38 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 42, NO.

1, MARCH 1999

Writing Research Article

Introductions in Software
Engineering:
How Accurate is a Standard Model?
—LAURENCE ANTHONY
Abstract—In this paper, a standard model for describing the structure
of research article introductions, the CARS model, is evaluated in terms
of how well it can be applied to 12 articles which have received “Best
Paper” awards in the field of software engineering. Results indicate
that although the model adequately describes the main framework of
the introductions, a number of important features are not accounted
for, in particular, an extensive review of background literature, the
inclusion of many definitions and examples, and an evaluation of the
research in terms of application or novelty of the results.

Index Terms—Engineering, genre, pedagogy, software.

Manuscript received March 30, 1998;
revised August 7, 1998.
This work is a substantially revised
version of a paper published in the
conference proceedings of
The Japan Conference on English
for Specific Purposes, 1997.
The author is with the
Department of Information
and Computer Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering,
Okayama University of Science,
1-1 Ridai-cho, Okayama 700-0005,
Japan
(e-mail: anthony@ice.ous.ac.jp).
IEEE PII S 0361-1434(99)01808-1.
0361–1434/99$10.00  1999 IEEE
T HE research article (RA) or
paper is one of the most impor-
tant genres that both scientists
and engineers will write [1], [2].
Successful publication of research
findings can lead not only to an
enhanced reputation, but also
peer acceptance, professional ad-
vancement, research grants, and
so on [3]–[5]. It is not surpris-
ing therefore, that journals such
as the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION fea-
ture work covering all aspects
of the RA, from approaches to
writing and techniques to improve
clarity, to key elements in the dif-
ferent RA sections and strategies
to improve chances of publication
[3], [6]–[9]. In the field of genre
analysis, a subdiscipline of English
Language Teaching (ELT) and ap-
plied linguistics, a separate body
of work has also focused on the
RA. Here, corpus-based studies
have revealed preferred ways to
use tense [10], citation patterns
[11], authorial comment [12], and
voice [13], and an analysis of RAs
at the discourse level has led to
general models for the structure of
the various sections of the RA [5],
[14]–[16].
One important question that has
yet to be answered, however, is to
what extent such generalizations
can be made about the writing of
research articles. In other words,
how well do the general descrip-
tions of RAs accurately account for
the writing in a specific discipline?
Harmon, for example, concedes
that “for just about any character-
istic one might ascribe to the struc-
ture in scientific and engineering
papers, numerous counterexam-
ples can be cited” [8, p. 132]. In
this paper, an attempt is made
to answer the above question by
assessing how accurately Swales’
Create a Research Space (CARS)
model [5, p. 141] for the structure
of RA introductions accounts for
the features of writing in a corpus
ANTHONY: WRITING RESEARCH ARTICLE INTRODUCTIONS IN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
of 12 RAs in software engineering
(see Fig. 1).
The CARS model was chosen for
a number of reasons. First, the
model has been through several
revisions since its conception in
1981 [17], incorporating the find-
ings of Cooper [18], who applied
it in electrical and electronic en-
gineering, and Crookes [19], who
applied it in both the “hard” and
“social” sciences. As such, the
model can be considered one of
the stronger descriptions of text
structure to date. Second, the
model is widely referred to in the
field of ELT, and its acceptance
is reflected in the number of text-
books on writing which directly
quote it or whose accounts have
been strongly influenced by it,
e.g., [14], [20]. Finally, as one
of the major pioneers of genre
analysis, Swales’ research into
the structure of RA introductions
illustrates many of the concepts
and techniques used in the field
as a whole.
RESEARCH DESIGN
Selection of Corpus In previ-
ous genre studies of this type,
a general picture of text struc-
ture has been obtained using a
large corpus of articles from a
wide range of disciplines. Unfor-
tunately, this selection procedure
Fig. 1. Swales’ CARS model.
not only limits the time that can be
given to individual texts, but also
tends to render the corpus size
for a particular discipline rather
small. For example, in Swales’
1981 study, a corpus of 48 articles
from 14 different fields was used,
an average of only 3.4 articles
per discipline; and in Crookes’
1986 study, 96 articles from 12
different disciplines were selected,
an average of still only 8 per dis-
cipline [17], [19]. In view of this,
here a more detailed study of 12
articles from a single, high-profile
journal in software engineering
was undertaken. The journal cho-
sen was the IEEE TRANSACTIONS
ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, one
of the most influential journals
in software engineering, with a
monthly distribution of over 11
thousand copies to institutions
and individual subscribers [21].
Although all articles appearing in
such a prestigious journal are of
very high quality, a large num-
ber of submissions are made by
nonnative speakers of English
and so the possibility of errors
in English remains [18]. Distin-
guishing between the writing of
native and nonnative speakers,
however, can be difficult even with
the journal supplying biographic
data on the authors. Here, to
reduce the potential problems
of analyzing nonnative speaker
writing, 12 full paper articles from
a total of 22 which had received
“Best Paper” awards in 1996 were
selected from the journal. (Due to
time restrictions ten “Best Papers”
in the area of computer security
were excluded from the study). Al-
though the criteria for the awards
are not stated explicitly in the
journal, the editors indicate that
the articles were evaluated more
in terms of their significance than
writing style. Nevertheless, all the
papers had to go through two
rigorous review processes where
errors in English would be checked
by up to six reviewers and editors,
