5.3.2 Possible Explanations(RQ2)
The analysis follows the contextual approach to discourse analysis described by Hyland(2009).As mentioned above,Hyland proposes that contextual analysis of discourse may draw on sociology of science,sociohistorical studies or findings of ethnographic investigations to understand the features of a whole scientific community,a disciplinary community or the immediate institutional context of the texts under examination.In order to understand the differences in genre practices identified among students in three local Applied Linguistics communities,the present study examines the features of the academic community(i.e.epistemological and social traditions)and their variations across different cultural groups.
5.3.2.1 The Epistemological Perspective
The differences in genre practices among the three local communities were accounted for by referring to the epistemological traditions.The Chinese Applied Linguistics community is under the influence of the Chinese epistemological tradition while the New Zealand and American Applied Linguistic community,which both adopted European ways of thinking,are under the influence of the Western epistemological tradition.In the Introduction section of this chapter,I reviewed two fundamental concerns of epistemology,namely the nature of knowledge and the way of obtaining knowledge in the Chinese and Western epistemology traditions.Since the aim of scientific inquiries is to produce new knowledge(Schickore,2014),doing research is unavoidably related to the nature of knowledge and the way of obtaining it.The genre conventions of Master’s Theses,which report the process and findings of a scientific inquiry,are under the influence of the epistemological stance taken by each local community.
The findings of the present study show that the move of Establishing a Theoretical Framework occurred in the majority of the opening sections in the three sub-corpora(CN:30/30;NZ:29/30;US:20/30).The frequent occurrence of the move in three local communities is related to their similar views on the nature of knowledge.In both Chinese and Western epistemological traditions,knowledge is considered as the principles underlying everyday phenomena(Rošker,2010;Wolenski,2004).Therefore,although scientific inquiries may start with observing phenomena(following the empiricist tradition)or using empirical evidence to verify a scholarly belief(following the rationalism tradition),the purpose of scientific inquiry,especially in social sciences and humanities,is mainly to uncover the underlying principles through observing phenomena.The underlying principles,which can be about relations between abstracted constructs such as a cause-effect relation or a mere correlation,could be seen as the theoretical framework of research,and that is exactly the communicative function that thesis writers trying to achieve in their Theoretical Framework move.
In the corpus,Move 3 is typically realised by reviewing definitions of key constructs and related theories.In other words,the writers define the constructs based on existing definitions,and then show possible relationships between constructs reported in existing theories.Whether a study belongs to the school of empiricism(following the induction approach to generate a posteriori knowledge)or rationalism(following the deduction approach by relying on a priori knowledge)does not influence the use of Move 3 because both schools hold the same view on the nature of knowledge.If a study makes theoretical contributions in some way,either by induction or deduction,the researcher would define key constructs and discuss relationships within the opening section,though,in the case of induction,theoretical frameworks are not raised until the Discussion section.In sum,since all three communities hold the view that the ultimate goal of scientific enquiry is to uncover principles underlying phenomena in order to contribute to our theoretical understanding of the world,the move of Establishing a Theoretical Framework occurs in all three sub-corpora.
Although the move has been widely used in all three local disciplinary communities,a statistically significant difference in the standardized length of Move 3 was revealed among the three communities.As reported above,the Chinese students in this study used larger proportion of their opening section establishing their theoretical framework than American students.Meanwhile,American students use a statistically significant larger proportion of their opening section reviewing previous empirical studies.Overall,it seems that Chinese students pay more attention in their writing to theories while American students use larger proportion of their opening sections reviewing empirical studies.New Zealand is in between,that is,New Zealand students employ longer Move 3 than American students and shorter than Chinese,while their Move 2 is longer than Chinese students and shorter than American.
The difference between Chinese and American students might be related to the justified view of knowledge in the Western epistemological tradition,that is,knowledge in the Western tradition are true beliefs with adequate justifications(evidence)whereas in the Chinese tradition,justification is not emphasized.Since empirical studies provide evidence which might be useful to back up knowledge claims and justification is very important in the Western tradition,it is possible that American students reviewed more empirical studies for the purpose of justification.In any case,it seems that epistemology alone could not account for the complexity of the variation.I will draw on Sociology of Science in an attempt to unravel the knot of variations in the focus of the opening sections.
