Copyright Warning

Use of this thesis/dissertation/project is for the purpose of

private study or scholarly research only. Users must comply
with the Copyright Ordinance.

Anyone who consults this thesis/dissertation/project is

understood to recognise that its copyright rests with its
author and that no part of it may be reproduced without the
author’s prior written consent.
 A GENRE ANALYSIS OF
LITERATURE REVIEWS IN
DOCTORAL THESES

KWAN SIU CHU BECKY

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

AUGUST 2005
CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG
香港城市大學

A Genre Analysis of Literature Reviews in

Doctoral Theses
對於博士論文中文獻綜述之體裁分析

Submitted to
Department of English and Communication
英文與傳播學系
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
哲學博士學位

by

Kwan Siu Chu Becky

關小珠

August 2005
二零零五年八月
 i
Abstract

Research into thesis-writing began about a decade ago. However, theorizing and
research into the task of literature reviewing (LR) to date is still underdeveloped. The
two-part genre analysis presented in this thesis is an attempt to fill the theoretical and
research voids. The first part of the study is a textual analysis (also called the thin
analysis), which investigates the schematic pattern of LR chapters in doctoral theses
organized in the traditional format (i.e., Introduction – Literature review –
Methodology – Results – Discussion; abbreviated as ILrMRD). Based on the
assumption that LRs and Introductions in research writing share similar rhetorical
purposes—as alluded to in thesis instructional literature, the analysis employed, as a
starting analytical framework, the 3-move CARS model (Swales 1990) and especially
that posited for thesis introductions (Bunton 2001). The LR chapters analyzed are
drawn from 20 theses which were produced by a group of Chinese doctoral students
based in Hong Kong and cover a wide range of social science and humanity topics. It
was found that many of the LR chapters display an Introduction-Body-Conclusion
structure. The body segments of most chapters comprise thematic sections which
display highly cyclical move patterns that suggest the presence of the 3 moves and
their respective elements postulated in the CARS model. The occurrence of Move 1
and Move 2 is notably higher than that of Move 3. There is also a preponderance of
Move 1-2 pairing. Elements within each of the moves do not co-occur regularly.
When they do co-occur, they do not appear in any predictable order. Three new
elements (making confirmative claims, relevancy claiming and
abstracting-synthesizing theoretical frameworks /theoretical positions) were also
identified in some instances of Move 2. Taken together, the findings suggest that the
CARS scheme for introductions may not be entirely applicable to describe the patterns
found in the LR chapters. A revised model is thus postulated in the present thesis.

The second part of the study is a thick analysis of literature reviewing, which is a
response to the recent calls for extending genre inquiries to probe into various
processes of text production (Bhatia 1993, 2004; Brant 1990; Devitt 1993). It
examines how doctoral students select literature for reviewing (e.g., themes, specific
authors, specific sources and specific theoretical frameworks), which constitutes a
major step of constructing LRs. One of the aims of the thick analysis is study how
technical events such as the writing of LR and research activities implicate (construct)
the selection of readings. This aim of analysis is motivated by calls from research
writing theorists to deconstruct the demarcation view about reading, researching and
writing and to restore the nexus among the three activities in theorizing about research
writing. Part of the analysis is cognitive in its orientation and acknowledges doctoral
students’ agency in the selection of literature for reviewing. The study is
complemented by an examination of the social processes involved in reviewing. The
exploration has its theoretical underpinning derived from social constructivist theory
and in particular Lave and Wenger’s (1991) situated learning theory. It looks into how
students develop their cognition of ‘core literature’ for reading by taking into
consideration the social milieu in which doctoral students carry out their research
studies.
 ii

Stories of RS and RLR were collected from sixteen doctoral student informants. The
stories reveal that many of the informants developed their awareness of the key
literature while working on the other parts of their studies, which include the pilot
studies, data collection, data analysis and drafting of the literature review chapters for
major official documents such as the proposal, the qualifying report and the thesis.
Literature reviewing apparently served different purposes at various stages of their
study journeys. Most of the students began the task as reading to learn for their studies
(RS) through which they gained preliminary understanding about the research topics
regarding their research focuses, conceptual contours, methodological concerns
characteristic of the areas of study, and research design. Reading at this stage was the
least focused, which began to resolve at the commencement of various research
activities such as pilot studies, data collection and data analysis, in which some of the
students grew aware of their immaturely formulated hypotheses, inadequacies in the
adopted theoretical frameworks, or underdeveloped operational constructs.
Realization of the shortcomings made the students become more critical about their
own research and the literature they had reviewed, which at the same time steered the
students away from the core literature consulted earlier and moved them to embark on
new themes for reviewing.

Based on the recounted experiences provided by the student informants, the thesis
argues that reading during the initial and research stages of study is less directed at the
writing of LR. As the stories reveal, reading for the literature review chapter (RLR)
became most marked and most intensive when the students started writing their LRs
(WLR) usually during a time when institution-imposed deadlines of submission of
major qualifying documents approached. Their LR drafts provided ‘heuristic’ forms
that helped them identify gaps of information which guided reading for specific
details. RLR during the final stage of the study journeys, as commented by some of
the completing or graduated students, also served the purpose of updating citations in
the draft literature review.

The stories also show that knowledge of what to read was partly acquired from
experienced members in the fields of the students’ studies through guided
participation in various parts of the students’ research studies. These members were
primarily the students’ supervisors and occasionally panel members, who oversaw the
students’ progress. Many students reported obtaining reading lists from their
supervisors. Some recounted receiving instruction while discussing their research
progress or written outputs with their supervisors or panel members at various stages
of their studies. The stories suggest the importance of the students’ interim outputs as
springboards for RS and RLR supervision. Several informants provided accounts of
acquiring theoretical frameworks, crucial readings and key authors’ names for their
RS from extrinsic networks of experts (Kaufer & Geisler 1989) whom the students
met at conferences and seminars, during their participation in the supervisor’s Project
or during the experts’ scholarly visits to their departments. The accounts suggest that
peripheral participation in academic activities and establishing contacts with members
of the field of study plays a crucial role in facilitating students’ RS. As stories
 iii

provided by two of the informants also reveal, resorting to extrinsic networks can
sometimes be implicated by the mismatch between the supervisor’s expertise and the
subject matter of the student’s study.

The study offers rich insights into the complexity involved in literature reviewing as a
rhetorical textual product and a socio-cognitive process, from which pedagogical and
research implications can be drawn.
 iv
Acknowledgements

I am thankful to all those who have given me constant intellectual and moral support
throughout my doctoral journey. I must thank my supervisor Professor Bhatia for his
guidance over the years. The latitude he gave me to wander in the intellectual
‘wonderland’ had been most conducive to liberating part of my structuralist thinking.
His introduction to works on situated learning and in particular Lave and Wenger’s
(1991) classic volume has been one major reason for me to be able to move beyond
the cognitivist bound in conceiving genres and literacy practices.

I would also like to express my appreciation of Professor Flowerdew and Dr. Tsang
for their input at various stages of my thesis development. Professor Flowerdew’s
interest in my work and in particular the rhetorical structure for literature reviews
generated in this thesis has also been most encouraging.

Two other persons whom I would like to thank are my former colleagues Professor
Ron Scollon and Dr. Suzie Scollon. The references which they shared during my
involvement in their previous projects on identity claims in oral presentations had
started my curiosity about social construction and works by the Russian scholars
Bakhtin and Vygotsky, which have opened up a lot of my thinking about human
learning.

I am very grateful to those writers whose literature reviews I analyzed in the first part
of this thesis and particularly the informants who were involved in the second part of
the study. The stories they shared have been very illuminating and have formed useful
materials to construct my theoretical argument about the process of literature
reviewing.

I must also express my deepest gratitude to my late father, my mother, my sister

Dorothy, my brothers Eugene, Johnny, Enoch and John for their confidence in my
choice of the academic path. I also thank May Chan for her critical editorial comments
on the later drafts of this thesis.

Last but not least, I thank my Almighty God for seeing me through this humbling
process of thesis writing.
 v
Table of Contents

Abstract i
Acknowledgements iv
List of abbreviations ix

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Research into the postgraduate thesis 2

1.1.1 Needs analysis
1.1.2 Structural analysis
1.1.3 Studies of the thesis-writing process
1.1.4 Literature reviewing as a critical site of research

1.2 The notion of genre 7

1.2.1 The textual (product) view of genres in the EAP tradition
1.2.2 Genres as social processes
1.2.3 A product-process approach to the definition of LR

1.3 Some preliminary conceptual contours of literature reviewing 14

1.3.1 Forms
1.3.2 Rhetorical purposes
1.3.3 The processes

1.4 The site of study 26

1.5 Research questions and the structure of the thesis 30

1.5.1 Research questions
1.5.2 Structure of the Thesis

Chapter 2 A Review of the CARS Model

2.1 Swales’ CARS model 33

2.1.1 CARS in RAs published in Anglo-American journals
2.1.2 Contrastive studies of CARS
2.1.3 Studies of dissertation introductions
2.1.4 The validity of CARS

2.2 Coding strategies 50

2.2.1 Nomenclature and boundary demarcation
2.2.2 Over-coding
2.2.3 Implications for the study
 vi

Chapter 3 Methodology of the Thin Analysis

3.1 The semantic approach to text-coding 61

3.1.1 Terminology: participants, claims and processes
3.1.2 The semantic coding scheme

3.2 The functional approach to text-coding 86

3.3 Procedures of the thin Analysis 88

3.3.1 The corpus
3.3.2 Coding procedures

Chapter 4 Schematic Patterns of Literature Reviews

4.1 Chapter introductory and concluding texts 104

4.1.1 Introductory texts
4.1.2 Concluding texts

4.2 Thematic units and the CARS structure 109

4.3 Establishing a thematic territory as a starting move 112
4.3.1 Claiming centrality of the theme reviewed (Strategy 1.X)
4.3.2 Surveying existing knowledge claims (Strategy 1.Y)
4.3.3 Surveying existing research activities (Strategy 1.Z)
4.3.4 Distribution of Move 1 strategies

4.4 Niche-establishing 128

4.4.1 Negational strategies
4.4.2 Affirmative strategies
4.4.3 Distribution of Move 2 strategies

4.5 Occupying the niche 149

4.5.1 The three common strategies of Move 3
4.5.2 Distribution of Move 3 strategies

4.6 Coherence of move structures 156

4.6.1 Modular arrangement of move structures
4.6.2 Nested structures in higher order structures

4.7 Establishing theoretical frameworks 164

4.8 Schematic modeling 166

4.8.1 Knowledge claims surveyed
4.8.2 Postulation of schematic models for LRs
4.8.3 LRs and introductory chapters
 vii

Chapter 5 A cognitive and socio-cognitive approach to the study of

literature reviewing

5.1 RS, RLR and research processes 175

5.1.1 Postulating a reading-research-writing nexus
5.1.2 Implications for the study

5.2 Social construction of knowledge 183

5.2.1 The sociological dimension of knowledge-making
5.2.2 The social dimension of knowledge-making

5.3 Apprenticing and postgraduate academic literacy 198

5.3.1 Three forms of participation
5.3.2 Participation and postgraduate research literacy
5.3.3 Implications for the study

Chapter 6 Methodology for the thick analysis

6.1 Narrative inquiry 212

6.1.1 Stories and narratives
6.1.2 Obtaining stories
6.1.3 Quality of experience and the telling of it

6.2 Story collection 216

6.2.1 The informants
6.2.2 The interviews
6.2.3 LR artifacts provided for text-based interviews

6.3 Treatment of data 228

6.3.1 Transcription of interview data
6.3.2 Coding and analyzing the stories

Chapter 7 Accessing literature for RS and RLR

7.1 RS and situated learning 235

7.1.1 The points of entry: reading at the journey’s start
7.1.2 Guided participation in RS
7.1.3 Accessing theoretical frameworks
7.1.4 Strategic knowledge and LPP
 viii

7.2 Reading, researching and writing 274

7.2.1 Pilot studies and RS
7.2.2 RS, RLR and the data analysis proper
7.2.3 Refocusing
7.2.4 WLR as a micro guiding force for RLR
7.2.5 Reading for non-LR chapters

7.3 Exigencies of RS and RLR 309

Chapter 8 Conclusion

8.1 Some major contributions made to the understanding of LRs 316

8.1.1 The schematic pattern of LRs
8.1.2 Accessing literature for RS and RLR

8.2 Pedagogical implications 322

8.2.1 Negotiating RS and RLR
8.2.2 Writing the literature review chapter

8.3 Where to go from here 343

8.3.1 Text analysis
8.3.2 Process analysis
8.3.3 Other aspects of literature reviewing
8.3.4 Applying the theoretical groundwork

References 351

Appendices

Appendix I The semantic scheme for move/step-coding 360

Appendix IIA Interview Guide (Student Informants in the initial stage of study) 363
Appendix IIB Interview Guide (Student Informants in their middle stage of 366
study)
Appendix IIC Interview Guide (Completing/Graduated Student Informants) 369
Appendix IID Interview Guide (Supervisor informants) 372
 ix
List of abbreviations
DA Data analysis

GP Guided participation
LR Literature Review

ILrMRD The traditional thesis format which comprises the five sections of
Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Results and Discussion

LPP Legitimate peripheral participation

RLR Reading for the literature review chapter

RS Reading for the study

SC Social construction or social constructivism

SL Situated learning
WLR Writing of the literature review chapter
 1

Chapter 1 Introduction

With the rapidly-expanding population of students enrolled in doctoral programs

worldwide, the past two decades have seen an increased demand on training students

(both native and non-native speakers of English) in writing theses1. This demand can

be evidenced by the mushrooming of thesis-writing workshops at various universities

as well as the prolific growth in self-help literature instructing students how to survive

the ordeals in composing what might be the longest text that they need to produce in

their life time. The phenomenon has also galvanized several major communities such

as EAP, New Rhetoric and Higher Education into research that examines various

discursive aspects of the genre from different epistemic angles. This introductory

chapter will begin with a brief survey of the development of thesis research that is to

achieve three aims. First, it provides the reader with a broad-brush overview of the

spectrum of work conducted over the past two decades. Second, it introduces some

basic terminology regarding different types and structural patterns of theses that will

be referred to in the rest of the thesis. Third, it highlights one relatively under-

explored and yet critical site of research which this study aims to examine. The review

will be followed by a brief introduction to the theoretical and conceptual frameworks

that have informed the study and also a description of the location of the study

reported in this thesis. The chapter will conclude with a summary of the research

questions and the structure of the thesis.

1
The genre is generally referred to as the dissertation in the American context.
 2

1.1 Research into the postgraduate thesis

1.1.1 Needs analysis

The challenges which the thesis poses to graduate students (both native and non-

native speakers of English: NS and NNS) have resulted in one area of research that

investigated the needs of training in thesis-writing. One of the earlier studies was

conducted by Richards (1988) for the design of an EAP course in an American

university. In the UK, Torrance, Thomas and Robinson carried out a series of studies

that examined the difficulties faced by social science research students and the

strategies they employed in writing theses (see Torrance, Thomas & Robinson 1993;

Torrance & Thomas 1994). To follow up on the surveys, the team launched a series of

workshops in which students were trained in different types of writing strategies.

Locally and more recently, needs analysis was also performed by a team of

researchers at the language centre of the University of Hong Kong. The investigation

has led to the development of a series of writing workshops for the postgraduate

students of the university and an assessment profile to help writing consultants to

assess and diagnose problems in students’ writing (Allison, Cooley, Lewkowicz and

Nunan, 1998; Cooley & Lewkowicz 1995, 1997).

1.1.2 Structural analysis

Studies have also been done to identify the format of the genre as well as that of its

parts (i.e., part-genres). So far four major forms of thesis have been identified, which

are the ILrMRD format, the AC format, the TB format (Dong 1998; Dudley-Evans

1999) and the exegesis format (Hocking 2003). The ILrMRD format (Introduction-
 3

Literature Review-Methodology-Discussion) follows the traditional pattern, which

Dudley-Evans (1999) describes as a ‘blown up’ version of the research article. The

AC format (article compilation) consists of chapters each of which resembles a

publishable research paper containing its own introduction, methodology, results and

discussion sections. The TB (topic-based) thesis begins with a chapter headed

Introduction and ends with a chapter headed Conclusion. The chapters in between are

titled according to the topics and sub-topics of the writer’s investigation. Dudley-

Evans (1999) found that AC theses are more common (especially in ‘hard fields’) than

those following the ILrMRD format.

More recently, Hocking (2003) identified the exegesis as an emerging form of post-

graduate theses which art and design students in an Australia university produce to

accompany their visual art products. The exegesis carries two unique parts which

make it significantly different from the other three forms. One of the parts is the

methodology section. As one of Hocking’s thesis-supervisor informants explained, the

methodology section of the exegesis is where students document their

experimentation with the art form ‘in the realization of something physical… with

respect to perceived constraints or horizons’ (p.68), which is distinct from the

reporting of the research procedures, equipment, subjects, and materials found in most

other types of thesis. Another distinguishing part of the exegesis is the commentary

section, which is absent in the other three forms. The commentary section is one in

which students provide interpretation of the visual art products that they have

produced by drawing on the previous literature and historical narratives in the field.
 4

Different postulations about the choice of format have been asserted. Dong (1998), for

instance, attributed the adoption of the AC format to the publication strategy that an

increasing number of doctoral students now employ in paving their ways to secure

academic positions in universities upon graduation. As Dong noted, during their

studies, some students had already published or at least attempted to publish their

research in separate papers, which they compiled and turned into chapters of their

theses. Paltridge (2002) offered a different explanation and argued that the choice of

format is likely a result of the methodological and theoretical orientation of the thesis,

which somehow echoes Hocking’s (2003) position about the field-specific choice of

exegesis for the art and design thesis.

Structural analysis has also been performed on individual sections of the thesis.

Dudley-Evans (1986), for instance, analyzed the introductions of a group of

agricultural science theses and identified a complex 6-move structure in their

introductions. Hewings (1993) studied the conclusions in a group of MBA thesis texts

and identified two staged patterns in the corpus2. Bunton (1998, 2002) studied the

generic moves in the introductory chapters of doctoral theses and identified a 3-move

structure that bears close resemblance to that of the CARS model posited for

introductions in research articles (Swales 1990). (Bunton’s study will be elaborated

further in Chapter 2 where the CARS model is discussed.)

2
The two staged patterns are:
a) Report-Finding + Comment-Finding + (Report-Literature)
b) (Report-Literature) + Report-Finding + Suggest-World
 5

1.1.3 Studies of the thesis-writing process

While many studies focused on the textual properties of the genre, attention has also

been directed to how students negotiate the writing of it and how they are initiated

into the academic community through thesis-undertaking. Shaw (1991) interviewed a

group of doctoral students and probed into the strategies they employed and various

processes in which they were engaged when writing their theses. Belcher (1994)

documented how three doctoral students in a U.S. university struggled with their

thesis-writing and how their relations with their advisors as well as their supervisory

styles impacted their studies. Dong (1996) studied how supervisors of non-native

English-speaking doctoral students acculturated their students into the practice of

academic writing and in particular how to use citations for making new knowledge

claims in their thesis introductions. Examining how a group of doctoral students

negotiated disciplinarity in various academic activities in the sociology department of

a U.S. university, Prior (1998) showed that some parts of the students’ theses were

implicated by what went on in the activities, which suggests that thesis-writing is

partly a social construction process.

Turner (2003) documented how a Korean postgraduate negotiated the ‘doubleness’

inherent in the reconceptualization of rationality characteristic of the contemporary

humanities, and the emerging ‘enfolding’ rhetorical strategies which have come with

this paradigm shift, and which, as Turner argued, have impacted both the clarity and

accuracy of the student’s writing.

 6

1.1.4 Literature reviewing as a critical site of research

The body of research outlined above has contributed significantly to our

understanding of the genre and its overall composing process. Despite this fact,

research attention to other aspects of thesis-undertaking remains limited. One area

which has received particularly little attention is that of literature reviewing3. This

scanty attention is surprising given that literature reviewing constitutes one major

indispensable task in doctoral studies and has been documented as notoriously

difficult (see e.g., Shaw 1991; Cooley & Lewkowicz 1995, 1997; Meloy 2002; Swales

& Lindemann 2002). Meloy’s (2002) compilation of stories solicited from a group of

doctoral students provides glimpses of anxiety and frustration that the students

experienced while negotiating their literature reviewing. Illuminating as they may be,

the anecdotal quotes presented in Meloy’s volume do not seem to provide any

conclusion regarding the usual practice of literature reviewing as her work was not

intended as a principled examination of this aspect of thesis-making. The studies

conducted by Bruce and Tchigaeva are perhaps the closest to the arena of the present

inquiry. Bruce (1994) carried out a phenomenographic study of how students

understood the notion of literature review and found that in general it was conceived

to be both a product (a written report of the literature reviewed) and a process (a

reading and learning process through which one gains understanding of the topic and

insights to facilitate the research).

3
Research into literature reviewing has so far been limited to that found in research articles with a
heavy emphasis on the rhetorical and lexico-grammatical aspects of citation behaviour (see Swales and
Lindemann (2002)).
 7

Employing Engestrom’s (1987, 1999) activity theory as a theoretical lens, Tchigaeva

(2003) examined what an ESL doctoral student tried to achieve in the reading that he

did during the final stage of his study. Tchigaeva’s account shows that the student

consulted the literature to validate his own research results, to further develop new

ideas, and to learn from it as a model for his own English. Some of the goals, as

Tchigave points out, are thesis-related while others are related more to the macro

academic activity systems in which the student is engaged, including the system of

being enculturated into the target disciplinary community.

Though Bruce and Tchigaeva’s work represents a significant first step to the study of

literature reviewing, many crucial questions remain unanswered. For instance, how

are literature reviews (LRs) in theses organized rhetorically? Do they carry a recurrent

schematic pattern? How do students actually negotiate reading for their studies and

the review that forms one part of their theses? Such are some of the questions to be

addressed in this thesis (See Section 1.5.1 for a complete list of the research

questions), which is intended to be an analysis of LR as a part-genre. In the next

section, I will discuss several key theoretical assumptions about the notion of genre

that have informed the choice of the two macro focuses of the study.

1.2 The notion of genre

The history of genre can be traced back to the Aristotelian time and still stretches to

the present-day disciplines such as New Rhetoric, Composition Studies, Literary

Studies, Linguistics and Anthropology. Evolving from its early pursuits of

 8

classification of texts, genre studies in these disciplines have gone through several

epochs of theoretical shifts which at times have cross-fertilized synchronically and

diachronically, generating the current understanding of the construct of genre. In the

field of linguistics and its applied relatives, genres are pursued for various pedagogical

purposes. In Australia, for instance, as a result of the declining literacy of school

students, school and work-related genres have been accorded high priority on the

genrist’s research agenda, which is mostly under the influence of systematic

functional linguistics. A similar trend is also observed in the U.S. where EAP/ESP

(English for Academic Purposes/English for Specific Purposes) has developed into a

major discipline of its own that is also gaining momentum in other parts of the world.

EAP/ESP-related genre studies from across regions have proliferated and generated a

large body of empirical and pedagogical literature that describes various linguistic

(textual) aspects of a variety of genres that serve as models and references primarily

for non-native speakers of English (NNS). In the field of New Rhetoric, different

genres have also been studied but with a different orientation. Less so concerned with

the divide between native speakers and non-native speakers of English, research

conducted in this field focuses more on text production and the context in which the

production takes place, yielding different and yet complementary insights into the

textual as well as social dynamics of genres. In the upcoming sections, I will discuss

how genres are conceived in EAP/ESP and New Rhetoric studies, and in particular I

will highlight the research emphases pursued usually separately in the two fields. My

ultimate goal of doing so is to establish a nexus between what often appears to be

dichotomized conceptualizations of genre, which as I will argue is much needed in the

 9

present study that aims to bring insights into various facets of the part-genre of

literature review, which in turn can serve pedagogical ends.

1.2.1 The textual (product) view of genres in the EAP tradition

Common among most studies of genres in the EAP tradition is the understanding that

a genre refers to a class of spoken or written texts which share similar communicative

purposes and display regular textual patterns. The most often cited working definition

of genre is that proposed by Swales (1990):

A genre comprises a class of communicative events, the members of which share

some set of communicative purposes. These purposes are recognized by the expert
members of the parent discourse community, and thereby constitute the rationale for
the genre. This rationale shapes the schematic structure of the discourse and
influences and constrains choice of content and style. Communicative purpose is
both a privileged criterion and one that operates to keep the scope of a genre as here
conceived narrowly focused on comparable rhetorical action. In addition to purpose,
exemplars of a genre exhibit various patterns of similarity in terms of structure, style,
content and intended audience. If all high probability expectations are realized, the
exemplar will be viewed as prototypical by the parent discourse community. The
genre names inherited and produced by discourse communities and imported by
others constitute valuable ethnographic communication, but typically need further
validation. [parts italicized for highlighting purpose here] (p.58)

Swales’ definition points to four crucial criteria for defining a target genre, which are

communicative purposes (the rhetorical actions intended), choice of contents,

schematic structure (also understood as rhetorical movement) and linguistic style.

These characterizing dimensions and especially those of content and schematic

structure have been taken up as major objects of analysis in a wealth of studies (e.g.,

grant proposals: Connor & Mauranen 1999, Feng & Shi 2004; job advertisements:

Bhatia 1993; application letters: Henry & Rosberry 2001; direct mail letters: Upton

2002) and genre parts (e.g., introductions in research articles: Swales 1981, 1990;
 10

Nwogu 1997; Lewin, Fine & Young 2001; the conclusion section in theses: Hewings

1993; the discussion section in research articles: Peacock 2002).

1.2.2 Genres as social processes

Genres in the field of New Rhetoric studies are conceptualized somewhat differently.

Bazerman (1988) in his discussion of research texts argues that a genre is associated

with regularities which occur not only in texts but also at the production and

interpretation level. He explains that ‘these regularities encompass when and how one

would approach a test tube or a colleague, how one would go about reading a text, as

well as how one would draw a diagram or frame an argument’ (p.314). Devitt (1993)

proposes an extension of the notion to include the process of production, suggesting

that the product-based notion is limiting in that it is primarily reader-oriented. She

argues that this reorientation is particularly important if genre studies are to serve

pedagogical ends in which descriptive accounts of text production typical of a genre

are as much needed as accounts of forms and structures.

The process-oriented genre interpretation has its emphasis on the recurrent situation

and in particular the social milieu that shape the rhetorical response. Miller (1984)

sees that genres are more than just regular textual arrangement and forms. A genre is a

fusion of substance and arrangement, a speaker or writer’s socially active response to

‘a typified, recurrent social situation’. The social context, however, is not static and is

conceived as a constellation of different forces, some of which are apparent while

others are so naturalized that even insiders may not be able to articulate. Attention to
 11

social dynamics in studies of genre production is as important as that to the textual

patterns. Brandt (1990) criticizes the heavy emphasis on linguistic characterization of

literacy acts as one being oriented by a strong text view of genre and argues that it

limits our understanding of the situated moment-to-moment co-construction of

meaning by the reader and the writer. Illustrating her argument against the strong text

view, she comments on the text analyst’s over-concern with endophoric references

made through various textual and linguistic devices, missing the indexicality of the

text to the previous experience which the writer and the intended reader share:

Cohesion is another aspect of the shared history of writer and reader. It refers to
something that the two already have accomplished jointly by being involved with
something together. A cohesive device says “you know what I mean” or better “we
know what I mean”. It functions as an indexical expression of previous experience, of
previously accomplished understanding. It trades necessarily on writer-reader
involvement. It is a mark of intimacy, in Deborah Tannen’s words, “a metamessage
of rapport…(p.77)

To understand how a genre works and particularly how it is shaped by various social

forces, the genre analyst needs to go to people directly involved in it. Regarding this

social dimension of texts, Bhatia (1991) calls for genre inquiries of at least two levels:

The [first] is of more sociological concern, which makes it possible for the analyst to
understand how a particular genre defines, organizes and finally communicates social
reality. This aspect of genre analysis emphasizes that the text by itself is not a
complete object possessing meaning on its own; it is to be regarded as an ongoing
process of negotiation in the context of issues like social roles, group purposes,
professional and organizational preferences and prerequisites, and even cultural
constraints. An exhaustive knowledge of this sociological context is one of the main
contributors to what we referred to earlier as the thick description [italics in original]
of text. [The second level] concerns the psychological-cognitive or tactical aspect of
writing. This aspect reveals the cognitive insight answers to the oft-repeated question
why members of what sociologists call ‘secondary cultures’ write the way they do?
(p.154)

In his subsequent discussion of discourse in professional contexts, Bhatia (1994, 2004)

also stresses that the target textual product should not be the only focus of analysis.
 12

He specifically relates the notion of ‘discursive procedures’ and invokes several other

key notions such as ‘intertextuality’, ‘interdiscursivity’ and ‘multiple authorship’ as

significant features that need to be investigated. Bhatia explains that

Professional genres are often products of a set of established procedures that form an
important part of the disciplinary culture within a profession. A generic artifact often
acquires its typical identity as a result of a set of conventionalized discursive
practices…that professionals routinely engage in as a part of their daily work. Many
of these discursive practices have distinct stages, with identifiable inputs and outputs.
These discursive practices are often characterized by the involvement of more than
one participant, which, to a large extent, assigns multiple authorship to the result
artifact. This also gives the resultant document a distinctly rich intertextual and
interdiscursive patterning. (Bhatia 2004, p.129)

In short, there are calls for more context-sensitive approaches to the study of texts and

text processes which are often responses to the social, and in particular, the text-

external world (Mauranen 2001). Genre-specific composing and reading processes

together with the social forces that shape them have taken centre stage of many

rhetoric studies, which have generated invaluable thick descriptions (Geertz, 1973) of

a variety of genres (e.g., research articles, post-graduate seminar papers,

undergraduate essays, grant proposals, etc.). The body of research has generated

illuminating insights into how texts are constructed and how the construction is

implicated by various local dynamics, tensions, and concerns with representation of

identities, ethos and personae, which are as crucial as genre-specific linguistic

conventions in shaping the final form of a text (see e.g., Berkenkotter & Huckin 1995;

Ivanic 1994, 1998; Ivanic & Simpson 1992; Myers 1985, 1990; Prior 1998 cited

earlier) and which cannot be possibly revealed through textual analysis alone. Such

hidden dynamics make thick descriptions of genres all the more necessary to

complement (but not replace) textual characterization. (A review of representative

 13

works on how these various issues are involved in academic text production will be

further discussed in Chapter 5.)

1.2.3 A product-process approach to the definition of LR

The study carried out in this thesis takes a product-process view of the literature

review (LR) in the doctoral thesis as a part-genre. The first part of the study

investigates the propositional contents and schematic pattern of LRs in ILrMRD

theses with an aim to generate a schema—if proven to exist—that can reflect the

global-structure (van Dijk 1977) employed by doctoral students to construct materials

which they draw from existing literature. As the schematic pattern found in a text is

tied in with its global rhetorical goals, the type of organization I analyzed is that of the

rhetorical movement rather than a general informational structure. The analysis of

rhetorical movement is in line with the present line of existing studies of other parts of

the thesis (e.g., the introduction and the conclusion). Schematic structures identified in

this study can provide useful reference for students on how to organize and develop

arguments in their LRs. The pursuit of the move pattern in LRs is also motivated by

the length and extensive of discussions found in most LR chapters (see Section 1.3.1

for the definition of an LR chapter), which is a major challenge to the thesis analyst4

and one that this thesis intends to overcome. I call this part of the study a ‘thin’

analysis to differentiate it from the thick analysis conducted in the second part in

which I examine how students negotiate the process of literature reviewing.

4
Swales and Lindemann (2002) also comment on this challenge, suggesting that the LR might not be
susceptible to move analysis as are other parts of the research article and the thesis.
 14

1.3 Some preliminary conceptual contours of literature reviewing

The notion of LR has many different interpretations. As Bruce’s study (cited earlier)

shows, it can be seen as both a product and a process. Even when it is regarded as a

product, literature review can assume different forms. Likewise, when we refer to LR

as a process, it can also encompass a variety of processes such as reading, writing and

searching for sources or other less apparent processes. While these various ways of

conceptualizing the notion may appear to differ, they arguably point to the different

facets of the literacy practice. In this section, I will present a brief review of what the

literature says about the practice. In doing so, I will consider some of its preliminary

conceptual contours from which various lines of inquiry guiding the present research

have been derived. Note that some of the notions and theories discussed here will be

dealt with in depth in Chapters 2, 3 and 5.

1.3.1 Forms

One immediate question to address in the thin analysis of this research is which part of

the thesis can be and should be considered to be the literature review that can be taken

up for a schematic study. In fact, the literature review in a thesis can be realized in

three different forms. The first takes the form of short citations which are integrated

into various parts of the thesis such as the discussion section, in which the writer

compares his/her own findings with those reported in others’ works (Swales & Feak

2000). Another form of literature review can be found in the beginning parts of the

major chapters of the AC (article compilation) thesis. This form of LR serves as the

introduction to the article presented in each chapter (Dong 1998; Dudley-Evans 1999
 15

as cited earlier). The third form of literature review, which is the more commonly

invoked than the other two, is the independent chapter(s) which runs between the

introduction and the methodology of the traditional ILrMRD thesis (Dudley-Evans

1999). In this study, LRs of the third form (LR chapters) were chosen for schematic

analysis.

1.3.2 Rhetorical purposes

As mentioned previously, one theoretical assumption held in the thin analysis is that

the propositional contents and structure of a genre are shaped by the rhetorical

purposes of the genre. One crucial starting point for analyzing the above two

properties of LRs is thus to consider their purposes. Mostly discussed in passing in

instructional materials, the literature review has been asserted as a rhetorical act to

justify the value of the writer’s research. Cooper (1988) is perhaps one of first few

who attempted to characterize the literature review in terms of its propositional and

functional properties as understood in the academic research community:

First, a literature review uses as its database reports of primary or original scholarship,
and does not report new primary scholarship itself. The primary reports used in the
literature may be verbal, but in the vast majority of cases reports are written
documents. The types of scholarship may be empirical, theoretical, cirtical/analytic,
or methodological in nature. Second a literature review seeks to describe, summarize,
evaluate, clarify and/or integrate the content of primary reports. (p.107)

Cooper’s definition of LR applies primarily to literature review articles published in

journals. Discussion of LRs in thesis or thesis-related documents has begun to appear

only recently. In his volume Getting what you came for, Peters (1997) outlines two

major goals of a literature review in a thesis proposal, which he suggests can also be

recycled into that for a thesis:

 16

The primary goal of this chapter is to convince your committee that the topic you
have chosen is important and that your research will yield important results. A
secondary goal is to demonstrate mastery of the major concepts and research in your
field. … Trace important historical developments and controversies; it is especially
nice if you can make the case that your research will help to resolve a theoretical or
practical controversy. You may be fortunate enough to find and quote statements by
other researchers saying that your proposed research is needed. (p.200)

Hart (1998, 2001) describes the literature review as an argumentation for one’s

research and as part of the process in which the student learns about his/her topic as

well as the field. He offers five reasons for students to search the literature, which

include:

• Identifying work already done or in progress that is relevant to [the student’s]

own work
• Preventing [the student] from duplicating what has been done already
• Helping [the student] to avoid [flaws] in previous studies
• Informing the student’s own [research design]
• Enabling [the student] to locate a gap in existing research and thereby giving [the
student] a unique topic
(p.3)

Rudestam and Newton (2001) describe this part of the thesis as a

‘context for the proposed study and demonstrates why it is important and timely…
The reader will need to be convinced not only that the proposed study is distinctive
and different from previous research but also that it is worthwhile doing. This is also
the place where the student’s critical abilities as a scholar become evident’. (p. 56)

Similar description of the purpose of the literature review is also provided in other

self-help thesis manuals (see e.g., Creswell, 2003).

Meanwhile, similar rhetorical characterization of introductions in research articles and

post-graduate theses has also been documented in a great number of studies of the

part-genre (e.g., Swales 1990; Bunton 2002; Samraj 2002), which suggests that LRs

and introductions in research writing may belong to the same genre. This is also
 17

alluded to in the literature and instructions on LR-writing, in which the notions of

introduction and LR are sometimes invoked interchangeably. In some thesis manuals,

LR is employed as an umbrella term to refer to the beginning chapters of a thesis

(Geisler 1994; Rudestam & Newton 2001) while introductions to research articles or

theses are sometimes even used as models to illustrate LRs. It is therefore not

unreasonable to speculate that literature reviews in doctoral theses may display similar,

if not entirely the same, rhetorical structures and types of propositional contents as

those associated with the introduction, which has been found to exhibit the well-

established and widely cited CARS move structure (Swales 1990; see explanation in

Chapter 2) 5 . One of the aims of the thin analysis is thus to explore if the same

rhetorical move pattern is indeed present in LRs in ILrMRD theses.

5
It is interesting to see that while there are a great number of studies done on introductions and hence
much knowledge generated about the part-genre, little is known about LRs though the two part-genres
have been considered to be similar. One speculation for the unevenly distributed attention is that the LR
has always been ‘overshadowed’ by the introduction, which has been a ‘star’ part-genre in the studies
of research articles since Swales’ seminal discovery of the four-move structure (Swales 1981) and his
later postulation of the CARS model (Swales 1990). The model has attracted a large number of
researchers to analyze introductions in a great variety of contexts (e.g., in journals of different
disciplines, in journals published in different ethnolinguistic communities) that have been found to
exert different kinds of influence on the realization of the model (see Section 2.1 of Chapter 2, pp.33-
49). The variability of the CARS model has been one major attraction for its subsequent fervent
validation studies, which have continually added new insights to our understanding of the model and
introductions in general. It can be said that during the 80s and the 90s, knowledge about and hence
research into introductions seemed to be almost inexhaustible, which makes introductions almost like a
research ‘goldmine’. This might have been the reason for the volume of research devoted to
introductions, which at the same time has distracted researchers’ attention away from other parts of the
research article (RA) or the thesis though isolated studies have been conducted to investigate other
sections of the two genres (e.g., the discussion section in RAs by Peacock (2002) and Nwogu (1997)
and the conclusion section in theses by Hewings (1993)). Meanwhile, the fact that introductions and
literature reviews are often invoked interchangeably perpetuates the tendency to take the two as the
same part-genre and reduces the value of research into the latter.
 18

1.3.3. The processes

As stated earlier, one part of the study explored how students negotiate the process of

literature reviewing. This process is necessarily a complex one (see e.g., Meloy 2002;

Bruce 1994; Tchigaeva 2003). In the broadest sense, literature reviewing can be

viewed as a genre-specific literacy practice that involves both reading and writing,

either of which can turn into an independent area of inquiry of its own. In the present

study, I have chosen to analyze how students negotiate their reading as part of the

literature reviewing practice. One major reason for the focus on the reading practice is

that it is a relatively under-explored and poorly theorized part of doctoral undertaking

(except for a few studies such as those by Bruce and Tchigaeva cited earlier) whereas

there has already been some attention – though still limited – given to the composing

process. An examination of how students read for their theses hopefully can develop

this area of inquiry by laying some theoretical groundwork for future studies. Another

reason for the focus on reading is its centrality to the start of the thesis journey.

Reading is usually the first major task to embark on and the first step to initiate the

student into the thesis’s target topical and (multi-)disciplinary domains.

It needs to be noted here that the focus of analysis on reading is not to exclude any

examination of LR-writing or in general the thesis-writing process. In any practice of

writing which draws heavily on reading, the two processes can in fact be bound up in

ways which make it difficult to separate them. Foregrounding the reading practice as

it does in the present study thus does not mean divorcing the practice from that of LR-

writing, an issue that will be probed further in the upcoming discussion.

 19

1.3.3.1 Selecting literature for reviewing

As indicated in both Bruce (1994) and Tchigaeva’s (2003) works (cited earlier),

reading in the context of thesis-undertaking may serve the purposes of reading for

one’s study (i.e., topical understanding and research facilitator, learning the language)

and reading for the literature review section (abbreviated henceforth as RS/RLR

respectively). An a priori distinction between the two sub-practices is drawn here only

for the ease of discussion. As we will see in the upcoming paragraphs and also the

discussion of the thick analysis, the two practices at certain points can become

intertwined and hence difficult to differentiate.

Two formidable tasks of literature reviewing as a reading practice is that of searching

and selecting relevant literature for RS and RLR, a task which has often been

lamented as an extremely frustrating experience. One major and practical challenge

comes from the choices of reading, which need to be made among the exponentially

growing body of literature, the access to which can now be afforded by the rapidly

developing library information technology as well as well-managed and streamlined

inter-library loan services. In some local universities, it is possible to locate hundreds

and thousands of sources from the remotest of the university library databases through

one’s fingertips. Sources not available locally can be obtained from other parts of the

world in a matter of days. In short, searches for literature have now been made much

more convenient but at the same time all the more daunting. Given the ‘dizzying’

number of references, students are faced with even more difficult decisions to make

when selecting the appropriate literature for reading.

 20

One question that immediately comes to the fore is how students should go about

selecting literature for reviewing. Literature on how to conduct library searches for a

thesis study abounds. However, not much material addresses the decisions to make in

the selection process. What should one focus on when reading? How are reading

focuses formulated? Whose works should be consulted? How can one be sure what is

read (theme-wise, author-wise and source-wise) is relevant to his/her own study? In

what ways are the readings relevant to the study? To which parts of the study and the

thesis are these readings relevant? What should one read to learn about the topic and

the research process? What should one read for LR chapters specifically? How much

does one need to read and when should one stop reading? These are some of the

questions which constantly baffle students in the reviewing process and as such will

be addressed in the second part of this thesis.

Answers to the questions raised above can partly be given in the thin analysis in which

the semantic investigation of LRs can generate some broad categories of information

which students tend to include in their literature reviews. However, the findings may

at most reflect the general types of knowledge that need to be reviewed and cannot

possibly reflect the selection process –what this study sets out to investigate. Insights

can only be sought by tapping into concrete reading experiences as undergone by

thesis-writers themselves, and as such these experiences will be pursued in this study

(i.e., the thick analysis).

 21

1.3.3.2 Issues implicating the selection

The initial search for a theoretical conceptualization of reading-to-review to guide the

thick analysis was met with some difficulties largely because of the dearth of

theoretical and empirical works directly addressing this specialized learner’s literacy

practice. Most discussions on research reading practices are exclusively about how

experienced academics handle routine research literature (e.g., Bazerman, 1988;

Charney 1993; Berkenkotter & Huckin 1995). Studies of how graduate students do

their reading tends to focus on meta-cognitive strategies of reading single texts (e.g.,

Haas & Flower 1988; Haas 1994; Leon and Carretero 1995; Song 1995; Bell 2002).

Literature on the uninitiated academic researcher’s practice of reading multi-texts for

research writing is almost non-existent (except for Bruce (1994) and Tchigaeva’s

(2003) works). What seem most relevant are works published in the fields of rhetoric

studies and sociology of knowledge and science where their theoretical and empirical

work on research-writing can shed light on how literature might be selected in the two

processes of RS and RLR.

Technical exigencies

Though mentioned briefly, technical issues have been singled out as one significant

factor affecting the process of reviewing. Literature on thesis-making, for instance,

suggests that what one reads depends on what one encounters technically in the

research as well as the thesis-writing processes, which I refer to as technical

exigencies. Anecdotal accounts in research instructional literature point to interactions

between RS (i.e. reading for the study) and one’s research progress. These interactions
 22

are particularly common in qualitative research involving grounded theory in which

researchers return to the literature for theoretical as well as conceptual tools to discuss

their findings (e.g., Goodfellow 1998a, 1998b; Meloy 2002). Elsewhere studies show

that what one discusses in the thesis may create an exigency that has implications for

further review of literature, such as locating evidence to support claims made in the

discussion of findings and niches created in the introductory chapter (considered as

literature review elsewhere) (e.g., Dong 1996, 1998; Tchigaeva 2003 cited earlier).

From this anecdotal evidence, it can be concluded that RS, RLR, WLR and research

activities constrain and construct each other in some significant ways. To manage RS

and RLR and decide on the literature to read, the student needs to juggle all four

processes together by applying various problem-solving strategies. To examine

choices of literature to review thus calls for an examination of the progress one makes

in his/her research, writing of the thesis and WLR, how these processes constrain and

inform selection of literature for RS and RLR, and how the writer manages the

processes at the same time.

Social exigencies

The literature review is often construed as a codification of knowledge of a field (see

Geisler 1994). Reviewing the literature thus means more than just a process of reading

to learn or gaining insights to address technical exigencies such as those outlined

above. It is also a process of negotiating disciplinary knowledge and especially

disciplinary paradigms (Kuhn 1977, 1979). The process can theoretically be a

straightforward one if a student’s work is located within well-established traditional or

 23

primary disciplines considered to be ‘academically pure’ (Becher & Trowler 2001;

Parry, Atkinson & Delamont 1994) in which disciplinary knowledge is fairly well-

delineated. Apparently such is not the case for students whose studies are set in

emerging disciplines or located at multi-disciplinary nexuses. Coming to grips with

the ‘core’ literature requires the development of students’ meta-knowledge of where

they are both discipline- and nexus-wise and more importantly the strategic

knowledge of whether the fields their works straddle have somewhat achieved a

consensus (Kaufer & Geisler 1989), and if not then how best to choose among the

competing, if not conflicting, paradigms. (The notion of paradigm in the Kuhnian

sense will be further discussed in Section 5.2.1 of Chapter 5.)

The development of strategic knowledge discussed here can be a socially implicated

process and hence create a range of social exigencies on what one should choose to

learn and hence what one should choose to read that will eventually be cited in the LR.

In earlier seminal social constructivist (SC) studies of scientists in action in

laboratories, and their interpretive discourse about these actions, pioneering scholars

such as Gilbert & Mulkay (1984), Latour (1987) and later on Myers (1985, 1990)

have repeatedly demonstrated the social and political dimensions of knowledge-

making and text production. The works suggest that what one chooses to read and cite

in such important texts as research publications and research grant proposals are

sometimes based on a host of collegial and gate-entering considerations. The social

dimension of citational and reading practices has also been discussed in passing in

studies on thesis-writing, which suggest that mentoring and legitimate peripheral

 24

participation (LPP) in a community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991) as variable

forms of situated learning (SL) can also shape what students should read, cite and

discuss in their theses (e.g., Dong 1996; Prior 1998).

Given its centrality in the process of RS and RLR, the social construction of strategic

knowledge of what constitutes ‘core literature’ in the field in which one’s thesis is

situated forms another part of the thick analysis. The investigation seeks to answer

questions such as who might be involved in the process of selecting literature for

RS/RLR, how they are involved, and what students do in the community of practice

that facilitate or constrain the selection process.

A dual-approach

It has now become apparent that a dual-position is taken in this study to frame both

RS and RLR, which are seen as cognitive and socio-cognitive constructive literacy

practices. It is a rather unusual position since the two assumptions are often

dichotomized in their respective disciplinary domains and pursued usually separately

in research on academic literacy (Greene 1990). However, if accounts are to be

generated for pedagogical implications, such a divide may not be productive for

several reasons. First, employing the SC/SL view alone naturally sets the focus on the

social aspects of the practice while shadowing the agency of individual writers. As

Greene (1990) comments, ‘A common denominator…is that social theorists in

composition have not reflected upon implications of dismissing the role of individual

cognition from discussions of agency, consciousness, and learning’ (p.153). Indeed, as

 25

Ivanic’s (1994, 1998) and Prior’s (1998) accounts remind us, some students do forge

their voices in their writing and struggle to maintain their control over the knowledge

they construct. The SC/SL view may direct our attention away from the research

student’s individual cognition and agency in handling various technical exigencies.