and in at least one case reviewers
suggested changes to the struc-
ture of the paper [22]. Authorship
39
details of the corpus articles are
summarized in Table I.
Analysis and Validation of Re-
sults First, using the descriptions
offered by Swales [5], the corpus
articles were analyzed, and indi-
vidual sentences were classified
into an appropriate step of the
CARS model. Sentences that could
be classified into more than one
step, those that were unclear, and
those that did not fit the model
were noted. Of course, one of the
major problems in doing an analy-
sis of this type is the subjectivity of
the interpretations made. Indeed,
Crookes [19] is highly critical of
Swales and many others’ works
in this regard, and Swales himself
describes the labeling of an earlier
version of the CARS model as
“unsubstantiated and ill-defined”
[17, p. 14].
To ensure the validity of the in-
terpretations made here, after
the initial analysis was complete,
the results were discussed with
four specialists in software en-
gineering, a technique used by
Selinker [23], Tarone et al. [13],
and others [2], [18]. The insights of
the informants were gained during
a series of recorded interviews
lasting from two to four hours
and later communication via e-
mail. In addition to covering the
problem sentences noted above,
the specialists were also asked
about their own views on writing
RA introductions and the nature
TABLE I
AUTHORSHIP DETAILS
40
of writing in software engineer-
ing in general. One cautionary
note should be made however; as
Swales points out,
Although Selinker (personal
communication) is clearly
right to point out that without
specialist informants genre
analysts are in danger of
‘not knowing what they don’t
know,’ over-reliance on spe-
cialist informants may invite
the opposite danger of ana-
lysts believing all that they
hear [5, p. 129].
To avoid this, four specialists rather
than one were interviewed, giving
the researcher a broader scope
on which to make judgements,
and they were not informed of
the others’ responses. This was to
reduce the so-called “halo effect”
[24], when informant responses
are biased by what they think
the interviewer wants to hear or
what they think the correct answer
should be. For further discussion
on the use of the interview tech-
nique see [25], [26].
RESULTS
Clarification of Step Descrip-
tions in the CARS Model During
the first stage of analysis, it was
found that many sentences could
be classified into more that one
step of the CARS model. The prob-
lem was mainly due to the am-
biguous descriptions of the steps
offered by Swales [5]. For example,
Step 1-2 in the model is said to
include statements about “the cur-
rent state of the art,” “phenomena”
in the field, and “current require-
ments for further progress” [5, p.
146]. The last type here, however,
clearly overlaps with statements
in Step 2-1D, which are said to
establish a niche by expressing
the “needs/desires/interests” of
the field [5, p. 156]. Based on
these definitions, the following
statements from the corpus could
be classified into either step.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 42, NO. 1, MARCH 1999
A software requirements specifi- value of the research and how it
cation should be a comprehen- extends previous results. Finally,
sive statement of a software sys- the original Step 3-3 was renamed
tem’s intended behavior. (Intro. Step 3-4 and includes only state-
1.1, line 1) ments about the remaining RA
Before developers of certifiably structure.
safe software can take advan-
tage of the concurrent and real- The modified version of the CARS
time constructs of Ada, rigorous model used in the analysis here is
analysis techniques to analyze presented in Fig. 2. It should be
their timing properties must be noted that apart from the addi-
developed. (Intro. 2.2, line 14) tional evaluation step, it is almost
identical to the original model. The
To distinguish between these steps, only other change made was the
it would seem necessary to also addition of the “and” condition
consider the location of the state- in Move 2 and 3 Step 1s, as it
ments in the text with those ap- was anticipated that more than
pearing prior to a review of liter- one type of step could be used
ature (Step 1-3) classified as Step at a particular place. The issue
1-2, and those appearing after may be raised that presenting a
the review classified as Step 2- modified version is unnecessary
1D [27]. Similarly, it was difficult and that the evaluation step can
to distinguish between Step 3- be incorporated into Step 3-2.
1B, which is said to describe “the Indeed, this is possible, but I hope
main features of the research,” and the analysis here will show that
the Step 3-2 option “announcing in software engineering at least,
principle findings” [5, p. 159]. It it is beneficial to consider it as a
was decided, therefore, to classify separate step.
only general statements about how
or what was done into Step 3- Move Structure and Occurrence
1B, and specific statements about of Steps Based on the Modified
research method, descriptions of CARS model, the corpus article
tools or techniques developed, introductions were analyzed and
and/or specific results into Step shown to have the move structure
3-2. given in Table II, and occurrence of
steps shown in Table III. As can be
Other problems were found in the
description of Move 3 steps. Swales Fig. 2. The “Modified” CARS model.
describes Step 3-3, for example, as
including “in varying degrees of de-
tail the structure—and occasion-
ally the content—of the remainder
of the RA” [5, p. 161]. To detail the
content of the RA, however, would
naturally include details of results,
thus merging with the purpose
of Step 3-2. The description is
complicated further if Swales’ 1994
account is considered [28]. In this
study, two further possibilities are
mentioned, i.e., a statement about
secondary findings and statements
about the value of the research
[28, p. 192]. To deal with these
problems, statements about sec-
ondary findings were included in
Step 3-2, and a new “Evaluation of
Research” step was created, which
included statements about the
ANTHONY: WRITING RESEARCH ARTICLE INTRODUCTIONS IN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 41

