Logical structures of academic discourse: from outline to literature review

1
Logical structures of academic discourse from
outline to literature review

• John Morgan

2
Introduction

• We can generalise about the structure
• e.g. background info
• main issue
• aims and/or structure
• (cf. Swales, 1990)

3
Literature review

• This varies quite a lot according to what you
• need to say to ground your own research. A
• good resource is Hart (1998, start at page
• 27).

4
Method

• Method and results are the most difficult
• thing to generalise about as they are tied to
• specific methods that may be determined by
• an assignment question or may be
• negotiated with a supervisor.

5
Results

• These are dependent on methods, but
• results are often integrated within the
• method in Arts subjects, which appear more
• as a method of critical analysis.

6
Discussion

• It is possible to identify patterns that may
• commonly appear, e.g. background, results,
• outcome, reference to previous research,
• explanation, exemplification, deduction and
• hypothesis, recommendations (cf. Swales,
• 1990, Dudley-Evans, 1989).

7
Conclusion

• Again we can generalise, e.g. context of
• discussion, procedure, solutions,
• recommendations (my own analysis).

8
Variations on the theme

• As soon as we begin to look at predictable
  structures, we immediately notice the variations
  that are possible. A quick example is that in
  Biological Sciences, the introduction and
  literature review are usually combined within a
  single chapter or section.

9
Think of some of your own research

• How will you need to vary the recommendations?
• It may be safe to follow recommendations for the
  introduction and the conclusion, but you will
  need to individualise the body of the writing to
  the research issue you are addressing.
• The literature review must contextualise the
  method that you will follow. What method do you
  expect to use in your current assignment?

10
According to Hart, a-c

• a literature review works towards
• a) distinguishing what has been done from what
  needs to be done
• b) discovering important variables relevant to
  the topic
• c) synthesizing and gaining a new perspective

11
Hart, d-h

• d) identifying relationships between ideas and
  practice
• e) establishing the context of the topic or
  problem
• f) rationalizing the significance of the problem
• g) enhancing and acquiring the subject vocabulary
• h) understanding the structure of the subject

12
Hart, i-k

• i) relating ideas and theories to applications
• j) identifying the main methodologies and
  research techniques that have been used
• k) placing the research in a historical context
  to show familiarity with state of the art
  developments
• Hart (1998 27)

13
Focusing your reading

• Look at the reference sources you need to work
  with for your assignment.

14
Reasons for choice

• Why have you chosen them?
• Is it because it looks like the right subject? If
  so, what tells you that it has the right focus?
• Is it because of particular issues discussed in
  the work?
• Is it because they are required reading?

15
Focus

• What is the focus on the main issue or problem in
  each of those works? The following questions
  compare directly with Swales analysis of the
  focus of arguments identified through research
  article introductions.

16
Compare with Swales (1990)

• Does it create a counter argument?
• Does it indicate gaps in research or argument?
• Does it ask general questions and create a
  rounded discussion?
• Does it follow particular research methods?

17
Return to focus

• Even though it is important to establish a
  singular focus within a paper, it may be possible
  to see an interweaving of these points. To what
  extent is that apparent in the works you have
  chosen?

18
How are the issues argued?

• Strongly
• Moderately
• Tentatively

19
Use of language

• Think about use of
• reporting verbs (e.g. argued, criticised)
• adjectives (e.g. thorough investigation, limited
  value)
• adverbs (e.g. obviously, necessarily)
• modal verbs (e.g. might, may, could, must)

20
Other questions

• Who does each author cite in her/his work?
• Do these citations stand out as being significant?

21
More questions

• What value can you see in engaging with this
  argument in your own essay?
• How does it address the issue and aims (your own
  focus) of your own essay?

22
De-centring and re-centring

• To focus in on your own voice and originality, it
  may be necessary seek some kind of intervention
  and transformation (Pope, 1995) in relation to
  the original sources.
• How much of the initial focus (authors own
  aims), direction and argument (authors results
  related to your aims) would you want to
  re-centre?
• To what extent would you need to de-centre it
  first?

23
To intervene in and transform a text

• Do you need to
• support it through further evidence not
  considered (be specific)?
• put it off balance and alter the emphasis to suit
  your own perspective?
• counterbalance it with an equally reasoned
  opinion from the literature?
• use it as some kind of metaphor to interpret a
  context you are working with?

24
Your focus

• What do your changes do to the original?
• What do they say about it?
• Have you re-informed the debate in any way? To
  what to degree?

25
Further reflection

• Have you identified weaknesses in your own theory
  by doing it? In other words has the original
  decentred your own thinking as opposed to your
  thinking decentring the original?
• Does it now create the opportunity for further
  cross referencing with other sources in the
  literature?

26
Even more questions

• Has it led you to a specific and assertive point
  in your work?
• Go back, read more, review, redraft using and of
  the above questions as a new point of entry.
• Become familiar with these entry points as you
  may have to go back and work a new published
  source into your review a year or two after
  creating what you though was a final working
  draft.

27
Bibliography

• Dudley-Evans, T. (1989). Genre Analysis An
  Investigation of the Introduction and Discussion
  Sections of MSc Dissertations. In Coulthard, M.
  (Ed.). Talking about Text, English Language
  Research, University of Birmingham. In Bhatia,
  V.K. (1993).
• Hart, C. (1998). Doing a Literature Review
  Releasing the Social Science Research
  Imagination. London Sage Publications.
• Pope, R. (1995). Textual Intervention Critical
  and Creative Strategies for Literary Studies.
  London Routledge.
• Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis English in
  Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge CUP.
• Doing a literature search (provided by David
  Stoker and Graeme Davies, session 8)
• http//www.shef.ac.uk/library/libdocs/ml-rs17.htm
  l
• or
• http//www2.plymouth.ac.uk/millbrook/rsources/sea
  lit/srchguid.htm