On the other hand, exclusive attention to technical exigencies will trade off the

equally important insights regarding the implication of social issues in the thesis-

making process which students need to manage and juggle. These are issues arising

from the immediate social network (e.g., supervisory panel, gate-keeping committees,

etc.) and the virtual community (Miller 1994) such as the field and the discipline at

large, a point which will be further developed in Section 5.3.3 of Chapter 5.

Secondly, the demarcation between the cognitive and the social is sometimes difficult

to draw. While one operates within culturally organized practices, one is also making

contributions and affecting the social structures. In this regard, we cannot evade the

discussion of agency and cognition of the individual while examining how he/she

operates in a social world. Greene (1990) argues for this awareness in his defense for

a dialogical cognitive-sociocognitive view of writing:

Even if one were to agree with a strong social constructionist view that individuals
are social constructs, theorists such as Volosinov speculate that subjectivity results
from a dialectical interplay of an individual consciousness and ideological forces, an
observation that suggests that a cognitive and social framework can and should
accommodate one another (Baumlin and Baumlin 246).… After all, social action is
invested with individual will and intention, each based on interpretations of different
social situations. Culture is not simply imposed as a body of social fact or as a system
of regulating norms, but must itself be understood as a symbolic construct. Thus, a
community’s meaning varies with its members – unique orientation to it, constructed
and reconstructed through the innovative role of authors (cf. Kaufer & Geisler 288).
It follows that individuals and social structures must be understood in terms of the
 26

other, particularly if we are interested in writing as a form of cultural production.

(p.150)

In this study, the two views are adopted to establish a theoretical perspective broad

and yet dialectical enough to examine RS/RLR. Both views are accorded with an

equal amount of attention in understanding how doctoral students negotiate the two

reading processes. More about this theoretical perspective will be discussed in

Chapter 5 in which finer analytical questions will be generated to inform the thick

analysis of RS/RLR stories.

1.4 The site of study

One concern arising from this study during its conception stage was that of the choice

of subjects for both their textual data and their LR experiences. In most academic

literacy research, a natural divide in this matter is that between native-speakers (NSs)

and non-native speakers (NNSs) of English. In a study like the present one, which

sought to identify the schematic pattern of LRs written in English, texts produced by

NSs might be a preferred choice for the assumption that their texts can generate both

schematic and linguistic models for pedagogical purposes. However, I have chosen to

study a group of Chinese students based in Hong Kong. In this section, I will discuss

the reasons for my choice and in particular what appears to be my de-emphasis of

studying LR practices by NS students.

First, choosing to study NNSs’ LR practices has primarily grown out of my concern

with generating knowledge that can be of relevance for local students and supervisors
 27

even if the findings from this study might be proved in future studies to differ from

those practiced by NSs in their own NS contexts. Many local doctoral students are

typically Cantonese speakers though in recent years there has been an increase in

students from Mainland China among the postgraduate student population 6 , and a

study of LR practices as experienced by the group is thus germane. This rationale is

also in line with the position held by current contrastive rhetoricians 7 . Mauranen

(2001), for instance, argues for intercultural understanding and fairness in treating

cultural variations in texts produced by bicultural and bilingual writers. She also

stresses that the teaching of academic genres should not be ‘constrained by any one

restricted cultural norm such as the Anglo-American’ (p.54). A search for an Anglo-

norm – by paying exclusive attention to LR practices by NSs – is not warranted at

least in this study.

Though the Anglo-norm has not been the main concern, it does not mean that the LR

practices of the local NNS students studied in this thesis do not share it. In fact, many

of the academic discursive practices observed in the Anglo-community such as the

UK and the U.S.A have been institutionalized locally, a phenomenon which can be

attributed to the historical-cultural context of Hong Kong. The legacy of former

6
There are seven UGC (University Grant Committee)-funded universities in Hong Kong, which offer
research postgraduate (RPg) degree programs to both local and non-local students. According to the
figures provided by UGC, in the Year of 2004-2005 alone, 7436 RPg students were enrolled in the
seven universities, among whom 5233 were primarily local Chinese students while 2203 were non-
local Chinese students from different parts of Mainland China. Though no specific figures have been
released regarding the portion of students in the two populations pursuing doctoral degrees, it is
speculated that the majority of them are registered as doctoral students (University Grant Committee
2005). Those who are enrolled as MPhil students will eventually be upgraded as doctoral candidates,
which is a common trend in the local universities. .
7
The present study is however not a contrastive one.
 28

British colonial rule and globalization has instilled a strong presence of the Anglo-

American academic culture that can be found in the seven local, UGC-funded

universities. Hong Kong has inherited a British model of research degree education

that follows quite closely that found in universities in the UK. Students are required to

complete their research under the guidance of designated supervisors, whose work is

also monitored by two panel members. Normally, students are not required to attend

any structured instructional programs as required in most U.S. graduate institutions.

Most enter their doctoral studies as MPhil candidates and are upgraded to the PhD

status often at the end of the first year after a qualifying assessment. These practices

resemble much of the practices in the UK (see Burgess, Pole and Hockey 1994). The

theses local students produce also follow the formats which have been described in

Section 1.1.2 though they are still dominated by the ILrMRD format.

Equally influential on the existing post-graduate education is globalization as

evidenced by the government’s determination to uphold the city’s competitive edge

both regionally and globally. Internationalizing higher education to maintain its

research and teaching standards is particularly addressed in several of the

government’s policy addresses (Tung 1998, 1999, 2001). This effect can also be felt at

different levels at the local universities. A considerable population of faculty

members who are NS as well as NNS non-Chinese now working at the eight local

universities has received post-graduate education in Anglophone countries.

Links to academic communities in English-speaking countries have also been fostered

by the large collections of their publications and by the advanced library technology in
 29

the universities, which greatly facilitate students’ access to research literature,

doctoral theses and how-to thesis-writing tool books published in Australia, the UK

and the U.S. The infrastructure affords local students a greater exposure than that

before to the Anglo-norms of research and thesis-writing, bridging further rhetorical

and stylistic gaps in thesis-making, a trend increasingly recognized by researchers in

the field of contrastive rhetoric studies (Mauranen 2001; Ostler 2002) as also revealed

in the study conducted by Bunton (cited earlier and to be elaborated again in Chapter

2). Bunton identified a noticeably consistent 3-move CARS pattern in his corpus of

thesis introductions written by a group of doctoral students who studied in the

University of Hong Kong but have different ethnic-linguistic origins including that of

Hong Kong. His cross-disciplinary and cross-ethnolinguistic comparison of the texts

suggests that disciplinary background is a more crucial factor that contributes to

textual differences than the students’ cultural origins.

Meanwhile, the globalization process has impacted the development of e-universities

creating a new group of students in different locales. In Hong Kong, for instance, we

witness a growing population of students enrolled in part-time distance learning

doctoral programs run by the mega-Open University and many other institutions based

in UK, U.S and Australia. Students studying in this mode are normally based in Hong

Kong and are allowed access to library resources and other facilities in the local

universities. In some cases, some are even jointly supervised by faculty from the host

universities and those who serve at local universities. They also attend research

literacy workshops organized by local faculty hired by the host universities. Some also
 30

attend conferences and seminars run by local universities. All these suggest the further

weakening of Anglo-local boundaries in that local students are growing more external

and international in seeking reference for research and academic discursive practices.

In short, even though the emphasis in this study is not intended to generate an Anglo-

American norm, it might eventually be reflected in its findings. This possibility

explains why a strong distinction between NNS vs NS practices is not particularly

emphasized here. Also, as the study was motivated by a lack of research into the arena

of RS/RLR practices, it was attempted to start the line of research and produce some

points of reference for future studies.

1.5 Research questions and the structure of the thesis

1.5.1 Research questions

As mentioned earlier, the present study involves the study of the LR as both a textual

product and a reading practice. The first part of the study seeks to address the

following questions:

a) Do LRs in ILrMRD exhibit a common rhetorical move structure?

If LRs do exhibit a common rhetorical structure,

b) What is the prototypical structure?

c) What types of knowledge are carried in various parts of the structure?

d) How is each of the moves realized?

e) How does the move structure compare with that found in introductory chapters

of ILrMRD theses?
 31

The second part of this study examines how students negotiate the choices of literature

for RS and RLR. It aims to address the following research questions:

f) How do students formulate their reading focuses?

g) How do they select the literature for reading for their theses in general and

their literature reviews in particular?

h) How do they decide whose works and which specific works should be

consulted?

i) Do, RS, RLR, WLR and the research process (e.g., data collection, data

analysis, etc) co-construct each other? If so, how do they co-construct each

other? What types of tension might be created in this co-construction process?

j) Are the two processes of RS and RLR socially implicated? If so, how are they

socially implicated and who might be involved in the processes?

1.5.2 Structure of the Thesis

The thesis is divided into two major parts. The first part, which runs between Chapters

2 and 4, focuses on the thin analysis of the study. Chapter 2 provides a review of

studies done on the CARS model and the coding approaches employed thus far in

validating the model. I will also argue in the chapter for more rigorous and transparent

coding procedures to facilitate cross-study comparisons such as what is aimed at in the

present analysis. Chapter 3 presents the methodology adopted in the current study, in

which I will discuss the semantic and the functional approaches used to guide the

coding of the corpus and the procedures taken. In Chapter 4, I will report some of the

major findings of the analysis and develop a model to describe the schematic pattern
 32

of LRs. I will also contend that though LRs in the ILrMRD display features similar to

those found in introductory chapters, the differences warrant a distinction between the

two part-genres. In the second part of the thesis, which spans between Chapter 5 and

Chapter 7, I will present the thick description of the RS/RLR processes. In Chapter 5,

I will describe in greater detail the theoretical conceptualization of RS/RLR that has

briefly been discussed in this present chapter. The discussion will draw on research-

writing theory, social constructivist theory, situated learning theory, and studies

associated with these theories. From the review, I will further develop the research

questions set in Section 1.5.1 into a list of analytical questions to guide the thick

analysis. In Chapter 6, I will elaborate the methodological considerations taken by

explaining the narrative inquiry approach adopted in designing the procedures for

collecting and reporting the stories for the thick analysis. In Chapter 7, I will present

some major themed RS/RLR narratives reconstructed from stories told by the students,

which point to various social and technical exigencies that have impacted on the

RS/RLR practices. In Chapter 8, I will draw a close to the thesis first by commenting

on the combined product-process approach adopted in this study. I will then recapture

of some of the major findings generated in both parts of the study and discuss some of

their pedagogical implications. I will conclude the chapter by making suggestions for

further research into LR practices and other aspects of thesis-undertaking.

 33

Chapter 2 A Review of the CARS Model

2.0 Introduction

As discussed in Chapter 1, since introductions in research articles and literature

reviews in ILrMRD theses share similar rhetorical purposes, it is possible that the two

part-genres display similar rhetorical structures and propositional contents. As such, I

have argued for the use of the CARS model (Swales 1990) to examine the schematic

pattern of LRs. In this chapter, I will present a review of the model. The chapter is

divided into two major sections. In the first section, I will provide a cursory summary

of the model and a survey of some of its major validation studies. In the second

section, I will examine the coding principles employed in the studies and particularly

their inconsistencies that have contributed to the instability of some of the steps in the

model. In doing so, I will propose the use of more rigorous coding strategies which

can facilitate cross-study comparisons of the model.

2.1 Swales’ CARS model

Over the past two decades various attempts have been made to analyze introductions

in research articles (RAs) and theses. The body of research has mostly been inspired

by the seminal work conducted by Swales (1981), who analyzed 40 introductions in

research articles from various science disciplines and observed (1981) that

introductions in RAs tend to be realized in a routinized 4-part structure. The structure

suggests the writers’ deliberate efforts to promote their research work, which as
 34

Swales explains in his 1990 volume is necessitated by the competitive ecology of

the research community in which the writers seek opportunities for publication.

Drawing on some of the validation studies of the four-part structure, Swales (1990)

reformulates the structure and creates a three-move scheme which he names

accordingly the Creating A Research Space (CARS) model (see Figure 2.1 below).

Figure 2.1 The CARS model

Move 1 Establishing a territory

Step 1 Claiming centrality and/or
Step 2 Making topic generalization(s) and/or
Step 3 Reviewing items of previous research
Move 2 Establishing a niche
Step 1A Counter-claiming
Step 1B Indicating a gap
Step 1C Question-raising
Step 1D Continuing a tradition
Move 3 Occupying the niche
Step 1A Outlining purposes
Step 1B Announcing present research
Step 2 Announcing principal findings
Step 3 Indicating RA structure
(Swales, 1990, p.141)

Though not without problems (an issue I will take up in Section 2.2), the CARS model

in general can apply in describing the rhetorical movements in introductions in both

RAs and research theses produced in a variety of contexts. In this section, I will

review several major groups of studies that have validated the model and will

highlight some insights that will be of relevance to the thin analysis of LRs reported in

this thesis.
 35

2.1.1 CARS in RAs published in Anglo-American journals

One group of studies on CARS has been performed on introductions to research

articles published in English journals primarily consumed by the Anglophone

academic community. Attention has been particularly directed at discipline-specific

corpora to examine the cross-disciplinary applicability of model. As briefly mentioned

earlier and to be confirmed once again in this and subsequent sections, the three-move

structure has been consistently validated. As such, the discussion in this and the

upcoming sections will focus on and will be organized around findings that suggest

the dynamics of the model.

2.1.1.2 Recursiveness of the move structure

One of the earlier pre-CARS studies was conducted by Crooke (1986), who analyzed

96 RA introductions from two groups of disciplines of sciences and social sciences.

Crookes noted a predominant 3-move pattern instead of the 4-move structure posited

in Swales’ (1981) earlier account. He also observed the marked iteration of the 3-

move structure (e.g., 1-2-1-2-3) in some of the social sciences texts with each

recurrence of the structure bringing about either a new topic or a narrower focus of the

topic established in the previous Move 1. Recursions of the structure have also been

reported in subsequent studies of the model (e.g., Bunton 2002).

2.1.1.3 Variable realizations of move elements

While the three moves of the CARS model have been quite consistently confirmed in

most of the validation studies, their variable realizations have continually been
 36

observed. For instance, in his study of the move structures of medical research

papers, Nwogu (1997) identified the following schematic pattern for the introductory

texts (see Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2 Nwogu’s 3-move model

Move 1 Presenting background information

Anecdotal information and didactic information
Move 2 Reviewing previous research
Reference to previous research
Reference to limitations of previous research
By negative evaluation
By indication of a gap in previous research
Move 3 Presenting new research
Introducing the purpose of the research

(Nwogu 1997, p.135)

Note that Move 1 in Nwogu’s model consists of one step only. Its Move 2 now carries

two steps a) Reference to previous research which arguable is Reviewing previous

research items (Step 1.3) in Swales’ model, and b) the step of Reference to limitations

of previous research realized in Negative evaluation and Indication of a gap in

previous research which correspond to Counter-claiming and Gap-indicating (Steps

2.A and 2.B) of the original Move 2 (see Section 2.2.1 for a more detailed comparison

of Nwogu’s and Swales’ models).

In his study of introductions in engineering RAs, Anthony (1999) noted that though

the 3-move structure in general was applicable to his corpus, it did not account for
 37

some of the salient semantic features such as definitions of terms, exemplifications

of difficult concepts found in some of the instances of Move 1 of the texts1.

Balocco (2000) analyzed the rhetorical structure in 20 literary research articles, and

her findings also reveal the occurrence of the 3-move structure in the corpus. However,

Balocco noted that ‘epistemic accounting’ (citations of academic works) rarely occurs

in the texts, which she attributed to the ‘ruralness’ of the discipline 2 in which

extensive literature-referencing is not needed.

Comparing introductions in Wildlife Behavior (WB) RAs and with those in

Conservation Biology (CB) RAs, Samraj (2002) noted that CB introductions involve

more promotional work related to real world matters. She also observed a new step of

‘presenting positive justification’ in some of the instances of Move 2 in her corpus.

Real world-oriented and research-oriented claims in Moves 2 were also identified in

Pique and Andreu-Beso’s (1998) study. In employing the CARS model to study how

niches are created (i.e., steps of Move 2) in the introductions of 20 health science

articles, Pique et al observed the following discipline-specific niche-creating

1
Similar attributes were also reported in other studies such as Kwan’s (1996) study of her non-RA
introduction corpus and Lewin, Fine and Yong’s (2001) investigation of introductions in RAs of social
sciences.

2
The author borrows the term from Becher (1989). Rural disciplines are distinguished from urban
disciplines in that the latter are those with a big number of researchers and more publications in
circulation which allow and call for ‘epistemic accounting’. The former are those disciplines with fewer
researchers and more niches of a bigger diversity as well as variety, and hence a smaller need for citing
others’ works. This was also observed in Cooper’s (1985, cited in Swales 1990) study of introductions
in IEEE research publications. Cooper suggests that the general absence of literature referencing is a
result of relatively short history of the field and the non-epistemic concerns of the field, i.e.,
commercially-oriented publications to be consumed by non-academic readers.
 38

strategies which can be split along the line of research and non-research domains.

The strategies can further be divided into those of flaw-finding and those of deficit-

indicating. Research-oriented claims are those which

• reveal conflicting findings reported in previous research (flaw-finding);

• critique problematic design of research reported in the literature and hence

limitations in research findings (flaw-finding); and

• point out the lack of research activities in an important area (deficit-indicating)

On the other hand, non-research oriented claims reveal the following:

• problematic non-research practices (flaw-finding);

• the lack of non-research practices (deficit-indicating); and

• an incomplete understanding of a particular topic (deficit-indicating)

Samraj proposed a modified version of the CARS model (See Figure 2.3):

Figure 2.3 The revised CARS model proposed by Samraj

Move 1: Establishing a territory
Step 1 Claiming centrality and/or
--in research
--in the real world
Step 2 Presenting background information
Move 2: Establishing a niche
Step 1A Counter-claiming or
Step 1B Indicating a gap or
-- in research
-- in the real world
Step 1C Question-raising
Step 1D Continuing a tradition
Step 2 Presenting positive justification
Move 3: Occupying the niche
Step 1 Presenting goals of present research
-- giving background information on species or site
Step 2A Announcing principal findings or
Step 2B Predicting results
Step 3 Indicating RA structure
(Samraj 2002, p15)
 39

Other recent work has shed light on the optional and non-sequential nature of the

steps in the different moves. Lewin et al. (2001) studied the semantic attributes of the

steps in the various moves of the introduction and discussion sections of the RAs

published in social sciences journals. Their findings suggest that only some of the

steps in the CARS model are obligatory3 in their respective moves, which led the
TP PT

authors to posit an alternative representation of the CARS model (see Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4 Lewin et al’s CARS model

MOVE 1 CLAIMING RELEVANCE OF FIELD

Obligatory acts:
a. Asserting relevance of field of which research is a part
b. Reporting what is known about phenomena under study
Optional acts:
a. Making assertions about the research process of others
b. Reporting terminology conventions
c. Reporting conclusions drawn by previous authors
d. Drawing [own] conclusions about the research of others
e. Metacomments
f. Narrowing parameters of field
MOVE 2 ESTABLISHING THE GAP PRESENT RESEARCH IS MEANT TO
FILL
Obligatory act:
Pointing out deficiencies in the present state of knowledge
Optional acts:
a. Positing an ideal way to fill the gap that has just been created
b. Mitigating – pointing out positive contribution of previous research
c. Reporting what is known about phenomena under study
MOVE 3 REVIEWING AUTHORS’ NEW ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Obligatory act:
Stating purpose of present study or contents of article
Optional acts:
a. Positing an ideal way to fill the gap that has just been created
b. Reporting what is known about phenomena under study
c. Justifying hypotheses
d. Disclosing whether hypotheses have been confirmed or not
e. Summarizing methods
f. Presenting hypotheses or research questions
(Lewin et al 2001, pp.40-41)

3
TPInterestingly, the authors do not specify what is meant by ‘obligatory’ though it is very likely to be
PT

interpreted as required and mandatory. This interpretation engenders the assumption that any step
considered to be obligatory appears in 100% of the move instances identified in a corpus.
 40

Three points about Lewin at al’s model are worth considering here. First, the step of

Reviewing previous research items (Step 1.3) in Swales’ original model assumes an

optional status only in the newly proposed scheme. Interestingly, the authors referred

to the step4 as Making assertions about the research process of others rather than
TP PT

Reviewing previous research items, suggesting that research processes are taken as a

central semantic attribute in defining the step. Second, there is only one obligatory

step in Move 2, which is Pointing out deficiencies in the present state of knowledge

realized in the three negational claim types of research defects, research scarcity and

obscurity of research (knowledge). This step apparently corresponds to the two

original steps of Counter-claiming and Gap-indicating as posited by Swales (1990).

Third, some of the original steps disappear all together in Lewin et al’s model, which

include Question-raising (Step 2.A), Continuing a tradition (Step 2.B), Announcing

principal findings (Step 3.2) and Announcing RA structure (Step 3.3).

One important outcome from Lewin et al’s analysis is the elaborate system (scheme)

of move/step-specific semantic features derived from their corpus5. As the authors

TP PT

describe, these features are structural elements that form a common and yet open

repertoire that ‘represent the choices available within a given context’ (p.22) and can
4
TPInstead of using ‘steps’ to describe the elements in each move, Lewin et al have adopted the notion of
PT

‘acts’, which they have borrowed from Sinclair and Coulthard terminology. According to the authors,
an act is the minimal unit needed to realize a communicative purpose. When related acts occur together
to realize a particular communicative purpose, they form a move. In each move there is at least one
core element called a head act (an obligatory act). A head act can be preceded or followed by pre- or
post-head acts (optional acts), which serve various purposes such as prefacing, extending, commenting,
which realize various logical functions in relation to the head act. For the sake of not confusing the
reader, the term ‘step’ is retained to mean ‘act’ in Lewin et al’s model.
5
TPThe authors have based the categorization of the semantic features on the Martinian semantic network
PT

theory. Semantic features in the head act (obligatory act) of each move are categorized into participants,
claims, and processes. For information about the approach, which the authors adopted to categorize
semantic attributes of each of the moves in the introductions, see Chapter 2 of the book.
 41

be configured in a ‘highly probable pattern’ (p.21). A scheme such as the one

produced by the authors is indeed long due because until now published works on the

model have provided very little information on how the analysts went about

identifying the steps and their boundaries. The move-step semantic attributes

documented by the authors can make useful references for coding and hence cross-

study comparison of the model in future studies such as the one conducted for this

thesis. (The scheme established by Lewin et al was drawn on in the coding of LR texts

in the thin analysis of this thesis. It will be further elaborated in Chapter 3.)

2.1.2 Contrastive studies of CARS

The CARS model has also attracted much research attention in contrastive rhetoric

studies. One common observation in these cross-cultural studies is the absence of

overt criticisms of others’ works (i.e., Move 2). Najjar (1990; cited in Frederickson &

Swales, 1994), for instance, identified a general lack of Move 2 in introductions of

RAs written in Arabic and circulated within the Arabic-speaking research community.

Frederickson and Swales (1994) obtained similar findings in their analysis of

introductions in RAs written in Swedish targeting the Swedish academic community.

They observed that only about half of the introductions they analyzed carry the

complete 3-move pattern and one-third of them do not carry a Move 2. Also,

Centrality Claiming (Step 1.1) is absent in some of the texts. In place of it is the step

of story-telling crafted as an attention-getter to compete for readership. The authors

argued that the non-routinized occurrence of the 3-move structure could be a result of
 42

the relatively small research community where the competition for publication is

less fierce.

Duszak (1994) compared the move structures in introductions drawn from Polish RAs

with those drawn from English RAs. While the 3-move structure was identified in

both corpora, the author observed a less direct and less up-front approach to niche-

accentuating in instances of Move 2 and Move 3 in the Polish texts than that found in

the English texts. Duszak also found explanatory statements embedded in some of the

instances of Move 1 that seek to clarify or distinguish concepts and terminology in

‘preparing the tools’ for the writers’ studies. The phenomenon is particular salient in

the Polish texts. Note that this finding has also been reported in studies of English RA

introductions cited earlier (See Anthony 1999, Kwan 1996 and Lewin et al 2001).

Ahmad (1997) analyzed the introductions of 20 research articles of applied sciences

written in Malay and primarily circulated in the Malaysian research community. She

found that the texts were in general more concise and made relatively few references

to updated sources (an average count of 6.5 per text compared with 9.3 per Anglo-

American text). Only one-third of the introductions carry the 3-move structure with a

general lack of Move 2 and in particular critical evaluations of previous research. The

author suggests three reasons for the observations. The first is that as a newly

emerging research community in Malaysia, the authors of the texts are still at a stage

of grappling with the ‘rule’ of the game in their ‘learning of the craft of research

writing’ (p.296). The second reason is that as newly emerging disciplines in Malaysia,
 43

the community is still relatively small and hence competition for publications is still

less fierce. There is a small need to carve out a niche for one’s own research. The third

reason is symbiotically motivated. As part of a ‘close-knit’ academic community with

researchers knowing each other in a non-egalitarian society, many authors do not feel

comfortable pointing out weaknesses of their colleagues.

Likewise, Melander (1998) identified a general lack of Move 2 in an introduction

corpus drawn from Swedish Medical and Biology articles published primarily for the

Swedish research community. The author offers two possible reasons the observation,

one being the possibility that the medical texts were primarily consumed by local

medical practitioners, a non-epistemic group which constitutes a less competitive

community in comparison to the ‘scientific’ [epistemic] research community in the

international, English-speaking domain.

Burgess (2002) conducted a study of the move structures of introductory texts in RAs

produced by native speakers of Spanish in different types of journals circulated in the

Spanish community, which differed in their language of publication (Spanish vs

English) and their subject matters (English vs Hispanic studies). She examined

whether the ethnolinguistic background is a crucial factor in determining how the

authors rhetorically structure their introductions. Her findings show no consistent

move patterns and thus reject the L1-dependent assumption about the realization of

the 3-move structure. Her findings however do point to other crucial shaping forces,

which include the technical background of the reader, the size of the community in
 44

which the publications circulate as well as the ‘relationship between the writer and

the discourse community’.

In another recent comparative study, Lee (2000, 2001) examined the introductions to

RAs written in Korean and English by three groups of authors: Korean national

scholars, US-educated Korean scholars, and American scholars. In comparing one

hundred and sixteen RA introductions and interviewing with some Korean researchers,

Lee observed the presence of the CARS structure in the texts produced by the Korean

national scholars, which however make fewer references than do those produced by

the U.S.-educated Korean scholars or American scholars. Among the texts which do

not follow the CARS pattern, there is a strong presence of the Ki-Seung-Chon-Kyul

rhetorical structure6, which as Lee explained has developed from Chinese classical
TP PT

poetry.

Lee also studied the patterns of 25 paired English and Korean introductions written by

the same authors. He noted that about one third of the authors employ the same or

similar 3-move structure in both their Korean and in English texts. However, Lee

observed that five out of the 25 paired-introductions have their Moves 2 realized in

different ways. While the Move 2 instances in the five English introductions made

specific references to previous studies, those found in the five Korean introductions

6
TPKi-Seung-Chon-Kyul is a rhetorical sequence commonly found in the Korean essay: Ki is an opening
PT

move that initiates a situation for discussion. Unlike what is expected in the English deductive writing, it does not
carry a thesis statement. Seung is the part in which the central argument of the essay develops. The development
can lead to a subtopic which does not necessarily directly relate to the theme discussed previously. The discussion
of this subtopic is realized in the third move Chon. The final move is Kyul which is similar to the concluding or a
thesis statement in the Western rhetoric. In this move, the writer only provides his intention of writing implicitly. A
similar rhetorical sequence can also be observed in Chinese and Japanese expository texts (see Hinds 1990).
 45

were realized in more general critique of current educational situations void of

references even though they were available. Lee explained that citing specific authors’

names and evaluating their works openly could be regarded as a sign of arrogance in

the Confucian culture and as such tends to be avoided.

While it might be tempting to interpret the citational behaviour in the Korean texts as

a straight cultural difference, it might be more proper to read it as sign of glocalization

of the CARS model. Mauranen (2001) in her discussion of contrastive rhetoric

research cautions against the tendency of emphasizing and reifying cultural

differences. She proposes glocalization as an analytical alternative to approach

differences observed in discursive practices exhibited by different cultural groups. By

glocalization, she means that ‘the universal, or the general, and the local are mutually

defining, and they receive their meanings and identities from each other. Local

identities arise from intercultural encounters, brought about or accelerated by

globalization…’ (p.51), which appears to be the case for the U.S. educated Korean

scholars involved in Lee’s study. The notion of glocalization points to a possible

reorientation of viewing cross-cultural phenomena. Mauranen suggests that instead of

seeing them as distinct, static phenomena, we can take them as hybrid cultural

formations. This reorientation may explain the hybridity of the Korean introductory

texts which the five U.S.-educated scholars in Lee’s study produced. However, the

reorientation does not mean that the scholars only adhere to the hybrid form. The fact

that their English introductory texts and especially those of Moves 2 show stronger
 46

presence of citations suggests that when writing to different audiences and in

different contexts, one switches between the global and the glocalized norms.

2.1.3 Studies of dissertation introductions

Presence of the CARS structure in dissertations is also noted in several studies.

Dudley-Evans (1986) conducted a study to examine the extent to which the four-move

structure proposed by Swales (1981) can apply to describe introductions in theses. He

analyzed the introductions in seven master theses drawn from the field of plant

biology theses and identified a six-move structure as captured in Figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5 Dissertation introduction move structure identified by Dudley-Evans (1986)

Move 1 Introducing the field

Move 2 Introducing the general topic (within the field)
Move3 Introducing the particular topic (within the general topic)
Move 4 Defining the scope of the particular topic by
i. introducing research parameters
ii. summarizing previous research
Move 5 Preparing for present research by
i. indicating a gap in previous research
ii. indicating a possible extension of previous research

Move 6 Introducing present research by

i. stating the aim of the research
ii. describing briefly the work carried out
iii. justifying the research

(Dudley-Evans 1986, p.135)

While Dudley-Evans’ study is not a validation study of the CARS model7, his work TP PT

already suggests the possible presence of CARS in the introductory texts. For

instance, Moves 5 and 6 bear close resemblances to Steps 2.B and 2.D of Move 2 in

7
TP PTIt was an attempt to see to what extent Swales’ (1981) four-move structure identified in his earlier
study can apply to describe introductory texts in theses.
 47

CARS while Moves 1 to 3 and Move 4 can be reduced respectively to Steps 1.2 and

1.3 of the model (i.e., Making topical generalizations and Reviewing items of

previous research). (A detailed comparison of Dudley-Evans’ and Swales’ models

will be presented in Section 2.2.2 of this chapter).

A more recent study of thesis introductions was conducted by Bunton (1998, 2002

cited in Chapter 1), who examined the move structure in the introductions to theses

written by both English and non-Enlgish-speaking students at the University of Hong

Kong. The author found that the CARS model can by and large apply to describe the

rhetorical movement in the corpus though some new steps were also identified, which

led him to posit the modified CARS model as captured in Figure 2.6 overleaf. Bunton

also noted that the move structures identified in his corpus are highly cyclical. The

most frequently noted cyclical pattern is that of the sequence of Move 1 and Move 2

(e.g., 1-2-1-2-1-2), with the longest identified carrying 18 cycles of the pairing while

the average reaches 5.5 cycles, which is notably high compared with what has been

reported in the literature.

What Bunton did not particularly emphasize and account for is the relatively low

frequency rate of the step Counter-claiming of Move 2 as observed in his corpus. In

fact, it registers the lowest counts among all the four steps of the move while

Indicating a problem or a need ranks the highest, followed by Question-raising, and

Continuing/extending a tradition. The frequency distribution of the moves is unusual

and somehow begs questions as the step Counter-claiming has been reported
 48

elsewhere as a key step of Move 2. The low frequency counts of this step could

have been a result of the coding criteria of the step and those of Indicating a problem

or a need. While Bunton did not explicitly mention the attributes that he established

for the former step, he did cite examples to illustrate those of the latter. An analysis of

the semantic attributes of the examples suggest that some of the instances of

Indicating a problem or a need could in fact be acts of Counter-claiming as they

might have been considered to be so in other studies. I will return to this point in

Chapter 3 with greater detail when I discuss the semantic attributes adopted to define

the step of Counter-claiming in this present study (see the discussion on pp. 79-80).

Figure 2.6 Bunton’s modified CARS model for thesis introductions

Often present Occasionally present

Move 1 Establishing a Territory
STEPS
Claiming centrality
Making topic generalizations and giving Research parameters
background information
Defining terms (Eg, A, So)
Reviewing previous research
Move 2: Establishing a niche
STEPS
Indicating a gap in research
Indicating a problem or need
Question-raising (So, A) Counter-claiming
Continuing a tradition (M, So)
Move 3: Announcing the Present Research
STEPS
Purposes, aims, or objectives Chapter structure
Work carried out (Eg, Sj) Research questions/Hypotheses
Method Theoretical positions (So)
Materials or Subjects Defining terms
Findings or Results Parameters of research
Product of research (Eg)/Model proposed (So)
Significance/Justification Applicatoin of product (Eg)
Thesis structure Evaluation (Eg)
A=Arts, So=Social Sciences, Eg=Engineering, Si=Science, M=Medicine
Newly identified steps are in italics
(Bunton 2002, p.74)
 49

2.1.4 Validity of CARS

The studies reviewed above points to several facts about the CARS model. First, its 3-

move structure has in general been validated to be an apt description of the schematic

pattern of RA and dissertation introductions from a wide spectrum of disciplines and

from different non-native English speaking communities that have constant exchanges

with the English-speaking academic centers such as the U.S. and the U.K. When non-

native speaking writers compose their introductions in publications for an

international and especially an Anglo-phone audience, it is likely that they will adhere

to the CARS schema more than they will when writing for their own local audience.

This further suggests validity of the schema as a starting framework to analyze the

schematic pattern of LRs. The modified model developed by Bunton (2002) is a

particularly useful reference against which the present study can be compared.

The second conclusion which can be drawn from the survey is that the generalizability

of the model applies more aptly at the move level, with some of its steps displaying a

noticeable degree of instability of various types (e.g., absence of some steps, presence

of some new steps or variable realizations of some steps). Some of the instabilities can

be traced to external (sociological) causes that suggest the possibility of cross-

disciplinary variations of the model on the one hand and on the other its glocalization

in various non-Anglo cultural settings that have been growing more ‘international’ –

or Anglicized – in their research writing practices.

 50

2.2 Coding strategies

While macro issues such as cross-cultural/disciplinary epistemic discourse practices

may have contributed to the variations in the realization of the model, some of the

variations are likely results of inconsistent coding strategies and different

interpretations of the concepts of ‘move’ and ‘step’.

2.2.1 Nomenclature and boundary demarcation

To show inconsistencies in coding strategies, I will compare Swales’ move-/step-

coding with that of Nwogu whose model I have briefly discussed in Section 2.1.1. To

begin with, I will compare and contrast the nomenclatures which the two authors

apply to describe the moves in their models. The CARS model postulated by Swales

consists of the three moves of Establishing a territory, Establishing a niche and

Occupying the niche whereas Nwogu’s (1997) constitutes Presenting background

information, Reviewing previous related research and Presenting new research. The

two labeling systems suggest two distinct orientations to the interpretations of moves

and treatment of move boundaries. Swales’ nomenclature is functionally motivated,

suggesting that an RA introduction is rhetorical work enacted to persuade the reader to

accept that the research about to be reported is worth publishing. The moves and steps

so named hint at the gradual and yet tactical unfolding of the importance of one’s

research first of all by situating one’s research in a well-established area (Move 1

Establishing a territory), creating the value of a sub-area for further research (Move 2

Establishing a niche) and eventually claiming the sub-area for one’s own publication

(Move 3 Occupying the niche). Swales himself notes his reliance on rhetorical
 51

functions first, then semantic contents and lexical items as the major characterizing

criteria of the steps in his model. For instance, in his characterization of centrality

claims, Swales briefly suggests that such claims

appeal to the discourse community whereby members are asked to accept [a

U U

persuasive rhetorical criterion] that the research about to be reported is part of a lively,
U

significant or well-established research area. Some typical examples of the linguistic

exponents – and signals [linguistic criteria]– of centrality claims are given below in
U

abbreviated form...:

1. Recently, there has been a spate of interest in how to…

2. In recent years, applied researchers have become increasingly
interested in …
3. The possibility… has generated interest in …
4. Recently, there has been wide interest in…
5. …

… authors of a RA can make a centrality claim at the introduction’s outset in a

number or ways. They can claim interest, or importance; they can refer to the classic,
U

favourite or central character of the issue; or they can claim that there are many
other investigators active [semantic attributes] in the area [propositional contents]…
U

[underlined for emphatic purpose]

(p.144)

Nwogu’s nomenclature, on the other hand, reveals a less tactical connotation of the

notion of ‘move’ (e.g., Presenting background information).

Unlike what is posited in Swales’ original model, Nwogu makes no particular

differentiation among the elements (i.e., steps) of Move 1. One of the examples which

Nwogu provides to illustrate Move 1 Presenting background information includes an

opening anecdotal segment from a text of his corpus:

Since 1940 when there were 12,000 notifications in England and Wales,
Meningococal disease has been much less common. Following the last peak in 1974
(1296 notifications), the annual number of notifications declined steadily until 1984,
when 401 cases were notified. In 1985, 549 cases were notified and the rise has
continued into the first quarter of 1986. (The Lancet, 6 September 1986). (p.126)

In another example of Move 1, Nwogu cites a didactic Move 1:

 52

Recurrent spontaneous abortion has been treated by means of immunization with

paternal cells and cells from multiple unrelated donors. Organ allograft rejection is
diminished by previous immunization with blood transfusion and… (p.126)

This second example, however, might have been treated as an instance of Making

topical generalizations (Step 1.2) in Swales’ model as it is a very much neutral

statement about a medical practice, an criterion which Swales employs to characterize

the step.

Though Nwogu claims that he resorted to ‘a bundle of linguistic features (lexical

meaning, propositional meanings, illocutionary forces, etc.)’ as the basis of the move

definition, these features, however, are not illustrated as explicit criteria employed to

code the above two segments. Rather, Nwogu only provides a brief account of the use

of tenses to characterize Move 1 claiming that one major feature of the move is ‘the

predominant use of present tense verb forms…’ and asserts that ‘Move 1 is also

characterized by the use of locative and temporal adverbials as sentence elements in

preparatory expressions and statements’ (p.126) such as ‘In England and Wales’ and

‘Since 1940’ as in the first cited example above.

Another obvious difference revealed in the move structures posited by the two authors

is where boundaries of steps and moves are drawn. Where reviewing previous items

of research comes as a step (part) of Move 1 in Swales’ model, Nwgou postulates that

it be subsumed under Move 2 Reviewing related research which comes with two units

of information: Reference to previous research and Reference to limitations of

previous research. Here, a question arises as to what could have implicated the two
 53

different boundaries drawn by the two authors. The answer can be found by

resorting to the system of labeling the two authors employed in the coding. Swales’

system is premised on the assumption that introductions are rhetorical works done to

persuade the reader that the writer’s research has a place in the community, and that

something in the existing state is not satisfactory and one’s own research can help

improve the situation. It is thus quite logical then for the first move boundary to be

drawn between a survey of the existing state of art (Move 1 realized in claims of

centrality claims, topical generalizations and current research) and a negative

evaluation of it (Move 2), which can tactically accentuate the niche of the researcher’s

work.

This distinction thus suggests Swales’ emphasis of adversative markers as signals to

demarcate the boundary between the two moves. However, in Nwogu’s case, where

his emphasis is more on the propositional contents of the moves and at times on how

the propositional contents are realized linguistically (e.g., tenses and how researchers’

names are cited), it is logical to draw the boundary of Move 1 and Move 2 along the

split of their propositional contents, namely, non-research information (Presenting

background information) versus research information (Reviewing previous research).

This emphasis may also explain the absence of step differentiation in Move 1 of

Nwgou’s model.
 54

2.2.2 Over-coding

Other discrepancies in the coding of moves and their boundaries can also be found in

the comparison between the model posited in Dudley-Evans’ study and Swales’

original model. Dudley-Evans identified moves according to the propositional

contents as well as their degrees of generality in relation to the topic as suggested in

his creation of the first 4 moves (recaptured in Figure 2.7), which can be regrouped as

two separate steps of Move 1 in Swales’ model.

It can be argued that Moves 1-3 in Dudley-Evan’s model relate topical generalizations

of the topics of different levels of generality, leading one to query what counts as a

move.

Figure 2.7 A comparison between Dudley-Evan’s and Swales’ models

Dudley-Evan’s Model The CARS model

Move 1 Introducing the field Move 1
Move 2 Introducing the general topic (within the field) Step 1.2 Making topical generalizations
Move 3 Introducing the particular topic (within the general topic)
Move 4 Defining the scope of the particular topic by Step 1.3 Reviewing previous items of
i. introducing research parameters research
ii. summarizing previous research

Inconsistent coding practices have also been discussed elsewhere. For instance, Lewin,

et al. (2001) in their survey of CARS studies found that coding tends to be done by

resorting to lexicogrammatical items as characterizing criteria or in some cases taking

sentences independent clauses as move units.

 55

2.2.3 Implications for the study

2.2.3.1 Two major issues

In the above discussion, I have intended to bring to the fore two issues as found in

existing CARS studies. First, there were inconsistencies in move/step-coding, or at

least a consistent coding system as such has not been expounded explicitly to allow

informed comparison of findings across studies. In this thesis, I employ the semantic

and functional strategies as two complementary approaches to interpret texts for

coding. The semantic strategy draws upon in part the semantic scheme developed by

Lewin et al. (2001) and in part relevant findings reported in previous CARS studies

and in particular the work by Bunton (2002). (This combined approach will be

elaborated in Chapter 3.)

Second, the terminology crucial to the understanding and validation of the CARS

model has seldom been discussed in its related literature or has mostly been dealt with

intuitively. Two important notions that need particular clarification are ‘moves’ and

‘steps’. Bhatia (2001) challenges the adequacy of employing the label of ‘step’ and

numbering to describe the elements of Move 2 which suggest their mandatory and

sequential nature when in fact they are strategic choices of individual writers (Lewin

et al has attested to this possibility), and which Bhatia proposes to name as ‘strategies’.

In fact, little has been done – except in the work by Lewin et al (2001) and Bunton

(2002) – to differentiate optional and obligatory move constituents. Such is one of the

objectives of the present thin analysis.

 56

2.2.3.2 Terminology

In this section, I will provide the working definitions of some of the crucial terms

which I will use in the thin analysis. The definitions are formulated based on the

critiques in the previous sections.

The obligatory / optional statuses

Any text segment analyzed and assigned an identity, be it a move (e.g., Establishing

the territory) or an element of a move (e.g., Centrality claiming), is considered to be

either obligatory or optional. An obligatory move is one which occurs in 100% of the

LR texts analyzed in the present study. Likewise, an obligatory element of a move is

one which occurs in 100% of the respective move instances identified in the texts. An

optional move and an optional element of a move on the other hand are those which

do not reach the 100% occurrence rate.

Moves

In an expository (persuasive) genre or part-genre such as the introduction, moves are

macro discourse units one tier below the genre. Each move aims to achieve a tactical

rhetorical action which contributes to the overall rhetorical action of the genre. As

such, rhetorical actions of moves are interdependent. Typical moves of a genre appear

in a regular and yet tactical sequence which can best effect the rhetorical action

intended by the genre. Each move can be realized in steps or strategies (see definitions

of the steps and strategies below).

 57

Steps

The term ‘steps’ employed in this thesis refers to the obligatory elements which

realize a move. To qualify as steps, these elements need to appear in a fixed order

(configuration pattern) that is found in 100% of the move instances registered in the

present corpus. As in the case of the CARS model, the three elements of Move 1

Establishing the territory (i.e., Centrality Claiming, Generalizing the Topic,

Reviewing items of Research) can qualify as steps only if they co-occur and appear in

the exact same order all the time. Each step carries a prototypical set of propositional

contents that reveal tactical intents of the move. Propositional contents in a step are

normally characterized by a set of step-specific semantic features that tend to be

realized in certain lexico-grammatical items.

Strategies

Strategies refer to different possible realizations of a move. They are optional

elements of a move which do not reach the 100% co-occurrence rate in the respective

move instances. Neither do they occur in any fixed sequence as steps do. Take the

elements of Move 1 of the CARS model as an example again. They can only qualify

as strategies if they are found to be optional and do not occur in any fixed order. Each

strategy also carries a prototypical set of propositional contents revealing tactical

intents of the move. Propositional contents in a strategy display characteristic

semantic features that tend to be realized in certain lexico-grammatical items.

 58

Boundaries of moves, steps and strategies

There is no upper textual bound of a move or elements of a move (i.e., steps or

strategies). The boundaries between moves are demarcated by changes in

communicative intent(s) in two contiguous segments of a text detectable through

changes in propositional contents and hence changes in semantic properties. Such

changes in turn bring about changes in certain lexico-grammatical items associated

with the corresponding semantic features. Boundaries can also be, but do not have to

be, signaled by metadiscourse such as headings, section introductions, topic sentences

and discourse markers. As in the case of Move 2, for instance, its onset is usually

marked by an adversative marker (e.g., ‘yet’, ‘however’, etc).

Internal logical coherence

Each move element is assumed to have its internal logical coherence which binds the

propositional contents of the element together as a step or a strategy that in turn serves

a local rhetorical purpose. Examples of such coherence are:

• A development of propositional contents which follows a general-to-specific-

order;

• A development of propositional contents which follows an assertion-evidence

or justification order; and

• A development of propositional contents which follows a chronological order.

 59

2.3 Summary

In this and the previous chapters, I have put forth the following contentions which

have informed my thin analysis:

1. Literature reviews (LRs) and introductions in research writing (RAs and theses)

resemble each other in terms of their rhetorical functions. It is thus argued that

the two part-genres may share similar generic properties in terms of their

rhetorical structure and propositional contents.

2. Because of Contention 1, LRs in RBDs may display the three-move structure

as posited in Swales’ CARS model.

3. The CARS model is a robust model to describe the rhetorical movements in

introductions to research articles and theses.

4. The robustness of the model remains mainly at the move level while its steps

display a noticeable degree of instability that necessitates the researcher’s

attention to such variables as:

a. Cross-cultural variations;

b. Cross-disciplinary variations;

c. Cross-study variations in interpretation of the notions of ‘move’ and

‘step’; and

d. Cross-study /intra-study inconsistency in move- and step-coding.

5. In connection to 4.c, the interpretation of the notions ‘move and ‘step’ should

be made transparent in future CARS studies or move analyses of other genres.

In this regard, a set of working definitions of the terms has been provided in

Section 2.2.4.
 60

6. In connection to 4.d, a rigorous and transparent move/step-coding system is

needed in studies which draw on the CARS model. Such a coding system

should privilege communicative intent as the primary characterizing criterion,

followed by semantic features and associated lexical items (to be dealt with in

Chapter 3).

In the next chapter, I will discuss two approaches to coding which were adopted in the

present study. There I will also fine-tune my research questions to guide the move

analysis.
 61

Chapter 3 Methodology of the Thin Analysis

3.0 Introduction

In this chapter I will discuss the methodology employed in the thin analysis of the

study. The discussion is divided into two parts. In the first part (Sections 3.1 and 3.2),

I will explain the combined functional-semantic approach adopted in the coding of the

LR texts in the thin analysis. In the second part (Sections 3.3 and 3.4), I will describe

the corpus created for the analysis and report the coding procedures that drew on the

semantic-functional approach.