seen from the tables, each corpus
introduction exhibits all the moves
described in the proposed model,
supporting the general framework
offered by Swales [5]. In the inter-
views, the software engineers were
also asked to comment on what
they would include in an article
introduction. Their responses are
summarized in Table IV. Again,
there is close agreement with both
the corpus introductions and the
Modified CARS model.
From Table III, however, we see
that the occurrence of steps in
the introductions is less consis-
tent with Swales’ [5] model. For
example, although steps 1-3, 3-
1B, and 3-3 are obligatory, steps
2-1A and 2-1C are redundant,
and steps 1-1, 2-1D, and 3-1A
occur in only half or less of the
introductions. Swales comments
that the occurrence of steps will
be discipline-dependent, stating
that the hard sciences will show
a preference for using steps 2-
1B and 2-1D over steps 2-1A and
2-1C, which are more common
in education, management, and
linguistics. Results here support
this view but suggest that vari-
ations in step occurrence among
different disciplines may be greater
than originally thought. They also
suggest that even within a single
field such as engineering, there
may be considerable variations
between its associated subdisci-
plines. Cooper [18], for example,
found that electrical and elec-
tronic engineering articles showed
few examples of Step 1-3, with
the number of citations in the
introductions and articles as a
whole averaging only 7.6 and 17.6,
respectively. Here, the occurrence

