. System, 38, 134–141.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. London: Sage Publications.
Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glasman-Deal, H. (2010). Science research writing for non-native speakers of English. London: Imperial College Press.
Gosden, H. (1995). Success in research article writing and revision: A social-constructionist perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 14, 37–57.
Gosden, H. (1996). Verbal reports of Japanese novices’ research writing practices in English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(2), 109–128.
Gupta, R. (1995). Managing general and specific information in introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 14(1), 59–75.
Hyland, K. (1996). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johns, A. M. (2002). Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krapels, A. (1990). An overview of second language writing process research. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 37–56). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewin, B. A., Fine, J., & Young, L. (2001). Expository discourse: A genre-based approach to social science research texts. London: Continuum.
Öztürk, İ. (2007). The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 25–38.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 407–430.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Rossman, G., & Rallis, S. F. (1998). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 1–17.
Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 141–156.
Swales, J. M. (1981). Aspects of article introductions, Aston ESP Research Report #1. Birmingham: University of Aston.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Upton, T. A., & Connor, U. (2001). Using computerized corpus analysis to investigate the text linguistic discourse moves of a genre. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 313–329.
Ventola, E., & Mauranen, a. (1991). Non-native writing and native revising of scientific articles. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Recent systemic and other functional views on language (pp. 457–492). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yaylı, D., & Canagarajah, A. S. (2014). A missing move and an emergent step: Variation in the RA introductions of two composition journals. The Reading Matrix, 14(1), 95–110.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case histories. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 195–209.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Interview Questions
Appendix: Interview Questions
-
1.
Could you describe how you construct the introductory part of RAs in your field in English language?
-
2.
Could you describe how you construct the introductory part of RAs in your field in Turkish language?
-
3.
What are the similarities and differences?
-
4.
What influences you to structure the RA introduction this way in English language – advice from a mentor or colleagues, other RA’s, reviewers’ comments, literacy brokers such as friends or copyeditors from outside academia?
-
5.
Could you describe the demands of an English-speaking and information-seeking audience from RA introductions in your field? How do these demands influence your writing?
-
6.
Could you describe the process of writing the RA intro–do you compose it after writing the whole article? Do you tend to revise this more than the other sections?
-
7.
Can you compare the difficulty of composing this section to the other sections in a RA?
-
8.
Specially in the first draft of this RA, how did you construct the introductory part?
-
9.
How was the introductory part shaped and reshaped during revisions in response to comments by reviewers and editors in the following drafts? I mean what changes did you make and what was the reason of these changes?
-
10.
What were the challenges you experienced during these revisions?
-
11.
When you are a reviewer for mainstream journals, what are your expectations in RA introductions in your field?
-
12.
What problems do you observe in RA introduction writing of others?
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Yaylı, D., Canagarajah, A.S. (2018). The Processes Behind RA Introduction Writing Among Turkish Arts and Science Scholars. In: Kırkgöz, Y., Dikilitaş, K. (eds) Key Issues in English for Specific Purposes in Higher Education. English Language Education, vol 11. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70214-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70214-8_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70213-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70214-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)