3.1 The semantic approach to text-coding

The semantic approach to text-coding is one in which recurring ideational (semantic)

elements are taken as the characterizing criteria of a segment of text as belonging to a

particular step or move. The analyst can rely on existing criteria or develop their own

criteria in case new ideational elements are identified. Such was part of the strategy

adopted in the thin analysis. The majority of the semantic criteria employed to code

the moves and steps were developed from findings documented in the CARS studies –

and in particular Lewin et al’s (2001) – which were reviewed in Chapter 2.

3.1.1 Terminology: participants, claims and processes

As some of the coding criteria were adapted from Lewin et al’s semantic scheme, I

will start this section by reviewing some of the major notions that the authors
 62

employed in the discussion of the scheme. In their analysis, Lewin at el (2001)

identified three basic categories of semantic attributes, common to but realized

variably in all three moves of the CARS model. The first category is that of

participants 1 , which are references made to agents (affectors), population (or the
TP PT

affected) and phenomena (equivalent to ‘events’ in systemic linguistics’ term) which

usually form the major topic(s) of a step and are normally realized in nominals or

nominal groups. Examples of the three types of references provided by the authors are

researchers, patients, or sex role development respectively. The first type of semantic

features the authors attempted to identify in the corpus is that of move-specific

participants.

Another major category of semantic attributes is processes. Processes refer to various

physical or mental actions, significations or states of being. According to the authors,

there is a notable concentration of writer-initiated processes in Move 3, in which the

writer relates his/her own mental processes such as locutionary processes (e.g.,

reporting something, suggesting), mental processes (e.g., examining something), and

descriptive processes (e.g., representing something).

The third major semantic category identified in all three moves is that of claims. A

claim refers to an assertion a writer makes about a phenomenon. In Move 1, claims

1
TP The authors have grounded their semantic categorization in systemic linguistics and in particular
PT

Martin’s (1992) system network theory which postulates that, as the authors summarize, ‘realizations of
each rhetorical function are generated through a [semantic] system network, … which clarifies the
kinds of participants and processes necessary in order to realize different acts. Realization rules then
specify which of the features from the system network are chosen when other conditions hold’ (pp.29-
30). The names they adopted for each category of semantic attributes have also come from Martin’s
(1992) work.
 63

are made about the magnitude, salience or intensity of the phenomenon under study

to accentuate its value or relevance for discussion. Claims in Move 2 primarily relate

the writer’s assertions of deficiencies in the field. Claims in Move 3 refer to the

assertion of the writer’s contribution to the gap established in Move 2. The three

semantic categories will be invoked again in the following discussion of the semantic

scheme developed to guide the coding of the LR texts.

3.1.2 The semantic coding scheme

In this section, I will present the semantic scheme that was developed to guide the

coding of moves and steps in the thin analysis. I will explain how the attributes for

each of the move-specific steps were established first by summarizing and

exemplifying the major features documented in previous CARS studies and then by

synthesizing the features to formulate a list of referencing criteria that were resorted to

in the process of text-coding in this study. The scheme is presented in the order of

three moves as they appear in the CARS model (Swales 1990).

3.1.2.1 Move 1

Step 1.1 Centrality-claiming

In his seminal work, Swales characterizes centrality claims as ‘appeals to the

discourse community whereby members are asked to accept that the research about to

be reported is part of a lively, significant or well-established research area’ (p.144).

Below are some of examples that he provides to illustrate these claims.

1. Recently, there has been a spate of interest in how to…

2. In recent years, applied researchers have become increasingly interested in…
 64

3. The possibility… has generated interest in…

4. Recently, there has been wide interest in …
5. The time development … is a classic problem in fluid mechanics.
6. The well-known … phenomena… have been favourite topics for analysis both in…
7. Knowledge of… has a great importance of…
8. The effect of… has been studied extensively in recent years.
9. Many investigators have recently turned to…
10. A central issue in … is the validity of…
(Swales 1990, p.144).

Semantic features characterizing these claims as reported in many CARS studies are

those of a phenomenon and a claim of centrality about the phenomenon.

Epistemic and non-epistemic phenomena

The presence of the step of centrality claim in RA introductions has been confirmed in

many CARS studies, revealing that claims can be made of both epistemic and non-

epistemic phenomena. Samraj (2002 cited earlier) found that some of the centrality

claims in her corpus of introductions to RAs from the field of Conservation Biology

refer to real world environmental concerns, as illustrated in the following example

(see the underlined parts) which Samraj provides:

Tropical-forest nature reserves are experiencing mounting human encroachment, U U

raising concerns over their future viability even in remove areas. Long-term
maintenance of nature reserves in economically marginal areas of the tropics is
particularly problematical because protection is based on severely restricted funding
U U U U

from politically and administratively weak governments. Many tropical forest

U U

reserves consequently operate on skeletal budgets, are chronically understaffed, lack

U U U U

the most basic infrastructure, and cannot count on effective institutional support to
U U

enforce conservation legislation. Such frailties render reserves susceptible to a wide

U U

range of illegal activities – hunting, fishing, logging, mining, land clearing – carried
U U

out by both individuals and corporations. Worse, the frequent inability of guards, who
U U U U

are often unarmed and lacking authority to make arrests, to prosecute violators leads
U U U U

to a general disregard of reserve boundaries and egulations. (CB1:1-5). (Samraj 2002,

U U

p.5)
 65

Samraj attributes the non-epistemic references to the relatively young history of the

discipline, which does not have a wealth of academic research to draw on. In other

words, as Samraj argues, ‘in this field it is not previous research with its inadequacies

and gaps that propels new research. Rather, it is a need in the real world that

determines the researcher’s choice of a research topic’ (p.5). References made to the

non-epistemic world and in particular its problematic issues are not uncommon in

research writing. Connor and Mauranen (1999), for instance, identified two types of

territory set in the Moves 1 of their analysis of 34 grant proposals from universities

and research institutes in Finland. One type is set in the ‘real world territory’ and the

other the ‘research territory’. By the real world territory, the researchers refer to one

that is ‘situated in the world outside the research field’ (p.53). The research territory,

on the other hand, refers to the field of research in which the proposal is located. Five

examples to illustrate the two territorial domains as provided by the researchers are

cited below (see the underlined parts):

Real world territories

1. A growing number of societies in the world are becoming post-industrial
U U U

societies. This is the case especially in Europe….

U

2. Non-smokers represent a very interesting population to investigate the

U U

carcinogenic effect on the lung of low level exposure to environmental

carcinogens, the role of genetic predisposition to cancer and the interaction
between these two factors.
3. Flotation has been since the 1920s the most important separation process used
U U U

for concentrating non-ferrous mineral from their ores. The importance of

U

flotation for providing … is presently increasing rapidly, particularly because

of….

Research territory
4. Within CEN/TC161/WG3 study group, a debate is in progress concerning the
U U

inclusion of a combination of methods A and B1 in the CEN guidelines with a

U U

steel plate as surface and glycerine as a lubricant.

5. The overall research theme includes four sub-areas of research: ….
U U U U

(Connor and Mauranen 1999, p.53)

 66

The epistemic and non-epistemic phenomena can be mapped quite fittingly and

respectively onto the two categories of research and non-research participants as

delineated in Lewin et al’s (2001) postulation of the semantic features of the step

captured below (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 research and non-research participants in centrality claims

Variation A: Claim relevance for research [epistemic phenomena]

FEATURE REALIZATION [examples of lexical items italicized]
Participants
Phenomena under study Aim of research
Research
Producers Investigators
Products analysis, focus, study, topic

Variation B: Claim relevance for human behaviour [non-research / non-epistemic phenomena]

FEATURE REALIZATION [examples of lexical items]
Participants
Phenomena under study Affector
Population Affected: psychotic patients
(Lewin et al 2001, p.33)

Based on above discussion, the following two major categories of semantic attributes

of centrality claims can be generated:

• research-oriented (epistemic) attributes which subsume research activities,

researchers, the researched issues (aims);

• non-research-oriented (non-epistemic) attributes which subsume non-epistemic

activities, people involved in such activities, problems associated with such

activities and people’s concerns about such activities

Centrality

‘Centrality’ refers to the assertion of the significance, importance or relevance of the

phenomenon under study. Employing the open coding strategy (Strauss & Corbin
 67

1990), Kwan (1996) observed in her analysis of the centrality claims in 30 non-RA

introductions that centrality of topical territories can be done explicitly or implicitly.

Explicit realizations include those which make direct mentions of significance through

such lexical items as ‘importance’, ‘centrality’ or ‘significance’. These lexical items

can also be found in Examples 7 and 10 by Swales cited on p.64 as well as Example 3

by Connor and Mauranen cited on p.65. Implicit significance claims, as Kwan (1996)

explains, are those carrying the following attributes about the phenomenon:

• Featuring the intensity, frequency, extensive scale or prevalence of the topical

phenomenon. Some representative lexical items used to realize attributes

falling into this category are: ‘a growing number’ (see Example 1 by Connor

& Mauranen, p.65), ‘mounting encroachment’, ‘a wide range of illegal

activities’, ‘frequent inability’ (see Samraj’s example cited on p.64), ‘a spate

of interest’, ‘extensively’, etc. (see also Examples 1 & 8 by Swales, pp.63-64);

• Featuring the recency, currency and longstanding-ness of the topical

phenomenon, issue, practice or research activities. This attribute is realized in

words such as ‘recent interest’, ‘current understanding’ or ‘for more than one

decade’. Similar lexical items can also be found in Examples 1, 2, 4 by Swales

(pp. 63-64) and Example 3 by Connor and Mauranen (p.65).

Centrality-related attributes tend to be realized in pre-modifiers or adjuncts which

serve to accentuate, for instance, the gravity or intensity of a situation or a

phenomenon as in the cases of ‘a growing number’, ‘extensively’, ‘recently’, etc.

Similar semantic attributes are also mentioned in Lewin et al’ study, in which the
 68

authors propose a system to characterize the head act of Move 1 Claiming relevance

(asserting relevance of field of which research is a part) which is equivalent to Step

1.1 Claiming centrality in Swales’ model. The authors classify the identified attributes

into three types of magnitude, salience and intensity. Magnitude refers to the

‘accumulating-ness’ and the ‘accumulated-ness’ of the participants under study (e.g.,

‘growing literature’; ‘topic of discussion for many years’; ‘large numbers’). Intensity

suggests the degree of impact or influence of a participant on the affected (e.g., ‘The

death of a spouse… is one of the most stressful events…’). Salience relates the

significance or the ‘interesting-ness’ of the participant (e.g. ‘The significance of

something is indicated by several surveys’, ‘something….is particularly important’).

In short, the above review of ideational elements of centrality claims suggests that the

step carries the following semantic attributes:

z A phenomenon from the real world or from the epistemic world, which can be

an issue, a practice, a type of research activity, etc. and /or ;

z A group of people (e.g., scholars, researchers, non-academic people, etc.);

z Elements accentuating the centrality of the phenomenon or the people, which

can be any one or a combination of the following types: significance (e.g.,

‘significant’, ‘important’, ‘central’, etc.), time (e.g., ‘current’, ‘recent’, ‘over

the 20 years’, etc.), prevalence (e.g., ‘many’, ‘extensively’, etc.), and intensity

(e.g., ‘growing remarkably’, ‘mounting’, etc.)

 69

Step 1.2 Making topic generalizations

Knowledge, practice and phenomena

Step 1.2 Making topic generalizations is a neutral statement about the existing state of

the territory. This state of art, as Swales (1990) posits, falls into the three categories of

‘knowledge’, ‘practice’ or ‘phenomena’. Some examples which Swales provides are:

Knowledge and practice:

1. The aetiology and pathology of … is well known.

2. A standard procedure for assessing has been…

Phenomena:

3. … is a common finding in patients with…

4. An elaborate system of … is found in the …
5. English is rich in related words exhibiting ‘stress shifts’.

The examples point to three possible semantic features of the step, which are findings

from research (Example 3), essence of a phenomenon (Examples 1, 4 & 5), and a

practice (Example 2).

Other attributes have also been noted in recent studies (e.g. Duszak 1994; Kwan 1996;

Anthony 1999; Lewin et al 2001 and Bunton 2002), which include explanations of

terms and examples for difficult concepts found mostly after or within Move 1

(notably immediately after Step 1). Based on their thick description interviews,

Anthony (1999) and Kwan (1996) conclude that this new semantic category are side-

products of Move 1 in that the use of technical terms entails possible comprehension

problems on the part of the layperson reader, and therefore explanations and examples

need to be added to accompany the move. Duszak (1994), on the other hand, attributes
 70

the conceptual-terminological provision-making phenomenon to other possibilities

such as: demonstrating the writer’s knowledge of the field and the ‘face-keeping’

strategy: ‘This is what I say, and I do not say more than that.’ (p.307)

The step of Making topical generalizations apparently corresponds to the second part

of the head act of Move 1 postulated by Lewin et al. (2000), i.e., Reporting what is

known in the field, which the authors have not dealt with in-depth in terms of its

semantic content. In fact, the step is one of the several that have received the least

attention in various CARS studies and thus insights into its semantic features remain

limited at this stage. Nonetheless, it is taken a priori at this point that, by following

the assertion Swales makes (cited earlier) and the limited findings, the step refers to

those exhibiting the following semantic attributes:

• Existing understanding of the topic established from research findings

• Existing practices related to the topic

• Existing phenomena related to the topic

• Explanations, definitions or clarifications of terms and concepts

Step 1.3 Reviewing items of previous research

Researchers and research processes

The step of reviewing items of previous research is asserted to be a central one in RA

introductions. Swales (1990) explains that it is:

one of the main occasions where the RA author needs to relate what has been found (or
claimed) with who has found it (or claimed it). More precisely, the author needs to
provide a specification (in varying degrees of detail) of previous findings, an
 71

attribution to the research workers who published those results, and a stance towards the
findings themselves. (Swales 1990, p.148)

Swales exemplifies the step by citing the following from an article:

Among the many potential flow methods developed in attempting to solve body vortex
flows are early two dimensional (2D) multivortex methods. 2-42D time-stepping vortex
P P

models that include boundary-layer considerations, 5-8 and a quasi-3D potential flow
P P

method 9 that uses source and vortex elements. Linear, unseparated potential flow
P P

models as well as purely viscous models, are not mentioned here. A survey of the
various methods may also be found in Ref. 10. The potential flow methods are of
special interest because of their ability to treat 3D body shapes and their separated
vortex flows using a simple and relatively inexpensive model. (p.143)

The example supplied however may cause ambiguity in the interpretation of the step

as it foregrounds a particular group of research methods rather than a survey of items

of research and there seems to be no indication that the methods are cited from

research publications. If the text stands as an example of reviewing items of research

and if the sources cited belong to the genre of research writing, it implies that the

analyst needs to first identify the types of sources referred to before deciding whether

the segment can qualify as a review of previous research, a task which may not be

entirely achievable for two reasons. First, while the analyst can resort to the list of

references provided by the text authors for hints of the identities of the sources, their

titles supplied on the list may not easily give away their identities. This may thus

require the analyst to consult the sources to identify their types. Yet, this may not be

possible feasible owing to the availability of the sources as well as the time and efforts

involved in the process.

Ambiguity of the step also arises from the examples which Swales provides for the

step of Making topic generalizations as cited on p.69. Examples 3 and 4 quoted there
 72

(i.e., ‘… is a common finding in patients with…’; ‘An elaborate system of … is

found in the…’) do suggest that the authors review findings cited from research items.

However, the texts are treated as examples of the step Making topic generalizations.

Samraj (2002), whose work was cited earlier, also notes this confusion and finds it

difficult to distinguish the two steps as she comments:

there appears to be no clear basis for distinguishing topic generalizations from

reviews of previous research. Should topic generalizations be distinguished from
literature reviews through level of specificity in the discussion? If so, what level of
specificity should distinguish the two steps? Or, should the presence of citations be
used as a determining factor? This is not a satisfactory criterion since what appears to
be a topic generalization may or may not be followed by citations, as in the examples
below:

4. The uneven distributions of resources such as oxygen, water, food, heat and
mates force many animals to travel between different places to obtain them
and to use some resources in the process. Travel is often cyclical between
two sites, and there are several examples of animals that use this general
class of shuttling behaviour. Diving animals return to the surface to
replenish oxygen used to forage under water (Kramer, 1988; Houston &
Carbone, 1992). (WB11:1-3)

5. Cooperative behaviour can evolve by one of the three major routes: kin
selection (Hamilton, 1964), reciprocity (Trivers, 1971; Axelrod and
Hamilton, 1981) and mutualism (Maynard Smith, 1983; Lima, 1989). In a
Prisoner’s Dilemma, both individuals would benefit from mutual
cooperation, but each individual would benefit more from defecting when
its companion cooperated. (WB 10:1-2)
(Samraj 2000, p.6)

In Lewin et al’s (2001) study, this step was found to be an optional element of Move 1

realized in the act of Making assertions about the research process of others. The

naming of the act suggests that the authors have resorted to the semantic attribute of

research process /activities understood as some narrated events.

In this study, it is taken that if this step does exist in the LR, it needs to be

differentiated from research findings that are cited alone (i.e., in the absence of
 73

research processes). Buckingham and Nevile (1997) in their analysis of citations

show that when research findings are cited alone in isolation of research processes,

they tend to be enacted as knowledge claims rather than part of a research event. The

authors examined how authors engage themselves with ‘colloquia’ (i.e., the networks

of cited writers, intended readers and cited research texts) when citing knowledge

claims drawn from existing works. Employing Thompson and Ye’s (1991) paired

notions of author acts versus writer acts, denotational verbs versus evaluational verbs

as well as Swales’ (1990) integral vs non-integral citations, Buckingham and Nevile

identified four citation forms that experienced academic authors use as exemplified in

Figure 3.2 overleaf. Note the varied formats of the citation of Caldwell’s finding

regarding the alpine ecotype (see the third column of the figure). Signals of

Caldwell’s work as a research study either dissolve into the background or disappear

all together, making the citation stand out more as a knowledge claim than a narration

of Caldwell’s research. Two examples from Figure 3.2 are highlighted below for a

quick illustration.

Example 1: ‘It has been shown that that the alpine ecotype is… (Caldwell 1982)’
U U

Example 2: ‘The alpine ecotype is more tolerant than the arctic ecotype to…
(Caldwell 1982)’.

In Example 1, Caldwell’s research remains in the background as hinted by the phrase

‘it has been shown…’. In example 2, we find no clue of the fact that the statement is a

finding cited from Caldwell’s work. Both examples suggest that research does not

figure as a prominent element of the citations. In other words, it is possible that


Figure 3.2 The four citation forms posited by Buckingham and Nevile
Intertextual Understanding
Knowledge accepted
No controversy
Not recognising the colloquy
No reader engagement
Knowledge negotiable
Potential controversy
Recognising the colloquy
Possible reader engagement
Knowledge as negotiated
Actual controversy
Engaging the colloquy
Likely reader engagement
Knowledge created
Initiating controversy
Affecting the colloquy
Actual reader engagement
74
Option (Predominant textual form) Example
1 The alpine ecotype is more tolerant than the arctic
Non-integral ecotype to… (Caldwell 1982)
No citing verb phrase
2(A) It has been suggested that the alpine ecotype is…
Non-integral (Caldwell 1982)
Author citing verb phrase (denotational) It has been reported that the alpine ecotype is…
(Caldwell 1982)
2(B) It has been shown that the alpine ecotype is …
Non-Integral (Caldwell 1982)
Author citing verb phrase (evaluational) The alpine ecotype has been found to be …
(Caldwell 1982)
It has been convincingly suggested that… (Caldwell
1982)
3(A) Caldwell (1982) states that the alpine ecotype is …
Integral Caldwell (1982) studied the alpine ecotype and
Author citing verb phrase (denotational) [found that…]
In Caldwell’s (1982) estimation, the alpine ecotype
is …
Caldwell (1982) has demonstrated that the alpine
3(B) ecotype…
Integral Caldwell (1982) claims that the alpine ecotype…
Author citing verb phrase (evaluational) Caldwell (1982) rightly states that…
4 Caldwell’s (1982) finding that the alpine ecotype
Integral is … explains its greater longevity.
Writer citing verb phrase
(Buckingham and Nevile 1997, p.58)
 75

findings are presented as knowledge claims with varying degrees of negotiability

when they are not accompanied by narration of research events involved. This

possibility has two implications for coding. First, it calls into question the

appropriateness of taking research findings as a key characterizing semantic feature of

the step of Reviewing previous items of research. Second, it suggests the need to

differentiate knowledge claims from research findings as part of a research narration.

To address the confusion caused by the elusive steps of Making topical

generalizations, Reviewing items of previous research, as well as Claiming centrality

(of research phenomenon), I propose the following two sets of semantic attributes as

characterizing criteria:

z A statement is considered to be Step 1.2 Making topical generalizations if

findings alone are presented, i.e., in the absence of research event semantic

features (see list below). The statement is expressed in one of the citation

forms documented in Buckingham and Nevile (1997, p.58) and is treated as a

claim of existing knowledge.

z A description is classified as Step 1.3 Reviewing previous research items only

if, first of all, the context itself presents signals of surveying research items but

not knowledge alone. These signals are provided in such metadiscourse as

headings (e.g., ‘studies on…’) and sectional / paragraph introductions (e.g.,

‘this section surveys research done on…), which foreground research events

rather than their findings as established or negotiable knowledge. In addition to

these signals, there should be explicit exhibition of any of the following

semantic features: research processes (e.g., investigated…), research

 76

instruments (e.g., questionnaires, interviews,) and methodological

orientations (e.g., qualitative research, ethnographic studies, etc.).

Note that the second set brings about a possible conflation of Reviewing previous

items of research and that of Centrality claiming which relates a claim of vigor of

research of the topic under study. As such, a third set of criteria is introduced here to

separate the two steps. A centrality claim of research phenomenon is one showing

semantic attributes of the above for Reviewing previous items of research as well as

semantic attributes of magnitude, salience or intensity as established previously. By

applying these three sets of semantic criteria, we can classify Samraj’s text sample

cited on p.71 as an instance of Step 1.2 Making topic generalizations.

3.1.2.2 Move 2

Move boundary markers

Findings from the studies surveyed in Chapter 2 reveal that Move 2 constitutes the

author’s attempt to establish a niche (a research space) for his or her own work. This

move is realized in a series of evaluative statements made about the state of art related

in Move 1. Evaluativeness thus forms the first semantic difference between the topic-

promotional claim made in Step 1.1 or the neutral descriptive account of knowledge

or research events provided in Steps 1.2 and 1.3. Most evaluations related in the

move, as has been found so far, tend to be negative and are thus signaled at their

outset by adversative discourse markers such as ‘however’, ‘nevertheless’, ‘yet’,

 77

‘unfortunately’ and ‘but’. Strictly speaking, these markers cannot be taken as

semantic features but signals for the emergence of semantic features of Move 2.

Step 2.A Counter-claiming

Move 2 is in general a continuation of discussion of the phenomenon or knowledge

surveyed in Move 1. The first step of this move, as posited in Swales’ model, is

counter-claiming. Counter-claims are assertions of defects of some specific aspects of

the state of the art. One type of defect is to do with flaws in the research design in

previous studies. Swales (1990) provides the following citation as an example of

Counter-claiming to illustrate research-oriented defects. The italicized parts relate

some of the flaws and limitations in the research design so far established in the field

of studies of vortex:

However, the previously mentioned methods suffer from some limitations mainly
U U U U

concerning the treatment of the vortex wake formation and its interaction with the
body. The first group of methods 2-4 cannot treat 3D flows and is limited to very
P PU U U U

slender bodies. The second group of computational methods 5-8 is time consuming and
P P U

therefore expensive, and its separation prediction is not sufficiently accurate. Both the
U U U

methods in this group and the method in Ref. 9 suffer from the dependency on too
U

many semiempirical inputs and assumptions concerning the vortex wake and its
U

separation. The steady, 3D nonlinear vortex-lattice method, 11-12 upon which the
P P

present method is based, eliminates many of these limitations by introducing a more

consistent model, but it can treat only symmetrical flow cases. (Swales 1990, p.143)

Another type of defect is related to the inconclusive or inconsistent research results

generated from previous research that imply an unsatisfactory state of understanding

of the topic under study. Samraj (2002) provides an example of such type of defect

drawn from her corpus (see the italicized part):

However, data available for birds suggest that the relationship between ornamental
plumage traits of… and mate choice … may be more variable and complex than
U U

predicted by current theory… For example, while some studies of … have

demonstrated … others have not detected….(p.8)
 78

Defects can also refer to faulty assumptions in existing knowledge such as theories,

beliefs, models, and/or unsatisfactory practices without referring to any epistemic

research events or procedures. Several examples are provided below to exemplify this

type of defect, which are cited from Pique et al. (1998). They relate problematic

medical practices that the researchers intended to examine in their research. The bold-

faced parts refer to non-epistemic practices and the underlined parts refer to the

problem of the practices.

Unfortunately, breast self-examination is not widespread. This fact partially explains

U U

why breast cancer mortality rates have not declined. [Nurs-6]

U U

Lack of compliance with medications has long been identified as the major barrier to
U U U U

blood pressure (BP) control in the population. [Med-20]

Local recurrence following breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer is a

significant failure of local treatment. The constraints of informed consent resulted in
poor patient accrual… However, highly significant differences in the incidence of
U

local recurrence were observed in all these trials. In this present article the problem
U

of local recurrence following breast-conserving surgery, its .., ... and… are reviewed.
[Med-12] (Pieque and Andreu-Beso 1998, p.180)

In short, counter-claiming acts carry the following semantic attributes:

• A phenomenon, a practice (research or non-research-oriented), or an issue

under examination which forms the focus of discussion in Move 1

• Negative evaluations of the phenomenon, practice or issue which suggest its

shortcomings, limitations or inadequacies.

Step 2.B Gap-indicating

The second step of Move 2 is Gap-indicating, which relates deficits of knowledge,

research and non-research actions. Claims of deficits can be made directly and
 79

explicitly. Some examples of direct research deficit claims are provided below (see

the underlined parts):

However, to my knowledge, there have been no detailed cytological studies that

U U

describe… (cited in Melander 1998, p.221)

Relatively little research on the effectiveness of these techniques has been reported…
U U

[Nurs-5] (cited in Pique et al. 1998, p.181)

At least within the area of chemical communication, however, investigations have

often just examined significance of one or a small number of cues …. There have U

been few investigations whose purpose has been to identify all possible
U U U

sources….(cited in Samraj 2000, p.9 )

Indirect research deficits include claims of value or need for doing some further

research in an area without highlighting that little work has been documented. An

example is (see the underlined part):

Because of the range of responses that they can develop, soybean leaves should be
U

valuable for the study of… (cited in Melander 1998, p.221)

U

Knowledge deficits refer to claims of incomplete understanding of an important issue.

They carry the semantic features of scarcity and paucity of existing knowledge. Again,

they can be realized explicitly or implicitly. An example of an explicit knowledge

deficit claim is: ‘… the substantive knowledge base about that care and how effective

it is remains extremely limited. [Nurs-5]’ (cited in Pique et al. 1998, p.182). The kind
U U

of limitation denoted here is different from that in claims of defect. Here, limitations

refer to scarcity of knowledge or paucity of necessary actions. However, ‘limitations’

in defect claims refer to the flaws or inadequacies in the existing state of the art.

Claims of scarcity or paucity can be related implicitly, as illustrated in the following

texts (see the underlined parts) again taken from Pique et al. 1998:
 80

Although nurses obviously make numerous decisions regarding pain, there are manyU U U

questions related to decision-making and pain to be answered. [Nurs-7] (cited in

U U U

Pique & et al. 1998, p. 182)

Even though it has been suggested that it may be inappropriate to attempt to measure
all aspects of pain in one assessment, Donovan clearly emphasizes the need for
U

thoroughness and efficiency in nursing assessment of pain. [Nurs-4] (cited in Pique et

U

al. 1998, p. 182)

Some knowledge or research deficit claims are also embedded within claims of needs,

as demonstrated in the segment cited from Samraj’s (2002) study:

The need for proactive conservation measures is obvious, but few programs …have
U U

been developed…Except for studies of island birds, associations between ecological

attributes and susceptibility to extinction rarely have been tested rigorously. In
U U

particular, little is known regarding …(Samraj 2002, p.10).

U U

Similar semantic features of counter-claiming and gap-indicating have also been

identified in Bunton’s (2002) and Lewin et al’s (2001) studies. However, the features

seem to have been assigned to identify some other steps. In Bunton’s study,

‘problems’ and ‘needs’ as lexical items have been exclusively employed as features to

characterize the step of problem/need-indicating (a new step in the model), as

illustrated in the following examples.

So, the major problem which emerges is how will X be interpreted and implemented
U U

in a Y environment which displays a number of features that are in marked contrast to

Z. (Bunton 2002, p.68)

In order to obtain concentrated seed proteins, extraction procedures are necessary to

U U

isolate them from the rest of the seed materials… (Bunton 2002, p.69)

It would be useful to have a full understanding of what is required for universities to

U U

make their maximum contribution to the good of society. (Bunton 2002, p.69)

It appears that instead of being characterized by their semantic features, the segments

cited above were coded based on the lexical items that appeared in them. Also, the
 81

analysis seems to have occurred at a clause level. On the other hand, examples of

Move 2 from previous studies suggest that the intertwining of the needs and other

deficit features in gap-indicating claims is quite probable, as illustrated in Samraj’s

example provided earlier and also those offered by (Swales 1990). This observation

renders ‘needs’ and ‘problems’ rather problematic as semantic attributes for

characterizing the step of problem/need-identifying. In the present study, problems

and needs are resolved into two different separate features which belong to counter-

claiming and gap-indicating respectively. This differentiation may affect the

comparison between the findings generated in this study and those from Bunton’s.

Lewin et al (2001) also noted a strong presence of Move 2 in their corpus that carries

the attributes of research and non-research participants, claims of defects and deficits

as discussed above (see Figure 3.3). However, their characterization of the move

differs from that in most studies. First, they consider the entire move as gap-

establishing that contains three major semantic attributes of defects, scarcity, and

obscurity (see Figure 3.3). According to the examples of lexical realizations provided

by the authors, it appears that the last two categories (scarcity and obscurity) can in

fact be treated as deficit attributes of the step of Gap-indicating.

Figure 3.3 A partial system network for features of the head act of Move 2, ‘establish the gap’
Move 3 System I
Participants Research products Study, tests
Phenomena under study Sex role development
System II
ESTABLISH THE GAP Defect: Shortcoming
Claim Scarcity: no, few, rare, only
Obscurity: Unknown / little is known
(Lewin et al 2001, p.45)
 82

To achieve some consistency in coding and facilitate cross-study comparison, the

semantic features employed to identify gap-indicating follow what has been

exemplified in most studies and include the following items:

• scarcity or paucity of research, realized in such expressions as ‘little research’,

‘few studies’;

• scarcity or paucity of knowledge, realized in such expressions as ‘little is

known’, ‘not much is known’

• needs for actions realized in such expressions as ‘there is a need’, ‘research

into X is valuable’ or ‘it is worthwhile to …’

Step 2.C Question-raising

This step is by far the least discussed and thus its semantic features are set up a priori

to include both direct and indirect questions which the writer’s research addresses.

Step 2.D Continuing a tradition

This step is one in which the writer proposes that a line of tradition (e.g., method,

theory, etc.) be followed. This is one of the steps which Swales has not provided much

explanation. To illustrate the step, he only cites the following example with no further

commentary:

The remaining issue is to find a way of better controlling spherical aberration’ (p.142).

Unfortunately, this example might invite alternative interpretations. The semantic

elements of the statement suggest a claim of something which remains to be found or

 83

understood and hence a claim of a gap of practice. It can thus be argued that the

example might fit better into the category of gap-indicating. In fact, like the question-

raising step, this step has received the least attention in the literature and has been

provided with few examples for illustration. As such, it was also taken to mean the

claiming of the extension of a line of research or an application of a particular

established practice. Semantic features developed for identifying this step thus include:

• research methodology (design, instruments, procedures);

• non-research practices;

• a call for extension or application of the above

3.1.2.3 Move 3

Purposes of research, hypotheses, and findings

Most research studies have reported the presence of the steps of Move 3 (e.g., Swales

& Najjar 1987; Nwogu 1997; Anthony 1999; Lewin et al. 2001; Samraj 2002).

Among the various steps of the move, Introducing the purpose of the article and

Presenting the present research (aims, nature) are the most common two. Lewin et al

(2001) developed a system network of semantic features to characterize these steps as

captured in Figure 3.4 overleaf.

As far as the Ph.D thesis introduction goes – as identified in Bunton (2002), the steps

of this move are far more than those found in the RA introduction studies (see Figure

3.5 overleaf). While some of the steps in Bunton’s model overlap with those in most

previous studies and hence their semantic features are quite well-covered by the
 84

system network developed by Lewin et al as presented in Figure 3.4, there are still

some steps (refer to the italicized parts in Figure 3.5) whose semantic criteria remain

to be established for the present study, and they will be dealt with in the following

sections.

Figure 3.4 Features of the head act of Move 3, ‘preview author’s contribution’

FEATURE REALIZATION
Participant
Self We or
Product Nominal group representing product of author’s research, e.g.,
Research Study, investigation
Report Paper, article
+ identifier: this, the present or locator: here
Process
Locutionary Present, report
Mental
Non-research Suggest, wish
Research Examine, measure
Descriptive Provide, represent
Claim
Purpose of research Lexical item: purpose ; Infinitive of purpose: to do X
Contents of report Name phenomena under study
(Lewin et al 2001, p.54)

Figure 3.5 Move 3 in Bunton’s (2002) model

Steps occur often Steps occur occasionally

1. Purposes, aims, or objectives Chapter structure
2. Work carried out (Eg, Sj)
U U Research questions/Hypotheses
3. Method
U U Theoretical positions (So)
4. Materials or Subjects
U U Defining terms
5. Findings or Results
U U Parameters of research
6. Product of research (Eg)/Model proposed (So)
U U

7. Significance/Justification
U U Application of product (Eg)
8. Thesis structure
U U Evaluation (Eg)

(Bunton 2002, p. 74)

Work carried out

This step presumably carries semantic features signifying various research events,

which took place in the writer’s thesis-making.

 85

Method

This step is characterized by semantic features which indicate a) the approach the

writer adopted in his/her collection of data or design of certain parts of the research,

and/or b) some of the major research actions. These features might be realized in such

words as “interviewing”, “experimenting”, and “qualitative approach.”

Materials or subjects

This step carries semantic features that describe the instruments and materials the

writer used in the research. Some a priori lexical realizations posited for these

features include questionnaires, interview protocols, and tests etc. The step can also

carry features signifying people as subjects. The features are posited to be realized in

such lexical items as ‘subjects’, ‘students’, ‘informants’ or ‘patients’ who were

involved in the writer’s study.

Findings or results

This step reports outcomes of the writer’s research which are characterized by such

features as mental/analytical processes, data collected, phenomena observed, relations

induced, general statistical description. It is expected that these statements are partly

realized in such words as ‘found’, ‘identified’, ‘confirmed’.

Significance and justification

This step displays claims of importance or reasons for doing one’s research. It is

speculated that it carries features which can be found in centrality claims. These
 86

features include the participant of ‘research’ carried out by the writer and claims of

importance or significance to an epistemic or non-epistemic community.

Thesis structure

This step carries semantic features of references made to various parts of the thesis, as

realized in such lexical items of chapter, number, and the theme of each chapter.

In this section (Section 3.1.2) thus far, I have surveyed the various semantic features

associated with the different moves and steps of the CARS model by drawing on

findings reported in different CARS studies and in particular the elaborate semantic

networks developed in Lewin et al’s study. As I stated at the beginning of the section,

the survey was motivated by a search for a set of rigorous characterizing criteria

which can be used to identify and draw boundaries of different moves and steps. From

the above survey, I have synthesized a semantic scheme to guide the thin analysis (see

Appendix I).

3.2 The functional approach to text-coding

Using the semantic strategy alone is not enough to solve some of the problems

reported in previous CARS studies. For instance, it is possible that semantic features

posited for a step may also be found elsewhere in the move structure. Such was the

case reported in Samraj’s (2002) study in which reviewing of literature can be found

in other parts of an introduction. As also discussed above, citations of research events

can be found in both Step 1.1 (Centrality claiming) and Step 1.3 (Reviewing previous

items of research). The analyst thus needs other means to determine the identity of a
 87

text segment. As Bhatia (1993) maintains, at certain points we need to resort to

cognitive judgment rather than linguistic criteria in identifying textual boundaries.

This view is also shared by other genre analysts (as cited in Paltridge 1994) who call

for what Paltridge has described as a functional approach to boundaries and staging in

a text. When coding a segment of a text using the functional approach, the analyst

asks the question, ‘How does this segment help achieving the local purpose and the

macro purpose of the text?’ In the case of the present study, it is important to identify,

for instance, the local purpose of discussing a group of research studies in a particular

part of the LR (e.g., to evaluate the existing state of art) and at the same time connect

the local purpose to the ultimate goal that the LR text aims to achieve (i.e., to create a

niche and hence justify one’s research). This coding approach is very much in line

with the theoretical assumption of a move, which is supposed to serve a particular

local end that in turn contributes to the overall rhetorical action of the text. In fact,

Swales (1990) has assigned functional names for the CARS model as well as its

moves and steps to reflect their rhetorical values rather than linguistic or semantic

content.

It needs to be emphasized that though the semantic and functional approaches to text-

coding have been dealt with separately in the foregoing discussion, they are by no

means independent of each other. At any moment of analyzing a text segment

functionally, for instance, the analyst inevitably needs to consider its propositional

contents and hence attention is drawn to its semantic features. Likewise, when the

semantic elements of a text segment are examined, it is imperative that the analyst
 88

determine its functional relation to its preceding and subsequent segments as well

as the overall text. Such was the practice followed when the LR texts were analyzed

semantically and functionally.

3.3 Procedures of the thin Analysis

In this section and the next, I will report the procedures taken in the thin analysis. I

will explain how the combined semantic-functional approach and also the semantic

scheme outlined above were applied in the coding. The thin analysis aimed to seek

answers to the following research questions:

a) Do LRs in RBDS exhibit a common rhetorical move structure? If they do,

what are its typical moves and what are moves configured? What is the

prototypical move structure?

b) Does each of the moves consist of different elements? What are the

characterizing semantic features of each of the elements? Also, how are the

elements realized? Are they realized in ‘steps’ or in ‘strategies’ (Bhatia 2001)?

If the elements are realized in ‘steps’, what is the sequential pattern of the

steps?

c) If LRs in RBDs display a common rhetorical move structure, how would it

compare with that found in other introductions to research articles and in

particular introductory chapters of theses (i.e., Bunton’s model 2002)?

 89

3.3.1 The corpus

The LR texts analyzed in this study are taken from 20 theses of a variety of disciplines

of humanities and social sciences (e.g., sociology, communication studies, psychology,

education, curriculum planning, and public and business administration). The theses

also represent a spread of epistemological and methodological orientations including

quantitative and qualitative research with critical and non-critical bents (see Figure 3.6

overleaf). The theses were completed within the past 7 years by a group of Chinese

students who were based in Hong Kong while pursuing their degrees at one of the

universities in Hong Kong. Eighteen of them were located through the library

catalogues of the seven universities in Hong Kong. Two of the theses were provided

by their writers who obtained their doctoral degrees from two universities in UK via a

distance-learning mode. In terms of length, the theses from both localities are about

the same, though several of those submitted to local universities are longer.

All the twenty theses follow the traditional format of ILrMRD2 (Dong 1998; Dudley-TP PT

Evans 1999) and only the LR chapters of the theses were chosen for analysis. The

following two criteria were set to identify the LR chapter of a thesis. First, the chapter

needs to be one which comes between the introductory and the methodology chapters.

Second, its LR status needs to be indicated explicitly in various meta-texts provided in

the thesis (Mauranen 1993; Bunton 1999), which include the table of contents, the

preview of the structure as usually provided towards the end of the introductory

chapter, the head and the opening paragraphs of the potential literature review chapter.

2
TP PT Introduction-Literature Review-Methodology-Discussion. See Chapter 1.
 90

Figure 3.6 Some background information of the 20 LR texts analyzed in this study

Writer Discipline and area of study; Research Methodology Length

(chapters: pages)
1 Teacher education and teaching innovation; qualitative 1:39
2 Public Administration and director board ; quantitative 2:116
3 Psychology and parenthood; quantitative & qualitative 3:89
4 Sociology and poverty; qualitative 3:62
5 Cross-cultural communication and management; quantitative & 2:66
qualitative
6 Literacy acquisition; quantitative & qualitative 1:54
7 Psychology and corporate communication; quantitative and 2:48
qualitative
8 Higher education and teaching evaluation; quantitative & 1:29
qualitative
9 Cross-cultural communication and psychology; qualitative 1:15
10 Language education and testing; qualitative 1:38
11 Public administration and professionalization ; quantitative 1:23
12 Psychology and physical exercise; quantitative & qualitative 2:66
13 Public administration and professionalization; quantitative & 1:17
qualitative
14 Mass media and environmental protection: quantitative & 1:41
qualitative
15 Curriculum planning; quantitative and qualitative 1:45
16 Assessment and classroom teaching; quantitative 1:46
17 Curriculum implementation: qualitative 2:61
18 Communication and organizational culture; quantitative & 2:62
qualitative
19 Cultural studies and advertisements; qualitative 2:93
20 Psychology and sociology of life; quantitative 2:109

The LR texts vary in their lengths, ranging from one to three chapters. The longest LR

text identified was taken from the thesis of Writer 2. His LR consists of two extensive

chapters that span 116 pages. The shortest one comes from the thesis by Writer 9

which bears one LR chapter that runs 15 pages only. A total of 32 LR chapters were

identified in the 20 theses, which amount to a total of 1119 pages of text printed in

font size 11 or 12 with double- or 1.5 line-spacing. The total word count is

approximately 335800.
 91

3.3.2 Coding procedures

I performed a pilot analysis on two of LR texts (those by Writer 3 and Writer 1)

before I conducted the analysis proper. The following procedures were carried out

during the piloting.

3.3.2.1 Gaining a macro view of the theses and the LR texts

As discussed in Chapter 1, one primary rhetorical purpose of the LR is to justify the

writer’s own study, or to make this part of the thesis a springboard for what the writer

did in his/her research work. This close connection between the LR and the reported

research necessitates the analyst’s knowledge of what the writer pursued in the study.

As such, before I attempted an analysis of each of the two LR texts, I tried to gain a

macro view of the writer’s research and the thesis by studying its abstract, the

introduction chapter, some major parts of the methodology, discussion and conclusion

chapters. Having gained an overall picture of the writer’s work, I read the LR text at

least twice to familiarize myself with its propositional contents and how the different

parts of the LR texts cohere thematically and logically. This survey of the LR text was

much needed for coding at a later stage which required my understanding of the

logical development of the text. As for the LR text written by Writer 3, which consists

of three chapters, I read the chapters consecutively before I started coding them. The

macro view of the writers’ work gained at this stage provides an important perspective

for me to appreciate the integrity of each of the two texts in the process of analyzing

them (Bhatia 2001).

 92

3.3.2.2 Coding

Text parsing

The next step I took was analyze the moves and steps of the text, which were met with

some initial complications. The major cause of the complications was the extensive

lengths of the two LR texts and in particular that by Writer 3. To solve this problem, I

tried to code the texts on a chapter-by-chapter basis.

Chapter structure analysis

U

The first outcome of the pilot study revealed that the LR chapters carry a unique

chapter structure of Introduction – Thematic Sections – Chapter Conclusion. I will

cite from Writer 3’s first LR chapter to illustrate this internal structure. It opens with a

brief introduction section, which spans a total of three sentences (see Text 3.1a below)

and closes with a slightly longer summary text which is three paragraphs long (See

Text 3.1b below).

Text 3.1a (Writer 3)

Introduction
In this chapter, two major themes will be reviewed: first, the definition of stress,
U U U

and second, issues of parenthood in general. A model in defining stress will be

U U U

taken [developed] as reference for the study of stress in this thesis. The
understanding of issues in parenting in general will shed light on the extra demand
of adoptive parenthood in particular. [2-27]

Text 3.1b (Writer 3)

Summary
This chapter defines stress and discusses various issues of parenthood in general.
Lazaus and his colleagues model of stress (1984) which considers the interaction
of stimulus and response component of stress, the cognitive appraisal
processes…and the social context…was referred to as the theoretical framework of
this study. …Issues in parenting…are examined. …Multiple theories in parenting
are visited, including:… Positive predetermining factors for …are identified.
 93

Identifying thematic units

U

Running between the introductory and concluding texts of the chapters in the two LR

texts are discussions of different various themes. I parsed these discussions into

respective thematic units for move analysis, a strategy which was partly informed by

my observation of the presence of Move 1-2-3 structures in some of the thematic

sections during my first round of cursory reading of the LR chapters. I speculated that

the two writers might have treated each of the thematic sections as a mini literature

review of its own. This speculation was also informed by the findings in Crooke’s

(1986) study in which he observed that each recurring move structure tends to bring

about a slightly different theme of discussion that is related to the writer’s research.

I employed a variety of meta-discourse to identify the thematic units and their

boundaries, which include chapter introductory texts as well as the section headings

through which the writers provide clues for the themes reviewed in the chapter and the

boundaries of the thematic units. I will illustrate the two types of meta-discourse again

by referring to the first LR chapter written by Writer 3. To identify the thematic units

in the chapter, I first studied the introductory text provided at the beginning of the

chapter (see Text 3.1a cited above) where Writer 3 announces the two major themes

she will discuss in the chapter: defining stress and issues of parenthood (see the

underlined parts in Text 3.1a). I then divided the chapter accordingly into the two

thematic units of definition of stress and issues of parenthood. I looked for the

headings in the chapter and I found the following headings.

 94

Defining Stress
Issues of Parenthood
Crisis Theory
Role Theory
Social Class
Social Support
Parental Perception
Meta-emotion structure

Note that the formatting features the writer used are reproduced here to show the

relation among the headings. The first two bold-faced headings represent the two

major thematic units of the chapter. The next six headings are italicized by the writer,

which suggests that they are subsumed under the major heading of ‘Issues of

Parenthood’. This subsuming is also explicitly indicated in the first paragraph of the

second thematic section, which comes immediately after the heading ‘Issues of

Parenthood’ (Text 3.2):

Text 3.2 (Writer 3)

Issues of Parenthood
Before looking into the particularities of adoptive parenthood, it is necessary to
address the issues faced by parents in general… It is useful to take a look at the
different theories before a more integrative model emerges. Theories on parenting can
be broadly grouped under six areas: 1) Crisis Theory, 2) … and 6) Meta-emotiona
structure.

In some of the LR texts, the writers also employ section-numbering systems to

indicate different levels of sectioning (e.g., 2.1, 2.1.1 or 2.A., 2.A.1), which serve as

one type of meta-discourse to which I resorted for signals of thematic unit boundaries.
 95

Move-/step-coding of thematic units

U

For each identified thematic unit, I conducted a separate move analysis. As in the case

of Writer 3’s LR chapter mentioned above, I analyzed the move structures in the two

units independently. Here, I will briefly describe the results of the analysis of the first

thematic unit (Definition of stress). The text (Text 3.3) corresponding to the unit is

cited in the second column of the table overleaf (Figure 3.7) with the coding of the

text provided in the third column. In the upcoming paragraphs, I will explain how the

combined functional and semantic approach was applied to arrive at the coding results.