TABLE II
MOVE STRUCTURE IN CORPUS ARTICLE INTRODUCTIONS

TABLE III
STEP OCCURRENCE IN CORPUS ARTICLE INTRODUCTIONS
42
of Step 1-3 statements is far more
extensive, with the average num-
ber of citations almost doubling
to 14.6 and 42.9, respectively. For
example,
Jaffe, in his dissertation, defined
a rigorous basis for [21]. (Intro.
1.1, line 7)
In work related to ours, Gerhart
et al. [8] have put forth a set of
criteria for evaluating (Intro.
1.2, line 18)
The results are also in contrast
with other views on engineering
writing. For example, although
Pierson et al. [6] recommend that
writers do not include a summary
of the remaining RA structure
(Step 3-4), in the introductions
here almost all of the authors
chose this option. Interestingly,
Cooper [18] also found a high
occurrence of Step 3-4 statements
in electrical and electronic engi-
neering RAs. She explains that
this is because they do not follow
the standard IMRD (Introduction–
Method–Results–Conclusion) pat-
tern or any other discernible pat-
tern. The same appears true here:
SPECIALISTS’ VIEWS
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 42, NO. 1, MARCH 1999
the only sections common to all
the articles are the introduction
and the conclusion. However, to
investigate this further, the corpus
article authors were contacted
directly via e-mail and asked why
they included the step. From five
that responded, two authors gave
reasons related to helping the
reader follow the structure of the
paper. On the other hand, three
said they include it almost as
a convention in all their article
introductions.
Cyclicity, Length of Moves, and
the “Preaching to Cannibals”
Phenomenon Although Swales
accepts the possibility of cycling
between different moves in the
CARS model, he goes on to de-
scribe introductions in engineering
as showing “brevity and linearity”
[5, p. 159]. Other authors too have
recommended that introductions
should be brief [29]. Looking at
Table II, however, we can see
that in software engineering at
least, the precise opposite is found.
The corpus introductions here
are surprisingly long, varying in
length from 591 to 1479 words,
TABLE IV
ON THECONTENT OF ARTICLE INTRODUCTIONS
an average of over 1000 words.
They are also significantly longer
than those of other engineering
disciplines [18]. In addition, the
corpus introductions show a large
amount of cycling. For example, in
Intros. 2.1 and 2.2 there are four
cycles of Move 1 and 2 steps before
the aims of the research are finally
stated, and in Intro. 1.1, the total
number of cycles increases to 12.
For example, the following are the
opening sentences to Intro. 1.1.
A software requirements specifica-
tion should be (Move 1)
Unfortunately, requirements spec-
ifications are often incomplete
(Move 2)
We know that many serious con-
ceptual errors are (Move 1)
Therefore, it is important to
(Move 2)
Previously, we defined formal cri-
teria for (Move 1)
Comparing the length of individual
moves and steps, on the whole
Move 3 is the longest followed
by Move 1 and then Move 2 (see
Table V). From the table, we can
ANTHONY: WRITING RESEARCH ARTICLE INTRODUCTIONS IN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
see that in Move 1 a great deal
of time is spent making general-
izations about the field (Step 1-
2) and/or summarizing previous
research (Step 1-3) (see above).
Again, this contradicts the views
of many authors who state that
there should only be a brief review
of literature in the introduction
[8], [30], [31]. When the special-
ists were asked why so much
background and previous liter-
ature were covered in software
engineering article introductions,
they explained that many readers
would be unfamiliar with much of
the terminology and background
necessary to understand the re-
search. This is because not only
software engineers, but engineers
from a wide range of disciplines
will subscribe to the journal in
order to acquire results which can
be used to solve their own par-
ticular problems. This profoundly
affects the writing of the articles.
For example, when the specialists
were asked to describe their own
writing, the following comments
were made:
“I try to explain things in a simple
way so that anyone who has a
LENGTH
bachelors degree can almost get
some idea of what I’m trying to do
in the paper.”
“When you write a journal paper
you have to be very careful that
even a naı̈ve person, that means
who is not very familiar with your
work, will be able to read that
journal paper and understand
what [you’re] trying to say.”
“I regard [article writing] as a
kind of ‘preaching to the canni-
bals’.”
Clearly, this “preaching to the
cannibals” phenomenon is an im-