Before shifting to the sociological perspective,there is another difference that might be accounted for from the epistemological perspective,that is,why the majority of American and New Zealand students reported research method when both reviewing other people’s research(Move 2B)and presenting their own(Move 4),while many students in China did not give much detail about the research method.This difference,as mentioned above,might have contributed to the significant difference in length of Move 2B and 4 among the local communities.According to the studies reviewed in the Introduction section,the way of obtaining knowledge is different in Chinese and Western epistemology.For Chinese philosophers,knowledge(in the form of li and dao)can be acquired through secluded meditation(Rošker,2014)and intuition(Chang,1954),whereas for Western philosophers,knowledge(justified true belief)are mainly obtained through observation and reasoning(Rošker,2010).There is hardly any systematic method for meditation or intuition,but observation and reasoning(such as logic and mathematics reasoning)can be conducted in a systematic way.The method of obtaining knowledge in Chinese epistemology is not as clearly articulated in a systematic manner as in the Western tradition.It is possible that though people in the Chinese Applied Linguistics community take on the systematic method of observation and reasoning in their research,the traditional Chinese epistemology still exerts influence on their way of thinking and makes them pay less attention to the research methods when reviewing other people’s study or introducing their own.
5.3.2.2 The Social Perspective
The social context of local disciplinary communities is also examined in order to look for explanations for community variation in genre practices.It seems that social features of the communities are particularly related to the variation found in Move 2B Providing Empirical Rationales,which is a move of social nature in the sense that it is used to attract attention from the community by associating the author’s own study with others’in the field.
According to the studies reviewed in the Introduction section,seeking a scholarly reputation is a primary motivation for academics to do research,and academic writing plays a vital part in achieving the goal(Becher &Trowler,2001;Hermanowicz,2012).Through referencing others’research and attracting attention from the peer group,writers make epistemological and social preparations for the community to accept their study(Hyland,2004).Providing Empirical Rationales is typically realised by referencing and commenting on previous studies.Although all other moves in the opening section are also heavily loaded with citations,the references made in the Empirical Rationales move are intended to associate the present study with similar studies in the field and/or draw readers’attention to the contribution that the study makes to the community,while the references in other moves such as Providing Practical Rationales or Establishing Theoretical Frameworks may focus on describing a real-world problem,or laying epistemological foundations.Therefore,the Empirical Rationales move could be seen as an effort of the author to engage with and call for recognition from his/her disciplinary community.It stems from the need of researchers for recognition and scholarly reputation in the academic community.
In spite of the fact that American and New Zealand students give more details such as methodology than Chinese students,which may have contributed to the significant difference in the Move revealed in statistical tests,it is undeniable that students in China pay less attention to associating their study with others’in the field and/or asserting empirical contributions than their peers in America and New Zealand.It may be related to the fact that Chinese academics are less involved in scholarly socialization and cooperative activities as revealed in Teichler,Arimoto and Cummings’study(2013)on the publication behaviours of academics in 19 countries and regions,including those in China and America.This tendency of academics may have influenced Master’s students in the community and their writing conventions.
But certainly the reasons underlying the formation and development of a community’s writing conventions are complex and the variations can be hardly explained from one single perspective.For example,the reason that Chinese academics are less involved in socialization and cooperation activities might derive from the Chinese epistemological tradition of obtaining knowledge by secluded meditation(Chang,1954;Rošker,2014).In other words,traditionally Chinese scholars hold the belief that knowledge is acquired by pondering by oneself rather than working with others.It seems that the epistemological and sociological factors are inter-related and together contribute to the variation that I observed in the present study.This is simply an attempt to interpret the findings from certain perspectives.The discussion in the section is hardly comprehensive,but I hope that by associating the phenomena observed in the present study with epistemological and social phenomena can provide some insights into why communities located in different cultures have different academic writing conventions,showing that the differences exist for a reason and that people from different local communities should adopt an open attitude towards the differences in others’writing.After all,successful intercultural communication requires mutual understanding rather than efforts from only one party(Byram,1997).