Though the two approaches will be reported separately, they were in fact applied

almost simultaneously as will be indicated.

Coding by employing the functional approach

When applying the functional approach to move/step-coding the two writers’ texts, I

primarily looked at how contiguous text segments relate to each other. When doing

this, I first studied the propositional contents of each of the thematic units and

examined how they contribute to the overall rhetorical purposes of the LR in the thesis

(i.e., to justify the writer’s own research as discussed in Chapter 1). As for the analysis

of Text 3.3 in Figure 3.7, I first paid special attention to the gist of the unit (see the

next section on Coding by employing the semantic approach), examining the

coherence across the paragraphs, and the possible intentions behind each of the

paragraphs in relation to the writer’s own research. Here, I will elaborate how I

analyzed the text functionally.

 96

Figure 3.7 Move analysis of Text 3.3 (Writer 3)

Text Text 3.3 (Writer 3) Coding of the text
segment
number
1 Defining Stresses Move 1 Step 1.1
U U U
There are several definitions of stress, each of which has a different focus. The earlier theorists focused on stress as a stimulus or stressor U Characterizing approach 1 to the
U U
(Holmes & Rahe, 1967). Stress was seen as environmental events that produce undesirable consequences for the individual. Natural disasters, definition of stress by citing from
man-made catastrophes such as war, family disruption such as death and divorce, loss of job and so on are examples of stressors. sources
U U U U U U
This perspective was considered to be too narrow by Lazarus & Folkman (1984) for it tends to ignore individual differences in vulnerability Move 2 Step 2.A
2
U U
to such events. Also, it tends to equate stressors with major life events and thus avoids dealing with chronic stressors or with the “daily Negatively responding to definition
hassles” that create distress and maladaptation in many people (DeLongis, Coyne, Dakof, Folkman, 1982 & Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). approach 1 by citing others’ works to
back up the critique
U U U
A second approach to the definition of stress, based on biology and medicine, focuses on response or outcome variables (Selye, 1950, 1976). U Move 1 Step 1.1
3
U U
When something is stressful, it produces a characteristic physiciological outcome, such as increased heartrate and respiration, elevated Characterizing approach 2 to the
corticosteroid and so on. definition of stress by citing from
sources
U U
Like the stimulus-oriented definition, it restricts our ability to define stress prospectively, that is we cannot know in advance whether Move 2 Step 2.A
4
something will be stressful or not, because the same type of response, such as elevated heartrate, can occur for different reasons. Therefore, Negatively responding to definition
U U
without reference to a specific stimulus, it is difficult to know whether a particular response should be judged as a psychological stress approach 2 by citing others’ works to
reaction (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). back up the critique
U U
The third, and more widely used definition, has been offered by Lazarus and his colleagues (Lazarus, DeLongis, Folkman & Gruen, 1985; Move 1 Step 1.1
5
U
Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). This is a more comprehensive approach to stress as it considers several things: the interaction of stimulus and Characterizing approach 3
response component of stress, the cognitive appraisal processes, coping style and defence mechanisms as well as social context. In this U

perspective, special consideration is placed on the role of cognitive appraisal in understanding the link between stress and adaptational
outcomes. Two forms of cognitive appraisal have been described: the primary and secondary. Primary appraisal refers to the potential impact
of the event on the individual… On the other hand, secondary appraisal refers to judgments concerning possible steps that can be taken to
meet the demands of the stressful event.. …the cognitive processes and coping strategies are highly influenced by a host of personal variables
and environmental variables. The individual’s values, commitments, goals, and general beliefs, including self-esteem, mastery,… and
interpersonal trust are assumed to interact with various environmental demands, .. resources such as social support, to produce divergent
appraisals as to whether the stimulus event in question is potentially stressful and, if so, what the person can do to cope with it. Individual
differences in response to psychological stress situation is a major tenet of this perspective. …
6 A glimpse [sic] of the stress theory proposed by Lazarus and his colleagues is identifiable in the study of infertility [one of the issues pursued Move 2 Step 2.Y
in the writer’s study] in the following chapter. The infertile adopters have to go through a series of stages before legal adoption evaluate their Suggesting similarities between the
situation initially, acknowledge the loss of their biological children, face the threat of societal stigmatization, work through cultural or coping, appraisal strategies and personal
personal aspiration to become parents, and to make a choice, among others, to take up the challenge of adoptive parenthood. These appraisal factors assumed of in Lazarus et al ’s
and coping processes [likely to be experienced by adoptive parents] are intertwined with the personal and environmental variables of the definition of stress and the coping and
adopters, such as who they think they are, or should become, the place of children and parenting in their life goal, the available tangible and appraisals which subjects of the writer’s
intangible resources they possess to meet with the demand adoption. research need to go through
U U U U
…The theoretical framework of the subsequent study [the writer’s own study] of adoptive parental stresses and coping will be adapted from U U U U Move 3 Step 1.A + justification
7
U U
this model [of definition of stress] integrating other issues relevant to adoption. Announcing the adoption of the third
approach to the conceptualization of
stress
Justifying the adoption of the approach
 97

In this thematic unit, Writer 3 deals with the phenomenon of defining the construct

‘stress’, which forms one major object of her study regarding adoptive parenthood

(i.e., how adoptive parents cope with stressful parenting demands). The writer

characterizes two major defining options in Segments 1 and 3 by citing from others’

works and then evaluates the options respectively in Segments 2 and 4 in rather

negative terms, which suggest that they might not be considered by the writer in her

research. The evaluation of the second definition is however followed by an elaborate

characterization of the third defining option posited by Lazarus et al as indicated in

Segment 5. The characterization highlights some major processes and variables

(coping, appraisals, personal factors, environment) which can determine if a

potentially stressful event is taken as stressful by the individual. In Segment 6, by

drawing on Lazarus et al’s definition of stress, the writer describes some potentially

stressful events, coping strategies and appraisals which infertile adopters face. The

move suggests the writer’s attempt to convince the reader that Lazarus’ theoretical

construct is the most appropriate to describe the stress her subjects face and hence the

most relevant to her study. This rhetorical purpose apparently is confirmed by the

writer’s announcement of her adoption of the framework in Segment 7. The adoption

is also borne out in the rest of her research design, in which elements of Lazarus’

theoretical construct were translated into specific elements of stress faced by adoptive

parents, which were then built into one part of the writer’s model for testing.

Claims of relevancy or applicability of items surveyed in Move 1 such as the one

described in the previous paragraph (i.e., Segment 6) apparently have not been
 98

reported in previous CARS studies. It was thus labeled as Step Y to mean that it is a

new category of claims identified in the current corpus and to suggest its potential as a

characteristic step of Move 2 of the LR texts.

Coding by employing the semantic approach

When I was examining the 7 segments of Text 3.3 functionally, I was inevitably also

analyzing them semantically. The semantic analysis indicates that Segments 1, 3 and

5 carry features which suggest that they are instances of Step 1.2 Making topical

generalizations of Move 1. The analysis is summarized in Figure 3.8 overleaf. The

first column contains some generic features of the step as established earlier in

Section 3.1.2, which were used as the reference for determining the identity of

Segments 1 and 3. The features include the phenomenon to be discussed in the LR

text (in the first box), characterizing features of the phenomenon (in the second box),

and exemplification of the phenomenon (in the third box).

The second column displays specific features identified in the three segments which

can find matches with the corresponding generic features. For instance, the text

relates the phenomenon of having various approaches to defining stress in the field of

psychology, which in fact is the core theme of the unit. (In Chapter 4, I will use the

term ‘theme’ to refer to the phenomenon or participants which form the major topic of

discussion in a thematic unit.) The specific semantic features of this phenomenon are

presented in the first box of the second column. In the discussion of the phenomenon,

the writer characterizes 2 different approaches to defining. The semantic features of

 99

the characterizing the approaches are summarized in the second box of the column.

The writer also provides examples of the defining approaches, the semantic features

of which are presented in the third box of the second column. The third column

exemplifies the linguistic realizations of the three groups of semantic features of the

segments. The absence of evaluative and promotional semantic attributes in the three

segments also suggests that they should be taken as instances of Making topical

generalizations rather those of Centrality-claiming or Counter-claiming.

Figure 3.8 Semantic features of Segments 1, 3 and 5 of Text 3.3

General semantic Specific semantic features Linguistic realizations of the features in the
features typical of identified in the segments segments
Step 1.2
The overarching Three approaches to defining stress ‘definitions of stress’ (Segment1)
U U

phenomenon to be as observed in the field of ‘stress as a stimulus’ (Segments 1&.2)

U U

discussed psychology ‘When something is …, it produces …’

U U U U

‘Primary appraisals refers to…’ (Segment 3), which

U U

is a typical syntactic structure used in dictionaries

Phenomenon- Characterizing each definitional ‘events that produce undesirable consequences’

U U

characterizing approach: (Segment 1)

attributes z stress as environmental events, ‘When something is stressful, it produces a
U

z stress as biological consequences characteristic physiciological outcome’ (Segment U

z stress as a complex interactional 3)

construct

Phenomenon- Exemplifying each approach Discourse markers:

exemplifying attributes ‘such as and examples’

Exemplifications :
‘Natural disasters, man-made catastrophes such as
U

war, family disruption such as death and divorce,

loss of job and so on are examples of stressors’ U

(Segment 1)
increased heartrate and respiration, elevated
U

corticosteroid (Segment 2)
U

The semantic analysis of Segments 2 and 4 suggest that they carry features which

qualify them as instance of the step Counter-claiming of Move 2. These features are
 100

summarized in Figure 3.9 below. Three relevant generic attributes of the step as

established in Section 3.1.2 are listed in the first column. In the second column are

specific features identified in Segments 2 and 4 that find corresponding matches with

the generic features. The matches suggest that the segments should be considered to

be a step of Counter-claiming.

Figure 3.9 Semantic features of Segments 2 & 4 of Text 2

General semantic Specific semantic Linguistic realizations
features typical of Move features in the two
2 Step 2.A segments
An overarching The theme of defining ‘it [outcomes as stress]’ (Segment 2)
U U

phenomenon stress & ‘This perspective [stress as a stressor]’

U U

& the two different (Segment 4)

its variables approaches to the
definition of ‘stress’
Claims of Pointing out the ‘too narrow’, (Segment 2)
U U

defects in the shortcomings of the ‘…restricts our ability to define stress

U

phenomenon two approaches prospectively…’ (Segment 4) ;

U

Justification of Evidence of defects ‘ignore…’ and ‘avoids dealing with…’

U U U U

claims of defects (Segment 2)

in the ‘it is difficult to know…’ (Segment 4)
U U

phenomenon

As I mentioned earlier, the relevancy / applicability claim of Lazarus et al’s definition

does not find its match in the scheme developed. Semantic features were therefore

generated to accommodate the new segment, which are summarized in Figure 3.10

(see overleaf).

The evaluation of the third option (Segment 6) is followed immediately by the

announcement of the adoption of this option in the writer’s own study (Segment 7).

Semantic features of this segment are shown in Figure 3.11 (see overleaf). Again, the

features suggest that the segment bears features similar to those established in the

present scheme for Step 1.A of Move 3.

 101

Figure 3.10 Semantic features of Segment 6 of Text 3.3

Semantic features Meaning Linguistic realizations

developed for Move 2
Step 2.Y
A variable of the The defining approach A glimpse of Lazarus and his colleagues’
U

phenomenon offered by Lazarus et al: theory

the interactional approach

Claim of Suggesting relevancy of is identifiable in the study of infertility [one of the

U U

relevancy of the Lazarus’s approach to the issues pursued in the writer’s study] in the following
U

variable to the writer’s own research chapter. These appraisal and coping processes
research [likely to be experienced by adoptive parents] are U

intertwined with the personal and environmental

U

variables of the adopters [recycling some of the

U

terminology cited from Lazarus et al’s sources]

Justification of Evidence of relevancy Such as who they think they are, or should become,
U U

relevancy to the the place of children and parenting in their life goal,
research the available tangible and intangible resources they
possess to meet with the demand adoption.

Figure 3.11 Semantic features of Segment 7 of Text 3.3

General semantic Specific semantic Linguistic realizations
features of Move 3 features identified in
Step 1.A the segment
The theme Lazarus et al’s approach ‘This model…’ (Segment 2.6)
U U

in to the definition of stress

question
The The writer’s own ‘The theoretical framework of the subsequent study [the
U U

research in research and its processes writer’s own study] of adoptive parental stresses and coping
focus will be adapted from … integrating other issues relevant to
U U U U

adoption.

If we apply the move-numbering system used in Swales’ original CARS model, we

can arrive at the following coding of Text 3.3:

1i-2i-1ii-2ii-1iii-2iii -3 where

i= phenomenon variable 1 (stress definition option 1)

ii= phenomenon variable 2 (stress definition option 2)
iii= phenomenon variable 3 (stress definition option 3)

In this section, I have explained the procedures which I carried out in the pilot

analysis. The results from the analysis suggest the possible presence of a chapter
 102

structure (Introduction-Thematic Sections-Conclusion) and CARS-like structures

in the mezzo thematic sections. The same procedures were applied to the analysis

proper. That is, the key parts of each thesis were first browsed through at least once to

familiarize myself with the writer’s research. Each LR text was parsed into chapters

(if it carries more than one chapter). Each of the LR chapters was studied to examine

its chapter structure, internal coherence and connections with other parts of the thesis.

Where a chapter carries introductory and concluding texts, the two texts were isolated

for separate propositional content and move analyses.

Each LR text was re-read to identify the thematic units carried in it. Each thematic

unit was re-read to identify a) its boundaries, achieved mainly by identifying the

major theme in the unit, b) its internal logical coherence, and c) its purpose in relation

to the writer’s own research. Each thematic unit was then analyzed for cross-

paragraph or cross-sectional coherence. The text in the thematic unit was tentatively

parsed into potential move/step segments. The segments were then move-/step-coded.

The coding was done by a) identifying its the propositional contents of each segment

and at the same time examining the possible intention of including these contents in

relation to the writer’s own research, b) checking the propositional contents and

function of the segment against the overall rhetorical purpose of the LR (i.e., to justify

the writer’s research), and c) checking the propositional contents against the specific

purpose of a potential move (e.g., Establishing a niche). The semantic features of the

coded moves and steps were reexamined and compared against the semantic network

scheme established in Chapter 3. Attempts were finally made to develop a move

 103

structure for the thematic unit. Where necessary, the semantic scheme and the

emerging move structure were modified to accommodate new moves or move

elements that emerged from the thematic unit (e.g., those found in Move 2).

3.4 Summary

In this chapter, I have explained the combined semantic-function approach and the

semantic scheme that I employed in move-/step-coding the LR corpus. I have also

outlined the major procedures taken and exemplified them by reporting the steps

followed in the pilot analysis and the analysis proper. In the following chapter, I will

report and discuss the findings generated from the analysis. A model will also be

posited in the chapter to represent the schematic structure of the LR texts.

 104

Chapter 4 Schematic Pattern of Literature Reviews

4.0 Introduction

In this chapter I will present the findings of the analysis of the LR texts. In Section 4.1,

I will describe the introductory and concluding texts found in the corpus. In Sections

4.2 to 4.6, I will discuss the rhetorical movements observed in the thematic sections of

the texts. In Section 4.7, drawing on insights from some of one part of the move

analysis, I will briefly discuss how the writers establish theoretical frameworks for

their studies. I will end the chapter by answering the analytical questions set in

Section 3.3 of Chapter 3 and postulating a prototypical model to represent the

schematic pattern of the LR texts.

4.1 Chapter introductory and concluding texts

In the analysis of the structure of the LR chapters, it was found that many of them

begin with a marked chapter introductory text and end with a marked chapter

summary text. In this section, I will briefly discuss these two functional units of the

chapters.

4.1.1 Introductory texts

It was found that a total of 23 of the 32 (71.88%) chapters open with a unit commonly

headed as ‘Introduction’. The majority of these introductory units are relatively short
 105

compared with the thematic sections in the chapters, spanning between several lines to

two pages. The analysis of the semantic elements of the texts suggests that many of

these introductions primarily serve as advance organizers, orienting the reader with

the aims and the themes to cover in the chapters. These semantic features are

illustrated in Text 4.1 cited below (see the underlined parts).

Text 4.1 (Writer 11)

This chapter concerns the literature review of work and professions as well as the
study of professions and professionalisation. It is divided into four sections. The first
section mainly focuses… The second section concentrates on…

It was also observed that some writers take extra steps to make a case for reviewing

the themes in the chapters as indicated in the underlined part of Text 4.2. Studying

how adoptive parents handle stress, the writer directly claims that the review of the

two themes in the chapter (i.e., ‘stress’ and ‘issues of parenthood’ announced in the

first sentence) will bring insights to one aspect of the study (i.e., ‘the extra demand on

adoptive parenthood’).

Text 4.2 (Writer 3)

Introduction
In this chapter, two major themes will be reviewed: first, the definition of stress, and
second, issues of parenthood in general. A model in defining stress will be taken
[developed] as reference for the study of stress in this thesis. The understanding of
issues in parenting in general will shed light on the extra demand of adoptive
parenthood in particular [the topic which she pursued].

It is interesting to see that thirteen of the chapter introductions show centrality claims

such as the ones illustrated above. In some of the introductory texts, theme-justifying
 106

is done in a slightly more sophisticated manner displaying a rhetorical movement

which is not unlike the CARS structure as exemplified in the Texts 4.3 and 4.4.

Text 4.3 (Writer 12)

Text Coding
Introduction Move 1
The primary hypothesis of exercise research in psychology is Stating the basic assumption
“exercises confers positive effects to our physical and mental behind exercise research in
health” [sic]. psychology
Over the past 2 decades, while a body of research findings Move 2
has confirmed the hypothesis, results that disconfirm the Claiming conflicting findings
hypothesis have also been obtained. from exercise research

Given the aim of this thesis is to investigate how Claiming the relevance of the
self-selection bias has contributed to inconsistent findings in inconsistent findings to the
psychologically based exercise research, writer’s research
this chapter will review recent research concerning the Move 3
psychological effects of exercise, sketching the prevalence of Announcing the themes and
inconsistent findings in the field. The review will be in two structure of the LR
parts, covering the effects of exercise on stress and anxiety.

Text 4.4 (Writer 4)

Text Coding
Introduction Move 1
Since poverty is recognized as a social problem, whether or Relating the centrality of seeking
not it can be reduced or eradicated depends on the efforts of a definition to solving poverty;
the government/public. To attempt to solve the problem we importance of the theme
must first identify it, and this requires a definition and then
we must assess its extent and find out the causes of it.
However, the most difficult problem of finding a definition Move 2
falls on the measurement of its meaning because it is abstract Problematizing the search for a
and conceptual and requires a variety of perspectives and a suitable definition &
broad area of knowledge. If we intend to understand the Claiming the need to consult the
meaning of poverty, we need to explore the large literature and draw insights from
international literature on the definition, measurement and the the literature to inform the study
meaning of poverty. We need to locate our study in the of poverty in Hong Kong
context of the literature and to draw from it ideas and insights
to help illuminate the situation of Hong Kong.
Move 3
This chapter will critically discuss the conceptual meaning Announcing the aim and the
from different perspectives including the problem of its themes of the review which have
definition, measurement, and how theories and other relevant to do with the conceptual
information can help illuminate poverty. meaning of ‘poverty’

Both Texts 4.3 and 4.4 begin with a brief segment of Centrality claiming or Making

topic generalizations about particular themes. The segment is then followed by a call
 107

to review the themes and then an announcement of the themes to review in the chapter.

The rhetorical movement of these introductory texts suggests that one of their

functions is to create a reviewing space for the themes to discuss in the chapters

(CARevS). Table 4.1 displays the frequency distribution of the different realizations

of CARevS in the 23 introductory texts.

Table 4.1 the frequency distribution of the different realizations of CARevS

Realization of CARevS # of instances observed

1-2-3 4
1-3 9
3 9
2-3 1

4.1.2 Concluding texts

Concluding texts headed either as ‘summary’ or ‘conclusion’ were less common and

were found only in 17 out of the 32 (53.13%) literature review chapters. Their length

also varies, with the longest spanning four pages while the shortest occupies about

only one page. As mentioned in the pilot analysis (Section 3.3.2 of Chapter 3), these

concluding texts primarily summarize the gist of the chapters or reiterate the purposes

of reviewing the themes in the chapters as illustrated in Texts 4.5a and 4.5b below,

which are the summaries that Writer 12 provides in her two LR chapters. It can be

seen from the texts that the writer is quite consistent in signalling the end of both

chapters by summarizing the gist and the major arguments derived from the literature

reviews presented in the chapters through backward referencing statements and the

use of the present perfect tense (see the underlined parts).

 108

Text 4.5 (Writer 12)

2.4 Summary (Text 4.5a)

This chapter has reviewed the psychological effects of exercise. It has shown that the
results obtained from the studies examining the effects of exercise on stress and
anxiety have both confirmed and disconfirmed the hypothesis that exercise confers
positive effects to psychological states…As the literature review has shown that… In
the next chapter, the methodology of exercise research will be examined,
investigating how the inherent problem in methodology has led to inconsistent
findings.

3.10 Summary (Text 4.5b)

One major methodological issue in exercise research, self-selection bias has been
discussed in this chapter. Self-selection is a natural consequence for any study using
cross-sectional design since exercise research has been primarily outcome research
comparing the effects of exercise with different conditions…(summarizing the gist of
the chapter)

It was also observed that three of the writers make use of concluding texts to create

and claim overall niches carved out of the literature surveyed in the chapter,

suggesting that a section marked as ‘conclusion’ or ‘summary’ might also be a place

for the realization of Moves 2 and 3. Text 4.6 below is an example provided to

illustrate this strategic use of chapter conclusions (with Move 2 running from Line 1

to Line 11 followed by Move 3 in Lines 12 and 13).

Text 4.6 (Writer 10)

2.6 Summary
From the above review of literature some significant viewpoints and findings 1 Move 2
have emerged, these are summarized below…,which entail further research on 2
the influence of a test. 3

First, …although it is helpful to investigate the repertoire of positive versus 4

negative washback effects in different areas of education as discussed above, a 5
shift of research focus is advisable. To get a more comprehensive picture …, it is 6
desirable to conduct a study which traces washback of a specific test from its 7
origin… Second, it is necessary to explore the factors that might have facilitated 8
or hindered the intended washback effects. Third, it is necessary to study the 9
intended washback effects of a test ……Fourth, preferably, more than one 10
method should be employed to increase validity of research. 11

The present study was designed based on the above line of thinking. The next 12 Move 3
chapter describes this line of thinking in greater depth. 13
 109

More examples and elaborate discussion of how writers make use of concluding texts

to create niches (Move 2) and occupy niches (Move 3) will be presented in Section

4.6.2.

4.2 Thematic units and the CARS structure

A total of 103 thematic units were identified. The figure suggests that on average there

are 3.22 themes discussed per chapter. Each of the themes identified deals with one

particular aspect of the writer’s research topic. Many of the units display features

characteristic of the three moves in the CARS model and in particular those proposed

by Bunton (2002). However, a preponderance of Moves 1 and 2 was noted as

indicated in the figures presented in Tables 4.2 below.

Table 4.2a Frequency counts of the three moves

Move 1 232 counts

Move 2 189 counts
Move 3 92 counts

Table 4.2b Frequency distribution of individual moves across thematic units

(Total thematic units=103)

Move # of thematic units carrying the move

1 97 (94.17%)
2 87 (84.47%)
3 63 (61.17%)

As can be seen from Table 4.2b, none of the moves appears in the thematic units

100% of the time, suggesting that none of them are obligatory. However, the

markedly high frequency counts of Move 1 and Move 2, which double those of Move

3 as indicated in Table 4.2a, reveal that the former two moves are options strongly
 110

favored by the writers. It is however worth considering why Move 3 is least

preferred by the writers of the LR texts. One possible explanation is that Move 3 can

be realized elsewhere, for instance, in the conclusion texts as an overall response to

the review carried out in the chapter as discussed in Section 4.1.2 or even in another

chapter (e.g., the research methodology chapter) at points where it is more appropriate

to occupy the niches created (e.g., when introducing the research procedures

conducted in the writer’s own work). This speculation suggests that Move 3 is

possibly is a free-floating move, which certainly forms an interesting point for future

investigation.

The three moves are configured in a variety of patterns and many of the patterns are

also highly recursive as exemplified in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 Examples of theme-bound move patterns

Observed patterns Examples Text ID**

Single move
Move 1 only 1 19:30:96
Move 2 only 2 7:14:44
Move 3 only 3 2:3:12
2-move configurations
Regular (1-2)n* 1-2 18:27:87
1-2-1-2 15:23:73
1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2 4:7:30
Regular (1-3)n 1-3 16:24:79
1-3-1-3 19:29:94
1-3-1-3-1-3-1-3-1-3 1:1:4
3-move configurations
Regular (1-2)n-3 1-2-1-2-3 2:3:17
1-2-1-2-1-2-3 5:10:36
1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-3 1:1:1
Regular 1-2-3 1-2-3 20:32:103
Irregular 3-move 1-2-1-3 1:1:2
1-3-1-2-1-3-1-3 16:24:77
1-3-1-3-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-3 15:23:74
* ‘n’ stands for recurring for ‘n’ times, e.g., (1-2-3)3 means 1-2-3-1-2-3-1-2-3.
**The number series represents the text identity. The first number refers to the LR text number
(i.e., the writer’s number), the second number refers to the chapter number, and the third
number refers to the thematic unit number.
 111

The frequency distribution of the move patterns is presented in Figure 4.2, which

shows that the most frequent configuration is the pairing of Move 1 and Move 2

expressed in the formula (1-2)n where ‘n’ refers to the number of times the pairing

recurs. The (1-2)n group is followed by the (1-2-3)n, irregular 1/2/3 and the (1-2)n-3

groups respectively. Given the fact that none of these patterns occur 100% of the time

in the thematic units, it can be concluded that there is no obligatory sequential pattern

of the three moves.

Figure 4.2 Frequency distributions of different move patterns across all thematic units
(Total thematic units=103)
35.00

30.00 29.13

25.00
% o f th e m a tic u n its

20.00 19.42

14.56
15.00 13.59

9.71
10.00

5.00 3.88 3.88

1.94 1.94 1.94

0.00
(1-2)n (1-2-3)n irr1/2/3 (1-2)n-3 (1-3)n irr(2/1/2/1) 1 only 2 only 3 only (2-3)n

Move patterns

*Note: ‘irr’ stands for irregular patterns. Slashes separating move numbers indicate co-occurrence
of the respective moves and do not reflect the sequence of their occurrence. For instance, an irr1/2/3
pattern can be realized in a configuration of 1-2-1-3-1-2-3-1-2-3 with a strong presence of 1-2-3.

In the coming sections, I will describe the different elements identified in each of the

three moves with special attention drawn to the new items that emerged from this

study. As will be suggested by the findings, these move elements do not occur in any
 112

fixed order and hence they are referred to as strategies (Bhatia 2001) in the rest of the

chapter and are thus letter-coded (e.g., 1.X represents a strategy identified in Move 1).

4.3 Establishing a thematic territory as a starting move

It was found that the majority of the thematic units open with statements resembling

the three steps of Move 1 in Swales’ CARS model (i.e., 1.1 Centrality-claiming, 1.2

Making topical generalizations and 1.2 Reviewing previous items of research). They

are labeled as 1.X, 1.Y and 1.Z respectively.

4.3.1 Claiming centrality of the theme reviewed (Strategy 1.X)

One of the notable strategy types identified in the units is the claiming of centrality of

the theme in question. An example of centrality claim is cited below (Text 4.7), taken

from the first of the two LR chapters written by Writer 5. The underlined parts

manifest the cluster of semantic attributes most representative of centrality claims.

Text 4.7 (Writer 5)

Hofstede’s Four Dimensions of Work-related Values

In 1980, Geert Hofstede, a professor of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, 1

conducted a seminal survey of work-related values, which was administered to 2
more than 100, 000 IBM employees in 53 countries. Subsequent statistical 3
analysis of the survey data generated four dimensions of work-related values, 4
which were labeled by Hofstede as individualism-collectiveism, power distance, 5
uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity-feminity. … Since then, these four 6
dimensions of work-related values have served as theoretical tools for 7
cross-cultural studies, and enabled cultural differences to be quantified. These 8
value dimensions, though primarily indicative of different work-related values, 9
have also been used as indicators of national cultural values, because the 10
subjects of the survey were assumed similar in all aspects except their 11
nationality.
 113

The time adjunct ‘In 1980’ placed in the marked position of the sentence in the first

line provides the first signal of the impact of Geert Hofstede’s work. When this time

adjunct is read in tandem with another markedly-positioned time adjunct ‘Since then’

in Line 6, we can see Writer 5’s attempt to accentuate the long-lasting impact of

Hofstede’s work. From Line 6 onwards, we can see another attempt of relating the

centrality of Hofstede’s hypothesized work-values. There the writer makes specific

claims of the values being employed as theoretical tools in cross-cultural studies that

have resulted in the quantification of cultural differences and ‘indicators of national

cultural values’ expressed in Line 8 and Lines 9-10 respectively.

Centrality claims such as the one that Writer 5 presents are quite common in the

corpus. They relate mainly the value of a theme by drawing on the salience,

magnitude or relevance of a field-specific phenomenon or issue (see the semantic

attributes for centrality claims discussed in Chapter 3), which I refer to as

thesis-external (TE) claims. Another group of centrality claims are directed at the

writers’ own thesis, which I call thesis-internal (TI) claims.

A TI claim directly addresses the importance or relevance of a theme to the writer’s

own research or thesis-writing. The following claim (Text 4.8) made by Writer 3 is a

case in point. The writer opens her thematic unit of ‘Issues of Parenthood’ by

highlighting the need of reviewing the theme in order to understand the ‘demands on

adoptive parents’ (see the underlined parts), which as unfolded in the later part of her

review is one of her research objectives.

 114

Text 4.8 (Writer 3)

Issues of Parenthood

Before looking into the particularities of adoptive parenthood [topic of Writer 3’s
research], it is necessary to address the issues faced by parents in general in order to
comprehend the extra demands on adoptive parents. As no single theory is adequate
to capture the complexities of the topic, reviewing multiple theories on parenting is
necessary. It is useful to take a look at the different theories before a more integrative
model emerges. (3_2A)

Most TI claims co-occur with TE claims. An example is provided below (Text 4.9).

Studying the professionalization of nursing in Hong Kong, Writer 11 starts her

literature review chapter with the theme of Work and Profession (as indicated in the

heading of the unit).

Text 4.9 (Writer 11)

I. Work and Profession

[The study of “work” is one of the major scopes of academic endeavour in 1
sociology. Its scholarly emphasis could date back to as early as the core ideas 2
of Marx’s thesis of labour power (Lee and Newby, 1983). Work, according to 3
Marx, is not just a set of physical activities related to production, but a set of 4
social activities… 5

The application of Frederick Taylor’s scientific management in the 6

manufacturing process of Ford cars laid the foundation of Fordism and Fordist 7
style of work. Harry Braverman (1974) in his famous classic critique Labour 8
and Monopoly Capital argued that both Taylorism and Fordism have served as 9
means of adapting labour to the needs of capitalism and exerting control over 10
the labour process…. 11

Daniel Bell (1973) in The Coming of Post-industrial Society asserted that… 12

With the shift of economic function to service industry and an ever-expansion 13
of a service class, the study of professions and professionalisation attracts 14
much endeavour within the discipline of sociology of work. Yet, how to 15
approach this social phenomenon is depended [sic], to a greater extent, upon 16
the emphasis of each paradigm. It would be beneficial in this respect to 17
reconceptualise different approaches to profession prior to the formulation of 18
the analytical framework of this study. 19
…
b. Approaches to Professionalisation
i. The Trait Approach [The survey of the different approaches starts here.] 20
(9_2A)
 115

Writer 11 opens the unit by claiming the centrality of reviewing ‘work’ and

‘professionalization’. In the first two paragraphs, the writer relates extensively the

centrality of the notion of ‘work’ and in particular the academic endeavors associated

with it. Claiming the magnitude of time and extensiveness of such endeavors

(spanning a total of 3 paragraphs), the writer makes a strategic turn by ‘zooming in’

on her own research. In the middle of Line 17, she relates the relevancy of reviewing

various epistemological approaches to the conceptualization of work by stating that

the review ‘would be beneficial’. Though she does not specify explicitly in what way

the review would be beneficial, the time adjunct ‘prior to the formulation of the

analytical framework of this study’ (in Lines 18-19)’ suggests that ‘it would be

beneficial’ to the establishment of the writer’s own framework.

Lengths of the centrality claims identified in the corpus vary to a great extent. While

some of them span a few sentences such as the short paragraph written by Writer 3

(Text 4.8), some run a whole page and even more, which is the case in the excerpt by

Writer 11 (Text 4.9).

4.3.2 Surveying existing knowledge claims (Strategy 1.Y)

Many of the thematic units carry surveys of state of the art which are not

research-oriented (to be distinguished from the research-oriented surveys to be

discussed in a later section). Some of these surveys come after the centrality claims

while others are presented at the beginning of the thematic units. A semantic

analysis of the surveys show the following attribute clusters: definitions and
 116

explanations of terms, theories, non-research practices and non-research phenomena.

The surveys are neutral accounts void of the value-accentuating features that are found

in centrality-claims.

4.3.2.1 Definitions and explanations of terms

Some of the segments found in Move 1 provide surveys of definitions or explanations

of key terms which have bearing on the writers’ own studies. Semantic features

associated with definitions and explanations of terminology include a term or a

construct to define, characterizing attributes, and exemplification.

One example of defining and explaining key terms can be found in Text 4.10 cited

below, which is taken from one main thematic unit of the LR by Writer 9 whose thesis

examined the intercultural communication behavior between two groups of Chinese

students in Hong Kong. As can be seen, the text presents an explanation of the notion

of ‘intercultural communication’ and the issues which arise from the process of

intercultural communication.

Text 4.10 (Writer 9)

2.3.2.1 Understanding intercultural communication

Intercultural communication, in Ting-Toomey’s words is as simple as “the

communication process between members of different cultural communities”
(1999:16) in which process they each consciously and unconsciously carry their own
culture inside the communication and form the puzzle of intercultural communication.
Dodd (1998:4), therefore, refers to intercultural communication as “the influence of
cultural variability and diversity on interpersonally oriented communication
outcomes.” This ‘cultural variability and diversity’ often prompts members of two
different cultural groups to perceive the same thing differently….
 117

A more detailed explanation of key terms can be found in Text 4.11 by Writer 7, in

which she describes the different dimensions involved in the conceptualization of a

key term (‘organizational crisis’) used in her thesis.

Text 4.11 (Writer 7)

2.1.1 Organizational Crisis Defined

… All in all, there are three elements which characterize a crisis and differentiate it
from a problem: perceived major threats, unpredictability/suddenness, and
urgency/time
compression (Barton, 1993; Fearn-Banks, 1996; Hermann, 1963; Lerbinger, 1997;
Nelkin, 1988; Pearson, Mistra, clair, & Mitroff, 1997).

‘Perceived major threats’ suggest that crises can actually create or have the potential
to create negative or undesirable outcomes…

‘Unpredictability/suddenness’ is another dimension that exemplifies a crisis. A

problem is, more or less, encountered daily in regular organizational operations…

… Today, owing to the innovations of new communication technologies, a crisis that

happens in anywhere could become international news story or the subject of a Web
site on the Internet (Coombs, 1999). Stakeholders are becoming more aware,
involved and vocal when dealing with organizations….All these have engendered a
sense of ‘immediacy’ or ‘time compression’ on the organization. The immediate
nature of a crisis presses an organization to act promptly with a coordinated,
full-blown, and multi-functional effort (Pearson, Mistra, Clair & Mitroff, 1997).

The definitions/explanations identified in the corpus are given for a variety of

purposes. In some cases, they are provided for didactic purposes, as apparent in the

case of Text 4.10 cited above, to help the reader understand the terms and concepts

that will be invoked in the thesis. In some other cases, the definitions are functional in

the sense that they are provided in order to justify the choice of a specific definition or

interpretation among the competing ones as what is observed in Text 3.3 written by

Writer 3 (see Section 3.3.2 of Chapter 3). The reader can clearly see the deliberation

of Writer 3 in her selection and presentation of the characterizing of the three

 118

definitions of stress to critique the first two while justifying her choice of the third

one.

Definitions or explanations of terms and concepts can also be regarded as functional

in the sense that they serve to operationalize the terms and concepts which are studied

in some parts of the writer’s research. For instance, the detailed explanation of the

different dimensions of a crisis cited in Text 4.11 that Writer 7 surveys at the

beginning of her chapter provides the language to describe some of the specific

dimensions associated with a case of crisis, which were later operationalized in the

formulation of some of the hypotheses the writer tested. Such was also the case in the

LR written by Writer 3. The descriptions of the three approaches to the definition of

stress not only make clear to the reader what the approaches mean and provide details

to justify the adoption of the third definition (the comprehensive approach). The

descriptions also serve to reveal different possible variables which can affect the

strength of stress (e.g., one’s mediating strategies in handling stress), which the writer

invoke again in a later part of her literature review when extrapolating variables that

can affect the strength of stress faced by adoptive parents (i.e., adoptive parent’s

mediating strategies to cope with stress). These variables are then abstracted and

synthesized in the concluding part of the LR to form one major part of the model that

the writer tested in her study, in which she examined the extent to which adoptive

parents’ mediating strategies can contribute to their handling of unfavorable

circumstances arising from adoption (see also the elaboration of Writer 3’s

operationalization of the term in her theorizing in Section 4.6.2) .

 119

4.3.2.2 Existing models, theories, hypotheses

Creswell (1998), in his examination of the connection between traditions of inquiry

and research design, suggests that it is important to consider how one ‘frames the

study within the philosophical and theoretical perspectives’ in the beginning stage of

design. These perspectives or what he refers to as ‘lenses’ cover a wide range of

realizations that vary from

…broad perspectives, such as epistemological and ontological assumptions, to

ideological stances, such as postmodernism and critical perspectives, to more
narrowly defined “theories” (Flinders & Mills, 1993) composed of propositions and
hypotheses found in the social and human sciences. (p.73)

The LR texts in the corpus come with accounts of theoretical perspectives of the

various types which Creswell refers to. For instance, Writer 9 devotes almost two

pages to reviewing competing theories used in the field to account for successful

cross-culture communication. Some parts of the discussion of the theories are cited in

Text 4.12 below.

Text 4.12 (Writer 9)

Based on the rich theoretical grounds derived from the studies of cross-culture and
communication, many scholars of different disciplines have attempted to unravel the
puzzle of intercultural communication with their respective models and approaches,
again, emphasizing different facets of intercultural communication. Regarding the
‘perceived cultural difference’ as a stumbling block between groups of different
cultures, Dodd (1998) presents an adaptive model that aims to urge the participants of
two cultures to cast out their dissimilarity by withdrawing their judgment and
predisposition, and develop a third culture in which both groups can build a trust,
respect and loving relationship that leads to mutual adjustment. Ting-Toomey
(1999:26), however, puts forwards her identity negotiation theory, recognizing
‘identity insecurity’ as the root of the ‘vulnerability’ that members of different
cultural groups experience in communication. She examines, “how one’s
self-conception profoundly influences one’s cognitions, emotions, and interactions”
in his/her adjustment process and particularly articulates the critical role of self-image,
the acquiring of one’s identity through interaction with others (ibid.)…
 120

2.3.2.3 Intercultural communication competence

Again, different researches have different views on the nature and components of
intercultural communication competence. Kim (1991.Y1.Y1.Y: 263) considers
intercultural communication competence as an internal “capacity or capability to
facilitate the communication process between people from different cultural
backgrounds …,” while Gudykunst (1991) highlights the communicators’ awareness
and mastery of the different perception of communication competence ‘between’
communicators of different cultural groups. In fact, both conceptualizations are
essential to the constitution of effective intercultural communication
competence. …

Conducting a text analysis of advertisements in newspaper, Writer 19 surveys what

literature says about the relationship between cultural values and advertisements. In

the survey of the relationship (see Text 4.13), the writer specifically highlights and

characterizes the reflection hypothesis (see the second and third paragraphs).

Text 4.13 (Writer 19)

…Both academicians and practitioners have suggested that advertising follows and
reflects but never leads society. Based on the two communication concepts –
gate-keeping (how advertisers decide the kind of information and values to allow
through all kinds of “gates” when formulating their campaigns) and social class (how
these targeted customers affected the advertisers’ choice of information) discussed so
far suggested that advertising “reflects” rather than “moulds” social reality. …

The phrase [sic] “reflection hypothesis” is borrowed from Tuchman (1978) and the
section on “reflection theory” in the book edited by O’Sullivan et al
(1994). …Tuchman has suggested that the mass media reflect the dominant social
values in a society and they have to reflect social values in order to attract audience.
She argued that if something in society is not represented in an affirmative manner, it
implies “symbolic annihilation” or trivialization. Wilson (1981) also stated that media
content reflects aspects of social change, which are most pervasive and characteristics
reflected are those that are most evident to gatekeeprs or content creators. As for
O’Sullivan et al, their reflection hypothesis (originally reflection theory) refers to any
doctrine proposing that the object of study can have its form, substance or actions
explained in terms of a form, substance or agency outside it.

There are two common manifestations of the reflection hypothesis relevant to

communication. The first is the doctrine that media representations and discourses
reflect an already-existing and self-evident reality that exists independently of its
representation in discourses including those of the media. The second type of
reflection hypothesis is a more specialized one; it is the assumption, based on a
Marxist analysis, that cultural and communicative practice and forms are reflections
of the economic base of the society in question….
 121

Out of the 20 LR texts surveyed, 16 of them display surveys of theoretical frameworks.

The theories identified range from highly sophisticated models carrying specific

hypotheses for testing (such as the reflection hypothesis illustrated above) to

loosely-constructed theoretical assumptions (e.g., grand theories such as sociology of

knowledge and symbolic interaction) though there is a preponderance of the former

type invoked in the corpus. Except for one1, all of the theoretical accounts identified

in the corpus are pragmatic theories. A pragmatic theory is

… a proposition or a body of propositions [which] explains, predicts, retrodicts or

leads us to “new” avenues of research….[These are theories which] are defined
pragmatically rather than strictly in terms of their formal properties … employed by
the writers in Miller’s words (1993), to ‘make sense of “what’s going on” in the
social setting being studied’ (Kaplan & Manners 1986, p.103).

As indicated in their subsequent Moves 2 and 3 (to be discussed in a later section),

these theories were employed by the writers to inform the writers’ own research

design.

4.3.2.3 Other types of non-research-fronted surveys

Other types of non-research surveys were also identified. These surveys carry

propositional contents that do not fit the above categories and mainly relate

non-epistemic phenomena, practices, or existing understanding of state of the art

which has bearing on a later part of the literature review or the writer’s research. For

1
Writer 10 provides 6 pages detailing several models and their hypotheses which are widely in her field
of studies. However, she adopted none of the models in her own study. Refer to Text 4.32 and the
accompanying commentary provided in Sections 4.4.3 and 4.7. The writer revealed in an interview that
she was asked by her supervisor to include some theories in her literature review because they are
needed in studies at the doctoral level. Though the theories which she discusses in the LR chapter do
not seem to be applicable to her study and were negatively evaluated, it is suspected that the inclusion
of the theories was to attend to the supervisor’s advice. See also the commentary of Text 4.19 in this
chapter.
 122

instance, in one thematic unit of one of her LR Chapters, Writer 3 devotes six pages to

the discussion of how infertile couples handle infertility and adoption (see Text 4.14

below), an issue which is relevant to her study of how adoptive parents cope with

stress that comes from different sources including infertility.

Text 4.14 (Writer 3)

…In coping with the unanticipated life crisis of infertility, different strategies may be
employed by different couples, depending on their aspirations towards parenthood
and the choice of life goal. Apart from the initial and sometimes prolonged
depression, crying spells and the sense of hopelessness reported by most informants
(Ko, 1994). Some couples renegotiated their life goal by staying childless and finding
fulfillment and generativity from some other sources such as career or volunteer work
and so on….

For those who choose to adopt, the ability to cope with mourning and loss is believed
to have a bearing on their self-concept (Shapiro, 1982). According to Rogers (1950),
self acceptance has been defined as the tendency of the person to perceive oneself as
a person of worth… The study of DiGuilio (1988) pointed out that the high
self-acceptance of adopted children. Kadushin (1980) also commented that the ideal
adoptive parents should be able to accept their child as a separate, autonomous entity
which permit them to grow in their own individuality. The infertility couples who are
able to accept their own self image and to work through their grief and sense of loss
before embarking on the novel role as adoptive parents, are believed to better accept
the differences of their adoptive child and thus, to develop good parent-child
relationship.

An examination of the model the writer has synthesized for testing in her study of how

adoptive parents cope with the stress that they experience reveals that the writer does

include the variable of the ability to handle infertility.

Writer 18 conducted a study on the communication practices within the state-owned

enterprises (SOEs) in China. In one full LR chapter, he reviews in great detail the

historical origin of the organizational structure of and organizational behavior in SOEs

in China. Text 4.15 presents an excerpt from this review.

 123

Text 4.15 (Writer 19)

1.1 Organizational Structure and Organizational Behavior of SOEs

The organizational structure and organizational behavior of Chinese SOEs are
influenced by political ideology and traditional values. This influence is evidenced in
managerial style, the relationship between the individual and the organization, and
the communication processes of the organization members. Within the framework of
the organizational structure, managers and workers bring into the organization values,
beliefs and assumptions about the appropriate ways to achieve organizational and
individual goals. SOE organizational reality, then, shapes and is shaped by the
employees’ collective interpretation of their experience at work.

1.1.1 Organizational Structure of SOES

…At the beginning of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in
1949, China built her economy on the basis of a semi-colonial and semi-feudal
society. At that time, China had to gather her limited funds and resources to
accomplish several big tasks. …A centralized enterprise management system was
required to facilitate the transfer of policies from the state to thousands of SOEs and
to facilitate the control of supply, production as well as distribution of
products…China adopted the Soviet centralized model of management in the
1950s. …The top level of this administrative structure consisted of the Communist
Party represented by the general branch party secretary, the managing director, and
the chairman of the workers’ congress…. In theory, currently the party secretary is in
charge of political ideology… The managing director is in charge of business
management such as supply, production and sales. The chairman of workers’
congress addresses issues concerning welfare, education, housing… for employees
family emergencies…

Managerial practices in SOES

As a single organizational system, an SOE is supposed to attend to the political,
economic, social and cultural spheres all at once (Yang, 1989). Managers are faced
with a full array of responsibilities.

As we can see from the excerpt, Writer 19 provides primarily a factual account of the

composition of SOEs and the practices. It does not include any theory or explanation

of theoretical notions. As the literature review unfolds at a later stage of the chapter,

the writer problematicizes the structure and communication process in the SOEs.

4.3.3 Surveying existing research activities (Strategy 1.Z)

The third type of survey describes the research activities documented in the literature,

which is referred to as Surveying existing research activities. Citations given in this

 124

type of survey include such information of the research studies as their focuses, the

methodology (i.e., the approaches to the research design (e.g., quantitative,

ethnographical, etc.) adopted, the technical procedures followed, and brief summaries

of their findings. A few examples are cited below to illustrate this strategy. Writer 12

of Text 4.6 allots one of her two LR chapters to discuss exercise research, as reflected

in the chapter title ‘Literature Review and the Historical Background of Exercise

Research in Psychology’. After a one-page chapter introduction, the writer begins a

survey of psychology studies associated with exercise. Text 4.16 below is taken from

one part of the survey of the chapter to illustrate the strategy.