portant consideration for the soft-
ware engineer when writing RA
introductions. We see this in the
way the author gives detailed back-
ground information in the form
of topic generalizations and sum-
maries of previous research piece
by piece, commenting on its prob-
lems or gaps, and relating it to
the aims of the present research.
Hence, there is extensive use of
Move 1–Move 2 cycles, and even
cycles involving a Move 3, where
the aims of the research are first
presented in very general terms,
but then as the introduction pro-
TABLE V
OF STEPS IN THECORPUS ARTICLE INTRODUCTIONS
43
gresses, more specific statements
are made. For example, the fol-
lowing Move 3 cycles appeared in
Intro 3.2, lines 16–45:
However, in this paper, we focus
on SGSPNs (Move 3—Move 1/2
steps)
We consider analysis techniques
for a given SGSPN (Move 3—
Move 1 steps)
In this paper, we give a repre-
sentation of Q, but (Move 3—
Move 1/2 steps)
This problem is attacked and solved
in this paper (Move 3)
One more technique used by au-
thors is to include definitions of
important terms and examples
to illustrate difficult concepts.
Although there is no step in the
CARS model under which to clas-
sify these statements, they were
found extensively after Move 1
steps, and two introductions in-
cluded long examples to clarify the
research problem and approach
being used. For example,
internally complete, i.e., closed
with respect to statements (In-
44
tro. 1.1, line 7)
By module, we mean a single
procedure (Intro. 2.1, line 12)
scheduling algorithms/tech-
niques (e.g., rate monotonic sched-
uling) (Intro. 2.2, line 11)
Note, there were occasions when
citations appeared to be used
for the purpose of illustrating or
exemplifying a point in the text in
addition to their role of signaling a
Step 1-3, as the following example
shows,
The Arch style is more recent, and
has an associated metamodel [38].
(Intro. 1.3, line 5)
THE IMPORTANCE OF STEP 3-3
(EVALUATION OF RESEARCH)
Swales chose the labeling of moves
in the CARS model to reflect the
nature of introductions, that of
“persuading” the reader to accept
the research being presented [5],
[32]. As mentioned above, the per-
suasion is achieved to some extent
by cycling between statements
which establish the field (Move 1)
and those which indicate a gap or
extend previous findings (Move 2).
Results here, however, show that
one of the major sections of the
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 42, NO. 1, MARCH 1999
introduction where an appeal to
the audience is made is in Step
3-3, a possibility only hinted at by
Swales [27].
From Table III, it can be seen
that Step 3-3 appears in all the
corpus introductions, justifying
the creation of a new step in the
Modified CARS model. It is also
one of the longest steps in Move
3, accounting for almost one third
of the move and 14% of the intro-
duction as a whole (see Table V).
In this step, the present research
is evaluated, almost always pos-
itively, with respect to either or
both of the following criteria: 1)
the applicability of the research
and 2) the novelty of the research.
The first criterion is central in en-
gineering as one of the specialists
describes,
“[Engineers] want to know did you
build it, does it work, how long,
how fast is it, because they want
to use it they want to see some
proof of concept.”
Thus we see its appearance in all
but one of the corpus introduc-
tions, accounting for 58% of the
total length of Step 3-3 sentences.
For example,
One advantage of our algorithms is
that they let us analyze frequently
TABLE VI
OCCURRENCE OF STEP 3-3 EVALUATION TYPES
used software modules without
incurring the expense of completely
reanalyzing each calling program.
(Intro. 2.1, line 22)
Most designs are flawed, and Nit-
pick finds a counterexample—even
in a huge space—surprisingly fast.
(Intro. 2.3, line 26)
On-the-fly elimination can save a
significant amount of memory in
the generation process (Intro.
3.1, line 39)
The second option, although less
popular, appears in seven of the
12 introductions, and accounts
for 24% of Step 3-3 as a whole.
Here, the “novelty” is signaled in
terms of differences, uniqueness,
and “extension,” as the following
examples show.
Our work differs from that above in
that (Intro. 1.2, line 19)
Our algorithm is unique in that it
rests on a model of concurrency
that (Intro. 2.4, line 18)
This work extends that of [9] and
[11] in several ways (Intro. 2.2,
line 38)
One further possibility, accounting
for the remaining instances of Step
3-3, is for the author to discuss
the limitations of the research.
ANTHONY: WRITING RESEARCH ARTICLE INTRODUCTIONS IN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 45

