03 Interaction with practical applications in Rhetoric of Science
Last updated
Last updated
Thinking about your introduction is often times a good way to get started with writing your research article. Drafting your Introduction section forces you to formulate the key points in the paper, such as the topic, problem, purpose, research questions and/or hypothesis, etc. As such, it gives you a better idea of the possible scope and angle of your paper. In this chapter, we give a short overview of the Introduction section. When analyzing the Introduction, we will be following the principles of rhetorical analysis introduced in the previous chapter.
What does the introduction section do?
The main of function of the Introduction section is to attract readers’ attention and to give them an idea of what your research is about. Introduction section helps you to frame your research, giving your audience information about the topic, theoretical background, and the scope of your paper.
The IMRaD model of Research Articles is often portrayed as an hourglass (see Figure 1), i.e. it depicts the Introduction section as starting out broad and ending narrow. This reflects the breadth of focus in the Introduction section. In the Anglo-American tradition, introductions start out by positioning the present research in a global context, informing the reader about the topic and its centrality, and its importance to a specific discipline or the society. In course of the Introduction section, the focus gets narrower as the reader is introduced a specific angle of the study, the aim of the paper, and research questions and/or hypotheses.
Introduction sections of research articles written in English often follow the so-called Creating a Research Space (CARS) Model and include the following moves and steps (Swales, 1990).
The Rhetorical Moves in Introductions (Swales, 1990; Swales, 2014; Cortes, 2013)
Step 1 – Claiming centrality AND/OR Step 2 – Making topic generalizations AND/OR Step 3 – Reviewing items of previous research
Step 1A – Counterclaiming OR Step 1B – Indicating a gap OR Step 1C – Question-raising OR Step 1D – Continuing a tradition
Step 1A – Outlining purposes OR Step 1B – Announcing present research Step 2 – Announcing principal findings Step 3 – Indicating RA structure
Presenting research questions or hypotheses Definitional clarifications Summarizing methods Stating the value of the present research
This module provides an insight into how we integrate the reviewing of literature in our text, which, in some disciplines, you will refer to as the literature review section, and in other disciplines will just include as part of your introduction. This module does not approach the topic of literature review as the systematic literature review article, which is presented here.
As in all the other parts of the article we discuss, the literature review also has a specific rhetorical structure, which can generally be broken down into 4 moves (Harris, 2016):
Coming to terms: This move generally states the process where you get to know the content, concepts and issues, which is primarily achieved by summarising the literature, paraphrasing the literature, quoting the literature, and writing a description of the literature.
Forwarding: In this move, writers generally recirculate (coming back to the point of the literature being reviewed), repurpose (giving the literature a purpose or direction), or use source texts as a means for citing. For example, using an author as authority to promote an argument.
Countering: In this move, the author generally aims to think differently about a text or author being described and/or add to the conversation or propose a new direction.
Taking an approach: In the final move, the author can adopt the approach of another author or uses another author’s approach as a stepping-stone to a new perspective. This could be a different perspective. This move generally requires a deeper understanding of the literature in order to apply an innovative perspective (for the article).
These moves are flexible and depend on where they are used and what the main aim is of the literature you’re describing, but generally, we can classify our literature to fall into the function of one, some or all of these moves. It’s important to consider which literature you wish to use to make those specific moves.
What makes literature reviews challenging is that in addition to the moves, we need to convey our own (research) values and beliefs. In other words, we need to move beyond the telling of knowledge (through literature) to transforming and crafting knowledge to our readers.
We often refer to the VALUE of our research, and this is where it needs to be most clearly presented. We can often determine the value of our research when we clearly write to an audience and answer questions such as, what do they know, what don’t they know, what can I tell them which is of value, how can I make them see that it’s valuable, what can I use to do that, etc (see slides for more guiding questions).
The other challenge is that everything we write is CONTESTED and DEBATABLE. As such, you need to find your own authorial stance. In addition, you need to make sure that you make knowledge explicit where necessary. As literature reviews often rely on layers and layers of previous references, our text becomes very intertextually heavy. This basically refers to the implicit and explicit references to other texts, concepts, ideas and metaphors (Bazerman, 2004). For example, certain facts you state in your introduction may be implicit knowledge for some, but not for others. As such, you can use references to make your text less intertextually heavy or more explicitly understandable.