Text 4.16 (Writer 12)

2.1 Introduction…
2.2 The Psychological Effects of Exercise
The effects of exercise on stress reaction and mood states have been
well-documented. Studies show that men who select a physically active lifestyle
generally demonstrate fewer clinical manifestations of coronary heart disease than
their sedentary counterparts... (Paffenbarger et al., 1989). …From 1988 to 1990,
Bluemental and coworkers devised a series of studies on the effects of enduring
aerobic training on stresses. In an initial study (Bluemental et al, 1988), aerobic
exercise was compared with nonaerobic strength training in a sample of 36 healthy
Type-A males. After 12 weeks of exercise, the aerobic exercise group showed
decrease of cardiovascular reactivity…. In the second study (Sherwood et al, 1989),
the comparison between aerobic exercise and strength training was drawn on 27
Type-a men. The results revealed that … The final study (Blumenthal, Frederikson,
Kuhn, Ulmer, Walsh-Riddle & Appelbaum, 1990) employed a smilar design as the
first one, in which…. In accordance with the first two studies, the findings indicated
that …. Petruzzello et al (1993) conducted an experiment to examine the relationship
between body temperature and anxiety reduction. The male subjects in this study
were assigned to normal, warmer or cooler exercise conditions. ..The results indicated
that anxiety level was significantly lower in the post-test measurement of all
conditions…

As can be observed, Writer 12 elaborates in great detail the aims of the studies

surveyed, their research design, and the major claims made from the findings.

Another type of research survey identified are those which briefly touch upon the
 125

focuses and the methodological approaches of the studies done in the field and

occasionally draw on existing research review works (i.e., secondary review) as

illustrated in Text 4.17 below which is written by Writer 9 (see the underlined part).

Text 4.17 (Writer 9)

2.2 Studies on Chinese Students Studying Abroad

In this section, the following questions will be probed:
o What is the early history of studies on overseas Chinese students?
o What were the focuses and methods of those studies?
o What major findings were discovered?

2.2.1 Early history of studies on overseas Chinese students

… Despite the profound history of Chinese studying abroad, systematic research in
this field did not start till the early 1960s... One of the most comprehensive
overviews of this arena was included in Furnham and Bochner’s work on culture
shock (1986) in which they outlined the studies on international students in the thirty
years from 1954 to 1984. A more recent work by Freed (1999) particularly gave an
overview of studies on the linguistic impact of study abroad experiences… The field
has drawn attention from investigators in education, anthropology, psychology,
sociology, communication, and sociolinguistics. Though the nature and coverage of
the studies on overseas Chinese studies were not as diverse as that of studies on
international students, to facilitate the discussion, we may find it helpful to focus on
the four major aspects of studies, namely the core subject matter investigated, the
target group(s) concerned, the context in which investigations took place, and the
methods used to collect data.

2.2.2 Focuses and methods adopted in studies on overseas Chinese students

…… Appleton (1970) and Chang (1972, 1973), for example, respectively
conducted a survey and a case study on the values and attitudes of overseas Chinese
college students. …

With the support of fundamental studies on the general aspects of overseas Chinese
students, investigators in the late 1980s initiated their in-depth examination of the
students’ intercultural adaptation process, cultural difference and adjustment
difficulties, and a range of comparison and contrast of the interwoven relationship
between various variables found in the adjustment process. Upton (1989), for
instance, made an attempt to illustrate the cultural confrontation and adjustment
difficulties overseas Chinese students encountered … Other comparative studies
attempted to explore the cognitive and thinking styles of overseas Chinese and those
of American university students (Huang, et. al. 1995). … Jou and Fukada (1996)
also started their extensive study on overseas Chinese students in Japan by evaluating
the students’ adjustment to a list of items on a scale to find out the effect of gender
differences on emotional and academic performance, and the effect of length of
residency and language proficiency on academic and socio-cultural adjustment. …
Others employed participant observation and interview to identify the particular
nature of Chinese students’ intercultural adaptation (Feng 1991) and the most
consequential factors during this process (Zhong 1996). …
 126

4.3.4 Distribution of Move 1 strategies

In short, three general strategies were identified in the realization of the opening move

of the thematic units. The strategies are centrality claiming, surveying existing

knowledge claims, surveying existing research activities. A total of 368 counts of

Move 1 strategies are registered and their frequency distribution is presented in Tables

4.3 below.

Table 4.3a frequency counts of the various Move 1 strategies

(Total counts of Move 1 strategy= 368)

Strategy Counts of the strategy (% of total counts of M1 strategy)

1.Y 192 (52.17%)
1.X 127 (34.51%)
1.Z 47 (12. 77%)
Mixed 1.Y/Z 2 (0.54%)

Table 4.3b Distribution of major strategies across instances of Move 1

(Total counts of Move 1=232)

Strategy Counts (%) of Move 1 carrying the strategy

1.Y 169 (72.84%)
1.X 103 (44.40%)
1.Z 46 (19.83%)
Mixed 1.Y/Z 2 (0.86%)

As indicated in both tables, the counts of Strategy 1Z are far much fewer than those

of Strategies 1X and 1Y, implying that the strategy is least preferred in the LRs. The

discrepancy is likely a result of the fact that the theses were drawn from soft

disciplines. In his contrastive analysis of citation behavior in research publications,

Hyland (1999) observed that research-related verbs (e.g., analyze, explore, observe,

develop) appear much less in research articles of the soft disciplines (e.g., applied

linguistics and sociology) than they do in those of hard disciplines (e.g., engineering

and physics). Hyland relates the different ciational behaviour to the epistemological
 127

orientation of the hard disciplines, in which laboratory activities are taken as the key

sites where knowledge is produced. As he explains, this view represents “the

experimental explanatory schema typical of the sciences” (p.360), which is less

shared in the disciplines of humanities and social sciences. This may also explain the

weak presence of Strategy 1Z in the present corpus.

Apparently, none of the three strategies can qualify as obligatory since the most

frequent one (Strategy 1.Y) appears in only 72.84% of the instances of the move,

which explains why they can only be considered to be strategies. However, the fact

that the counts of Strategy 1.Y are significantly more than those of the other two

suggests that there is a strong preference for this strategy to realize the move.

The strategies sometimes co-occur in various configurations, as illustrated in the

shaded parts of the following move patterns identified in the specified thematic units

in the LR texts written by Writers 5, 8, 9 and 10.

1.X-1.Z- Move 2-1.X- 1.Y-Move 2-1.Y-Move 2-1.X [Text 5:10:34]

1.X- Move 2-1.Y- Move 2-1.X-1.Y [Text 8:15:49]
1.X-1.Y-1.X-Move 2-1.X-1.Y-Move 2 [Text 10:17:54]
1.X -1.Y-Move 2-1.X-1.Z-1.Y-?-Move 3 [Text 9:16:52]

Figure 4.3 presents the frequency distribution of the four most common configurations

of Move 1 strategies. As can be seen, Strategy 1.Y-only (surveying non-research

oriented knowledge claims) is the most common realization of the move, which

occurs in 43.29% of the Move 1 instances. The pattern is followed by the various
 128

1.X/Y combinations in which Strategy 1.X tends to precede 1.Y. The frequency

distribution of configurations further suggests the non-sequential nature of the three

strategies.

Figure 4.3 Frequency distribution of configurations of Move 1 strategies

(Total counts of Move 1=232)
50.00

45.00 43.29

40.00
% o f to ta l c o u n ts o f M o v e 1

35.00

30.00
26.84

25.00

20.00

15.00
11.26
9.52
10.00

5.63
5.00
2.16
0.87 0.43 0.43
0.00
1.Y 1.X/Y 1.Z 1.X 1.X/Z 1.X/Y/Z 1.Y/Z 1.X(/Y/Z) 1.(Y/Z)

Various configurations of Move 1 strategies

*Note: Slashes separating stages indicate the co-occurrence of the strategies and do not reflect
the order of their occurrence. For instance, 1.X/Z may mean 1.X-1.Z or 1.Z-1.X.

4.4 Niche-establishing

This section will discuss how the writers of the LR texts create niches for their studies

in Move 2. As the findings show, many instances of Move 1 reported in Section 4 are

followed by evaluative statements with 189 of them identified in 87 (84.47%) of the

103 thematic units. A large number of these statements relate negative evaluation of
 129

the existing state of the art. They display functional and semantic attributes

characteristic of the classic defect-/deficiency-claiming steps reported in previous

CARS studies, suggesting a strong presence of Move 2 (Establishing a niche) in the

thematic units. Interestingly, there also emerge a noticeable number of positive

evaluative statements which have seldom been reported in the literature. In this

section, I will present these various negative and positive niche-establishing

statements.

4.4.1 Negational strategies

The negational statements relate various types of defects and deficiencies about the

existing state of the art, which can be classified respectively into shortcoming-related

and gap/need-related strategies.

4.4.1.1 Shortcoming-related strategies (Strategy 2.A)

Among the many negational strategies are those which identify shortcomings of the

following kinds.

Shortcomings in existing epistemologies or ontologies

One major kind of shortcoming-asserting claims problematizes the existing

conceptualizations or theoretical assumptions of the phenomenon under investigation.

For instance, in her survey of current understanding of ‘stress’, Writer 3 of Text 3.3

(analyzed and cited in Chapter 3) points out the limitations of two approaches to the

definition of stress. One of the approaches and its evaluation are recaptured in Text
 130

4.18 for illustration. In Lines 6-11, the writer points out the flaws of the approach,

which include its being ‘too narrow’ (Line 6), ‘ignor[ing] individual differences’

(Lines 7) and ‘avoid dealing with chronic stressors…’ (Lines 9-11)

Text 4.18 (Writer 3)

Defining Stresses
There are several definitions of stress, each of which has a different focus. The 1
earlier theorists focused on stress as a stimulus or stressor (Holmes & Rahe, 2
1967). Stress was seen as environmental events that produce undesirable 3
consequences for the individual. Natural disasters, man-made catastrophes such as 4
war, family disruption such as death and divorce, loss of job and so on are 5
examples of stressors. This perspective was considered to be too narrow by 6
Lazarus & Folkman (1984) for it tends to ignore individual differences in 7
vulnerability to such events. Also, it tends to equate stressors with major life 8
events and thus avoids dealing with chronic stressors or with the “daily hassles” 9
that create distress and maladaptation in many people (DeLongis, Coyne, Dakof, 10
Folkman, 1982 & Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). 11

In another LR text (see Text 4.19 below), the writer begins a 3-move structure on the

theme of washback effects by surveying works written by key figures in the field of

language testing (Lines 1-8). Immediately after this survey, the writer comments on

the ‘suitability’ of the models and hypotheses (Lines 9-10).

Text 4.19 (Writer 10)

…Alderson and Wall (1993) formulated 15 washback hypotheses to delimit the different 1
aspects of teaching and learning that might be affected. These hypotheses can be grouped 2
as follows: 3

What is lacking in the washback hypotheses, however, is an indicator of the channel of 4

washback, that is, whether a test affects various aspects of teaching and learning directly 5
or indirectly. …This feature is captured by Bailey’s model of washback. Based on a 6
combination of Hughes’ trichotomy and Alderson-Wall’s Hypotheses, Bailey (1996:264) 7
presents the following model. …[The model is not cited here.] 8

…. Useful as these frameworks are, they are not particularly suitable for research that 9
aims to explore the intended effects of language tests and the intervening factors involved. 10
 131

Shortcomings in existing research practices

Another type of evaluative statements target at specific problems associated with

existing research practices. In Text 4.20 cited below, for instance, Writer 9 provides a

brief survey of research on foreign students with an obvious emphasis on the

methodology employed (Lines 1-9). Immediately after the survey, the writer

comments on the ‘limited number’ of informants involved in some of these studies

(Lines 11-15).

Text 4.20 (Writer 9)

Among the previous empirical studies described above, another aspect that is 1
worth noting is the methods applied to collect data. Quantitative research 2
like large-scale questionnaire surveys were found widely used to collect 3
general data among early studies. For example, Chang (1971) surveyed 155 4
overseas Chinese students in Korea. More qualitative research like Bourne’s 5
longitudinal study (1975) of interviewing Chinese students from two control 6
groups over the four years of their stay in the United States, was found once in 7
a while, but not as common as it appeared in the later stage of the 8
development in this field. Participant observation, one of the key tools in 9
ethnographic studies, and more in-depth and open interviews were not well 10
received till the 1990’s. Yet, the number of subjects or informants of those 11
studies were still very limited. For instance, Feng’s data were mainly 12
collected through participant observation, unstructured and semi-structured 13
interviews with five informants (1991), while Zhong had three interviewees 14
(1996), compared with Chen’s nine in her recent study (1998). 15

Shortcomings in existing non-research practices

Depending on the nature and subject matters of one’s study, shortcomings claimed

may also be non-research oriented, which target at practices or phenomena in the non-

epistemic world. For instance, in her survey of the music curriculum design (see Text
 132

4.21), Writer 17 outlines the goals, the content, the pedagogy and assessment practices

of the performance approach in Lines 1-10 and then problematizes the practices of

assessing students’ psychomotor skills starting in Line 10. The problems she relates

include the questions asked in such assessment practices, the inconsistency and

inadequacy of the practices in measuring a particular kind of musical behavior (Lines

13-15), and the weaknesses of a specific assessment scale, i.e., the Watkins-Farnum

Performance Scale (Lines 18-20).

Text 4.21 (Writer 17)

1. The Performance Approach

To many other music educators, the notes and lines of a composition convey a 1
message and emotion when they are inspired by the performers. Music in school 2
is perceived as essentially a practical subject, and must eventually be performed in 3
order to be experienced as sound. From this perspective, the actual performance of 4
music is seen as a foundation of musicianship and of the music curriculum. 5
…[goals, content, pedagogy in music curriculum design…]

• Assessment practices
Teaching to promote performance is largely a matter of demonstrating, explaining 6
and providing opportunities for practice. Evaluation is viewed not as an end in 7
itself, but as part of the teaching-learning process. Because of its formative nature, 8
the assessment methods recommended are usually continuous, and the data 9
produced are often stated in qualitative terms. …However, in discussing the 10
assessment of a range of musical behaviour, Abeles et al. (1994) pointed out that 11
the area that had the least well developed assessment techniques was the 12
psychomotor skills area, the evaluation of which was often confined to a simple 13
yes-no decision. It is also not easy for the teacher to be consistent and use the 14
same standard of measurement for the group of pupils being assessed. There is in 15
general a shortage of standardized tests for assessing music performance, except a 16
few such as the well-known Watkins-Farnum Performance Scale (Colwell 1970). 17
This scale, however, has its weaknesses. It was criticized for its incapability to 18
measure a pupil’s performing ability because the pupil might not be able to pick 19
up the tempo at the beginning, unless given a cue by the teacher. … 20

In Text 4.22, after surveying three major factors which contribute to good child

placement (attachment, permanence and kinship in Lines 1-9), Writer 3 problematizes

 133

the factors by arguing that it is quite difficult to maintain a good balance of the three

in actual adoption practices (Lines 10-17).

Text 4.22 (Writer 3)

Three Factors in child Placement

Realizing the fact that permanence can be achieved in many ways, Hegar (1993) 1
of the United States pointed out that sound child placement decisions should be 2
based on careful individualized evaluation of how a particular home can meet 3
the child’s needs. The three factors that each placement should be able to 4
provide in good balance are attachment, permanence and kinship. Attachment, 5
according to Bowlby, is evident when some one “is strongly disposed to seek 6
proximity to and contact with another”. In common usage, attachment, refers 7
to… Permanence describes relationships that endure over time, or that are 8
anticipated to do so….. Kinship means the sense of family… 9

Striking Balance between the Three Factors

The principle of permanency planning was not clearly stated in child welfare 10
documents in Hong Kong, although its spirit was identifiable in some of the 11
practice manual of the Social Welfare Department and other non-government 12
agencies. While the importance of these three factors is acknowledged, how to 13
strike a balance between them is equally important, for in some occasions, they 14
may contradict with each other. Say, when a close relative is too old or 15
unwilling to provide care, or the housing units are too small to accommodate an 16
extra young child; these are potential threats to attachment and permanence…. 17

The three kinds of shortcoming-asserting strategies discussed so far in fact are very

similar to the Counter-claiming step (2.A) identified in most CARS studies including

that by Bunton (2002). As such, strategies of the three types are collectively coded as

Counter-claiming and hence numbered here as 2.A to facilitate cross-study

comparison.

4.4.1.2 Gap-/need-related strategies (Strategy 2.B)

The second group of evaluative statements is weaker in their strength of negativity in

that they only relate gaps or needs of some type (coded as Strategy 2.B). For instance,
 134

in the underlined parts of Text 4.23 cited below, the writer relates a claim of needs

regarding research on overseas students. Here, the writer asserts that a particular

group of subjects (‘host groups’) has not been studied, which presumably creates a

need for further research.

Text 4.23 (Writer 9)

What can also be noted is that the target group of the researches mentioned above has
always been the overseas Chinese students excluding the perspective of the host
group. How the students of the host country respond to the sojourners’ presence
and how they perceive their relationships and communication among each other
usually received little attention, not to say the impact of the overseas Chinese
students on their local peers [the host group]. Apparently, a need exists for
research on the intercultural communication between the Mainland students and
their Hong Kong counterparts[a host group] at the tertiary level, and at other levels.

In Text 4.24 below, Writer 10 briefly relates the importance to examine tests’ ‘impact

on society or the educational system…’ (Lines 1-8) as part of a centrality claim and

then points out a gap of such an examination (Lines 9-11).

Text 4.24 (Writer 10)

The ongoing debate has some important implications for test producers. It is 1
their responsibility to evaluate the test’s impact on society or on the educational 2
system if test validity is expanded to embrace social consequences. Otherwise, 3
they are not held accountable although someone else must take up the 4
responsibility since there is no dispute concerning the centrality of test 5
consequences. Moss (1998) proposed that those who mandated, developed, and 6
used a test should try to develop practices and products that enhance the 7
positive effects of the test while guarding against the negative ones. 8
Although the need to study the intended effect of tests is emphasized in general 9
education, few suggestions have been made as to how it can be evaluated or 10
studied. … 11

One can argue that the gap illustrated in Text 4.24 is a lack of attention to the

evaluation of effects of examinations on education as a practical, non-epistemic

 135

concern (i.e., ‘how it can be evaluated’) from the point of view of education

practitioners (e.g., curriculum planners, examination designers, teachers, etc).

However, one can also argue that the gap is a research gap in the epistemic sense (i.e.,

‘how it can be studied’) from a researcher’s point of view. The possible interpretation

suggests that gaps can either be of an epistemic or a non-epistemic orientation. As

gap-indicating also forms an alternative step in Move 2 of the CARS model (Step B),

the strategies identified in this study are letter-coded as 2.B again to facilitate

cross-study comparison.

4.4.2 Affirmative strategies

A considerable number of the Move 2 strategies relate the writers’ affirmative

evaluation of the state of the art, which shows the writers’ implicit or explicit

acceptance of claims surveyed in Move 1. Three categories of affirmative strategies

were identified in the corpus. Since these strategies apparently have seldom been

reported in CARS studies, I view them as new strategies emerging from the present

corpus and have coded them X, Y, Z respectively. The three strategies are dealt with

separately in the following sections.

4.4.2.1 Making confirmative claims (Strategy 2.X)

One group of affirmative strategies provides explicit positive comments about the

citations in Move 1. They correspond to what Moravcsik and Murugesan (1975; cited
 136

in Swales 1986) regard as confirmative citations2. A confirmative citation, according

to the authors, is a claim made in a citing paper which argues the correctness of the

citation. In this analysis, I take the liberty to extend the confirmation to that of the

value and strength of the contribution made by the citation. The group of strategies

is coded as 2.X. Paragraph 2 of Text 4.25 by Writer 3 (in the following) provides an

example of such confirmative claims. After characterizing Kirk’s theory on adoptive

kinship (Strategy 1.Y) in Lines 1-11, the writer relates the theorist’s contribution – i.e.,

it clarifies the conceptualization of adoptive kinship and other issues surrounding the

notion (see the underlined part in Lines 12-15). The confirmative assertion about

Kirk’s theory is in fact a move to pave the way for the writer’s argument for its

adoption in her research. As it unfolds towards the end of the writer’s LR text, Kirk’s

theory is interwoven into the overall theoretical framework which the writer adopted

in her research.

Text 4.25 (Writer 3)

The Sociological Study of Adoption as Kinship

The Shared Fate Theory Strategy

… Kirk has two major theories published in his two books. The Shared Fate 1 1.Y
Theory (Kirk, 1964) advocates that there are strains and tension peculiar to 2
the adoption triangle… First, … Second, … Third… 3

Theory on Adoptive Kinship

The pecularities led Kirk to go further to formulate his Theory on Adoptive 4
Kinship (Kirk, 1981) which says that while adoption has so far been 5
classified as a form of social service and rehabilitation of people in need, it 6
is best seen as a form of kinship which refers to institution building and thus 7
modernization. He says that both adoptive parents and adoptees actually 8
experience role handicap, in other words, the roles and behaviour 9

2
The authors have developed a citation classificatory scheme which was proposed to analyze citations
in a group of energy physics articles. The scheme includes four dimensions of the a) conceptual or
operational, b) evolutionary or juxtapositional, c) organic or perfunctory, and d) confirmative or
negational.
 137

expectation culturally designed for each party are far from clear. Adoptive 10
parents are put in parenting situations deprived of the benefit of societal 11
support.

The major contributions of Kirk’s theory is to state clearly that adoptive 12 Strategy
kinship is not the same as consanguineous kinship and that the “rejection of 13 2.X
difference” attitude taken by adoptive parents and the adopted child often 14
leads to unnecessary inequities, felt injustice and serious social tension… 15

Another example of confirmative claims is provided in Text 4.26 below. After an

extensive survey of research studies premised on the interpretive research paradigm

(Lines 1-10) in paragraph 1, the writer provides a brief positive remark of the

paradigm (Lines 11-13). The positive remark is then immediately followed by the

writer’s announcement of adopting the paradigm and the research questions pursued

in the study (Lines 14-18).

Text 4.26 (Writer 18)

Interpretive Research on Organizational Cultures

Surveying research on organizational cultures using the interpretive paradigm] 1 Strategy
Kreps (1990b) proposes the application of the interpretive approach to the 2 1.Z
analysis of organizational stories. ….Trujillo (1992) studied baseball park 3
culture by conducting a long-term ethnographic study of the communicative 4
actions and interactions of employees who work at a major league baseball 5
stadium. Data were obtained from observations at … Forster (1994) used 6
interpretive method to study the organizational culture of a major retail 7
company which was expanding rapidly at that time. He gathered documents 8
from copies of originals and print-outs of computer files…. Pepper (1995) 9
conducted a cultural study in a corporate growth geam. Data were gathered… 10

Past studies indicate that the exploration [interpretive research paradigm] of 11 Strategy
organizational cultures can provide a powerful tool for understanding different 12 2.X:
aspects of an organization 13

Based on the literature review and framed in the social construction of reality 14 Strategy
perspective [discussed as central to the interpretive research paradigm in an 15 3.X:
earlier section], this study posed the following research questions: 16

What organizational meanings and expectations are communicated and 17

significant in the two SOEs? [questions continue] 18
 138

4.4.2.2 Relevancy-claiming (Strategy 2.Y)

Some of the affirmative assertions discuss the relevancy of works surveyed in Move 1

to the writer’s own work. These assertions are coded as Strategy 2.Y. For instance,

after a brief centrality claim (Lines 1-4) as well as a brief explanation of the

characteristics of the ethnographic approach to research (Lines 4-11), Writer 16 claims

the relevancy of the approach as illustrated in Text 4.27 (Lines 12-15).

Text 4.27 (Writer 16)

The fourth tradition the ethnographic tradition arose from 1 Strategy 1.X
sociological and anthropological traditions and has gained 2
wide acceptance in the first language classroom research of 3
the last ten years. It attempts to interpret behaviours from the 4 Strategy 1.Y
perspective of the participants different understandings rather 5
than from the observer’s or analyst’s supposedly “objective” 6
analysis. Classroom ethnography provides extensive 7
empirical descriptions of what is happening in the classroom 8
by ‘generating a description that approximates the knowledge 9
of participants in a particular event making the implicit 10
explicit the invisible visible’ (Mehan 1979:176). 11

Although ethnography is often criticized for its lack of 12 Strategy 2.Y

generalization to other contexts (Chaudron 1988) it is still a 13
very appropriate approach to gain a feel for the context of 14
the study. 15

In another text by Writer 7 (Text 4.28), after an extensive survey of theoretical works

by several key authors, one of whom is Weiner, the writer asserts that Weiner’s work

is the most appropriate to her own research.

Text 4.28 (Writer 7)

… [eaboration of Weiner’s works]… Weiner’s (1986, 1995) attributional theory

appears most applicable to the research in this dissertation. …(pp.30-34)
 139

4.4.2.3 Theoretical framework-synthesizing (Strategy 2.Z)

A third type of affirmative statements (coded as 2.Z) is enacted through arguments for

a new perspective or theoretical framework abstracted and/or synthesized from claims

surveyed in Move 1. These strategies are grouped together with Strategies 2.X and

2.Y as affirmative-evaluative strategies because they imply the writers’ assertions of

the values, strengths, or contributions of the claims synthesized. Texts 4.29 by Writer

1 are a case in point. Working towards an in-service program (ISP) to train a group of

local teachers to implement the process approach (PA) as a teaching innovation in

Hong Kong, the writer develops three major constructs she considers to be crucial to

the success of the innovation in the local setting. These major constructs are

abstracted from an extensive survey of literature she has done in previous sections as

indicated in the first sentence of the move in Text 4.29a.

Text 4.29a (Writer 1)

The above literature on innovation, teacher education and teacher development

suggests that these three elements [teacher education, process of adoption & teacher
development] interrelate and mutually influence one another. The adoption of
innovation involves teachers themselves in making profound changes in their
educational belief, attitude and practice; teachers seem to be the necessary factor for
successful innovation. The relationship among these four elements can be
diagrammatically illustrated as in Figure 2.1.

Using a diagram, she then represents the relationship among the elements (i.e., the

constructs), which she employs as part of the theoretical framework to guide her

PA-ISP tryout (Text 4.29b overleaf).

 140

Text 4.29b (Writer 1)

Figure 2.1 The Relationship Among Innovation, Teacher Education, Process of Adoption &
Teacher Development

INNOVATION

INSERVICE TEACHER DEVELOPMENT OF

EDUCATION TEACHERS

PROCESS OF
ADOPTION [by
teachers] & CHANGE
[experienced by teachers]

One major reason to generate this theoretical framework about the dynamics among

the elements is to show the reader that though the elements of ‘PROCESS OF

ADOPTION & CHANGE’ and ‘INSERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION’ are crucial

to the success of innovation, little support has yet been provided for teachers and little

has been done to explore the process of adoption and changes experienced teachers as

revealed in a later Move 2 of the unit (see Text 4.29c).

Text 4.29c (Writer 1)

In the case of HK [Hong Kong], an investigation by Richards et al. (1991) on the

culture of HK English teachers reported that teacher education was considered by this
group of teachers as the most important source of professional development. Ellis and
Fouts (1993), however, comment that most educational innovations have had little
support from or no sustained in-service programme [in-service teacher education], so
teachers did not know how to implement innovations.
 141

The writer then moves on to claim the gap implicitly in a Move 3 when she introduces

her own study and explains how the theoretical framework is related to the ISP which

she carried out in her study (see Text 4.29d below):

Text 4.29d (Writer 1)

As far as the researcher is aware, the present study is the first attempt to make the
connection explicitly among teacher education, teacher development and effective
innovation in terms of the process of adoption in the ELT field. …

Another example of theoretical synthesis can be observed in Writer 13’s work (see

Texts 4.30 below). After an extensive survey of literature on professionalism and

unionism (Lines 9-23, Text 4.30a), the writer identifies (i.e. abstracts) two competing

‘theses’ (orientations) of professional organizations, namely ‘professional

associations’ and ‘professional unions’ regarding protection of members’ interests

(Lines 24-29).

Text 4.30a (Writer 13)

Chapter 2
Literature Review and Framework of the Study Chapter
This chapter will focus on the key literature and theoretical framework that 1 Introduction
have shaped and guided this research. It consists of four interrelated parts that 2
create the theoretical backbone of this study. The first part is about 3
professional employees’ choices between alternative forms of collective 4
organizations and the second part is about the compatibility of unionism and 5
professionalism. The relevance of white-collar unionism to this study will be 6
discussed in part three. Finally, the conceptual framework of the study, 7
developed from the previous literature, is discussed in part four. 8
[continued overleaf]
 142

I. Between trade unionism and professionalism: professional

employees’ alternative forms of collective organization
…Some scholars (e.g., Strauss) use a linear continuum to categorise 9 Strategy 1.Y
these alternative forms of occupational organizations according to 10
their goals and strategies, with a learned society at one end and trade 11
union at the other. However, as previously mentioned in Chapter 1, 12
many other scholars (e.g., Blackburn, …) prefer to use a simple 13
dichotomy to classify them. 14

II. Does professionals’ unionization affect professional status and

development?
Whether professionals’ unionization undermines professionalism has 15
been debated in the US and Europe. Many professionals refuse to join 16
unions as they think that such act is ‘unprofessional’. For instance, 17
Walton (1961) found that…. 18

III. Professional employees and white-collar unionism

Bain (1979) found that the aggregate growth of white-collar 19
unionization was independent [different] from [that of trade unions in 20
terms of] the socio-demographic characteristics…, their work 21
situation, … and from their economic position and other terms of 22
employment. … 23

The above literature on white-collar unionism implies two competing 24 Strategy 2.Z
theses [dichotomous characteristics] – one suggesting that 25
professional employees will detach themselves from traditional 25
industrial unionism and the labour movement, the other that they will 26
increasingly choose to use traditional trade unionism and collective 27
bargaining as a means to safeguard their interests and so become part 28
of the strata of ‘mass occupations’. 29

It was also observed that Strategy 2.Z does not seem to occur in the Move 2 position

only. In some of the cases (LR texts by Writers 2, 3, 11, 13), the strategy is embedded

in a subsequent Move 3 after the writer has announced his/her study. The model

formulated by Writer 13 of Text 4.30a above provides one such example of

embedding as cited in Text 4.30b below. After introducing the two competing

models, the writer moves on to announce the aims of his study as the first strategy

(Lines 5-8), which is then followed by the formulation of a conceptual framework

built on the two competing models (Lines 9-12 + diagram).

 143

Text 4.30b (Writer 13)

III. The Conceptual Framework of the Study

As discussed earlier, quasi-professional or semi-professional employees 1
differ from other categories of workers (blue collars or lower white 2
collar groups) in that they can employ professionalism as a collective 3
strategy to pursue their conceptual interests in addition to traditional 4
trade unionism or enterprise unions. The present study aims to explore 5 Strategy
how and to what extent Hong Kong quasi-professional groups are 6 3.X
involved in alternative forms of collective organization for interest 7
protection. … 8

A typology of alternative approaches to collective organization for 9 Strategy

interest protection, with two unitary approaches, one dualistic 10 3.Y
approach and the remaining approaching withholding from any 11
collective organization, is diagrammatically shown in Figure 2.1… 12

Figure 2.1 Conceptual framework of the study: white-collar group’s alternative

approaches to collective organization for interest protection

High
Unitary approach: Dualistic (combined
emphasis on professionalism approach)
Using professionalism as a
means of collective
organization

Withold from any forms of Unitary approach: emphasis

collective organization trade unionism

Low
Using trade unionism as a means of collective organization
Low
High

Instances of this strategy were also found in chapter summaries, which will be

elaborated later in Section 4.6.2. Semantic features of this strategy include:

• Acts of making inferences (realized in such linguistic cues as ‘X implies that’,

‘Y suggests that’, etc.)

• Acts of synthesizing and formulating of conceptual or theoretical frameworks

(realized in such linguistic cues as ‘frameworks’, ‘models’ or ‘hypotheses’ and

 144

graphic cues such as diagrams showing relations among different synthesized

ideas)

4.4.3 Distribution of Move 2 strategies

A total of 246 counts of Move 2 strategy were registered. Among the various

strategies identified, Counter-claiming is the most common, followed by

Gap-indicating, Strength-claiming, and Theoretical framework synthesizing (see

Tables 4.4).

Table 4.4a Frequency distribution of Move 2 strategies

(Total counts of Move 2 strategy=246)

Strategy counts of the strategy (% of total counts of M2 strategy)

2A 121 (49.19%)
2B 57 (23.17%)
2X 32 (13.01%)
2Z 19 (7.72%)
2C 9 (3.66%)
2Y 8 (3.25%)

Table 4.4b Frequency distribution of major strategies across Moves 2

(Total counts of Move 2=189)

Strategy Counts (%) of Move 2 carrying the strategy

2A 119 (62.96%)
2B 54 (28.57%)
2X 31 (16.40%)
2Z 19 (10.05%)
2C 9 (4.76%)
2Y 8 (4.23%)

As shown in Table 4.3a, Strategy 2.A is the predominant Move 2 element found in the

corpus, which outnumbers the others by at least two times. A possible reason for the

high frequency of Counter-claiming is the writers’ attempts to evaluate various

competing theories and research approaches, as in Writer 3’s case (Text 3.3 cited in
 145

Chapter 3). To justify her adoption of the comprehensive approach to the definition of

stress in her study, the writer needs to show the thoroughness of her knowledge

regarding existing definitions by including the survey of the other two approaches and

negatively evaluating them separately, giving rise to the 2:1 ratio in the thematic unit.

The higher frequency of Strategy 2.A can also be attributed to the critical thinking (i.e.,

the ability to find flaws in the existing state of the art) expected of the doctoral student

in taking the dialectical approach to knowledge-making.

Despite the preponderance of Strategy 2.A, it is worth reiterating that three new

strategies have emerged from the analysis, namely Strength-claiming (2.X)

Abstracting/theory-synthesizing (2.Y), and Relevancy-claiming (2.Z). Though only 19

counts of Strategy 2.Z were identified, the figure only represents the strategies

realized in a Move 2 position. As mentioned and illustrated earlier, it was found that

some of the Move 3 instances also carry the strategy, suggesting that it is a

free-floating strategy that can be realized in both moves. Though Strategy 2.A is the

most frequent Move 2 strategy, it occurs only in 62.96 % of the instances of Move 2

as displayed in Table 4.3b. This frequency of occurrence confirms the strategy status

of all the 6 elements of the move.

While many of the move instances display one strategy only, a noticeable number of

them carry more than one strategy, and the strategies are configured in a variety of

ways. Text 4.31 provides an example of one of the many configurations. The text

opens with a brief survey of literature asserting positive wash back effects brought by
 146

public examinations in teaching and learning in the classroom in Hong Kong (Lines

1-3). Citing from the literature, the writer then critiques the reliability of the assertions

and the complexity of the washback phenomenon in Hong Kong (Lines 3-14). The

critique is followed by a brief statement purporting the need to explore the

phenomenon further (Lines 14-15).

Text 4.31 (Writer 16)

… Washback is strongly believed to have a positive effect on teaching and 1 Strategy 1.Y
learning. As stated earlier, the HKEA strongly believes in this: ‘We believe 2
in washback!’ (source cited). However, a search of the literature indicates 3 Strategy 2.A
that understanding of the nature of washback and the scope of its effect on 4
public examinations in Hong Kong is still based more on assumptions than 5
empirical data. … Johnson and Wong (1981:279) in their study saw the 6
Scaling Test in Hong Kong as an example of ‘testing as a force for change 7
in teaching’ and ‘testing as a potent tool for ultimately changing the 8
classroom learning and teaching techniques of English as a second or 9
foreign language.’… However, this situation …anticipated did not take 10
place… Morris (1990:49-51) … found that … teachers generally felt the 11
need to … prepare students for examination questions … 12

This … demonstrates not only the complexity of the washback effect under 13
Hong Kong educational context but also a further need for study into 14 Strategy 2.B:
phenomenon if curriculum alignment is to be expected… 15

It is quite possible that the combination of a 2.A and a 2.B strategy is chosen by the

writer to accentuate the urgency of the problems claimed in 2.A and hence the value

of the niche, which the writer claims to occupy in a subsequent Move 3.

Some of the instances of Move 2 involve three strategies, as illustrated in Text 4.32.

At the start of the paragraph, the writer briefly comments on the general contributions

the cited theorists’ models have made to the conceptualizations of washback effects

(Lines 1-8). However, towards the end of the paragraph, she comments on the models

as not being suitable for her own research, in which the writer studied intended
 147

washback effects the tests claim to bring (Lines 8-10). In the second paragraph, she

relates a lack of a well-knitted theory of washback or its impact on language education

(Lines 10-12).

Text 4.32 (Writer 12)

To summarize, the above-mentioned hypotheses and models have 1 Strategy

contributed to the conceptualization of impact or washback in terms of its 2 2.X
pattern and scope. Bachman and Palmer’s figure sets the scene of impact. 3
Hughes’ trichotomy and Bailey’s model of washback elaborate the scope and 4
pattern of impact on the educational system in the scene. Alderson and Wall’s 5
Washback Hypotheses can be regarded as embedded in this model, but they 6
have gone some way towards illuminating the complex nature of test 7
influence on teaching and learning. Useful as these frameworks are, they are 8 Strategy
not particularly suitable for research that aims to explore the intended effects 9 2.A
of language tests and the intervening factors involved. 10

… At present, a well-knitted theory of washback or impact is still lacking in 11 Strategy

both language educations and general education. 12 2.B

It is interesting to see the ‘2.X + 2.A ’ combination in Text 4.32, leading one to

speculate whether the 2.X is in fact a core element of the move structure or more of a

mitigating act (Lewin et al 2000) to moderate the possible ‘abrasiveness’ created in

Strategy 2.A – an interesting line of inquiry for further LR research.

A closer examination of some of the composite Moves 2 also reveals that some of the

strategies do recur as those in Move 1 do. A few composite Move 2 structures are

cited below to illustrate this observation.

Move 1-2.A-2.B-2.A-Move 3 [Text 2:3:14]

2.B-2.A-2.B-Move1-2.A-Move1-2.B-Move 1-2.A-2.B-Move 3 [Text 17:25:83]
Move 1-2.X- Move 1- 2.X- Move 1-2.X-2.B-2.A-2.X– Move 1 [Text 5:10:34]
Move 1-2.B-2.A-2.C -2.A-2.B-2.A [Text 10:17:55]
 148

The configurations of Move 2 strategies display less predictable patterns than those of

Move 1. Figure 4.4 below displays the frequency distribution of the great variety of

patterns observed in the corpus. The distribution suggests that the most common

realizations of Move 2 are those with one strategy only. Among the instances of

single-strategy, those with 2.A only are the most common followed by those with 2.B

only. The most common composite Moves 2 are those that exhibit both Strategies

2.A and 2.B. Again, given their wide spread of distribution, none of the realization

patterns displayed can be considered to be obligatory.

Figure 4.4 Frequency distribution of different Move 2 configurations

(Total counts of Move 2=189)
45.00 42.86

40.00

35.00
% of total counts of M ove 2

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00
12.70
10.05
10.00 8.99
6.35
4.23 3.70
5.00 3.17
1.59 1.59 1.06 1.06 1.06 0.53 0.53 0.53
0.00
2.A 2.B 2.A/B 2.X 2.Z 2.Y 2.A/X 2.A/B/X 2.C 2.A/Z 2.A/C 2.B/Z 2.C/Z 2.A/B/C 2.B/X 2.B/C
Different configurations of Move 2 strategies

*Note: The slashes separating different strategies indicate the co-occurrence of the
respective strategies and do not reflect the order of their occurrence (e.g., A/B may mean an
A-B or a B-A-B sequence).
 149

4.5 Occupying the niche

Many of the thematic units were found to carry an ending segment that displays

semantic features of Move 3 in the CARS model. An analysis of the semantic

attributes of the segments shows the following three common aspects:

• Aims of investigation

• The theoretical framework

• The research design or approach

These three aspects of announcement have also been identified by Bunton (2002) as

some essential steps in Move 3 of the CARS model for the thesis introduction.

A functional analysis of the segments suggests that many of the segments serve to

occupy the niches created in preceding Moves 2, as revealed in such explicit claims as

“This study is an attempt to fill this gap…’ or ‘This study will take X [reviewed

earlier] into consideration’. Since these segments are similar to those posited for Move

3 in the Swales’ (1990) original CARS model and as well as those postulated in

Bunton’s model (2002), they are treated as strategies of Move 3 in this study, which

will be expounded in the following sections.

4.5.1 The three common strategies of Move 3

4.5.1.1 Announcing aims of investigation (Strategy 3.X)

The majority of Moves 3 carries statements announcing the targets of investigation by

relating the aims of investigation, research questions to answer, or hypotheses to test.

These statements are coded as Strategy 3.X. For instance, in Text 4.33, Writer 2
 150

reviews the existing demographic composition of governing board members as a

strategy of Making topical generalizations step (see Lines 1-16) of Move 1. This

segment is followed by a Gap-indicating strategy (Lines 17-20). The writer then

occupies the gap (Lines 21-24) and announces the ‘intention’ of doing his study, i.e.,

‘to make up for the deficiency of management literature of this aspect’ and the target

of investigation, i.e., ‘to look deeper into the real implications of members’

demography on the effectiveness of governing boards’ (Lines 22-24).

Text 4.33 (Writer 2)

Board demography
Board demography refers to the occupation, age, and 1 Strategy
sometimes, gender of the members of a governing board. In a survey 2 1.Y
of America’s 1,300 largest corporations, Heidrick and Struggles, 3
Inc. (1981) found that 64.5% of the directors were business 4
executives, 6.0% were lawyers, 8.9% were academics and 4.5% 5
were consultants. Being filled mainly with business-executives, the 6
governing boards in the United States would obviously be 7
business-biased. A study conducted by Vance (1983) confirms that 8
there is a tendency in America to select directors with business 9
experience. The percentage of female directors in the United States 10
is surprisingly low. Business Week reported in 1984 that there were 11
only 367 women sitting on the boards of the country’s top 1,300 12
public companies, compared to 15,500 men. Some scholars, such as 13
Stultz (1979) even argue that firms put women on corporate boards 14
merely for the sake of firm image, with little concern for their actual 15
contributions. 16
The age of directors is not a major academic interest in the 17 Strategy
study of governing boards and very little research has been done. 18 2.B
The demographic features of a governing board should be actually 19
given more attention than it is receiving now. 20
This thesis will attempt to make up for the deficiency of 21 Strategy
management literature in this aspect by looking deeper into the real 22 3.X
implications of members’ demography on the effectiveness of 23
governing boards. 24
 151

4.5.1.2 Announcing of theoretical frameworks (Strategy 3.Y)

Some writers announce their adoption of the theoretical frameworks reviewed in

previous moves. The announcement statement is coded as Strategy 3.Y. Text 4.34 by

Writer 11 is provided below to illustrate the strategy. After characterizing Witz’s dual

closure strategy (Move 1) and commenting on its relevancy to her study (Move 2),

which is partly revealed in the first sentence of the paragraph, the writer announces

the adoption of the strategy in her study (Move 3) in the second sentence:

Text 4.34 (Writer 11)

It is argued that this is exactly the case in nursing professionalisation of the local
nursing community. The dual closure strategies model will be thus employed as the
conceptual framework of analysis for the study.

In some of the cases, the writers do not only announce the theoretical frameworks

employed but also synthesize them in Move 3. As mentioned earlier, four writers (i.e.,

2, 3, 11 and 13) synthesize their theoretical frameworks in Move 3 in the last thematic

unit of the LR chapter. One such postponed theoretical synthesis has already been

illustrated in Text 4.30b in Section 4.4.2.3. For this reason, this point will not be

pursued further in this section.

4.5.1.3 Announcing the research methodology (Strategy 3.Z)

Elaboration of research design or methodological considerations was also observed in

some of the instances of Move 3. Texts 4.35 and 4.36 are provided below to illustrate

this observation. After an extensive review of issues measuring writing, Writer 6 of

Text 4.35 announces her adoption of an assessment instrument in her study.

 152

Text 4.35 (Writer 6)

In the present study, Jacobs et al’s (1981) analytic rating profile is used to assess
quality of writing on five measures, content, organization, vocabulary, language use,
and mechanics.

Likewise, Writer 18 of Text 4.36 announces the research methodology adopted in his

research after an extensive review of literature on triangulation (i.e., Text 4.26 cited in

the previous section).

Text 4.36 (Writer 18)

Given the complexities of organizational culture, this study adopts the hybrid
research method with qualitative study as a primary method and quantitative study as
supplementary one. Specifically, analysis of interviews and news letters were
conducted to discover dominant cultural dimensions. Quantitative data from the
survey were used to…

Altogether, 103 counts of Move 3 strategies were registered. Tables 4.5 below present

the frequency distribution of the strategies.

Table 4.5a Frequency distribution of Move 3 strategies

(Total counts of Move 3 strategy=103)

Strategy Counts of the strategy (% of total counts of M3 strategy )

3.Y 52 (50.49%)
3.X 41 (39.81%)
3.Z 8 (7.77%)
Others 2 (1.94%)

Table 4.5b Frequency distribution of major strategies across Moves 3

(Total counts of Move 3=92)

Strategy Counts (%) of Move 3 carrying the strategy

3.Y 52 (56.52%)
3.X 41 (44.57%)
3.Z 8 (8.70%)
Others 2 (2.17%)
 153

Note that the most common strategy is announcing one’s theoretical

orientation/framework, followed by the targets of research, the frequency counts of

which outperform those of 3Z and Others by at least 8 times. According to the

distribution shown in Table 4.5b, none of the strategies is obligatory and hence they

can only be accorded the strategy status.

4.5.1.4 Post-strategy justification (3X/Y/Zj)

Twenty-one out of the 103 Move 3 strategies are followed by explicit justification

claims (coded as j), which largely relate either the non-epistemic value their studies

can bring to the community or emphasize some distinguished epistemic features of the

study the writers pursued. For instance, Writer 17 in Text 4.37 below asserts the value

of the insights regarding local music education generated from her investigation into

‘the processes of social interaction in Hong Kong schools’ (see the underlined part).

Text 4.37 (Writer 17)

…This study examines the processes of social interaction in Hong Kong schools,
and thus has the potential to provide an insight into how the status of music is
maintained and reinforced through an analysis of how music teachers define their
situation and come to terms with it. By enquiring into the music curriculum, a deeper
understanding of the nature of valid knowledge embedded in the school curriculum of
Hong Kong can hopefully be gained.

Writer 20, on the other hand, provides an extended claim of the distinguished

analytical features of his study as well as his model after he has elaborated the

components of this model in a previous segment (see Text 4.38 below).

 154

Text 4.38 (Writer 20)

The significance of the study is demonstrated by efforts expended in the integration

and differentiation of theories and concepts. The theoretical theme starts from….The
present study certainly has its unique features … Whereas past studies examine the
domains separately, the present one conjoins them into a holistic analytic framework.
Besides this study can be distinguished from past studies on the following criterial
axes: [followed by a one-page table contrasting the writer’s own study and those
in the past]…

4.5.2 Configurations of Move 3 strategies

The majority of Move 3 realizations show a single-strategy pattern, which is not

surprising given that the major function of the move is to occupy the niche created in

Move 2. What one can occupy thus depends much on what is created in the previous

move. If one has claimed a lack of research in one area in a preceding Move 2, it is

expected that the most legitimate Move 3 strategy will be that of Strategy 3.X. On the

other hand, if one has positively evaluated a research methodology in the previous

Move 2, it is natural for the writer to claim the adoption of the methodology (3.Z) in

the Move 3. Lewin et al (2001) refers to this phenomenon as a contextual response.