Although this is rare in the cor-
pus, we do find three instances.
Interestingly, these are always
followed by a contrastive statement
signaling a more positive aspect of
the research (see Table VI). For
example,
We have not yet demonstrated that
all these goals are achievable
by this style. We have examined
several key properties and built
several diverse experimental sys-
tems, however. (Intro. 1.3, lines
15–16)
however, when a more detailed
description is required. The model
is first hampered by weak defi-
nitions of individual steps, and
because it has been developed
based on a wide variety of disci-
plines, many steps are redundant
or only rarely used, namely, steps
1-1, 2-1A, 2-1C, 2-1D, and 3-1A.
A more serious problem is the
absence of a separate “evaluation
of research” step in the original
model, which is shown here to be
not only obligatory, but a crucial
element in achieving the aims of
the introduction.
literature background are asked to
teach technical writing courses to
scientists and engineers. A related
problem is how both teachers and
students deal with texts that do
not fit the model. In current text-
books that use the CARS model,
there is rarely an opportunity to
deal with these problem cases, so
if at some point they are encoun-
tered, they are likely to be treated
simply as exceptions to the rule. Of
course, as the results here show,
the many exceptions to the rule
may in fact be standard practice
in a certain discipline.

CONCLUSION Ultimately, the CARS model is

The aim of this paper was to an-
swer the question: How well does
the CARS model accurately ac-
count for the writing of intro-
ductions in software engineering?
From the results above, we can
see that in terms of describing
the overall framework, the model
is very successful; only the clas-
sification of definitions and ex-
amples into an appropriate step
was missing. Problems emerge,
intended to be used as a pedagogic
tool in the classroom. If the limita-
tions of the model are understood,
then I feel it can be used effectively.
The danger, of course, is that many
teachers of technical writing, com-
ing from backgrounds unrelated to
the target discipline, will be unable
to correctly interpret the model
and inevitably use it “as is.” This
is common in Japan, for example,
where teachers with an English
In order to effectively interpret the
current descriptions of RA intro-
ductions, and indeed, all aspects of
the research article, it is important
that their range of applicability and
limitations are understood. This
can only be achieved by concen-
trating more on determining the
unique features of writing that are
found in different scientific and
engineering disciplines.

REFERENCES
[1] T. Dudley-Evans, “Genre analysis: An investigation of the introduction
and discussion sections of M.Sc. dissertations,” in Talking about Text:
Studies Presented to David Brazil on His Retirement (Discourse Analysis
Monograph no. 13), M. Coulthard, Ed. Birmingham, UK: English
Language Res., Univ. Birmingham, 1986.
[2] , “Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis for ESP. Advances
in Written Text Analysis,” in Advances in Written Text Analysis, M.
Coulthard, Ed. London and New York: Routledge, 1994.
[3] H. A. Estrin, “How to write for scientific and technical journals,” IEEE
Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. PC-25, pp. 32–33, 1982.
[4] S. Kushner, “Tackling the needs of foreign academic writers: A case
study,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 40, pp. 20–25, 1997.
[5] J. M. Swales, Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research
Settings. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990, p. 95.
[6] M. M. Pierson and B. L. Pierson, “Beginnings and endings: Keys to
better engineering technical writing,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol.
40, pp. 299–304, 1997.
[7] H. F. Lippincott, “Some tips for clear writing,” J. E. Harmon, “The
structure of scientific and engineering papers: A historical perspective,”
IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. PC-26, pp. 11–12, 1983.
[8] J. E. Harmon, “The structure of scientific and engineering papers: A
historical perspective,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 32, pp. 132–137,
1989.
[9] M. J. Charney and J. H. Williams, “From start to finish: Approaches
to introductions and conclusions in technical writing textbooks,” IEEE
Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 33, pp. 220–225, 1990.
46 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 42, NO. 1, MARCH 1999

