5.1.3 The Nature of Explanation
Given this broad view of the investigation of academic writing,the nature of explanations needs to be considered.Based on particular philosophical considerations,different types of explanations were proposed,such as the Deductive-Nomological and Statistical Relevance explanation(Woodward,2014).The type of explanation given in the present study is associated with the methodological explanation.Drawing on Max Weber’s(1978)theory of Methodological Individualism,Jackson and Pettit(1992)made the distinction between the micro level of explanation(or individualistic explanations)and the macro level of explanation(or structural/holistic explanations).Micro-explanations are based on the belief that social facts must be accounted for through individual’s reasons for action.To illustrate the difference between micro and macro explanation,Jackson and Pettit used the increase in the level of crime as an example.A micro-explanation for the social phenomenon could be that the robber needs money,whereas a macro-explanation could be the increase in unemployment rate of the society(Jackson &Pettit,1992).The aggregation of micro-explanations would not arrive at a macro-explanation(Garfinkel,1981).
When looking for explanations in genre analysis,previous studies often rely on interviews with practicing members(e.g.Swales,1998),which seek micro- explanation and may not be suitable for the present study for theoretical and practical considerations.This study views the genre practice of individual writers as a form of community practice,examining the differences between genre conventions of three local communities.In other words,the focus of the present study is on the reasons for variation at the level of community rather than individual.Therefore,we aim to look for macro-explanations for genre variation among the three local communities by associating the variation with properties of the communities,such as the epistemological traditions.Interviews,which can be used to solicit individual writer’s reasons for structuring their writing in a particular way and thus to produce a micro-explanation,are not employed in the present study.
Apart from the theoretical considerations,there are also practical concerns for not using interviews to explore explanations for genre variation in the present study.First,the reason for a student to structure their thesis in a particular way can be that others in the community are doing so since the genre practice is a type of community practice.Doing since others are doing is not a good explanation for genre variation.Second,we are interested in the explanations for differences between communities.The practicing members are usually only familiar with the conventions of their own community,and hence it would be difficult,if not impossible,for them to comment on the conventions of other communities and interpret the differences.Finally,interviews are usually conducted in a limited period of time.Unlike facts and opinions which can be provided immediately,explanations for phenomena may need more time to ponder.It can be difficult for participants to provide insightful explanations that instant.
The type of explanation concerned in this research is similar with that of Critical Discourse Analysis,namely the explanation of relations between features of discourse and social elements(Fairclough,2015).The feature of discourse under examination in this study is the use of moves.The present study explores the relation between the use of moves and epistemological and social traditions of three local disciplinary communities.
The way of analysing social contexts in discourse analysis was summarized by Hyland(2009),who categorizes investigations of academic discourse into three groups,namely textual,contextual and critical analysis.Studies in the three groups are similar in involving textual analysis in some way and in regarding discourse as texts situated in social context.The difference between the first two groups lies in using context to analyse language use,or using language use to analyse context.The critical analysis studies focus on the power relations and the underlying ideology in the context of the discourse.Hyland further discussed the way of analysing social context in studies of the first two groups.According to him,researchers typically examine the context of academic discourse using three approaches,namely sociology of science,sociohistorical and ethnographic approaches.Each approach focuses on a different level of context,with the sociology of science approach concerning features of the whole academic or disciplinary community,sociohistorical approaches concerning the origin and development of the conventions used a particular community over time,and ethnographic approaches examining the immediate context,which individuals socialize into gradually or be an expert member in.
Following the sociology of science approach,this study examines the features of disciplinary communities,with a focus on the differences between communities of the same discipline located in different cultural context(i.e.local disciplinary communities).The characteristics of local disciplinary communities(i.e.epistemological tradition and social context)are compared in the hope of shedding light on the differences identified in genre practices between the communities.Relevant studies contrasting Chinese and Western epistemology and the social aspects of local academic communities are reviewed in order to explore the reasons underlying the differences in genre practices.