Another implication which can be drawn from the single-strategy realizations across

three moves is that most of the writers aim to deal with one particular aspect of their

research at a time (i.e., in each of the thematic units). For instance, some writers

provide explicit surveys research studies in their Move 1, locate research gaps in their

Move 2, and then claim the research gaps in their Move 3. Alternatively, some writers

present thorough accounts of epistemological considerations about a particular aspect

 155

of the research in their Move 1, problematizing the considerations in Move 2 and then

offering new insights in Moves 3.

As shown in Figure 4.5, most Move 3 instances carry Strategy 3.X or Strategy 3.Y

only, suggesting that they are the predominant realizations found in the corpus.

However, as also illustrated in the figure, none of the realizations is obligatory.

Figure 4.5 Distribution of different configurations of Move 3

(Total counts of Move 3=92)
60.00

50.00 47.83
% of total counts of Move 3

40.00

34.78

30.00

20.00

10.00 7.61
5.43

1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09

0.00

3.Y 3.X 3.X/Y 3.Z other2 3.X/Z 3.Y/Z 3.X/Z/O1

Various configurations of Move 3 strategies

*Note: The slashes separating different strategies indicate the co-occurrence of the
respective strategies and do not reflect the order of their occurrence (e.g., X/Y may mean
an X-Y or a Y- X-Y sequence).

It is worth noting that the characteristics of the Move 3 of the LR corpus are

somewhat different from those identified for the same move in introductions as

posited by Bunton (2002). The move in the latter part-genre encompasses a variety of

steps (recaptured in Figure 4.6) while Move 3 in the LRs analyzed in this study carry

only five of the steps (see the italicized parts in the figure). While

significance/justification claims in Bunton’s model are accorded an independent step

status, the current findings suggest that the claims identified in the LR corpus do not
 156

occur in isolation but after some research announcement strategies. This implies that

significance/justification claims may be a sub-strategy of the latter.

Figure 4.6 Move 3 in Bunton’s model

Steps occur often Steps occur occasionally

1. Purposes, aims, or objectives Chapter structure
2. Work carried out (Eg, Sj) Research questions/Hypotheses
3. Method Theoretical positions (So)
4. Materials or Subjects Defining terms
5. Findings or Results Parameters of research
6. Product of research (Eg)/Model proposed (So)
7. Significance/Justification Application of product (Eg)
8. Thesis structure Evaluation (Eg)
(Bunton 2002, p.74)

Another difference is the absence of such announcements as the thesis structure,

principle findings, and work carried out, which suggests that the LR does not serve to

introduce the thesis as a document and justify the writer’s research in general as the

introductory chapter does (to be discussed in Section 4.7.3).

4.6 Coherence of move structures

4.6.1 Modular arrangement of move structures

An examination of the coherence across the move structures embedded in the thematic

units in each of the LR chapters shows that most units exist in a modular mode. This

means that each thematic unit forms one module carrying its own self-contained move

structure and hence its own sets of niches to create and occupy. These units may or

may not be thematically related to other units. An example of modular existence of

thematic units can be found in Writer 14’s literature review chapter. In her study, the

writer aimed for the following three research objectives:

(1) compare and contrast Principals’, Middle Managers’ and Teachers’ perceptions of the
decision-making process [sic]

(2) identify factors inside and outside the school that influenced the process
 157

(3) develop a grounded theory/conceptualizations of the ways in which curriculum

decisions were reached.’
(cited from the Abstract)

The writer discusses four major themes in her literature review chapter. The following

schematic representation summarizes the thematic units and their respective move

structures.

Theme 1 (Education decision-making in practice)

1-2-1-2-1-2-3

Theme 2 (Decision-making theories in non-education contexts)

1-2-1-2-1-2-1

Theme 3 (Educational organizational management models)

1-2-3

Theme 4 (Roles of key players in school-based curriculum

decision-making)
1-2-3

Though the four units are thematically connected in that they are about

decision-making and management, an examination of the Moves 2 and 3 in each of

the units suggests that the writer has only drawn on the materials reviewed within the

respective unit to create its own niche(s) and then occupy it within the unit. Figure 4.7

on the following page summarizes the essence of the Moves 2 and Moves 3 of the

four units. As shown, each of the units deals with one particular aspect of the research

and does not seem to respond to claims across the thematic units.
 158

Figure 4.7 Summarized move structures found in one part of Writer 14’s LR text

Unit 1 Move 1 z Surveying the practices of curriculum decision-making (Moves 1)

Move 2 z Problematicizing the curriculum decision-making: ‘Unfortunately, the
educational community has not come to an agreement about what
should be taught, so the matter of who should decide and how still
persists….’ (Moves 2)
Move 3 z Announcing an examination of the practices in her study, claiming that
her study was an attempt to address the process of curriculum planning
at school, which was ‘the focus of this [her] study’. (Moves 3)
Unit 2 Move 1 z Characterizing four non-education administration (decision-making)
theories (Moves 1)
Move 2 z Problematicizing each of the theories (Moves 2)
z Relating a gap in theories related to educational administration
(Moves 2)
Unit 3 Move 1 z Characterizing the nature of theories of educational organizational
management: nature of educational institutions, behaviour of
individuals within them and that theories are grounded in observations;
paying special attention to Bush Models (Move 1)
Move 2 z Commenting positively on Bush’s models (Move 2)
Move 3 z Announcing Leung’s own theoretical framework being based on Bush’s
work: ‘Bush’s models were chosen as an initial guiding framework
because these seem to reflect the different styles of decision-making
(Move 3)
Unit 4 Move 1 z Surveying existing understanding of roles and functions of middle
managers and their impact on curriculum decision-making; suggesting
that the functions / roles are mixed and there is no simple description of
them. The functions include also: leadership and communication,
pupils, staff, curriculum and resources.
Move 2 z Relating middle managers’ grievances; problematicizing the existing
understanding of importance of middle managers
Move 3 z Highlighting Leung’s emphasis in his study being leadership &
communication, resources matters

4.6.2 Nested structures in higher order structures

In some of the cases, the LR chapter (or the LR text in general) begins with a series of

what appears to be independent, modular move structures but then ends with a unit

containing a higher order Move 2 and sometimes Move 3, which provide overall

responses to the claims surveyed in the modular structures and also make the previous

modular structures appear to be nested in a higher order move structure. These nested

move structures can be expressed in the formula of [(TMS)n -2-3] where ‘TMS’
 159

refers to the theme-bound move structure and ‘n’ refers to the number of thematic

units found in the text. Higher order Moves 2 and 3 tend to be realized in the forms of:

z chapter summary/conclusions (discussed in the section of Concluding Texts in

Section 4.1); or

z a separate thematic section titled as ‘Theoretical Framework’.

There are two cases in which the writers discuss their theoretical frameworks towards

the very end of the LR text not titled as conclusion but specifically headed as

theoretical frameworks. Writer 5, for instance, divides his two chapters of LR in a

way that the first chapter carries thematic units which a) summarize and evaluate

various studies premised on an existing conceptual framework regarding some forms

of cross-cultural behavior and b) examine the existing situation of one aspect of

communication in China. In the second chapter, the writer announces the adoption

of the framework and its synthesis with another framework. The entire second chapter

is devoted to the description of the framework and the hypotheses generated from the

two frameworks coded in Text 4.39 overleaf.

The move structures abstracted in Figure 4.8 on p.161 represent the schematic

arrangement of two chapters found in Writer 5’s LR text.

 160

Text 4.39 (Writer 5)

Chapter Three [the second chapter of LR]

Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of this study is built on the theoretical assumption of Move 3.Y
Hofstede’s (1980) four dimensions of work-related values and Rahim and Announcing adoption of
Bonoma’s (1997) model of five conflict styles [the first time mention of R & B’s Hoftstede’s framework and
work]. … Rahim and Bonoma’s
model

Hofstede’s (1980 framework of cultural values was adopted in this study for four Move 3.Yj
reasons…First, … Second, …Third, … Justifying adoption of
Hofstede’s framework

For a systematic study of the conflict styles of FIE employees, Rahim and Justifying adoption of
Bonoma’s (1979) model of five conflict styles was adopted. This model was chosen Rahim and Bonoma’s
because it has been used widely by researchers to study conflict management in model
mono- and cross-cultural environments (e.g., Buntzman, 1993; Carlin, 1991;
Donova, 1993; …) and has proven to be reliable (Rahim, 1983a). It has generated
more than 100 publications, including journal articles, conference papers, master
theses, and Ph.d. dissertations (see Rahim, 1998). These studies have also produced
varying …Rahim and Bonoma’s (1979) model classifies conflict management into
five distinct styles labeled as integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and
compromising… [the elaboration of the model continues].

The theoretical framework formulated for the current study is a combination of Move 3.Y
Hofstede’s (1989) work-related values and Rahim and Bonoma’s (1979) model Reintroducing the
with two additional independent variables: foreign language competene and theoretical framework of
leadership style [a theme surveyed and argued as crucial elements in cross-cultural the study
communication]. The second part consists of the dependent variables identified as
five conflict management styles outlined in Rahim’s (1979) conflict model. The
structure of this overall framework is built on the assumed interwoven relationship
between culture and conflict management styles. This theoretical framework is
graphically presented by Figure 3.2. [commentary of the figure continues.]

Research Questions
Based on the previous literature review and the objective of this study, a macro Move 3.X
research question was proposed. How do national culture, foreign language Introducing the research
competence, and leadership style influence the conflict management styles of FIE questions and hypotheses
employees in mainland China? This question will be answered by testing six
hypotheses developed according to the theoretical assumptions .. as represented by
the framework of this study. …
[Listing of the hypotheses:]
H1. Members of individualistic cultural groups are: …
H1a. less likely to adopt the avoiding style than members of collectivistic cultural
groups;
H1b. less likely to adopt the compromising style than members of collectivistic
cultural groups;
… [hypotheses continue.]
 161

Figure 4.8 Schematic representation of the nested move structures found in Writer 5’s LR text

Chapter 2
Introduction

Theme 1
1.X-1.C-2.X-1.A-1.B-2.X-1.B-2.X-2.B-2.A-2.X-1.A
Theme 2
1.Y-2.B-1.X-2.B-2.A-1.Y-2.A-1.Y-2.X-1.Y-1.Z-2.X-2.B-2.
A
Move structures Theme 3
Chapter Summary
1.Y-2.A-2.B-1.X-2.A-1.Y-2.A-2.X-2.B-3.A
which prepare for
niche-occupying in Chapter 3
Chapter 3 3.Y [announcing a synthesized theoretical framework]
3.X [announcing aims and hypotheses for testing]
Chapter summary

Occupying niches created

in Chapter 2

When translated into the formula developed earlier, the nesting nature of Writer 5’s

LR text can be represented as (TMS)3 -3.

Writer 3’s LR text is another example that illustrates the nested arrangement of

modular move structures. Her thesis carries 3 LR chapters. In the first 2 chapters, she

provides an extensive discussion of various themes, each of which appears to be a

modular thematic unit. However, at the end of the third chapter, she presents an

overall Move 2, critiquing the limitations in current understanding of stress brought by

adoptive parenthood (2.A) and synthesizing her sophisticated theoretical framework

by drawing on the major claims surveyed in the previous sections and chapters

(Strategy 2.Z). Her Strategy 2.Z is among the most extensive in the corpus, which

occupies a total of 11 pages and includes a total of 5 diagrams, cited below. She starts

the synthesizing by abstracting from the different issues surveyed which can be
 162

involved in adoptive parenthood and induce stress (see Text 4.40a). She then

presents the relationship among the different issues using a series of diagrams.

Text 4.40a (Writer 3)

Based on the above discussion on issues of adoptive parenthood, stresses and factors
mediating coping, the understanding of adoption can be viewed from the Ecological
Model or Life Model whereby concepts about transactions between people and their
environment, adaptation, reciprocity, mutuality, stress, and coping; also growth and
development, identity, competence, autonomy, and relatedness are concerned … The
following three figures attempt to summarize the above literature under the macro
(community), the messo (group) and the micro (individual/spousal) levels (figures 4.1,
4.2 & 4.3).

Figure 4: Stresses in Adoptive Family Cycle

Transition to parenthood 0-2 years

Infertility grief
Social stigma towards adoption
Social welfare investigation
Lack of role models in adoption
Lack of security in parental status
Age and characteristics of adopted child

Pre-school to School Age 2-12 years

Revealing adoption
Child’s questions about birth parents, heritage, roots
Child’s adoption grief

Adolescence & Young adulthoold 12-21 years

Adoptee’s identity confusion
Adoptee’s search for roots

… (diagrams continue)
 163

After the abstraction, the writer then formulates a theoretical framework and

announces the use of it to guide her study as cited in Text 4.40b below.

Text 4.40b (Writer 3)

In order to proceed with the study of adoptive parental stresses and coping, the author
has developed a theoretical frame by drawing from different relevant sources,
including western literature, local profile study and ethnographic insights, the detail
of which will be reported in the subsequent chapters. …

Three interrelated groups of factors were proposed as a framework for this study:

1) predisposing factors…

2) stresses of adoption…

3) factors mediating coping in adoption [the key issues facing adoptive

parents …

[as reviewed in previous thematic units].

Four groups of factors were listed under Predisposing factors. They are the cognitive
activities and resources possessed by potential adopters before the actual process of
adoption…

[Elaboration of the factors under the three interrelated groups continues.]

[Diagrams of the three interrelated groups of factors]

The nested nature of the theme-bound move structures of Writer 3’s LR text is

represented schematically on the next page (Figure 4.9 overleaf). As can be seen, the

writer presents a review of 10 thematic units (distributed in 3 separate chapters) and

concludes it with a move to create an overall niche and a claim of the niche. The

schematic representation of LR text can be further simplified to (TMS)11-2-3.

 164

Figure 4.9 Schematic representation of the nested move structures found in Writer 3’s LR

Chapter 2
Introduction
Theme 1
1.Y-2.A-1.Y-2.A-1.Y-2.Y-3.Y
Theme 2
1.X-1.Y/Z-2.Z-3.X
Chapter summary

Chapter 3
Introduction
Theme 3
1.Y-2.A-2.B
Theme 4
1.Y-1.X-1.Y-2.A-2.B-3.X
Theme 5
Move structures 1.Y-2.B-3.X
which prepare for Chapter summary
niche-creating and
niche-occupying at Chapter 5
end of Chapter 5 Introduction
Theme 6
1.X-1.Y-2.X-3.X
Theme 7
1.Y-3.X-1.X-1.Y-3.X-1.X-2.A-3.X-1.X-2.A-1.Y
Theme 8
1.Y-2.C-3.X
Theme 9
1.Y-1.X-1.Y-2.A-1.X-1.Y-2.B-1.Y
Theme 10
2.Y-2.Z

Theoretical Framework (found at the end of Chapter 5)

2.A [incompleting understanding summarized from previous chapters]
2.Z [abstracting issues related to adoptive parenthood reviewed in previous chapters
3.B [announcing theoretical framework synthesized
z Creatingfrom 2.Z]in the states of
niches
the art reviewed in previous
LR-end summary
chapters
z Occupying niches created in
Moves 2.A and 2.Z

4.7 Establishing theoretical frameworks

The analysis of some of the Moves 2 and Chapter summaries involving claims about

the writers’ theoretical frameworks has shed some light on how the students have
 165

established the theoretical frameworks for their studies. It was observed that there

were three ways through which the writers arrived at their frameworks. The most

common way observed in the analysis of Move 2 is by way of arguing for the

strengths of a particular theory (Strategy 2.X) and claiming its relevancy (Strategy

2.Y). In some cases where more than one theory is involved, the writers combine or

integrate them, as in the case of Writer 5. After extensive evaluation of Hofstede’s

theoretical constructs and Rahim’s model, the writer announces that he has adopted

and synthesized both to generate a set of 15 hypotheses for testing in his study. In

some of the cases analyzed, there was no explicit wholesale borrowing of one

particular theoretical framework possibly because it is not available (as in the case of

Writer 1 and Writer 3) and it needs to be established by abstracting and synthesizing

existing claims from relevant sources.

In the case of Writer 10, however, we observe a rather unusual case of arguing against

the adoption of a theoretical framework. An initial reading of her examination of

several key models and hypotheses regarding washback effects may lead the reader to

anticipate that she would adopt the key models or test the hypotheses therein.

However, she surprises the reader by refuting it and providing no alternative to fill the

theoretical void (see footnote 2 for a brief explanation of the observation).

 166

4.8 Schematic modeling

In this chapter I have presented the findings generated from the thin analysis of 20 LR

texts. Here, I will summarize some of the major findings and relate them to the

analytical questions raised in Chapter 3.

4.8.1 Knowledge claims surveyed

One of the questions to address in the analysis is what types of knowledge are carried

in various parts of the LR texts. From the examination of the functions, the

propositional contents and semantic features of the various parts of the texts, it can be

concluded that the writers have presented themes that relate to various parts of the

writers’ research. The thematic reviews include those of terminology, theories

(including theoretical frameworks, constructs, hypotheses), development of research

related to the writer’s topic (e.g. relating contexts, focuses, subjects, methodology and

findings of the studies surveyed), non-research practices, non-research phenomena,

and trends. The writers also critique these various knowledge claims and introduce

various aspects of their own research (e.g., focuses, contexts, methodology, and

theoretical framework). Some of the critiques were backed up by citations of works by

others.

4.8.2 Postulation of schematic models for LRs

4.8.2.1 Chapter organization

It was found that most of the LR texts are organized into chapters. Many of the

chapters follow a potential generic Introduction-Body-Conclusion structure. The

 167

introductory part of the chapter serves two possible purposes: providing an advanced

organizer to facilitate reading and justifying the themes pursued in the chapter. The

concluding part carries a summarizing statement providing a cursory overview of the

themes reviewed in the chapter and the intention of the review. A small number of

conclusion texts were found to display features of Move 2 and Move 3, which respond

to claims made in the chapter and at the same time announce the writers’ research. In

two cases where there is no marked concluding text to the LRs, the final thematic

units of the LR texts function as the overall Move 2 and Move 3 of the LRs. Both of

the final thematic units are titled as ‘Theoretical Framework’, suggesting that one

primary aim of the two LRs is to establish the theoretical frameworks for the writers’

research. Since there were more chapter introductory texts than chapter conclusion

texts, the structure of Introduction-Body(-Conclusion) is proposed to represent the

schematic organization of the LR chapters. The presence of summarizing texts and the

absence of the description of the thesis structure in the LR chapters mark the first

difference between LRs and introductions.

In the Body of the LRs, discussions are divided into thematic units systematically

numbered and marked by section heads. The multi-thematic sectioning in the LRs

reveals that the rhetorical exposition presented in the genre can be more sophisticated

than that found in the introduction chapter. Multi-themes in the LRs (spread in some

cases across multi-chapters) are arguably needed in order to establish complicated

conceptual and epistemological contours of the writers’ research topics. The

observation of multi-thematic units has received almost zero attention in analysis of

 168

introductory texts. While this finding suggests that it is a unique textual feature of LRs,

it needs to be noted that this difference may have been a result of the theme-bound

text-parsing procedure adopted in the current study, which apparently had not been

attempted in previous CARS studies of introductory chapters in theses.

4.8.2.2 Move structures in thematic units

Presence of CARS-elements

The thematic sections in the LR chapters display different types of text units which

find corresponding semantic and functional matches with the majority of the steps in

each of the three moves of the CARS model and especially that posited by Bunton

(2002) for thesis introductions. For instance, Claiming centrality of Move 1 in the

model was identified as one common category of text unit in the present corpus. This

observation suggests that most the steps of the three moves, and hence the three

moves of the CARS model, are also present in the thematic sections.

New text units identified

A new group of evaluative text units displaying the writer’s receptive stance of the

state of the art was also identified mostly after text units of Move 1. These new text

units can be classified into the three categories of Confirming strengths, Claiming

relevancy, Synthesizing a theoretical framework (or position), which are posited as

alternative realizations of Move 2 in the present corpus.

 169

Non-obligatory status of moves and move elements

Since none of the three moves and their respective elements occurs in 100% of the

thematic units nor do they occur in any fixed pattern, they can only be accorded the

optional status while the move elements can only be treated as strategies. Nonetheless,

some of the moves and strategies appear more frequently and they are thus considered

to be moves and strategies of strong preference (e.g., Move 1 and 2, Strategies 1X, 1Y

and 2A).

A scheme posited for the move pattern per thematic unit

A move structure, which resembles in part the CARS model, is posited below to

describe the rhetorical movement of the thematic units (see Figure 4.10). Note that

the various strategies in their respective moves are arranged in descending order of

frequency of occurrence (i.e., strength of preference). The arrangement therefore does

not imply any sequential structuring.

Figure 4.10 A move structure posited for thematic units in LR texts

Move 1(strong preference)
Strategy A (strong preference)
Strategy B (strong preference)
Strategy C
Move 2(strong preference)
Strategy A (strong preference)
Strategy B
Strategy C
Strategy D
Strategy E
Strategy F
Move 3 (weak preference)
Strategy A (strong preference)
Strategy B (strong preference)
Strategy C
*Optional post-strategy
element
Establishing one part of the territory of one’s own research by
z Surveying non-research-fronted practices or knowledge claims
z Claiming centrality of the theme
z Surveying research activities
Creating a research niche by responding to Move 1
z Making counter claims
z Indicating gaps
z Confirming strengths
z Synthesizing a theoretical framework (or position)
z Claiming relevancy
z Question-raising
Occupying the research niche by responding to Move 2
z Announcing targets of investigation + *
z Announcing theoretical framework / position + *
z Announcing research design + *
Justifying or claiming contributions of claims announced
 170

The moves tend to be realized in a variety of recursive manners with the 2 most

common configurations being (1-2)n -3 and (1-2) n. Recursion also occurs at the

strategy level (e.g., 1.X-1.Y-1.Z-1.Y) in Move 1 and Move 2 but does so in much less

predictable patterns. Strategy recursion occurs rarely in Move 3.

Coherence of move structures across thematic units

The analysis also suggests that most of the thematic units occur in a sequential

modular manner, meaning that each carries a self-contained move structure that

creates and occupies its own niches independent of claims made in the previous or

following units. However, there remain a small number of LR texts in which the

modular thematic units are nested in higher order move structures. These nested units

carry claims which prepare for the overall niche-creating and occupying towards the

end of the LR chapter or LR text. Two modes of realizations of the theme-bound

move structures are thus proposed and represented in the following formulae:

Modular: (TMS)n [strong preference]

Nested: (TMS) n-2-3

where
TMS = theme-bound move structure
n = the total number of thematic units per LR chapter or LR text

4.8.3 LRs and introductory chapters

The CARS structures identified in the various thematic sections of the corpus suggest

that the introductory chapter and the LR of a thesis share the same communicative

purposes of introducing and justifying one’s research. Yet, marked differences were
 171

also noted in the present analysis. First, the LR texts display an organizational pattern

at the chapter level not noted in previous introduction studies. Secondly, the

multi-thematic sectioning and complicated rhetorical movement embedded in each of

the thematic sections of the LR texts suggest that they carry another key function of

canvassing the complicated conceptual, epistemological and theoretical terrains of the

writer’s research topic (which explains the longer length of LR texts in comparison

with introductory chapters). Thirdly, the presence of strategies discussing/synthesizing

theoretical frameworks in Moves 1 and 2 implies that the LR is the part of the thesis

where the writer’s theoretical assumptions are dealt with in depth. Fourthly, the

absence of announcing the thesis structure suggests that the LR does not serve to

introduce the thesis as the introductory chapter does. These noted differences together

with the commonality shared by LRs and introductory chapters reveal that both

belong to a genre agnation network (Martin 1992) or a genre colony (Bhatia 2001) of

academic research introductions through which writers set the scene for their research.

Where the introduction chapter deals with macro scene-setting (i.e., justifying the

thesis and the overall research study), the LR chapter(s) handles the task at a more

micro and technical level (i.e., making a case for the fine details about the research,

including specific research focuses, design, theoretical positions and adoption of

terminology).

The discussion up to this point has focused on the schematic pattern and the

propositional contents of LRs. In the following chapters, I will examine how doctoral
 172

students negotiate the choices of specific sources for reading for their studies and in

particular the literature reviews in various parts of their theses.

 173

Chapter 5 A cognitive and socio-cognitive approach to the

study of literature reviewing

5.0 Introduction
The thin analysis thus far reveals much about the textualization and propositional

contents of LRs. Most of the texts analyzed, for instance, were found carrying multi-

thematic sections that relate various topic-specific non-epistemic practices, and

elaborate conceptual, theoretical and methodological issues of relevance to the

writers’ theses. Most important of all, through the extensive discussions of these

issues, the writers create niches of different types to justify various aspects of their

research. The thematic discussions are realized in rhetorical schematic patterns that

bear some resemblances to the CARS structure. These findings can provide useful

insights for students regarding the types of information they can review and reference

for how they can organize the review in their LR chapters. While these findings are

illuminating, they offer only what Brandt (1990 cited earlier) refers to as a strong text

view about LR. More examination is needed to look into the reviewing process itself.

This examination forms the second part of this thesis, which is referred to as the thick

analysis.

Motivated by many students’ concern about the volume of reading they need to deal

with throughout their Ph.D. journey, the thick analysis primarily investigates how

students select the literature for reading. As discussed in Chapter 1, literature

reviewing in the context of thesis-making involves in part reading to learn (e.g.,

 174

learning about the topic and information to facilitate one’s research), which I refer to

as reading for the study (RS). The process also involves reading for materials to

construct the LR chapter, which I collectively term as reading for the literature review

(RLR). Three general research questions have been generated to address the selection

of literature for RS and RLR and they are recaptured below:

• How do students formulate their reading focuses for both processes?

• How do they select the literature for reading?

• How do they decide whose works and which specific works should be consulted?

‘Reading focuses’ in Question 1 refer to the major themes reviewed for learning,

which include the broad categories of conceptual constructs, methodology, research

procedures and other significant issues individual students need to attend to

throughout the process of the study. For RLR, focuses refer to the specific themes

which are discussed or to be discussed in the LR chapter(s) (WLR).

As briefly presented in Chapter 1, the investigation is premised on two theoretical

assumptions about RS and RLR. First, it is posited that RS and RLR are implicated by

a constellation of technical and sociological-social exigencies. Technical exigencies

refer to those technical issues that arise in the process of research (e.g., data

analyzing) or thesis-writing that shape the directions of reading. Sociological-social

exigencies refer to the macro-/micro-social milieu in which the student undertakes

his/her thesis. Where sociological exigencies comprise primarily but not exclusively

those involving the consensus and disputes about the paradigms of a field at a macro-
 175

level, micro exigencies are located at more micro levels where consensus of

paradigmatic knowledge and discursive practices (those that receive influence at the

sociological (macro-) level) are negotiated concretely through moment-to-moment

interactions among members of a specific network of members of a field(s) with

whom the student comes into contact. In other words, it is assumed that what a student

chooses to read – whether for studying or writing purpose – is located in and hence is

shaped by the macro- and micro-social contexts in which the student’s study is

undertaken. Based on these two theoretical assumptions, the following research

questions have also been derived to probe into the various issues that implicate RS

and RLR:

• Do, RS, RLR, the Research Process (e.g., data collection, data analysis, etc)

and WLR co-construct each other? If so, how do they co-construct each other?

What types of tension might be created in this co-construction process?

• Are the two processes of RS and RLR socially implicated? If so, who might be

involved in the process? How are they socially implicated?

In this chapter, I will elaborate the theoretical assumptions. Through the discussion, I

will fine-tune the above research questions to guide the thick analysis of RS and RLR.

5.1 RS, RLR and research processes

One of the problems exhibited by a majority of doctoral students is procrastinating the

writing of their theses while spending a large amount of time on reading and data
 176

analysis (Ogden 1993). Many students believe that they need to have done thorough

reading, collected enough data and completed the data analysis before they can

embark on their writing. This prevalent belief suggests that students see writing as

secondary in the process of thesis-undertaking and hold a ‘strict demarcation view’

about the processes of literature reviewing, researching and thesis-writing. Torrance

and Thomas (1994) trace this conception back to the ‘think-then-write’ strategy for

composing frequently promoted in writing classes in which students are taught that ‘in

order to form good style, the primary rule and condition is not to attempt to express

[themselves] in language before [they] thoroughly know [their] meaning’ (Elbow

1973, cited in Torrance et al. 1994, p.108).

As Torrance and Thomas remark, such a demarcation view is counterproductive in the

context of research writing. First, research writing is not a knowledge-telling process.

That is, research texts are not straightforward recounts of research activities and

findings. Rather, they are rhetorical acts in which writers construct rhetorical

expositions about their research aimed at a particular audience. Second, research

writing is a constructive process, or more precisely a ‘knowledge-transforming’

process, which itself can afford the writer opportunities to think through the research

actions and in the context of thesis-making allows the writer to make up for the

‘deficiencies or failings in [the] earlier stages of the PhD’ (Torrance et al. 1994,

p.109).
 177

5.1.1 Postulating a reading-research-writing nexus

Responding to the strict demarcation view, Lee (1998) calls for an alternative writing

model that can reinstate the research/writing nexus to capture the complexity of this

specialized discursive practice. She invokes a cognitive composition model posited by

Murray (1980) that represents writing in general as a complex web of processes.

These processes can by and large be divided into two groups, one of which deals with

the information needed for writing while the other involves textualizing the

information. Murray maps these two macro groups of processes onto an informational

axis and a textual axis around which four sub-groups of processes are built (see Figure

5.1 below).

Figure 5.1 The writing model posited by Murray (1980)

Writing

Collecting Connecting

Reading

(Murray 1980; cited in Lee 1998, p.125)

Falling on the informational axis (horizontal) of Murray’s model are the two processes

of collecting and connecting. Collecting means assembling information for writing

 178

whereas connecting refers to the sub-processes of selecting, ordering, discriminating

and ranking the significance of the collected information, synthesizing old with new

information, and determining the needs for further information. Organized around the

textual (vertical) axis are two processes primarily dealing with the text being produced.

Reading in the context of the model means reviewing one’s own text. It is the writer’s

‘almost simultaneous act of reading what has just been written’ (p.126). Lee explains

by citing Murray that ‘reading in this sense involves criticism, the making of

comparisons, the search for “immediate clarity, instant grace” (ibid, p.23)’ (Lee,

p.126). As Lee remarks, the four processes organized around the axes are by no means

independent of each other, and their boundaries are blurred. The processes are

intertwined in that they construct and are constructed by each other, creating a kind of

co-constructive dynamics represented by the two-way arrows shown in Figure 5.1.

Though Lee argues that the model can aptly lend itself to the description of thesis-

writing, she stops short of elaborating how the four processes presented in the model

can be mapped onto the research/writing practice. Attempts are thus made in this

section to examine what these processes may involve in the context of thesis

production. In the original model posited by Murray (1980; cited in Lee 1998),

collecting refers to gathering ideas from various sources, which may be from past

experience, reading, and discussion with others. In the context of thesis-writing,

however, collection may take on different meanings. Judging from her special

emphasis on the nexus of research-writing when quoting the model, we can see that

Lee (1998) alludes to the data-collection process which primarily involves fieldwork
 179

and data analysis while unfortunately leaving out the crucial process of literature

reviewing (RS and RLR) if not subsuming the process under the macro process of

collection. If literature reviewing is included or at least is made more marked as a

significant process in the model, we can see that the connection task for the thesis-

writer is much more demanding and complicated. It is no longer a two-way

integration of data and writing, but a three-way synthesis that includes reading, data-

collection and writing. It can also be envisaged that data-collection (DA), RS and

RLR, WLR, and in general Thesis-writing (WT) constitute each other in sophisticated

ways.

The co-constructive nature of the processes and complexity involved has in fact been

remarked in the literature, though in passing. Contributors to Meloy’s volume, for

instance, share anecdotally their experiences of literature reviewing running parallel to

their research. In some reference guides, students are encouraged to consult the

literature after they have collected and started analyzing their data. For instance, in her

advice on how to conduct qualitative research, Goodfellow (1998b) exemplifies the

need to go back to the literature for ‘deeper understanding of key concepts’ by

drawing on her own experience of coming up with the interpretive text for her

narrative research writing.

Events, human actions and experiential accounts found in field texts and used to
develop themed stories were woven into an interpretive text which explained and
supported the interpretation being made and/or the perspective being presented. The
construction of the research text incorporated not only explanations of the phenomena
under scrutiny but also evidence to support those interpretations. At this point it was
necessary to draw from relevant literature in order to provide a deeper understanding
of key concepts. (p.184)
 180

Strauss and Corbin (1990) caution students pursuing works premised on grounded

theory against being steeped in reviewing of literature prior to data analysis to avoid

biases in interpretation. In some contexts, students are even encouraged to work

backward by first collecting and analyzing data, and identifying their patterns before

reviewing the literature intensively.

In some cases, RLR has been reported to continue till the final stage of thesis-writing,

as reflected in the reading episodes of the doctoral student reported in Tchigaeva’s

study (see Chapter 1 Section 1.1.3). A similar story is also documented in Dong’s

(1996) study. The author relates how his informant Sam strategically read for, selected,

and employed references towards the final stage of study to strengthen his theoretical

position and the niche he claimed for his work in the introduction chapter of his thesis.

By actively using negational and affirmative citations of research findings [in his
introduction], Sam established his analytical position. His critical review thus
identified the need for further research and ensured that his research was logical and
important. (Dong 1996, p.441)

Working ‘backward’ as encouraged by Goodfellow (1998b) and Strauss and Corbin

(1990), however, is not allowed in many situations because in some institutions,

students are required to produce preliminary literature reviews in their first year of

study in preparation of qualifying documents such as qualifying reports or research

proposals. As one of the contributors (Susan) to Meloy’s (2002) volume on writing

qualitative research comments,

Students are taught about qualitative research in my department from an

ethnographical viewpoint. We are told that we should develop an interest or a “what’s
going on here” perspective, immerse ourselves in the situation, gather all the data
possible (interviews, documents, observations), and analyze the data with some
framework that would emerge from the data. Then and only then would a literature
 181

review be attempted – essentially, working backward is the proper technique.

However, when my chair and I talked about a proposal, she told me that I would have
a literature review and a theoretical framework in my proposal, even before I knew
what I was going to find…. But being a dutiful student who believes the chair knows
best, I did what I was told. …I am eternally grateful for the path my chair laid out for
me. Because of her insistence, I was able to use the literature review… from my
proposal, in my dissertation. (p.3)

Susan’s remark suggests that institutional arrangements are one major force shaping

the progress of one’s reviewing and creating various ‘milestones’ of reading in the

doctoral journey. These junctures have particular implications for the present study.

5.1.2 Implications for the study

The literature reviewed above provides some useful insights for conceptualizing the

development of RS and RLR. First, the anecdotes suggest that the two are on-going

processes taking place at various points of the doctoral journey. Second, there is a

need to see reading, writing and research as occurring in a co-constructive manner.

What a student chooses to read is implicated by the development of the thesis

including the early conception of research focuses, the research progress, the writing

of the thesis, and in particular the writing of the LR. The boundaries between RS and

RLR may become blurred as the research ‘rolls along’ and the processes may

eventually join each other when the writers embark on their WLR. However, most of

the stories discussed in the literature are rather sketchy and provide few details

relating how RS and RLR are shaped by the WLR and research processes. Nor do

they differentiate the negotiation of RS and RLR, treating literature reviewing as more

or less one single process. In the thick analysis of RS and RLR in this thesis, I will

therefore explore the specific technical events arising from students’ research process
 182

and writing process which implicate their RS and RLR and in particular the choices

and focuses of reading which students themselves regard as crucial.

This focus of the thick analysis, however, comes with two practical questions that

have methodological implications. First, at which stage of the students’ study should

the analysis of RS and RLR target? Secondly, should a focus be placed on the

synchronic or diachronic development of the two processes? As the thick analysis in

this study aims to gain insights into how students negotiate the process diachronically

(i.e. over the span of Ph.D journey), I choose to focus on the development of RS and

RLR in some major stages of one’s study development. The first stage is what I refer

to as the initial stage which covers the first two years of a student’s study up till the

time when the first qualifying report1 is submitted. This stage is presumably marked

by intensive reading in preparation for the student’s research (RS) and the literature

review for the qualifying report (RLR). The second stage is more of an interim nature

which follows the submission of the qualifying report and runs up to the time when

the student begins to draft the thesis. This period is normally characterized by the

student’s intense research activities such as data-gathering and data analysis. The third

period is the final stage of study in which the student is primarily engaged in writing

up the thesis. The period runs up to the point when the thesis is defended in the viva

1
At some universities in Hong Kong, research degree students are required to submit a Qualifying
Report towards the end of the first year of their studies. They are also required to present the report
orally to the panel overseeing the progress of their studies. The document basically consists of a
background (a mini literature review) and a proposed methodology section. Depending on the progress
a student has made up till the point of its submission, the qualifying report may also carry a section
reporting some preliminary findings. In essence, the document falls somewhere between a detailed
proposal and an interim research report. In many cases, the three sections provide the blueprints for the
different corresponding chapters the student later develops in the thesis.
 183

voce or submitted. Within these the stages, students are usually required to submit

various documents bearing embryonic LR products, which may be recycled at a later

stage of WLR.

The ‘major stages’ described above are demarcated based on the study schedules

found in most doctoral programs, which are admittedly researcher-oriented to

facilitate cross-sectional informant selection, which necessitated a somewhat

principled division of stages. To make up for the limitations of the artificial staging of

the study journey, as will be discussed in Chapter 6, I allowed my student informants

the latitude to define their own crucial stages to reflect their development of RS and

RLR.

5.2 Social construction of knowledge

In her discussion of how scientists craft their literature reviews in publications, Geisler

(1994) provides the following double-edged comment:

[Researchers need to codify] a ‘right’ context for their work. That is they choose and
describe the previous literature [italicized for my own emphasis] belonging to their
areas into which they see their work fitting. To be successful, scientists need to
characterize the previous literature in such a way that their own results appear to be
a natural extension of their fields’ current state of knowledge [italicized for my own
emphasis]. In other words, scientists must construct a narrative of their field that
shows their own work to be the appropriate next event. (p.15)

On the one hand, the remark reflects two widely recognized functions of literature

reviews in research texts (including theses), which are to display the writer’s

familiarity with the existing knowledge of the field and to demonstrate how the
 184

writer’s work can contribute to the body of knowledge 2 . On the other hand, the

comment points to the importance of strategic selection of literature of the field for

codifying the knowledge, which in turn regulates what can or should be represented as

part of the knowledge.

But, what is meant by a field and what can be considered to be the knowledge of the

field? What knowledge of the field should be chosen to represent in the literature

review? And, how does one negotiate the choices of literature that can be used to

represent this knowledge? These are all relevant questions that need to be addressed in

this thick analysis if we want to gain a full understanding of how RS and RLR operate

in the thesis-undertaking. In the rest of this chapter, I will review what the literature

can offer as some preliminary answers to the questions.

Negotiating disciplinary knowledge for codifying in research texts has caught much

attention of antifoundational theorists of knowledge construction, who argue that

knowledge is a socio-political product of the mind and hence can never be purely

cognitive. Over the years, numerous studies have been conducted and revealed the

sociological and social dimensions of knowledge-making (collectively called social

construction of knowledge) in the academic community and contributed much to our

understanding about discursive practices of its members.

2
Though Geisler does not specify the types of knowledge which researchers attend to, it has been
argued elsewhere that the knowledge of a field in general straddles the three areas of theoretical
orientations (epistemology), subject matters (ontology) and the approaches to research design
(methodology) (Parry, Atkinson & Delamont 1994; Becher & Trowler 2001; see also Kuhn’s notion of
paradigm matrix in Section 5.2.1.1 (p.185) of this chapter).
 185

The notion of social construction has come from a sub-field of sociological inquiry,

the historical and intellectual origin of which can be traced back to the discipline of

sociology of knowledge (wissenssoziologie) developed and flourishing since the mid-

twentieth century in Europe, especially in Germany and France. The U.S. is one of the

countries where this sociological sub-field has grown particularly popular. Merton

(1973) ascribes the popularity to its relevance as a new theory to deal with the

contemporary issues prevailing in the complex of social and cultural conditions in the

U.S. As he explains:

The sociology of knowledge takes on pertinence under a definite complex of social

and cultural conditions. With increasing social conflict, differences in the values,
attitudes, and modes of thought of groups develop to the point where the orientation
which these groups previously had in common is overshadowed by incompatible
differences. Not only do there develop distinct universes of discourse, but the
existence of any one universe challenges the validity and legitimacy of the others.
The co-existence of these conflicting perspectives and interpretations within the same
society leads to an active and reciprocal distrust [italicized original] between groups.
(Merton 1973, pp.8-9)

Against this backdrop of mutual distrust, inquiries have been diverted from validating

assertions and beliefs in different groups to investigation into how they can be

maintained. Thoughts are no longer taken as empirical and absolute. They are viewed

as functional in that they carry psychological, economical, social or racial origins and

intentions. Sociologists of knowledge concern themselves with ‘discounting the face

value of …beliefs and idea-systems…, reigning symbols and values’ (p.10), which are

naturalized and ordinarily viewed in social groups. In short, the sociology of

knowledge is considered to be a Copernican revolution in inquiries into knowledge

with one of its central hypothesis being that ‘the discovery of truths was socially

(historically) conditioned’ (Merton, p.11).

 186

5.2.1 The sociological dimension of knowledge-making

In science domains, social construction of knowledge has been fervently pursued by

philosophers and sociologists of science. Rorty (1979), for instance, in his seminal

work Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature challenges the kind of philosophy that

generates foundational theories of knowledge which claim that knowledge is a

cognitive product produced by the mind and that the mind is a mirror that can reflect

accurate representations of ‘reality’. Deconstructing this cognitive philosophy, Rorty

argues that knowledge is only what a particular society produces based on its accepted

norms and rules, as such knowledge itself involves a social justification of belief.

Thomas Kuhn (1977) likewise sees that science is studied based on paradigms,

conceptual frameworks (see also the section on Pantinian and Kuhnian taxonomies for

an elaborate definition of paradigms) that are socially generated within disciplinary

communities. To Kuhn, observation cannot be free of theory; definition of data and

the significance of it are determined by the paradigm shared and upheld by members

of the disciplinary community. In other words, knowledge is a product of consensus at

least at the disciplinary (sociological) level.

Disciplinary determinism of knowledge has a direct impact on how researchers and

research students pursue their studies, and in particular how they select the paradigms

to facilitate their studies and how they choose the literature to consult for their studies.

It follows that knowing which discipline one’s work is located in may make selecting

the literature to read for the research straightforward. However, given the current
 187

higher education structures, this decision of selection is not necessarily an easy one as

will be revealed in the subsequent review on the nature of disciplines.

5.2.1.1 Disciplines and disciplinary knowledge

With the limited space in this thesis, a discussion regarding the nature of disciplines

and disciplinary knowledge may not do justice to the large volume of illuminating

work done so far. At the same time, it may also run the risk of over-simplifying the

representation of the two complicated constructs. As such, the review presented here

will focus primarily on what the literature says about disciplinary coherence and

stability (or the lack of both) that has bearing on the present study. The review also

aims at establishing some basic terminology to describe disciplines in the rest of this

thesis and at the same time highlighting some of the issues students may encounter in

grappling with the core literature that they need to read as part of the process of

gaining disciplinary knowledge and being initiated into their fields of studies.

The Pantinian and Kuhnian taxonomies of disciplines

In their latest publication Academic Tribes and Territories, Becher and Trowler (2001)

invoke field and discipline interchangeably as notions referring to general areas of

knowledge domains, each characterized by its objects of studies, methodological

approaches and theoretical orientations. Classic examples of disciplines often

provided in the literature include physics, biology, law, sociology, anthropology,

development studies, and modern languages.

 188

Different taxonomies have been developed to classify and describe the nature of

different disciplines. One of the pioneers in this pursuit is Pantin, whose work has

impacted the later development of understanding of disciplinary relations. Pantin was

primarily concerned with the classification of science disciplines and contended that

they can be distinguished, and in a graded way, as restricted and unrestricted

disciplines. Two examples he provided are physical sciences and biologies. Physical

scientists are confined and devoted to particular fields of phenomena and do not need

to cross over to other fields for theories or other conceptual borrowing, which make

the disciplines more or less restricted. Physical scientists are more interested in ‘the

possible deductive consequences of [their] hypotheses’. In this respect, they

systematically leave out all the ‘grand variety of natural phenomena’. As Pantin

remarks about the distinction between restricted sciences and unrestricted sciences,

‘very clever men [sic] are answering the relatively easy questions of the natural

examination paper. Conversely, in the different disciplines of biology as unrestricted

domains, scientists need to “follow their problems into any other science whatsoever”.

They need to address difficult, yet ‘trivial’ and politically-charged problems as “What

will be the ecological consequences of a general increase in nuclear radiation?”’

(1968; cited in Becher & Trowler 2001, p.32). The distinction between restricted and

unrestricted sciences also gives rise to the notions of hard knowledge (e.g., physics

and biology) and soft knowledge (ecology).

Not concerned so much with the restricted-unrestricted distinction, Kuhn (1977)

focused on paradigm stability in disciplines as a major criterion for disciplinary

 189

classification. Paradigm is conceived as the matrix3 of objects of study, goals, ideas,

values, symbolic generalizations, models, ontology and metaphysical commitment and

scientific techniques shared and sustained within a particular scientific community.

Though not particularly mentioned in Kuhn’s works, this matrix may well represent

what is usually assumed to be disciplinary knowledge.

Practitioners of the community are ‘bound together by common elements in their

education and apprenticeship. They see themselves and are seen by others as the men

responsible for the pursuit of a set of shared goals, including the training of their

successors’ (p.296). As Kuhn also describes, a scientific community can also be

identified through its professional societies, the journals read by its members, the

conferences and seminars they attend, the informal and formal networks of

communication, as well as the connections among citations. To Kuhn, such scientific

communities form different disciplines.

Kuhn (1977) classifies disciplines into those that have marked disciplinary consensus

originating mainly from clear and unambiguous core paradigms and those that are still

in the pre-paradigmatic stage of development. Pre-paradigmatic disciplines are in the

stage of developing a mature core which still lacks form before achieving systematic

advances in knowledge. Some of them are also marked by a less stable core

3
Kuhn (1974 partly reprinted in Kuhn 1977) adopts the notion ‘disciplinary matrix’ to replace
‘paradigm’ to alleviate confusion about the notion brought since the debut of the term in his earlier
works. However, the term paradigm remains a more commonly cited notion and will be used to denote
paradigm matrix in this thesis.
 190

characterized by competing paradigms which instigate a high level of internal

dissension.

Overlaps, connections and integration

Though disciplines as knowledge communities are usually characterized by their

paradigmatic resources and canonized procedures, they are not all the time clearly

demarcated. As Becher and Trowler (2001) argue, disciplinary boundaries are not

‘merely… lines on a map; they denote territorial possessions that can be encroached

on, colonized and reallocated’ (p.59). The authors exemplify the impermanent nature

of boundaries by citing sociologists’ turn to linguistics for methodological

implications – and of course readers can now easily find applied linguists’ turn to

sociology for theoretical insights. If there are boundaries, they are ‘porous’, which is

particularly true to those disciplines that in Kuhn’s (1977) terms are in the pre-

paradigmatic stage of development or are divergent and loosely knit. One such

example is the field of geography, which draws on neighboring disciplines for ideas

and techniques. Members of the discipline participate in these other disciplines

through attending their conferences and publishing in their journals. Academic

pharmacy is another case in point, a discipline which draws its knowledge in part from

its field relatives such as pharmacology, biochemistry and chemistry.

