You are on page 1of 4

Yixuan Lin

Dr. P.J. Moore

EAP506

April 18th, 2017

Journal Article Analysis

An article, named Constructability improvement in seawater intake structure, is a peer-

review article published in Engineering, construction, and architectural management journal

in 2011 [1]. It was written by Erman Surya Bakti, Muhd Zaimi bin Abdul Majid, Rosli

Muhamad Zin, and Bambang Trigunarsyah [1].

The structure of this article, which includes six sections, is not really the same as the

IMRD structure pattern. It has the section of abstract, introduction, literature review, research

methodology, project description and background and conclusion [1]. Since this article talks

about the research of case study, authors already showed a lot of information of this article to

the readers in the abstract part [1]. For example, we can know about the purpose of this study,

the methods that authors used, findings, limitations and even the practical implication via

reading the abstract. The advantage of this kind of structure is not just can briefly and clearly

convey information of this research to the readers, which helps future researchers reduce the

work about summarizing the article, but also can help readers to remind after reading this

study. Therefore, this kind of article structure is more popular and acceptable for the case

study article in civil engineering so it can be as a guideline for my future research.

Rhetorical elements also can be found in this case study article. The object of study is the

constructability improvement, which includes reducing design rework, improving project

schedule, and establishing construction cost saving, in seawater intake structure [1]. The

purpose of this study, which can be found in the introduction part, is to explore the process

and analyze the implementation of constructability innovation at the project level during
planning and design phase that will be beneficial to the cost and schedule as well as the

project performance part. [1]. The exigence of this article was mentioned in two parts. First,

since the previous research just mentioned that designers and contractors have different

perspectives, they did not mention the potential benefits of improved constructability, which

this study focused on. Second, this study selected three cases, which are typical and valuable

and no one analyzes them before [1]. About the relevance of this article, this research is to

give an example and a guideline to readers and researchers to understand how to improve the

project performance and shows the benefit from documented lesson learned constructability

implementation to the designers and constructors [1]. The last element is connection of other

sources. Most of the verbs of in-text integrated citations in this article used simple past tense,

which indicates that the suggestion or suppose is already finished in the past or the theory that

authors cited is not right anymore [1]. Through analyzing these elements, it suggests that

even in case study article, the rhetorical elements are still significant and are the key points

that we should include. Also, the clearer rhetorical elements we write, the more satisfactory

the readers have. Every peer-review article should have clear content performance shown via

the elements. Using the rhetorical elements is the best way to reduce misunderstanding and

minimize the gap between readers and authors since everyone has different ideology and

knowledge. Therefore, when I begin to write an article, I will write about the goal of this

article first. By knowing what I want to present, I can write the outline with six rhetorical

elements. This is a better way for me to begin a research article.

There are five paragraphs in the introduction part. The first paragraph begins with a

sentence, Increasing..., which introduces background knowledge, belongs to Move 1b

according to Swales and Feak [2]. After that, authors wrote about constructability

improvement..., which is the object of study so that it belongs to Move 2 [2]. The last

sentence is about announcing the main findings via using ...thereby..., to show about the
implementation of constructability improves the schedule, which belongs to Move 3c [2].

About the second, third, and the fourth paragraph, authors mostly mentioned about the

backgrounds information by using various places and years, for example, In the US... and

in the 1980s..., which goes back to Move 1b [2]. For the fifth paragraph, author wrote about

However, ..., which is about the exigence and belongs to Move 2 [2]. It is easier to

conclude that majority of the introduction part is about the background information. Due to

this article is a case study research, authors do not need to worry a lot about how to attract

readers, which means this kind of article is written for the people that who are already in this

field and can get help from this study. The reason why authors mentioned a lot of background

knowledge is to make sure readers can easier to understand the following concepts. For my

future writing, if what I write is hard to understand or something that not close a lot with

what we have now, I should mention enough the background knowledge in case other readers

misunderstand and feel confused.

This article used APA format, which is different to other articles that using IEEE format,

suggests that the journal, Engineering, construction, and architectural management, demands

authors to use APA format to submit their articles. There are some graphics instead of data in

this article shows that in the case study research, creating visualization is also a key to

helping readers understand the concepts easier.

References

[1] E. S. Bakti, M. Z. b. A. Majid, R. M. Zin and B. Trigunarsyah, "Constructability

improvement in," Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 18, no.

6, pp. 595-608, 2011.


[2] J. M. Swales and C. B. Feak, Academic writing for graduate students : essential tasks and

skills, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2004.