[10] L. Malcolm, “What rules govern tense usage in scientific articles,”

English for Specific Purposes, vol. 6, pp. 31–44, 1987.
[11] S. Jacoby, “References to other researchers in literary research articles,”
ELR J., vol. 1, pp. 33–78, 1987.
[12] D. E. Adams-Smith, “Medical discourse: Aspects of author’s comment,”
The ESP J., vol. 3, pp. 25–36, 1984.
[13] E. Tarone, S. Dwyer, S. Gillete, and V. Icke, “On the use of the passive
in two astrophysics journal papers,” The ESP J., vol. 1, pp. 123–140,
1981.
[14] R. Weissberg and S. Buker, Writing Up Research: Experimental Research
Report Writing for Students of English. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall, 1990.
[15] S. Wood, “An examination of the rhetorical structures of authentic
chemistry texts,” Appl. Linguistics, vol. 3, pp. 121–143, 1982.
[16] A. Hopkins and T. Dudley-Evans, “A genre-based investigation of the
discussion sections in articles and dissertations,” English for Specific
Purposes, vol. 7, pp. 113–122, 1988.
[17] J. Swales, Aspects of Article Introductions. Birmingham, U.K.: Univ.
Aston, Language Studies Unit, 1981.
[18] C. Cooper, Aspects of Article Introductions in IEEE Publications, unpub-
lished M.Sc. dissertation, University of Aston, U.K., 1985.
[19] G. Crookes, “Toward a validated analysis of scientific text structure,”
Appl. Linguistics, vol. 7, pp. 57–70, 1986.
[20] T. N. Huckin and L. A. Olsen, Technical Writing and Professional
Communication for Nonnative Speakers of English. Singapore: McGraw-
Hill, 1991.
[21] Information for year end 1996, supplied by the Membership and
Circulation Marketing Manager, IEEE Trans. Software Eng.
[22] Personal communication with original authors of corpus research
articles.
[23] L. Selinker, “On the use of informants in discourse analysis and
‘language for specialized purposes,” Int. Rev. Appl. Linguistics, vol.
17, pp. 189–215, 1979.
[24] J. C. Richards, J. Platt, and H. Platt, Dictionary of Language Teaching
and Applied Linguistics. Harlow, U.K.: Longman, 1992.
[25] D. Nunan, Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992.
[26] M. Brooks, “In-depth interviewing as qualitative investigation,” in
Classroom Teachers and Classroom Research, D. T. Griffee and D.
Nunan, Eds. Tokyo, Japan: Japan Assoc. Language Teaching.
[27] Such an interpretation has since been supported by Swales (personal
communication).
[28] J. M. Swales and C. B. Feak, Academic Writing for Graduate Students.
Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. Michigan Press, 1994.
[29] J. F. Brown, Engineering Report Writing. Solana Beach, CA: United
Western, 1985, p. 13.
[30] R. A. Day, “How to write a scientific paper,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun.,
vol. PC-20, pp. 32–37, 1977.
[31] T. Brusaw, G. J. Alred, and W. E. Oliu, Handbook of Technical Writing.
New York: St. Martin’s, 1993.
[32] J. W. Gilsdorf, “Writing to persuade,” IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol.
PC-30, pp. 68–73, 1987.

Laurence Anthony is a Lecturer in the Department of Information and Computer

Engineering at Okayama University of Science, Japan. He received the M.A. degree
in TESL/TEFL from the University of Birmingham, U.K., and the B.S. degree in
mathematical physics from the University of Manchester Institute of Science and
Technology (UMIST), U.K. His primary research interests are in discourse analysis,
genre analysis, and corpus linguistics.