Recent structural reengineering at the institutional level has particularly contributed to

the disciplinary-boundary blurring process. For various reasons such as streamlining

and budgetary cuts, initiatives instigated by calls from non-epistemic sectors for
 191

graduates who can handle real-world problems requiring interdisciplinary solutions,

and more importantly a paradigm shift of university education from elitist scholarship-

production to commodification of knowledge and marketization of programs4, we now

increasingly see merging of departments and breeding of new ones where

multidisciplinary faculties are drawn together, creating nexuses of disciplines which

have once been insulated from each other (see Bhatia 2004; Clark 1998; Mok 2002;

Mok & Welch 2002; Sporn 1999). The phenomenon is particularly evident in law

schools and business schools, which house experts from diverse fields of law,

information technology, economics and management sciences. A similar trend is also

emerging in departments of social sciences and humanities such as those of education

and applied linguistics, where psychologists, sociologists and linguists can now be

found working alongside each other.

In their study of discipline identities and doctoral work, Parry, Atkinson and

Delamont (1994) refer to these new breeds of disciplines as secondary disciplines to

differentiate them from the primary ones which refer to the more traditional and

readily recognized disciplines such as anthropology, which has its clearly demarcated

paradigm for theoretical framework and methodological approaches that make up

what Becher and Trowler (2001) describe as tightly-knit knowledge of the discipline.

4
Mok & Welch (2002) describe these as a result of globalization and the penetration of managerialism
and economic rationalism— which in the past operated only in private sectors—into higher education
governance.
 192

5.2.1.2 Negotiating disciplinary knowledge at multi-disciplinary nexuses

Departments located in secondary disciplines create what one of Parry at el’s subjects

called ‘melting pots of methodologies and theoretical bases which traditionally belong

more to primary disciplines’ (p.44). However, disciplinary merging at the institutional

level may not guarantee any internal cohesiveness of the department. Members

working in secondary disciplinary departments mostly identify themselves with the

primary disciplines or with external practitioners, creating centrifugal forces (Becher

& Trowler 2001) that may loosen up the group and create communities not unlike

what Kuhn posited as pre-paradigmatic fields. The centrifugal forces created as such

in interdisciplinary departments may present major challenges to some of their

doctoral students, one of which is to handle paradigmatic disagreement among their

members. This can be exemplified in Burgess, Pole and Hockey (1994)’s account of a

student’s confusion which was caused by the joint supervisors’ disagreement over ‘the

direction of the study, its focus and the appropriate literature to pursue’ (p.24), not an

uncommon experience we hear from doctoral students.

Departments with a strong presence of secondary disciplines are largely problem- or

policy-oriented in their academic pursuits. Most of the time students enrolled in

doctoral programs come to these departments with real-world problems awaiting

interdisciplinary solutions to be generated through their doctoral studies. Some

students are also attracted to the departments because of the presence of their

multidisciplinary faculty. The presence of multi-paradigmatic structures in such

departments can be a major advantage to these students because they can be exposed
 193

to different approaches that they can draw on to study their research problems.

However, as Parry et al. (1994) remark, by citing from their supervisor interviewees,

the loosely mapped disciplinary nature of these departments may at the same time be

doing some disservice to their students who may be overwhelmed by the

kaleidoscopic gamut of (if not conflicting) paradigms and may eventually lose their

focus and weaken the core knowledge base needed to build their study on. In some

cases, students who are supervised by multi-disciplinary faculty members may find it

particularly ‘slippery’ to come to grips with and the ‘right field’ to enter and the

‘right’ literature to review for their studies. Documented experiences such as those

summarized above allude to the possibility that ‘disciplinarity’ (Prior 1998) is a

socially implicated construal generated in local interactions with supervisors, a point

to which I will return in Sections 5.3 and 5.4.

5.2.1.3 Implications for the study

Understanding the nature of disciplines and that of disciplinary knowledge as

described above has direct implications for the present study of how students

negotiate choices of literature for both of their RS and their RLR. As has been

revealed in the above discussion, disciplinary knowledge is in part sociological in

nature. In some domains, there is a clear consensus over its knowledge, i.e., paradigm

(in the Kuhnian sense of paradigmatic matrix) while in others, multi-paradigms exist,

making the domains less cohesive and sometimes creating dissensions. Theoretically

speaking, the negotiation of what constitutes disciplinary knowledge can be

straightforward if a student’s work is located within a well-established traditional,

 194

academically pure, tightly-knit cohesive specialized area with a fairly clearly

demarcated and well-recognized core literature which students need to consult.

Conceivably, RS and RLR done in such disciplines are less demanding. The

negotiation process can however be quite a challenge for those students whose studies

are located in pre-paradigmatic disciplines or secondary disciplines where multi- or

even competing cores of paradigms and literature exist. It can be anticipated that RS

and RLR done in such disciplines are more complicated and so much more taxing. It

is these disciplines that make research into how students negotiate the choices of the

core disciplinary literature(s) for RS and RLR all the more necessary. The present

study thus primarily looked into how students from such disciplines conduct their RS

and RLR.

5.2.2 The social dimension of knowledge-making

This section will provide an overview of some major works relating to the social-

dimensions of research writing practices that bear on the thick analysis.

5.2.2.1 Social construction of knowledge in research texts

One of the earlier lines of research in the field of sociology of science probed into the

‘private world’ of scientists. The primary concern was with the social actions and

beliefs scientists held in doing laboratory work. In their seminal ethnographic account

Opening Pandora Box, Gilbert and Mulkay (1984) detailed their large scale study in

which they followed and interviewed a group of scientists working on bioenergetics in

different parts of the world to examine the discourse the scientists used in describing
 195

their work. Gilbert and Mulkay discovered the two distinct empirical and contingency

repertoires that the scientists selectively used in accounting for the research and

writing experiences of both their contemporaries and their own. The empiricist

repertoire refers to the group of semantic attributes and line of reasoning that create an

empiricist representation of scientific actions and facts, which one gets to see more

often in public domains such as publications. Gilbert and Mulkay noted that the

repertoire was also occasionally used by the scientists during the interviews to justify

their own research actions. The contingency repertoire on the other hand, as the

authors explain, is characterized by a heavy reliance on the psychological and social

methods in accounting for experiences. Gilbert and Mulkay observed that their

scientist informants used the contingency repertoire more often when commenting on

errors in rivalries’ research, and recounting social connections, collegiality and social

indebtedness as some of the reasons for the citations they provided in some of their

publications.

Latour’s (1987) ethnographic accounts also unveil similar social and contingent

dimensions in the supposedly objective and empirical knowledge-making enterprise.

The author revealed the numerous people, research instruments, suppliers, theories

and ideas a scientist enlisted in responding to the critiques that Latour and his

colleagues (called dissenters in the volume) leveled at his work, which made counter-

claiming almost impossible. Shadowing two scientists at work, Latour observed that

while researchers were few in different science disciplines (back in the days when the

study was conducted), their achievements were made possible by a multitude of other
 196

people such as inside scientists, other supporting members working around the bench,

as well as outside funding bodies who in one way or another determined if their

research projects were successful and were worth pursuing. In this sense, knowledge

is socially constructed in its most complex form.

Myers (1985, 1990) provided by far the most extensive accounts of social construction

of codified knowledge as experienced by two biologists Crew and Bloc. Myers

followed the development of the biologists’ research grant proposals and the later

publications of two articles that grew out of the funded research work. His work

revealed the various strategic acts Crew and Bloc employed at the outset of their

proposal-writing in selecting citations for their literature reviews. Documenting drafts

of the proposals the biologists produced, discussions of the drafts among their

colleagues as well as comments made by reviewers of the fund-granting committees,

Meyer traced the interactive rhetorical processes that reflected the communal

construction of knowledge among various people largely in antagonistic positions.

The two biologists constructed and revised their literature reviews to establish

connections between their claims and the ‘consensus knowledge’ (Kaufer & Geisler

1989) of the research community, of which the reviewers were key members. In

particular, Myers noted the writers’ deliberate citations of the reviewers’ works as a

way of enacting their ‘insider’ personae (i.e., being part of the reviewers’ ‘circle’).

While attending to this insider-identity, the biologists also managed to assert their

authorial self as capable experts in the field by self-citations, suggesting further that

choices of citations are strategic rhetoric acts.

 197

Myer’s accounts of the biologists revealed that disciplines and disciplinary knowledge

are not entirely given nor agreed upon by the members of the community at large.

Rather, they are outcomes of negotiation situated in concrete contexts through

moment-to-moment interactions with specific people some of whom occupy

influential gate-keeping positions. It is through interactions with the gate-keeping

people in situ of the proposal-reviewing process that the biologists had developed a

strategic awareness of whose works to focus more on and what works to cite for their

literature reviews.

5.2.2.2 Implications for the study

As the works cited above reveal, the negotiation and codification of knowledge of a

field that Geisler refers to are not straightforward processes. Neither are they entirely

autonomous. While Kaufer and Geisler may consider that disciplinary knowledge is a

matter of field consensus, arguably it will be more apt to see it as a local consensus

which may or may not reflect that of the discipline at large. It is consensus that shifts

with the rhetorical contexts in which it is established, called upon, and manipulated.

What one chooses to cite in a literature review can in fact be socially implicated by

such intentions as gate-entering, clearing social indebtedness, collegiality, and persona

assertion in each specific rhetorical context the writing and reading is situated. These

micro-social dynamics and contingencies behind a literature review are, in Latour’s

and Gilbert and Mulkay’s language, all black-boxed when the literature review makes

its way to the final proposal coded and dressed in the empiricist discourse. One

implication we can draw from this review is that to understand how students select the
 198

literature for RS and RLR, we also need to tap into their contingency discourse of

social accounting.

Obviously, the type of social construction as experienced by professional members of

the field is distinct from that experienced by doctoral students who are still engaged in

the process of becoming members of the field. It is thus important that RS and RLR be

understood through a theoretical lens that can afford us to view the two as socially

implicated practices without losing sight of the fact that they are embedded in the

macro ritual of disciplinary initiation. For this reason, the next section will discuss a

social learning theory that is increasingly recognized in studies of higher education

and academic literacy.

5.3 Apprenticing and postgraduate academic literacy

There is no doubt that doctoral education has increasingly been recognized as an

apprenticing experience as has been attested to in various studies of higher education.

From her study of how a group of students negotiated their doctoral and post-doctoral

education in Australia, Pearson (1996) identified different social skills the students

acquired, which include managing others (including the supervisor), developing

strategies that form peer and academic networks, negotiating one’s academic identity,

seeking entries into the academic community by ‘mixing with other academics’, and

presenting papers. Pearson concluded that one major thread running through these

skills is that the students were ‘learning how to be professional researchers and

scholars through doing research and being part of an academic community’ (p. 306).
 199

Citing Phillips and Pugh (1994), Pearson also refers to these skills as ‘craft of

research’, which she argues ‘underlies the metaphor of the “apprenticeship”’. In

another survey of how supervisors UK universities view the supervisor-student role,

Burgess et al. (1994) noted that it was characterized by some as a master-apprentice

relationship, through which students learned from them how to identify a project, the

literature to review, research methodology, and publishing. As the authors explain,

‘the notion of master and apprentice embraces [sic] not just supervisory practice but

the ethos of partnership in which student and supervisor are jointly involved’ (p.31),

which interestingly the supervisors had acquired from their own supervisors.

In the fields of EAP and rhetoric studies of thesis writing, apprenticeship is also

frequently invoked to describe the type of learning through which doctoral students

are initiated into various research and discursive practices of the academic community.

Discussion of apprenticeship in this context tends to be associated with situated

learning theory borrowed from a growing field of psychology that has emerged over

the last two decades as a response to the confining conception of learning originating

in cognitive sciences. While learning is conceived by the cognitive scientist as a

process limited to the mind, it is seen by the situated learning theorist as the formation

of the mind which is situated in the live-in world that makes the process as much

social as it is cognitive.

One of the key postulations of situated learning theory is that newcomers to a

community of practice develop their community-specific knowledge and skills

 200

through interactions with other members of the community and also through

participation in its various activities (Lave and Wenger 1991). The notion of

participation is frequently employed in the literature of the theory and is imbued with

different interpretations. This section will discuss three of the key interpretations and

establish some related terminology that will be used in the thick analysis to describe

how doctoral students come to develop their cognition of what constitutes discipline-

specific knowledge and literature through situated learning.

5.3.1 Three forms of participation

5.3.1.1 Legitimate peripheral participation

One common form of participation often referred to in the literature of situated

learning theory is that of legitimate peripheral participation (LPP), a notion developed

by Lave and Wenger (1991) after their survey of various types of apprenticeship in

different spheres (e.g., Vai and Goan tailors; Yucatan midwives; butchers’

apprenticeships and Alcoholics Anonymous). LPP is one type of participation in a

community of practice in which newcomers develop their skills and cognition by

engaging themselves in different forms of cultural and institutional practices at

peripheral locations which usually require the newcomers to take up light and partial

responsibility (e.g., running errands for the Yucatan midwives). These practices do not

exist for the sake of learning though learning can be one of their natural outcomes. As

Lave and Wenger explain, ‘legitimate peripheral participation is proposed as a

descriptor of engagement in social practice that entails learning as an integral

constituent’ (p.35).
 201

As Lave and Wenger (1991) add, while there is peripheral participation, there is no

such thing as central participation but only full participation. Peripherality denotes

only

[the] multiple, varied, more- or less- and –inclusive ways of being located in the fields
of participation defined by a community…Peripheral participation is about being
located in the social world. Changing locations and perspectives are part of actors’
learning trajectories, developing identities, and forms of membership…Legitimate
peripherality is a complex notion, implicated in social structures involving relations of
power. (p.36)

Rogoff (1995) invokes a similar notion of participation in their explanation of

apprenticeship. In apprenticeship, Rogoff explains, newcomers and old-timers

‘arrange activities and support for developing participation, as well as on the cultural/

institutional practices and goals of the activities to which they contribute…where

[newcomers] become more responsible participants.’ (p.143). This type of

participation is also shared by what Freedman and Adam (1996) refer to as attenuated

authentic participation in their study of how a group of interns make their transitions

from learning in a university setting to learning in a work setting 5 . In attenuated

authentic participation, a newcomer is assigned to participate in an authentic task, but

‘the conditions for performing [it] are attenuated; only some of the task is given over

to the learner, and this attenuation (generally a subtle and highly nuanced attenuation)

allows for learning’ (p.399).

5
Freedman and Adam (1996) conducted a study in which they compared the situated learning of
written genres in the university setting and in a real work (intern) setting in a Canadian government
agency office. Drawing on works by Vygotsky, Wertsch and Lave and Wenger, the authors
differentiated the types of situated learning which the students experienced in the university setting and
in the intern setting. Though the students in both types of setting received substantial amounts of
scaffolding and assistance from experienced members (university lecturers and mentors) to complete
their assigned rhetorical tasks, the orientations of the tasks in both settings differed significantly, which
had implicated the ways in which the students were guided to complete their tasks.
 202

Note that the notion developed by Freedman and Adam does not particularly

emphasize periphery nor does it describe newcomers’ moving towards full

participation. However, the newcomers [i.e. a group of intern students] whom they

studied did occupy a peripheral location in the community of practice [i.e. a

government agency]. To ensure consistency in the use of terminology, I employ LPP

to describe the type of learning that is entailed by a student’s engagement at peripheral

locations in a community of practice that involve interactions with some experienced

members of the community (e.g., supervisors, panel members, other academics or

experienced peers).

5.3.1.2 Guided participation

Another type of apprenticeship takes the form of guided participation (GP) (Rogoff

1995) or facilitated performance (Freedman and Adam 1996). Unlike LPP, guided

participation (GP) has learning intended as its main end afforded by the guidance that

a caregiver or a mentor provides for a child or a newcomer. Developing the notion

from her observations of how children develop their cognition and experience

guidance from their caregivers, Rogoff explains that GP

… is the type of participation found in events of everyday life as individuals engage

with others and with materials and arrangements collaboratively managed by
themselves and others. It includes direct interaction with others as well as engaging in
or avoiding activities assigned, made possible, or constrained by others, whether or not
they are in each other’s presence or even know of each other’s existence. Guided
participation may be tacit or explicit, face-to-face or distal, involved in shared
endeavors with specific familiar people or distant unknown individuals……It includes
deliberate attempts to instruct and incidental comments or actions that are overheard or
seen as well as involvement with particular materials and experiences that are available,
which indicate the direction in which people are encouraged to go or discouraged from
going. (p.147)
 203

In the process of interacting and particularly communicating with the child or the

newcomer, the caregiver or the mentor stretches the newcomer’s cognition and skill,

and at the same time organizes the child or newcomer’s participation in a way that

he/she can afford to comfortably reach the next goal. This conception GP thus is in

some ways similar to Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of zone of proximal development.

5.3.1.3 Participatory appropriation

Participatory appropriation is the process by which the analytic focus is on how an

individual having been engaged in interactions with significant others is transformed

or becomes prepared to participate in the subsequent tasks. As Rogoff (1995) puts it,

… [It is about how] individuals transform their understanding of and responsibility for
activities through their own participation. This notion is a companion concept to those
of apprenticeship and guided participation. The basic idea of appropriation is that,
through participation, people change and in the process become prepared to engage in
subsequent similar activities. By engaging in an activity, participating in its meaning,
people necessarily make ongoing contributions (whether in concrete actions or in
stretching to understand the actions and ideas of others). (p.50)

Though the focus of participatory appropriation is primarily on the individual and

his/her responses to an on-going learning situation, it is assumed to be an outcome of

previous interactions with caregivers or experienced members. However, the outcome

is not a straightforward transmission, nor is it a simple retrieval of knowledge and

skills stored in some form of memory. In fact, the child or newcomer actively seeks

changes to what has been acquired to fit the specific contexts where the child or the

newcomer is located.
 204

It needs to be noted here that though the three forms of participation associated with

situated learning have been dealt with separately, it does not mean that their

realizations are exclusive of each other, nor does it imply that one form of

participation cannot be followed or transformed into another. One very likely

scenario is that guided participation affords a novice to move into participatory

appropriation. It could also be the case that guided participation and participatory

appropriation run alternately or in parallel. Another possibility is that peripheral

participation is dotted with isolated moments of guided participation. In short, the

terms reviewed above are to provide a vocabulary to describe the various types of

situated learning which can be observed in students’ negotiation of RS and RLR.

5.3.2 Participation and postgraduate research literacy

Situated learning theory has increasingly been drawn on in the recent spates of studies

of acculturation of graduate students into various academic discursive practices. The

body of work points to different issues which shape, afford, and constrain students’

learning and progress in their studies. Blakeshee (1997), for instance, provided a

detailed account of how a graduate student, Bouzida, was mentored and initiated into

the research writing practice through his LPP in the construction of a research

publication he and his supervisor coauthored. Her account suggests a ‘bilateral’

contribution to the difficulties Bouzida experienced in learning from his supervisor

Swendsen. Blakeshee noted that the student’s grip of the ‘residual practices’ carried

over from previous writing experience and training had greatly impeded his

acquisition from his supervisor the tacit rhetorical strategies needed for his completion
 205

of a journal article. Swendsen on the other hand employed an implicit approach to

coaching Bouzida’s writing, resulting in uncertainty and his strategy of ignoring

Swendsen’s comments. As Blakshee suggested, these experiences had all together

inhibited Bouzida’s grasp of ‘the conceptual complexity of composing’ a research

publication. Bouzida’s experiences, as recounted in Blakshee’s writing, open up a

fertile area of research, namely how students negotiate the situated learning practices

expected of them in postgraduate studies.

Drawing on the apprenticeship notion, Belcher (1994) studied how three Asian

doctoral students negotiated GP in their research and writing of their dissertations, and

how the supervision styles of their supervisors and their relations with their

supervisees impacted on the progress and completion of their theses in a U.S.

university. Belcher concluded that the process can be greatly facilitated when the

supervisor and the supervisee share similar conceptualization of the research

community into which the student seeks entry.

In his often cited work that examines how a group of graduate students in a U.S.

university negotiated disciplinarity of Sociology in the mixed mode of LPP and GP,

Prior (1994, 1998) demonstrates how the development of a student’s dissertation can

be shaped by the various people, artifacts, procedures within the advisor’s Project6 in

6
It is a common practice in the U.S. that doctoral students are encouraged to participate in some parts
of the on-going projects of their advisors (henceforth the capital ‘P’ for the word Project to denote an
advisor’s project) from which they can develop their doctoral works. In some cases, students are
attracted to their advisors because of such projects. Sean was such a case in point. He had been serving
in the funded Sociology Project which his advisor Elaine West had started. Sean worked with other
doctoral students in running parts of Project.
 206

which the student’s study is situated. Employing a sociohistoric theoretical

perspective in his study, Prior provides a detailed account of the events and issues that

had implicated the major revisions Student Sean made to the claims of the model, one

of its major hypothesis-testing procedures he presented in his dissertation prospectus.

As the story unfolds, the revisions had been entailed by tension created by the

interactions between Sean and his advisors, peers, the theoretical positioning, the

measures and actual data of the on-going Sociology Project in which Sean’s work was

situated. Prior describes the tension as a ‘paradoxical effect’, which he ascribes to the

centrifugal force coming from the institutional demand for being original in one’s

research and the centripetal force from the Project calling for internal theoretical and

procedural alignments of the studies subsumed by the Project:

On the one hand, [there is] the institutional demand for “original” work and the
alignment with the on-going Project and the generic demand for an extended initial
focus on conceptualization [in the preliminary proposal] prompted Sean… to
innovate to some degree, creating a more centrifugal space. On the other hand, the
disciplinary positioning embedded in the Project, the generic forms and voices of
experimental reports, the standard measures… and written and oral responses to the
[proposal], particularly from the advisor and [the other key researcher] seemed to
constrain the innovation…all of these alignments had to be articulated to the
interpersonal and social relations of the research group…’ (Prior 1998, p.211)

While Prior’s anecdotes of Sean’s prospectus portrayed the Project as a main force

constraining the development of his study, Dong’s study of how three Chinese

students (1996) negotiated their citational practices for their thesis introductions

suggests that the Project can in fact be a resource that can provide students an easy

access to the ‘relevant’ literature and that can help maintaining efficiency and

productivity of their work. Drawing her data from advisors’ responses to their drafts

of introductions, writing conferences, lab meetings and interviews, Dong found that
 207

all three advisors provided suggestions for references to cite in the students’

introductions to ‘reduce the challenge of literature review’, revealing that the advisors

are key players in mediating selection of the literature. Dong also noted that two of

the students, whose studies formed part of the on-going Projects run by the doctoral

students in their advisors’ laboratories, drew upon their peers and their publications as

well as dissertations as and also for references to cite. Dong concluded that the

literature selection and citation practices of the two students indexed the collaborative

nature of RS and RLR, which grew out of the students’ constant interactions and

collaboration with their peers, who formed intrinsically motivated social networks

(Kaufer & Geisler 1989) sustained by the shared Projects. The anecdotes provided by

Dong again point to a mix of LPP and GP in the students’ reading.

5.3.3 Implications for the study

In Sections 5.3 and 5.4 I have reviewed works which reflect the various social

dimensions of writing and in particular citation practices of academic writers (both

professional and novice). In short, they suggest that choices of the literature for

reading and citing can be determined at a macro level by referring to what is

considered to be part of the core literature in the field. However, as also discussed, the

core may not exist as such in some of the disciplines. Also, what is taken as the ‘core’

at times is a result of local interactions with other members of the field such as

supervisors and peers. The ‘core’ can also be defined by what is central to the

supervisor’s Project with which a student’s study seeks alignment, suggesting that the

supervisor is a key figure in mediating between the student and the field knowledge.
 208

Other times, the selection of literature concerns with gate-entry and can be motivated

by social indebtedness to specific authors. These are some of the issues to be

addressed in the thick analysis.

5.4 Summary

By drawing on theoretical and empirical works on academic literacy, I have discussed

in this chapter the various possible issues involved in RS and RLR as well as the

selection of the literature for reading. The discussion has pointed to two major forces

shaping the selection. One comes from the technical issues that emerge from the thesis

per se, which include what one encounters in the literature, what emerges from one’s

research activities, and what one writes in the thesis, particularly in the RLR. These

events together with RS and RLR implicate each other in ways that make it legitimate

to consider them as co-constructive cognitive processes. The other force is more social

in nature. At the macro-social level, what one needs to consult is determined by what

is considered to be the ‘core’ (i.e., the core paradigms and the core literature) of the

discipline. However, by problematizing the notion of discipline, I have argued that it

is very likely that the ‘core’ needs to be negotiated at a micro-social level as part of

the situated learning process in which students come into contact with various people

such as peers, collaborators, gate-keepers, and experienced members of the field who

in one way or another make impacts on what they select to read. Present

understanding of how the above two forces fashion a student’s RS and RLR remains

rather sketchy and as such they are examined in the thick analysis of this thesis by
 209

tapping into the lived literature reviewing experiences of a group of doctoral students

and in particular the contingency repertoires they employed in relating their stories.

Though the two forces have been dealt with separately in the forgoing sections, there

is no intention to draw a boundary between them. As argued earlier (in Chapter 1), the

cognitive–versus–the socio-cognitive is only an artificial demarcation to facilitate

discussion on how literacy processes operate. At any moment, a cognitive decision

may also be socially implicated. This is one of the perspectives taken in the thick

analysis.

Based on the review presented in this chapter, I have fine-tuned the research questions

into five sets of analytical questions to be addressed in the thick analysis presented in

Chapter 7. The five sets of questions are:

1. What are some of the significant sources which students read and how do they

decide that they are significant?

2. How do students decide what themes to read for their thesis and in particular

the themes to discuss in their LRs? How do they decide that themes are

significant?

3. Do RS AND RLR, WLR and the research progress implicate each other?

i. If so, how do the three processes implicate each other?

ii. What are some specific events which arise from students’ research and

writing processes which implicate the crucial choices of reading for their

theses and LRs?

 210

iii. Do students go through cycles of fine-tuning of their research questions

and focuses that in turn impact on their choices of reading?

iv. How does the fine-tuning come about?

4. Is there a ‘core’ literature of the discipline that needs to be read for the RS and

RLR? If so, how is this ‘core’ negotiated?

5. Is the selection of the ‘core’ literature socially implicated?

i. If so, who are involved in the process? How are they involved?

ii. To what extent, is the involvement of these people conducive to students’

RS and RLR?

iii. To what extent do social indebtedness and concerns with gate-entry play

out in students’ selection of literature for RS and RLR?

iv. Do students develop their studies from the Projects of their supervisors? If

so, how and to what extent do such Projects afford or constrain their RS

AND RLR?

v. Does the development of RS and RLR take the form of legitimate peripheral

participation, guided participation or participatory appropriation?

 211

Chapter 6 Methodology for the thick analysis

6.0 Introduction

The thick analysis is a qualitative study designed to understand the practice of RS and

RLR. It assumes that materials to collect for analysis need to encompass concrete

actions and events. That is, instead of only asking students what they do (a question

targeted at students’ habitual actions), which may reify the practices, the study aimed

at finding out what students actually did and what happened at crucial stages of their

studies. These questions are directed at the lived experiences or ‘the stories’ of doing

RS and RLR and are intended to draw answers which can capture various local

interactions, sociohistoricity, and the complexity of the decisions made regarding the

choices of the literature for reviewing, all of which go in line with the theoretical

assumptions outlined in Chapter 5. For these reasons, a narrative inquiry approach

was adopted in the collection as well as the representation of RS and RLR stories. In

this chapter, I will first discuss in brief this methodology of inquiry. In the second part

of the chapter, I will elaborate the data-collection procedures. In the third part of the

chapter, I will relate some background information of the informants and the context

of their doctoral studies to provide the backdrop against which the themed narratives

presented later in Chapter 7 will be interpreted.

 212

6.1 Narrative inquiry

Narrative inquiry is an approach in which the researcher pays attention to how human

experience is lived out in a local context in relation to the person’s past history and the

social milieu in which he/she functions – a major concern in the thick analysis. It is an

epistemological approach whose concern lies not so much in the grand narrative that

generalizes human experience (Clandinin & Connelly 2000). In other words, while a

lived experience may be shared and observed by those located in other analogous

contexts, confirming its generalizability in other contexts is not a primary goal of the

inquiry. The narratives which the researcher generates from his/her inquiry are for the

reader to reflect on the experiences inscribed in the narratives to push further the

understanding of similar human experiences.

6.1.1 Stories and narratives

In narrative inquiries, stories (lived experiences) are first collected from informants,

which are then turned into narratives (research texts). Clandinin and Connelly (1998)

draw the distinction between narratives and stories by saying:

It is equally as correct to say inquiry into narrative as it is to say narrative inquiry. By

this we mean that narrative is both phenomenon and method. Narrative names the
structured quality of experience to be studied, and it names the patterns of inquiry for
its study. To preserve this distinction, we use the reasonably well-established device
of calling the phenomenon story and the inquiry narrative. Thus we say that people
by nature lead storied lives and tell stories of those lives, whereas narrative
researchers describe such lives, collect and tell stories of them, and write narratives
of experience. (p.155)

In Chapter 7, students’ ‘stories’ of RS and RLR will be written in the form of themed

narratives. The stories of access to and selection of the literature for RS/RLR were
 213

collected mainly by way of interviewing doctoral student informants who were

progressing through various stages of their studies.

6.1.2 Obtaining stories

Insights for gathering stories for the thick description are obtained from the

interviewing techniques used by researchers in the field of oral histories (i.e., life

experience retold in a storied form). Interviews for stories of significance can be

highly structured with the researcher’s agenda being the top priority, as reflected in

rigidly preset questions. At the other extreme is the most open-ended informant-

centered free talk, in which the informant can choose to relate stories of significance

to him/her and do so in their own ways. Neither of the extremes is deemed productive

for the present study. With the major pre-conceived categories of story to collect (e.g.,

how students develop their own themes for reading, whether the themes were socially

constructed or not), which are hypothesized to be crucial to the understanding of RS

and RLR, a free-talk interview may not generate the kinds of events sought after in the

thick description. On the other hand, using a structured approach may not be entirely

facilitative in that it will constrain the informant’s recalls, leaving out some of the

events not crucial to the researcher but bearing significance to the informant. Also,

should the stories related not reflect the hypothesized assumptions of RS and RLR,

there will be little room left for re-formulation of the hypotheses during the interview.

To resolve the dilemma, I have resorted to what Chandlin and Connelly (1998)

propose as the methods of establishing annals and chronicles. The authors suggest that
 214

to obtain oral histories in interviews the researcher can ask informants to construct

their own life annals. By life annals, Chandlin and Connelly mean:

… a line schematic of an individual’s life divided into moments or segments by

events, years, places or significant memories. …An annal allows both the researcher
and the informant to ‘gain a sense of the whole of an individual’s life from his or her
point of view [italicized here for emphatic purpose] … a topography of their life
experiences, the highs and lows, the rhythms they construct around their life cycles.
(p.163)

With the annals established, the researcher can then move on ‘to construct the

chronicles around the points marked on the annals’. Annals and chronicles can

therefore be used as scaffolding for informants to build and develop their stories.

In the interviews of the present study, I adopted the ‘chronicling’ method by inviting

my informants to tell the major events that occurred before and during their studies,

and in particular those related to RS and RLR. I then noted the events of pertinence to

the research questions set in Chapter 5, and more importantly those which had not

been considered to be essential in the interview plan but of crucial importance to the

informants. These notes served as anchor points for developing further questions to

probe for details and into other issues. (See discussion of the interview guide in

Section 6.2.2.)

6.1.3 Quality of experience and the telling of it

Central to a story is that of the teller’s experience of events. To obtain quality stories,

the researcher needs to establish criteria for the quality of experience. Drawing on

Dewey’s theory of experience, Clandinin and Connelly (1998) propose that methods
 215

for studying personal experience should be focused on four directions (dimensions):

inward, outward, backward and forward:

By inward we mean the internal conditions of feelings, hopes, aesthetic reactions,

moral dispositions, and so on. By outward we mean existential conditions, that is, the
environment or what E.M. Bruner (1986) calls reality. By backward and forward we
are referring to temporality, past, present and future. To experience an experience is
to experience it simultaneously in these four ways and to ask questions pointing each
way. (p.158)

In the present study, the focus is primarily on the existential conditions, that is, the

research process, situated learning, and the social milieu in which the students’ RS

and RLR developed. The study looks into the ‘backward’ and ‘forward’ dimensions of

their reading experiences and examines how RS, RLR, WLR and the research process

in general constrain and are constrained by each other. For instance, the student

informants were asked to detail events that had implicated the selection of the

literature for their RS and how their research process might have affected the selection

process. They were also asked how they would proceed with their RS and RLR after

the interviews.

The focus on the existential conditions does not necessarily – and sometimes cannot –

preclude the investigation into other conditions (such as the students’ feelings). In

fact, experience is an internal and existential whole in which external conditions can

be interpreted and thus retold in the light of internal conditions. Also, in the process of

retelling an experience, such internal conditions may also surface, reflecting how the

individual interprets the experience, and informing how the researcher should proceed

with the treatment of the reported external conditions (e.g., whether they see their

experience is erratic or problematic, successful or unsuccessful). From clues of such

 216

internal conditions, we can also see how the students managed the psychological

demands created by RS and RLR. In the present study, such internal conditions (e.g.,

emotion and judgment) about one’s RS and RLR will also be explored, though they

will not form the core part of the analysis.

Crucial to the construction of a narrative are the elements of temporality, scene, plot,

and character, all of which contribute to the experiential quality of the narrative. Scene

refers to the place where an action takes place and where characters live out the stories.

Time is a crucial element including the past, present, and future, all of which

determine the significance, value, and intention of an action, and are thus important to

narrative writing (Clandinin & Connelly 1998). These elements had informed some

parts of the guides I constructed for the interviews. For instance, students were asked

questions such as where they did their doctoral studies, when they started doing it,

when they finished, and when they planned to finish their work. Likewise, these

elements will also be employed in my writing of the narratives of the informants’

experiences of RLR and WLR in Chapter 7.

6.2 Story collection

Sixteen students and supervisors 1 of three of the students [collectively called

informants] were interviewed for their stories of their RS/LR and WLR. Some of the

1
In Hong Kong, the person supervising a student’s thesis is called the supervisor, who provides
coaching through the various stages of the student’s thesis development. Each student is also assigned a
panel of two members who monitor the progress of the student’s work. Usually the panel members
work in areas related to the student’s thesis. Though they are not expected to closely supervise the
 217

students’ LR texts were also collected and analyzed. In one particular case, the student

provided notes of communication with his supervisor in the period up to the point of

the second interview.

6.2.1 The informants

To understand how RS and RLR are negotiated at various stages of the students’

studies, a cross-sectional approach was adopted. Three groups of students were

interviewed. The first group included students whose research was still in the

preparatory stage (Stage 1), meaning that they had not yet started their data collection

and were still in the stage of doing their initial round of reading, fine-tuning their

focuses, and revising research proposals (i.e., qualifying reports2) that had not been

officially approved. These students had started their studies for no more than 2 years

at the point of the interview. The second group of students had either already started

their research or were well into their data analysis stage (Stage 2). This group

consisted of those in their third or fourth year of studies. The third group of students

included those who were completing the write-up of their theses, had submitted their

theses, or had completed their studies and had been conferred their degrees for no

more than one year at the point of the interview (Stage 3).

A sketch of the students’ thesis-related backgrounds is tabulated on the following

page. (see Figure 6.1). Research pursued by the student informants covered a range of

student’s research matters, some students do seek their advice on related issues. In U.S., the supervisor
is called the advisor.
2
See Footnote 1 in Chapter 5 (p.178).
 218

topical areas located in a variety of disciplines of humanities and social sciences. The

majority of the studies were pursued in secondary disciplinary departments where

multi-primary disciplines were present. For instance, informant Joshua completed his

degree in a department marked by the presence of diverse expertise in its faculty (e.g.,

traditional linguists, applied linguists, critical linguists). The research methodologies

also involved both qualitative and quantitative traditions, ranging from

ethnographically motivated procedures such as field observations and diary entries, to

statistically oriented ones such as questionnaire surveys and testing. The

methodological diversity was considered in the selection of the informants because

different methodological orientations might implicate different approaches to RS/RLR.

Also, to see if LPP (legitimate peripheral participation) was a major source of learning

for the practice, I attempted to recruit students whose studies were part of or had

developed from their supervisors’ previous Projects3. However, I was able to locate

only two such students (see Figure 6.1) with only one of them having developed her

work from the supervisor’s former Project.

As the interviews may touch upon sensitive issues, trust and openness were also taken

as two major criteria in the informant selection process. As such, some of the

informants were selected through personal contacts whereas others by means of

‘snowballing’ through recommendations by some of the student informants. In the

years of 2001 to 2004, I contacted both the student and supervisor informants for

interviews, explaining to them that the interviews were to collect stories about how

doctoral students pursued their literature reviewing. In the process of contacting the

3
See Footnote 6 in Chapter 5 (p.204).
 219

Figure 6.1 A sketch of the students’ thesis-related backgrounds

Stage of study Student4 Field of study Major Research Methodology Involvement in supervisor’s Mode of study6
(years completed) Project5
Stage 1 Wenzhong Second Language Acquisition Testing -- FT, LU
(1 year, full time) Jiawen Second Language Acquisition Testing -- FT, LU
(2 years, part time) Patricia Discourse Analysis Text analysis & interviews Prior to study PT, LU
Liza Teacher education Field observation & interviews -- PT, OU(UK )7
Helen IT in Education Interviews & field observations -- PT, LU
Stage 2 Marjorie Teacher Education Interviews, field observations, & diary -- PT, OU(UK)
(2-3 years, full time) entries
(3-4 years, part time) Anita Second Language Reading & Field observations & text analysis, Prior to study; PT, LU
Writing Literacy Study developed from Project
Silvia Discourse Analysis Text analysis & interviews -- PT, OU(UK)
Chloe Second Language Acquisition Field observations & interviews -- FT, LU
Joshua Discourse analysis Text analysis & interviews -- FT, LU
Florence Teacher Education Field observations, interviews, & diary -- FT, LU
entries
Stage 3 Frank Intercultural Communication Interviews & questionnaire survey -- FT, LU
4 year (full time) Mary Intercultural Communication Field observations & interviews -- PT, OU(UK )8
5-6 years (part time) Rebecca Psychology & parenting Documents analysis, interviews, & -- PT, LU
Or completed with questionnaire survey
degree conferred Yixin Teacher Education Field observations & interviews -- FT, LU
Wan Yu Education Field observations, interviews & -- FT, LU
questionnaire surveys

4
Names presented in this part of study are all pseudo names. To ensure confidentiality of the identities of the student informants, nature of some of
the topics and in some cases the disciplines to which they belong have been changed.
5
See the Footnote 6 in Chapter 5 (p.204).
6
FT= full-time; PT=part-time; LU=local university; OU=overseas
7
Students studying at UK universities did so through a distance-learning mode. They were given support and supervision through two major types
of arrangement: some methodology taught courses or seminars run by faculty members from their UK universities; annual/bi-annual meetings with
their supervisors in Hong Kong and during extended stay in UK usually in summer
8
Students studying at UK universities did so through a distance-learning mode. They were given support and supervision through two major types
of arrangement: some methodology taught courses or seminars run by faculty members from their UK universities; annual/bi-annual meetings with
their supervisors in Hong Kong and during extended stay in UK usually in summer.
 220

potential informants, some displayed caution and concerns about the possibility that

their thesis texts and stories would be analyzed for inadequacies, as revealed in such

regular replies as ‘I am not sure if my literature review is a good one or not’ or ‘I

haven’t really revised it yet.’ I assured them that their written products were only

studied for their schematic patterns to prepare myself for the text-based interviews and

that they would not be studied for content flaws or language inaccuracies. I also

assured the potential informants that I would only be interested in their choices of

citations and the various issues surrounding their RS and RLR.

6.2.2 The interviews

In line with the theoretical perspectives for this part of the study as well as the

narrative inquiry methodology discussed above, the students were asked to tell their

stories relating to a variety of crucial events in the process of reading for and writing

of their literature reviews. They were guided to describe how they chose their sources

of reading (i.e. authors, particular sources, and types of sources), how they decided

their reading focuses, and the special events that had implicated such decisions. They

were also asked to recall the people involved in the process of the RLR and WLR as

well as those involved in the development of their research (e.g., data collection) (the

recall accuracy issue will be dealt within a later part of this section). Permission was

given by four of the informants for interviews with their supervisors for a

trustworthiness check of their stories (Creswell 1998).

 221

Four interview guides were constructed, three of which were designed for use in

interviews with the three different groups of student informants specified in the

previous section (see Appendices IIA –IIC). One was designed for use in interviews

with the supervisors (see Appendix IID). The interview guides were constructed

according to the four criteria of the focused interview as suggested by Merton, Fiske,

and Kendall (1990): range, specificity, depth of responses, and personal context that

can facilitate responses. To elicit responses that could meet these four criteria (and

also those to construct ‘annals and chronicles’ as per Section 6.1.2), the questions

were arranged in a quasi-non-directional way to encourage the informants to relate

stories which they deemed central to their RS/LR at the beginning stage of the

interview. The interview guides open with a brief description of the present study

(Section I) followed by a section of general questions regarding the personal context

of the students’ theses (Section II). The questions raised in this part of the guide

include those relating to the student’s research topics and the reasons of choosing

them, their supervisors, the panel members, their research methodology or research

designs, the progress made so far, and events which the students considered to be

critical in the development of their work. After these background-probing questions is

the section (Section III) that relates general questions which aim at gaining some

general information about the informant’s literature review product(s) and eliciting

major events which occurred in the literature reviewing process. The questions in this

section are raised to chronicle some major events or milestones in the informant’s

reviewing experience which can provide a ‘typography’ (Chandlin & Connelly 1998)
 222

of the informants’ experience that they could further elaborate or that could be further

probed into in subsequent sections of the interview.

The fourth section (Sectoin IV) of the guides consists of more specific questions that

lead the students to recall and describe specific experiences of RS and RLR which are

motivated by the two theoretical assumptions discussed in Chapter 5. The first two

sub-sections (Sections IV.1 and IV.2) investigate how the students chose the literature

for reviewing and in particular how their WLR and research development implicated

their RS and RLR. The sub-sections also probe into the diachronic development of the

four processes. For instance, students were asked to describe some major or critical

events arising from the process of their reading for their studies and in particular for

their literature review chapters. They were also asked about major changes in their

choice of literature (e.g., in terms of topics and authors), and how these changes had

come about. In the course of implementing the question guide, it was found that some

of the questions raised in this part of the interview had already been addressed in an

earlier part of the interview and as such they were modified into probing questions on

the spot.

The third sub-section (Section IV.3) examines the students’ situated learning (i.e., GP

and LPP) and their involvement in their respective academic communities. The

questions were designed to explore how the students’ (non-)participation in various

academic activities might have implicated their RS and RLR. In particular, these

questions guide the students to recall and describe the networks of people with whom
 223

they came into contact, the types of academic activities the students participated in,

and their roles in such activities.

The questions in the guide for the supervisors were likewise constructed and arranged

in a quasi-non-directional manner to facilitate the informants’ recall of events that

they considered critical in the RLR and WLR development of the research students

they supervised. Some of the questions probe into the same types of events and issues

as those asked about in the question guides for the students and they primarily aim for

verification checks (Creswell 1998) of the some of the stories obtained from the

student informants. For instance, the supervisors were asked questions concerning the

students’ choices of topics, research design, progress made, and major events which

arose in the students’ studies, and then questions which specifically address the

students’ RLR and WLR processes, and their guided participation in the thesis

production and in particular in the reviewing process.

It needs to be noted here that though some of questions listed in the guides are divided

into RLR-related, WLR-related and situated learning-oriented ones, by no means does

such a division suggest the assumption that they are independent of each other. They

are put into sub-sections mainly to facilitate the management of the interviews so that

one type of exigencies could be focused on at a time. In fact, as revealed in some of

the anecdotes in Chapter 7, students did touch upon their WLR when they talked

about their RS and RLR, or they recounted their LPP while mentioning the technical

exigencies arising from their research which impacted their RS. As such, I conducted
 224

the interviews in a semi-structured manner, allowing myself some flexibility when

posing the pre-arranged questions. For each response provided by the informant to a

question raised, I checked its connection to questions in upcoming sections for two

purposes. One was to see if the answers would also answer the questions and hence I

could avoid overlaps at a later stage of the interview. Secondly, some of the answers

did touch upon if not directly addressing some of the other questions, which provided

useful hints to some of the crucial issues to be addressed when these other questions

were raised later. This also facilitated my reformulation of those questions so that they

could be more tailored to the informant’s unique situation. One frequently emerging

situation in my interview was that when I asked my informants to recall the major

events that occurred in their RLR or WLR, they inevitably mentioned some important

people such as their supervisors. I made note of those mentions and probed them

further in questions relating to the people involved.

Accuracy of recall has been challenged elsewhere. Measures were taken to maximize

the accuracy in the stories solicited from the informants. One such measure was built

into the streaming of informants who were grouped according to the stages of

development of their theses. The informants were then asked stage-specific questions

– the reason for designing the three different question guides for the student

informants. For instance, starting students were asked questions most pertinent to

what might happen at this stage of thesis development (i.e., how they actually went

about choosing their readings and writing their LRs for their qualifying reports).

Students in the completing stage were asked more questions relating to the
 225

interactions between their RS, RLR, and WLR. For the students who had completed

their theses, they were asked more questions mostly related to their RLR and WLR at

the final stage of their thesis-writing, though probing into earlier stages of their studies

had also been done.

I also conducted text-based interviews with nine of the informants, meaning that their

recalls of their RS/RLR experience were also prompted by the LR texts they provided9.

For this group of informants, they were asked questions regarding the choices of some

crucial themes as well as citations given in their texts (especially those conducive to

the students’ theory-building/research design). In three of the interviews where the

informants were able to produce various drafts or versions of their LRs, they were

asked additional questions to account for the changes to the citations in the different

drafts. (For more details, refer to the following section on Analysis of LR texts).

The student informants as well as the supervisors were allowed to choose the language

to be used in the interviews. Seven of them (including one of the supervisors) chose

English and the rest Cantonese. All interviews except one were taped and transcribed.

For those interviews conducted in Cantonese, the conversations were translated where

possible word for word into English (see Section 6.3.1).

Each interview lasted at least an hour with some cases running up to almost two hours.

In three of the cases (Chloe, Jiawen and Yixin), follow-up interviews had also been

9
Some of the informants were reluctant to provide their LR texts.
 226

conducted for clarification and additional information. Except in Yixin’s second

interview, all interviews were conducted face to face. Because of his tight schedule,

Yixin’s second interview was conducted through the chatting function of MSN

Messenger.

As one of my main concerns during the interviews was the informants’ trust and

openness, I took time to develop rapport with them by explaining the purposes of the

study, the treatment of the data, and that anonymity was ensured. I also reminded the

informants to let me know if certain portions of the conversations could be reported

verbatim especially the topics and the sites of their studies. In several of the cases, the

informants showed reservations about revealing information of the types and

demanded that it be removed from any part of my reporting, which I assured it would.

In the interviews, I positioned myself as a researcher and learner. I encouraged the

informants to recall and reflect on their experiences and episodes of RLR and WLR

with a view to learning from their words how they experienced RLR and WLR. To

optimize my understanding of their stories, I summarized from time to time what they

recalled and the messages the recalls reflected. I also expressed my interpretation of

the stories, and invited the informants to check the accuracy of my interpretations. For

instance, I would ask them questions such as ‘so, you meant …., right?’ or ‘Correct

me if I’m wrong, you actually said that X had been a key person in your process of

deciding what to read for your literature review?’ The interpretation checks had

several times invited refutations, correction, and further clarification.

 227

6.2.3 LR artifacts provided for text-based interviews

The informants were asked to provide LR products carried in their interim study

reports (e.g., qualifying reports), draft theses, and/or submitted theses. As mentioned

in the previous section, nine of the student informants were willing to provide copies

of such LR artifacts (see Figure 6.2).

Figure 6.2 A summary of documents produced by nine of the student informants

Student Status Documents Document completed

time
Jiawen Starting The LR in the qualifying report, an on-line draft End of Year 1
of the revised LR after the report presentation, on-
line files of note folders, summary notes of
communication with the supervisor
Anita Middle A preliminary LR draft submitted for comments End of Year 3
from her supervisor
Joshua Completing 2 published papers + a completed chapter of LR End of Year 4
Chloe Completing LR in the qualifying report End of Year 1
Two LR drafts submitted for comments End of Year 4
Wan Yu Completed The LR in her qualifying report and the LR drafts End of Year 1
submitted for comments Middle of Year 4
Yixin Completed LR in the submitted thesis End of the study
Mary Completed LR in the submitted thesis End of the study
Frank Completed LR in the submitted thesis End of study
Rebecca Completed LR in the submitted thesis End of study

The LR products were useful materials to tap into for the thick analysis in that they

helped stimulating the informants’ recalls of their RS and RLR while providing clues

for myself to formulate informant-specific questions for each text-based interview.

Before each of such interviews, I analyzed the LR product(s) supplied by the

informant and generated questions which were later incorporated into Section IV.1 of

the interview guide. The questions in general prompted the informant to recall:

a) how he/she had decided on certain prominent themes developed in the text(s);

b) how he/she had acquired the theoretical frameworks;

 228

c) how he/she had developed the strategic awareness of the major references cited

in the text(s) that had bearing on his/her research.

For students willing to produce two different versions of LR for the same document or

different documents (e.g., one for the qualifying report and one for the draft thesis), I

also compared the versions and noted the major changes which were observed in a

later version (e.g., additional themes and citations, revision of technical terms, etc.). I

then drafted questions regarding the changes and incorporated them toward the end of

Section IV.1 of the question guide. During the interview (when reaching Section IV of

the guide), the informant was shown the text(s) to help them recall the themes and

citations provided in the text(s) and also some of the major events that took place in

his/her RS and RLR. The informant was then asked to answer the informant-specific

questions raised in the section of the guide regarding some specific parts of the LR

text(s).

6.3 Treatment of data

6.3.1 Transcription of interview data

Data collected from the interviews was all transcribed10 into written English. The data

was treated as a form of spoken text. As such, nonfluencies (e.g., hesitations and

interruptions), repetitions, verbal fillers, and false starts were included in the

10
As the second interview with Yixin was done through MSN Messenger, the exchanges were saved in
an RTF file which was then incorporated into the interview database.
 229

transcripts The following symbols are employed to represent some of these natural

speech features:

// following a false start and preceding an attempt of correction

=== interruption by either the interviewer or the interviewee
uh, mmm fillers
… ellipted material

Where interviews were conducted in Cantonese, the interview data was translated and

transcribed into written English simultaneously. The transcription included the above

speech features. Fillers and idiomatic expressions were translated into their closest

English equivalents. Where English equivalents were not available, two strategies

were employed. First, the utterances were phonemically transcribed into English.

They were then followed by bracketed English semantic translations. Two transcribed

segments are provided below to illustrate the above transcribing principles.

Now, I// and usually I // I just // for example I just go to the library catalogue and uh
now search for the key words or something [associated with X]. But, very strangely,
'X' is an economic term. When you search === [Becky: for the term], it just gives you
all the economic ones to you // economic readings. It's not uh a linguistic term.

These are almost done, but just need to be filled in with some cases, specific
examples to substantiate the literature, it’s just like saau saau bo bo [Chinese
meaning: mending to be done here and there].

Each interview transcript was saved as an RTF file and loaded into the MAX QDA

(2001) program for coding.

 230

6.3.2 Coding and analyzing the stories

A paradigmatic approach (Bruner 1985; Goodfellow 1998a, 1998b) was taken to

analyze the stories related in the interviews. Bruner (1985) proposes that when

accounting for meanings of stories, we can employ two types of knowing, one being

narrative cognition and the other paradigmatic cognition. Narrative cognition involves

synthesizing a series of anecdotal experiences into a coherent whole. It is a storied

way of accounting for human action. Paradigmatic cognition on the other hand

engages ‘a logical mode of knowing’ in which human actions are analyzed to generate

common themes, which are then grouped and coded. Since the present study is

primarily concerned with the various technical and social exigencies of RS and RLR

as experienced by the student informants, a paradigmatic analysis was considered to

be a more appropriate choice for the treatment of the stories collected. Its procedures

will be presented below which followed those suggested by Goodfellow (1998a).

Coding

I took at least five major iterative steps to code the transcript of each interview. I first

read through the transcribed text to gain familiarity with its content and to examine

the connections among the different events described. I then started to code the

interview text. The coding was first conducted according to the analytical questions

set in Chapter 5 as well as the questions asked during the interview (i.e., the interview

guide). Roughly, the questions concern:

• Backgrounds of the students

• Nature of their research

 231

• Development of their research

• Major events in their RLR and WLR

• Choices of reading and principles and events shaping the choices

• Reading practices

• Management of their readings

• Writing practices

• The network of people who were involved in the students’ theses and in

particular the construction of their LRs

• Students’ participation in various academic activities

• Internal conditions (e.g., interpretation of their experience, feelings, etc.)

I then re-read the transcribed text to look for important and illuminating data which

carry depth about the RS / RLR experience. Or using Denzin’s (1997) language, I

allowed the text to ‘unfold’ itself for insights about the informants’ experience. In

some of the cases, I compared the text with the LR texts the informants provided for

further insights. At this stage, I fine-tuned or revised the categorization of data.

I carried out more or less similar steps when analyzing all interview transcripts and

compared themes and stories that emerged in the interviews for commonality and

idiosyncrasies. The categorization of data was further fine-tuned or revised.

 232

Theme-identifying, connection-making and narratives constructing

Running parallel to the coding were the theme-identifying and connection-making

procedures. Some of the themes identified at the early stage of analysis included the

students’ recalls of the confusion and frustration experienced, mainly at the beginning

stage of their studies. I also analyzed, for instance, to what extent one’s guided

participation was related to the expertise of the supervisor and how students

interpreted their supervisor’s guidance or lack of it. In some of the cases in which the

data was unclear or incomplete, I went back to the informants for clarification and a

confirmation check. I then started to construct themed narratives based on the stories

related by the informants and also the LR texts they provided.

6.4 Summary

This chapter has highlighted the methodology employed in the thick analysis. As the

analysis is concerned with concrete experiences of RS and RLR, the investigation

adopted a narrative inquiry approach in collecting stories from student informants.

The stories are to reveal how various technical and social exigencies impinged on the

student informants’ selection of the literature for reading at various stages of their

studies. The chapter has also explained how the stories were collected, coded,

analyzed and reconstructed (themed narratives) for presentation in Chapter 7.

 233

Chapter 7 Accessing literature for RS and RLR

7.0 Introduction

In this chapter, I will construct some narratives of RS/RLR based on the stories

collected from the interviews with my informants to address the analytical questions

raised in the Summary section of Chapter 5. The presentation aims to achieve two

goals. First, by employing a paradigmatic analysis of their stories (Bruner 1985;

Goodfellow 1998a, 1998b; see also Section 6.3.2 of Chapter 6), I attempt to map out

(but not to generalize) some crucial experiential terrains of the two processes as lived

out by the informants. As I am interested in the concrete events in which RS and RLR

are negotiated by each individual informant, the focus is not so much on what the best

way is of doing RS and RLR. In fact, as some of the stories unfold, there does not

seem to be the single best way of conducting the two processes. This orientation of

my reporting leads to the second goal of the chapter, which is to highlight what appear

to be successful and less successful experiences (from the students’ point of view). In

doing so, I will tease out crucial elements which seem to have facilitated or hindered

the student informants’ progress in RS and RLR, and which bear pedagogical

implications for both students and supervisors.

The first part of this chapter (Section 7.1) addresses the situated learning which had

afforded the RS and RLR of some of the student informants. It will focus on three

themes. The first theme (Section 7.1.1) concerns the student informants’ selection of
 234

references in the initial stage of their studies. As the narratives suggest, this period of

reading represents a composite activity, and it is also a frustrating, hit-and-miss stage

for some of the students. I have chosen to begin the reporting by portraying some

‘failure’ stories to set the scene for the breakthroughs that some of the students

experienced at later junctures of their studies. The second theme (Section 7.1.2)

relates stories of how some of the initial confusion and loss of focus was overcome

through guided participation. The third theme (Section 7.1.3) explores students’

choices of their theoretical frameworks and the related sources of reading. As my

focus in this section (Section 7.1) is not limited to the initial stage of the students’

studies, I will provide stories of reading occurring at various stages (e.g., data analysis,

thesis-writing, etc.). However, the emphasis is still on the social milieus that implicate

the selection of sources and themes for reading.

The second part of the chapter (Section 7.2) considers how the students selected the

literature for reading in response to some technical events. It also examines how the

progress of their research and thesis-writing had affected the choices of specific

themes and references. Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 present stories that introduce various

technical issues emerging from the informants’ research process that shaped their RS.

Section 7.2.3 discusses how one student had grown more critical about what she had

reviewed. Section 7.2.4 mainly relates accounts which suggest that students’ WLR

formed a micro guiding force of their own RLR. It needs to be noted that given the

complexity involved in RS/LR, the themed narratives I try to construct from the

students’ stories cannot be entirely mutually exclusive. They inevitably overlap and
 235

are interwoven with each other, with events of a story narrated in one section

resurfacing in another.

7.1 RS and situated learning

7.1.1 The points of entry: reading at the journey’s start

The stories provided suggest that in the initial stage of their studies, the students

adopted three general strategies to generate controlling ideas (focuses) to inform their

searches for references, which will be briefly discussed below.

7.1.1.1 Keywords from research topics/titles

Some students developed the controlling ideas by referring to the keywords appearing

in the titles of their study proposals submitted for their doctoral studies or titles

generated with some scaffolding from their supervisors. Wenzhong’s experience is a

case in point. After some deliberation on the choice of topics, he and his supervisor

finally decided on investigating how ESL students acquire and employ speech act X1

in their writing. He recounted his experience of searching the term X in his university

library catalogue as captured in the following segment of the first interview.

Becky After you're sure that you're going to do X how did you go about
choosing your reading?
Wenzhong Now, I// and usually I // I just // for example I just go to the library
catalogue and uh now search for the key words or something.

Liza, who was in her first year of study of task-based teaching in schools in Hong
1
As an agreement to ensure confidentiality and anonymity, the topics of the informants’ research are
not specifically mentioned and hence are represented by X or altered. Pseudonyms of some of the
authors cited by the informants are also used in case they might divulge the topics of the writers’
research.
 236

Kong, related her experience of keyword searches for articles in on-line journals

carrying the words ‘task’ and ‘task-based learning’, the same key words she used in

the formulation of her research topic.

Patricia related how she went about doing her initial round of searches for references:

Patricia I usually // mainly go back to the title of my research. Like my title

involves genre analysis, discourse analysis and X, then I go to look up sources these
three related themes. When I searched for readings, I typed in these keywords to do
the searches.

While some students employed keyword searches in library databases, some pored

through relevant journals to identify articles related to their areas of work. Helen and

Liza both recalled reviewing updated journal articles as one of the main strategies to

locate their readings:

Helen And also, I read according to their years [of publication] and also I tend to
read recent journals more // journal articles. I keep searching them. Yes, I think I tend
to use this strategy.

Liza I develop this strategy reading relevant e-journals such as ELT and TESOL
Quarterly // those like those journals I can access on line.

Sylvia described a similar strategy of reading relevant journals for articles related to

her subject of study having to do with text analysis:

Sylvia Okay [laughs]. It's [the beginning search] quite an interesting step. It's
quite enjoyable coz I quite like routine work myself. I went to visit Chinese
University’s library... What did I do there? I located all the journals related to text
analysis. And then I flipped through each volume. I would make a copy of the
article when I came across a relevant one. Like in my cabinets at home, I've got
MANY [emphasis in the original] of the drawers filled with these journal articles.
 237

7.1.1.2 Previous theses

Some students generated their controlling ideas by referring to prior knowledge

developed from their M.A. studies. Apparently, this strategy eased some parts of the

initial step of reading selection. Patricia’s story is an example. As will be mentioned

in a later section, Patricia expressed that she did not particularly spend time on her

RLR, probably because of her relatively developed knowledge structure (Kaufer &

Geisler 1989) associated with one area of her study that was carried over from her

master thesis in which she examined a similar genre and adopted a similar

methodological approach. In fact, when Patricia wrote the proposal for her doctoral

study, she adapted some parts of the literature review from the master thesis. When

she was writing her qualifying report, she ‘too adapted some parts from both the thesis

as well as [her] doctoral proposal. The new knowledge she needed to expand at the

time’, as she recalled, was ‘that associated with the target genre she was analyzing in

her study’.

Silvia shared a story similar to Patricia’s. She did a study of a genre similar to the one

she examined for her master thesis. For this reason, she had developed some

knowledge of what she wanted in her initial round of reading, as she explained:

Sylvia For instance, Vijay Bhatia in the field of genre analysis or John Swales are
quite representative figures. And I borrow books by these two authors. And of
course, I consulted the references in their works.

Becky How did you get to know that Swales & Bhatia are prominent figures in the
field?

Sylvia How did I get to know…? Coz when I was doing my master, there's a course
which covered register analysis and genre analysis. That's why the lecturer
mentioned Bhatia’s and Swales' books for us to read. And so, I got to know
them, including Halliday. My M.A. supervisor is a good friend of Halliday's.
And so, that's why, he always mentioned Halliday's works.
 238

Joshua tapped into his previous experience as a graduate student in communication

studies when developing some controlling themes to guide his reading. As part of his

study examined how one TV genre was interpreted by their viewers and readers, one

part of the literature review in his qualifying report gives an extensive coverage of the

theme of audience analysis. When I asked what made him decide to work on the

theme, Joshua explained that it was the knowledge that he ‘developed from [his]

master studies’, a discipline in which audience analysis as a methodology carries

notable centrality.

7.1.1.3 Work experience

Three cases stand out particularly, which illustrate that the students had in fact tapped

into their previous/current work experience with the topic while mapping out the

themes that they needed to pursue for their studies. Liza’s experience is one such

example. As mentioned earlier, Liza’s study was about task-based teaching in Hong

Kong. One of the themes that she was pursuing at the point of the interview was the

notion of ‘curriculum’ and the theories associated with it. When I asked her how she

had decided that she needed to learn about the theme, Liz explained:

I have in fact learned about the topic of task-based learning through the curriculum
documents published by the Curriculum Development Council [a government
education agency). As an English teacher, I need to update myself on the
government’s education initiatives by reading the curriculum guides regularly. It is
through the reading of the guides that I have come to see the connection between the
two themes.

Rebecca related a similar account. One major theme that she discusses in her literature

review is that of a psychological construct which forms one major focus of her study.

Intrigued by her extensive affirmative citations of an author on the definition of the

 239

construct in one major section of a literature review chapter, I asked her how she had

come to know about the author and his works. Rebecca explained that the author was

a key person in the field of psychology and the citations are ‘ornamental’ in that they

were to show the reader that she was well-versed in the field:

Rebecca …coz my topic is about stress…And he [the cited author] is a psychologist

who studied X mainly.
Becky Did you choose his works yourself?
Rebecca No, his works are classic. He's a classical figure who studied X [the
psychological phenomenon]. So, almost everybody writes about X
certainly quotes him. His works are more like ornamental. Since the topic
involves X, I chose him. I had to write about him. Actually, the citations
are not sufficient but since time wasn't sufficient for me to write more,
[laughs], and so I just slotted his works in. Quite often it's the time
constraint. You want to do more, but you can't.
Becky His model is quite interesting.
Rebecca Yes. Oh, his works are quite classic. We people [in the field of psychology]
know that we need to cite X’s stuff every time we talk about stress.

Rebecca’s knowledge of the relevance of author X’s works had been developed in situ

in her practice as an academic in the field.

Patricia too brought her work experience to bear on her choices of reading. She had

been a research assistant to her supervisor for a couple of years before entering the

doctoral study. In that capacity, Patricia had developed a network of contacts that

included some major figures who in one way or another were associated with the topic

she was pursuing. This experience had helped her develop some strategic knowledge

about the central authors whose works she needed to cite. Her story will be elaborated

in Section 7.1.4 on legitimate peripheral participation (LPP).

 240

7.1.1.4 Initial confusion and frustration

Though the students had adopted a variety of strategies to search for and select

references for reviewing, not too many of them related successful experiences at this

stage of their reading, which was in fact mostly marked by frustration, confusion, and

in some cases deplored as taking the ‘wrong’ paths. All except two recalled the stage

as being a slow ‘hit-and-miss’ period, varying between several months to one year,

and in one special case, this period continued into the fourth year of the student’s

study.

Some students reported being overwhelmed by the output they generated through their

keyword searches. Wenzhong, who has been cited earlier using keyword search as a

strategy to locate references for his study, recounted the following experience:

Wenzhong Now, I// and usually I // I just // for example I just go to the library
catalogue and erh now search for the key words or something. But, very strangely, X
is an economic term. When you search [for the term], it just gives you all the
economic ones to you // economic readings. It's not // erh// a linguistic term. So, I
can't do it that way [by key word search].

Wenzhong’s experience is perhaps not atypical for those students who rely on

controlling ideas developed from the initial topics of their theses. A topic set in an

early stage of study is usually rather vague or over-generalized, resulting possibly

from preliminary if not incomplete understanding or even misconception of the issue

being explored. Even if the topic is rightly formulated, it is often too crude to capture

what the topic can possibly involve as will be later revealed by the stories in Section

7.2.
 241

Some informants also reported not being able to find a clear focus for reading mainly

because of the large amount of literature they had found and needed to digest. Mary,

for instance, pursued a topic on intercultural communication and recounted her

frustration:

Mary Yes, coz like there's such a huge amount of literature out there. You simply
don't know which area to start. Every area can be so broad and involves much depth.
So, it depends on how deep you want to go down with your reading. So, at the
beginning, I was kind of shooting in the dark and read a lot of stuff.

Not only is there much to read that frustrated some of the informants, but what made a

reading relevant equally concerned some of them. As Anita commented:

Anita And all along in my reading, there's a big struggle. Joan told me to try my
very best to find //uh// whether there's anyone who has done things I am doing now.
Possibly because of the constraint of time, I find it very difficult to locate anything
which is completely related or similar to my work. And so, I'm very frustrated. Coz if
there is, it's very simple and all I have to do is to copy. But since there isn't any, I
need to read and look for similar things and most likely there's only L1 work related
to my topic and I need to turn it into [see how it is related to] L2 reading. … But the
painful part of it is that I can never stop reading. And also, you never know if you're
reading the right things coz there're so many studies done. It would take you lots of
time already to just browse over one theme. And also, you never know where it ends.

Frank’s story exemplifies that having been an academic guarantees no exemption

from this confusing stage of reading. Frank had served as a faculty member in a

university for almost 10 years and had already published a few works before entering

his doctoral study on a topic which is relatively new to him. He provided a vivid

account of the frustration he experienced:

Frank … And I began to read quite a lot of literature, a lot of students' dissertations.
And then I realized that 'Oh, my God, a Ph.D. is not easy.' …Then I began to read
books written by some of the British supervisors. They're about how to do a Ph.D.
and why do you want to do a Ph.D. Why don't you want a Ph.D. and how not to get a
Ph.D. There're quite a few books. And these books gave me a lot of help on how to
overcome the frustration…Honestly, I wanted to quit. I tried to // I tried find the
 242

excuses. … And literature review also // was also the most difficult part. Number one,
it's // it's overwhelming. Where're you going to go?

Not only was Frank being overwhelmed by the choices of reading he had to make for

his thesis but also by the amount of work involved in a doctoral study in general. He

needed to attend to his own psychological well-being and thus became side-tracked by

reading on how to manage his own studies, suggesting that in this initial stage of

reading he was not particularly oriented toward his literature review per se.

Though some of the informants had already developed some cognition of what to read

and whose works to read, few of them were spared from the frustration. Only two of

the students recalled experiences which suggested that they handled their searches for

references at this stage with relative ease. Wan Yu, for example, recalled that her

search for the literature was quite manageable when compared with that of other

students. She studied how assessment design may impact on a particular form of

teaching in the classroom, which required her to do classroom observation. Since she

had decided to adopt an ethnographic approach to her data-collection at the outset of

her study, she set herself quite a clear goal to search for studies conducted with the

same approach. She was constantly reminded by her supervisor that she needed to be

exhaustive in her reading, as her following remarks indicate:

Wan Yu ‘Fortunately, there aren't too many sources. I have been told that in some
fields there are TOO [emphasis in original] many and you canNOT [emphasis in
original] be exhaustive [with your reading]. Now, what I'm in is the field of
assessment. My topic is relatively new… and now not many people have done
research on the washback effect on this teaching practice I’m studying….It is not
something core… And so, it is quite possible for me to be exhaustive in my search.’
 243

Within the first six months of her study, Wan Yu had already produced quite a

complete literature review, which as she recalled was recycled with ease for the LR in

her final thesis. A comparison of the LR she produced for her qualifying report (QR)

and the LR in her thesis attested to her early production of the literature review. I

cross-checked the two drafts of LR and noticed only minor revisions, one of which

was the removal of the definition of a key term originally found in the LR of the QR

to the introduction chapter of the thesis. The themes, the propositional contents, the

organization, the references, and even the length remained more or less intact in the

LR of the thesis. Wan Yu’s story suggests that working on an area seldom researched

might make one’s literature reviewing for the topic relatively easy.

Patricia was the other student who did not express any particular frustration with the

initial stage of her RS. She worked on a topic related to the analysis of a business

genre. When prompted to recall how she did her RLR, Patricia told me that her

experience with RLR might somewhat be different from that of others. She

remembered that she spent altogether no more than 20 hours to write up her literature

review when she worked towards her qualifying report. The only one time when she

panicked about reading for the literature review was the time approaching the deadline

of her qualifying report, approximately one year after she had joined the program.

Patricia explained that reading for the literature review was not her top priority at the

starting stage of the study, which stands out as a special case among all students:

Patricia Strictly speaking, in the first year, I didn't read that much. Why? So, at
this stage, I don't think // so I didn't invest much time in reading.
 244

In the interview arrangement conversation that took place two months prior to the

submission of her qualifying report, Patricia related to me that she was deep in her

data analysis and had come up with some preliminary findings. She only started her

RS/LR seriously after she had completed the analysis and when she embarked on the

writing of the report.

One of the reasons for not taking the literature review too seriously at this stage was

that her supervisor was not particularly ‘keen on lengthy literature reviews’ and

another was her perception that the examiners and panel members ‘should have read

all the stuff’ she read. Another reason was that Patricia would rather concentrate more

on her data analysis and did not want the analysis to be influenced too much by her

reading.

7.1.2 Guided participation in RS

Many of the stories suggest that, the students at one point or another of their studies

had received guidance from their supervisors, panel members, and other scholars

regarding the directions of their reading in the form of guided participation.

7.1.2.1 Scaffolding from supervisors

Reading references

Apparently there were two types of guidance the students received, one of which is

directed at some finished written products (e.g., an LR draft) that the supervisors had

read. This type of guided participation takes the form of specific suggestions of
 245

references to be read and added to the products for revisions. For this reason, I call

this type of RLR-oriented scaffolding to be distinguished from the second type, which

is not directed at any specific written work, and is hence more RS-oriented.

Twelve of the 16 informants related that they had acquired lists of crucial readings

from their supervisors, which helped them develop the understanding of their topics,

informed their theoretical frameworks and research methodology, and some of which

were later incorporated into their literature reviews. Helen recalled that on top of

searching library catalogues and browsing through journals, she also consulted the

suggested list of RS-oriented readings provided by her joint supervisors:

Helen My supervisors also passed me some books [book list] but I didn't much
time to concentrate on my reading. But now, I've begun to // I need to slowly
consolidate what my supervisors have suggested for my reading, which were very
useful ‘coz he’s [sic] an expert in the field.

Guided participation in RS did not just take place in the initial stage of the students’

journeys. Mary recalled that some of the RS-oriented items on her reading list were

actually passed to her from the supervisor over the years of her study:

Mary At one point, when I wasn't able to do in-depth literature search, he sent me
some directly. …uh, yes, they're about // yes, // yes about// yes okay, they're sources
of studies done overseas which adopted different perspectives in their investigations.
Like in the past, people would just look at the difficulties overseas had and then
people looked at how they communicated with people from the host community and
stuff like that // like adapt//cultural adaptation or adjustment like X and Y. He sent me
the list of references. Erh, or he would send me some notes he used in his classes
whenever he felt that I hadn't got enough sources.

Anita also recalled some authors and themes that her supervisor on and off suggested

for her RS during the second and third years of study:

 246

Anita I can only do whatever she tells me to do. Usually, it's //usually
it's//like she suggests I read works in a new area. Then, I will
read anything related to that area and then I will eventually
narrow the area down. Like usually I start with reading broadly
and I might waste time reading something which is not very
appropriate.
Becky Your strategy is then you get advice from Joan. She suggests
some areas to read.
Anita She gives some names like the key words of what to look up
like scaffolding.
Becky What else does she give you? What about people's names?
Anita Authors' names? Oh, yes. Like recently for the topic of second
language [acquisition] she asked me to read Swain's works and
stuff… she gave me a name. And even when she gave me just
one name, I could dig out a lot of works [laughs]. But, the
suggestion was very useful. At least I wouldn’t be reading the
wrong stuff.

RS and Negotiating Disciplinarity

Joshua also related a story of learning about the names of a few discourse analysts

from his supervisor during the first year of his study. As mentioned earlier, he

conducted a study of how viewers responded to a TV genre that suggests

discrimination against some ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. Presumably, it was a

field located in cultural studies, as the texts and images that Joshua examined were

primarily cultural products. However, when I examined the literature review of his

qualifying report, I found that he had cited two names appearing more frequently in

works published in the fields of discourse and genre analysis and therefore seemed to

be rather unusual additions to what appeared to be a study belonging to the discipline

of cultural studies. I was intrigued by the figures and sources cited and asked him how

he had come to know those works. Joshua related that they were RS-references

suggested by his supervisor who was also a critical discourse expert. Joshua’s

experience reveals the unfixed disciplinary boundaries within which his study was
 247

located. The boundaries were made negotiable as a result of Joshua’s own training in

cultural studies together with the research problem he brought to his study

(discrimination embedded in a form of cultural product) and the supervisor’s expertise

located within another seemingly neighbouring discipline of discourse studies. In a

way, the guided participation in reading the two discourse analysts’ works is

connected to a bigger learning activity of negotiating disciplinarity (Prior 1998).

Experiences of receiving starting guidance from supervisors were also related by

Wenzhong and Jiawen, who both were students of the same supervisor Ted. Their

guided participation in RS relates somewhat different aspects of the bigger initiation

activity in which the students were engaged.

When I asked Wenzhong whose works he thought he needed to consult, he

gave me the following response:

Wenzhong Makkan…? [laughs] and the SLA part, for the grammatical and speech
act development, now Kasper and //uh// of course I have to // sometimes
Schmidtt, and also //erh Bardovi Harlig. Now, I think I have to read
these persons' works.
Becky Why?
Wenzhong Because I think // they seem to be the ones // they have written a lot on
this area. It seems that their articles or book chapters are often cited by
other authors.

When asked where he acquired the readings, Wenzhong offered the following

account:

Wenzhong Yes, Kasper. … Ah, yeah. Ted just suggested me the readings on uh
SLA or interlanguage, that area. I think his area. And also, Ted himself
because he has written some books on interlanguage development.
 248

Since his study examined how ESL learners acquired the specific aspect of speech act

X, his supervisor also recommended that he read works by James, who is an expert in

X and was one of the panel members overseeing Wenzhong’s progress.

Wenzhong But, the speech act X part, now. So, I can't do it that way [by key word
search]. So, first of all I just write an email to James [a member on
Wenzhong’s panel]. I know he's an expert on that [speech act X].
Becky How did you know that he's an expert in that?
Wenzhong Ted [Wehnzhong’s supervisor] told me. So, I wrote an email to him.
And he just give // erh // bibliography list. Now, including a few of his
own. So, I first read his articles // a few articles. And, now, from the
bibliography // now because what has been mentioned as what the
important articles are [?] to find. So my reading just began here. They
are from James’ articles. I used his bibliography as a kind of resource to
find other articles and books.

Not only had Wenzhong obtained a list of references from James, but had also

received supervision from his own supervisor for what to focus on when consulting

the references recommended by James.

Wenzhong Ted just asked me to include a few studies or as many as possible. I

know he is interested in detailed analyses // detailed reviews [research
publications/reporting]. And said it's better you just tell me the methods or // better //
erh critical. Erh what // what // what you think of the strengths and weaknesses of the
studies. But, it's very hard. I think the studies of X simply don't follow the pattern.
And so, I think it's the most difficult for me that [laughs].

Note that the advice Wenzhong received was not limited to references for reading. It

also concerned what he needed to pay attention to when doing the reading. As

suggested in the recall quoted above, he was reminded to be critical about the studies

he read, to identify the ‘strengths’ and ‘weaknesses’ of the methods. During the

interview, Wenzhong named a long list of authors that Ted provided whose works

were later incorporated into the literature review of his qualifying report.
 249

Similar kinds of advice were also recalled by Wenzhong’s colleague Jiawen. Not

unlike Wenzhong, Jiawen went through a brief period of searching and re-searching

for a workable topic. In an informal discussion with me a few months prior to the

interview, Jiawen expressed his interest in pursuing a topic relating to the design of

some teaching materials that could facilitate students’ learning of a grammar structure.

He had already read a lot related to the area when his supervisor finally convinced him

that the area might not be researchable because it involved a host of issues that could

complicate his research. He eventually settled on a topic on how learners acquired

speech acts with some assistance of instructional input. Jiawen recollected that his

focus of reading emerged after having received help from Ted. His list of references

began to ‘spread out’ as a result of Ted’s suggestion.

Jiawen So, I began to read and uh my supervisor gave me a long list of reading and
now I began to go [laughs]. At the very beginning my reading was not very focused. I
just uh // I just uh. And then I began to retrieve books and articles that were cited on
my reading list. So, my reading began to spread out.

By ‘reading [being] spread out’, Jiawen meant identifying more references cited in

those sources on Ted’s reading list.

Jiawen had not only acquired a list of references from Ted, but also received guidance

from him for what to focus on while doing his reading. This guidance can be revealed

in the record of notes which Jiawen compiled from his e-mail with Ted (see quote

below):

e-mail communication with Ted 05/12/2002, 11:00

(1) Read Johnson & Roberts2

2
To ensure anonymity, I have replaced some of the names that Jiawen provided with pseudonyms.
 250

(2) Read Johnson in Fowler

(3) Read Mason's article concerning Chinese learners’ acquisition of the article.
(4) Read West & Resser, esp. Macy’s
(5) Read Pienneman's article concerning stages of development (developmental
readiness)
(6) Operationalization [sic] issues
a. Clear definition of the treatment
b. Observation of the classroom to ensure carrying out the treatment and
objectives of the treatment or the research.

(Learnability of the target form has to be considered, because there is evidence

that structure may be a powerful moderating variable when assessing
instructional effectiveness (Noris & Ortega, 2002:448; see also …)
Conceptualize comparisons between the treatment group and the control
group. (The structure-based approach emphasizes language form through
either metalinguistic instruction (e.g., grammar translation) or pattern
practice (e.g., audiolingual) (Lightbown & Spada, 1999:96)

As can be seen in the notes above, Jiawen was advised to gain some understanding of

Chinese learners’ acquisition of the article and developmental readiness (the italicized

parts). On top of that, he needed to handle the definitions of the notions carefully for

operational purposes (the italicized and underlined parts). Methodologically, Jiawen

was reminded to pay attention to the two crucial factors of ‘learnability’ and

‘structure’, the latter of which could affect some parts of his research on assessing

instructional effectiveness (see the bold-faced parts). These themes also emerged in

the literature review in his qualifying report.

From Wenzhong and Jiawen’s recollections, we can see that the supervision that Ted

provided went beyond mere suggesting reading lists. First, Ted helped both students

to locate a researchable topic within his area of expertise. This coaching had

facilitated the consultation process and in particular the suggestions he provided for

reading. Secondly, his coaching on what both students needed to pay special attention

to in their reading provided some pivotal scaffolding to afford their exploration of the
 251

conceptual contours of their topics as well as the epistemology of the field of studies.

As most of the research in the field was conducted through measuring students’

competence using quantitative methods such as language competence testing, an

awareness of known variables affecting learning is crucial to their research design.

Ted’s reminders of performing critical examination of methodologies reported in

studies (as in Wenzhong’s case) and considering ‘moderating factors’ (as in Jiawen’s

case) were at centre-stage of his consultation for RS for both of them.

The stories related in this section show that the students received various types of

scaffolding for their reading, which include crucial authors, specific sources and

focuses that had bearing on their research. The stories of Joshua, Wenzhong, and

Jiawen’s guided participation in RS suggest its connection to the more macro types of

initiation which the supervisors provided to negotiate disciplinarity (Prior 1998) and

major epistemological and methodological issues associated with the fields of study.

7.1.2.2 When supervisors cannot provide guidance

Not all the student informants could receive close coaching on their RS. Liza for

instance lamented the little guidance that her supervisor had provided:

Becky Has she given you any suggestions for what to read?
Liza No. Absolutely nothing. I was very much on my own. That’s something that I
feel kind of unhappy about.

As Liza related, her supervisor was ‘an extremely busy person, supervising a dozen of

undergraduates on top of the many graduate supervisees she needed to take care of.’

Liza was not even able to pin down the expertise of her supervisor when I asked her
 252

to supply the supervisor’s biographical information. Liza stressed that she had been

very much on her own struggling with her RS. The struggle seems to have been

aggravated by the fact that Liza was a part-time student doing her distance learning in

Hong Kong and that the supervisor works basically in the UK. The two

communicated with each other only through email and during occasional visits the

supervisor paid to Hong Kong. Being a schoolteacher herself also made it quite

difficult for Liza to establish contacts with academics working in the field.

Rebecca was in a situation similar to Liza’s. Her supervisor was a methodology

expert and knew very little about the subject matter of her topic, and thus she had to

be on her own ever since she started her study. She needed to rely on her own

experience as a practicing academic in the fields of psychology and sociology, which

had afforded her to access some key literature associated with her topic (as related

earlier in Section 7.1.1.3). This experience, unfortunately, as Rebecca elaborated, did

not carry her very far for her RS and RLR. For this reason, on top of looking for

relevant literature through the regular channels such as library catalogues and

electronic databases, Rebecca also sought help from foreign scholars who visited

Hong Kong.

Rebecca And my supervisor wasn’t very familiar with this topic. He's only a
research expert. Since he didn't know much about the topic, he couldn't provide much
advice on the content itself but the process itself only. …In the process of the study in
these five years, where did the literature review come from? It came from many
overseas scholars who came to Hong Kong and to our department, uh and then I
asked them, 'Hey what sources are appropriate for reading? What are…' Ah, they
introduced some. And then the process was really like treasure hunting. And there's
no such existing things which were well-organized which I could build on for the lit
review. And I needed to search different places for snow-balling [to snow-ball
sources] and for connections like that….
 253

Rebecca named one specific Canadian scholar from whom she had received advice

during the last stage of her thesis-writing.

Rebecca Yes. And it so happened that during that time [final stage of her study]
there's one expert who's very well-learned in the area of child welfare. He had
[research] background relating to UK and Canada. He had stayed at my university
where I was serving for a year. Aya, luckily there was this person otherwise I
wouldn't have been able to know what's going on. His name is X. He's a British and
he worked in Canada. And then he had worked in Hong Kong for a year as a visiting
scholar. Luckily, he's a child welfare scholar. So as soon as he gave me the
information, it dawned on me that I knew nothing coz there's no one person who
could advise me on this. I was like a pioneer [in the field in Hong Kong]. And then
this person gave me several book lists [bibliographies]. Aya, thank God. I started
from there. The more I read, the more I knew. Of course, I searched different CD-
ROMS to look for similar stuff to see others' dissertations on adoption. And from
these CD-ROMS I located several works on adoption, but none of them was precisely
on my topic. I was able to find 2 to 3 works. And I tried to find out how others did
their work // their study // their approach. And then luckily there were these sources.
Otherwise I wouldn't know how to do my study. …There were personal talks with
him a couple of times, which were very inspiring.

A similar story was also provided by Frank, who recounted how he identified some of

the key references relating to one of the theoretical models which he adopted for his

study and the discussion of which takes up almost one-third of his literature review

chapters. He recalled that he had come across the first few sources about the model

through his library searches. However, his list of readings grew as a result of his

communication with one of the theorists who developed the model.

Frank I found X and Y's model. The model then is easy because with the model
was found in the literature. I was reading an article and came across the model…And
then then I wrote a letter to [one of] the guys that developed the model. He's in the
university of Q. I told the guy I'm interested in his model and I'm a Ph.D. student. I
am studying a topic which will require their model, and then he said, now, let me give
you an updated list of references. And he gave me an updated list. Yeah.
 254

As Frank’s story unfolds, his interaction with theorist X was far more than a one-way

transmission of reading lists from theorist X. It had turned out to be a collaborative as

well as dialogic process:

Frank He [the theorist] said I keep an eye on my own instrument. He said there's a
website. You can go to the website. And even now whenever I see anything
on his model, I e-mail him. I translate that model into German, Thai and
Arabic. And I give a copy to him.
Becky How did you translate it?
Frank I got people to do it when I was in Egypt…[explaining procedures of how to
get people to translate the model]. So that model now has been translated
into 20 30 languages [laughs].

Frank played more than just a role of doctoral student. His reciprocation suggested his

peripheral participation in the field and apparently had afforded him the opportunities

to learn more about the theory by the theorists and hence his ability to articulate them

in one of his literature review chapters.

The narratives related in this section thus far bring several interesting points worth

discussing further here. First, it is the mismatch between students’ pursuits and their

supervisors’ expertise, a situation becoming more common these days (see also Hill,

Acker and Black 1994) and bringing with it a definite constraint on students’

initiation into their fields of studies. Second, we can see different strategies of coping

with the constraint ranging from having no effective tactics to circumventing the

situation by seeking help from external scholars (e.g., Wenzhong, Jiawen, Rebecca

and Frank). Appealing as it is, seeking outside help as a strategy may not be easily

achieved for some students such as Liza, who studied part-time, held a full time

practitioner job, and on top of that did her study through distance-learning. This

capacity apparently could not afford the context as well as the time Liza needed to
 255

develop ties with people from the academic field. Third, though some of the

informants had been practicing academics before they entered their studies (e.g.,

Rebecca and Frank), they were still newcomers to the areas of their studies, which did

not exempt them from the need to negotiate and learn about the conversations of field

(Bazerman 1988) in the form of guided participation.

7.1.3 Accessing theoretical frameworks

Student Informant Mary:

The end of the second year of my dissertation. Coz like when you're doing
ethnographic studies, you could collect all kinds of data and you really don't know
what you'll find nor your direction. And at this point, my supervisor came to suggest
Kim's works coz my data suggested some phenomena which were answerable using
Kim's theoretical framework.

In this section I will describe how some of the students acquired and negotiated their

theoretical frameworks. There are two reasons to pursue this line of inquiry and in

particular that relating to framework-identifying. First, as is frequently stressed in

instructional literature on thesis undertaking, it is important to identify a theoretical

framework to inform one’s study, which has also been borne out by the findings

discussed in Chapter 4 that show that theoretical frameworks figured as one common

type of knowledge claims enacted in the LR texts analyzed. The types of theoretical

framework identified in the corpus straddle a wide spectrum, ranging from

sophisticatedly formulated hypotheses to more general, philosophical and ontological

statements of events or objects being studied. Second, as also mentioned in Chapter 5,

theoretical frameworks make up one major type of disciplinary knowledge which is

expected of the researcher in the display of his/her understanding of the field and also
 256

through which the researcher reveals his/her disciplinary identity. Display of both

types is crucial to gate-entry in the case of research publication and to qualification in

the case of thesis production. Given their centrality in research studies, it is thus small

wonder that the majority of the informants recounted their experiences of seeking

their theoretical frameworks as critical events of their RS and RLR in the interviews.

One of the major aims in this part of the study was thus to examine how the

informants negotiated their reading to identify the frameworks discussed in their

literature reviews.

Indeed, choosing a theoretical perspective was not an easy task for many of the

students. Frank was a case in point. As quoted earlier, he had experienced an initial

period of random reading and exasperation before arriving at the frameworks for his

study. Though several students had reported that they had acquired some parts of the

theoretical perspectives from their previous studies at the M.A. level (e.g., Joshua,

Sylvia and Patricia) or at work as practicing academics (e.g., recall Rebecca’s choice

of Lazurus’ definitional model of stress), almost all the informants related that they

had learned about the theoretical perspective adapted in their studies through their

supervisors or their panel members at some point during their studies in a variety of

contexts.

Jiawen developed a conceptual framework that includes the variables he would be

testing in his study on students’ competence in the use of a particular speech act:
 257

Jiawen I got fourteen scenarios which I'm going to use as // in my pre- and post-
tests. These is the description // uh framework, uh presenting the fourteen
scenarios concerning the research variables.

I asked him how he had been able to develop the framework, and he gave me the

following reply:

Jiawen No, no, no, this is the framework that is well-known in the research
domain [the field Qn was working in], developed by three researchers in University
M [an American university]. As I mentioned in the last interview, [this university ] is
very famous in this // in this area of research by these three researchers [names of
researchers removed] in 1992 and 1995. They developed a prototypic framework for
assessing this type of learners’ pragmatic competence. You know, it is well-known //
it is well-recognized that // that is widely recognized that uh assessing pragmatic
competence is a very difficult job. And these three researchers actually made their
pioneering [?] in this end. Now, this is the framework uh I adopted.

I asked Jiawen to describe how he had learned about the names of the researchers, and

he explained that it was his supervisor who introduced the names to him after he had

read his qualifying report and listened to his presentation:

Jiawen My supervisor. I didn't know // actually I didn't know these three persons.
And then, my supervisor, after the qualifying report, he mentioned these
three researchers // three researchers to me. He wanted me to read articles
they wrote in 1992 and 1995 concerning the framework.

Becky So, this is the added part, an addition to the original report.

Jiawen Yeah, this is an addition to the // it has not been incorporated in the original
re//. It has another title [heading] called the instrumentation process. Surely,
I will // it is going to be incorporated into my final report // my dissertation.

Becky Is it part of your lit review or part of your methodology?

Jiawen Both, I think.

Note that Jiawen’s cognition of whose works to read concerning the framework

actually developed from the guidance his supervisor provided after he had read his
 258

report. The report crystallized Jiawen’s learning and reading. As such, it became a

pivotal product based on which the supervisor had planned his scaffolding for Jiawen.

Frank related his story of acquiring one part of his theoretical background3 from one

of his panel members. His study involved an investigation into the management of one

type of communication between Chinese people and foreigners in business settings.

Two thirds of Frank’s 2-chapter literature review was devoted to the discussion of the

theoretical construct developed by a famous psychologist and the studies drawn on the

construct.

Initially, Frank had been very frustrated by not being able to find an appropriate

framework for his study, a reason partly stemming from the apparent mismatch

between his area of study and his immediate supervisor, an expert on methodology in

a slightly different field. As Frank recalled, after a long period of frustration (see his

comment in Section 7.1.1.4), he learned about the work of a relevant psychologist

during an informal discussion with Zoe who was one of his panel members:

Frank Okay. I think the most difficult thing for me to begin with was probably to
find out a framework. In order to// In order to find out a framework, you have to find
// you have to go to the literature. And then when you see the literature, oh Jesus,
there's a lot of things. What're you going to do? Because you don't know. People use
a lot of frameworks but you don' know what you're talking about when talking about
frameworks and whether these frameworks are going to help you or not. Maybe you
say, I like framework x, and then you go to the literature there's nothing there. Or,
there is NOT [emphasis originally] enough uh relevant literature for you. So, I was
very happy because one day I was talking to Zoe [one of Frank’s panel members] in
the corridor, and she mentioned Wilson [pseudo-name] and she gave me a book. And
I read it and then I said hey, I've got it and eureka!

3
Frank’s study involved two complementary theoretical frameworks, one of which was discussed in
Section 7.1.2.2.
 259

With Zoe’s advice, Frank set out to read works relating to the psychologist’s

framework and generated some of the hypotheses that he eventually tested in his

study. He did not only read these works, but also read them critically.

Frank And then I went back to the literature and then I saw a lot of things. Then
based on these things, based on the // I worked out the imperfections. Based on the
questions that I think are not perfectly answered based on the literature there're a lot
of things that are // lot of issues that are not // not // not deeply explored, then I played
with all this literature, ideas. I played with all these questions. I played with all these
problems not well erh // erh well-done. …

While Jiawen and Frank’s frameworks were partly acquired from the supervisor and a

panel member respectively before they actually started the collection of data,

frameworks adopted by some other students were introduced to them by their

supervisors or panel members after they had started their data collection. Chloe told a

revealing story of her own acquisition of the theoretical framework. Registered as an

MPhil student, Chloe submitted her thesis for examination towards the end of the third

year of her study when her examination panel decided that her work could be

expanded into a doctoral thesis. Accepting the invitation to continue her work for a

doctoral degree, she continued to collect data and started to look for a theoretical

framework for her converted study.

I interviewed Chloe twice. The first interview took place while she was still writing up

her doctoral thesis for submission. The second interview was held after she had

submitted the thesis and received comments from the examiners while awaiting her

viva voce. To prepare myself for the two interviews, I studied the literature reviews

which she produced at several key stages of her study, including an earlier version that

she wrote for her MPhil qualifying report (QR) and two drafts she submitted to her
 260

supervisors and panel members for feedback during the final stage of her writing. The

following is a comparison of headings of the major sections found in the literature

reviews of the QR and her final thesis:

LR in the Qualifying Report

Qualifying Report
1. Introduction
2. The Background
2.1 The Context of English Language Education
2.1.1Attitudes of Hong Kong Secondary School Students Towards the English Language
2.1.2 English Language Teaching In Hong Kong & China
2.2 An Increasing Flux of Immigrant Children in Hong Kong Schools
3. The Present Study
4. Literature Review
4.1 Research history of language learner strategies
4.2 Language learning strategies employed by different age
groups
4.3 English Learning in the para-EFL context: local
contributions

LR in the Final Stage of Thesis-writing

2.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK – LITERACY, AND CRITICAL PEDAGOGICAL
APPROACHES IN SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
2.1.1 Ideological Shifts In Education And Schooling
2.1.2 Reconstructing Our Understanding Of How The Society Operates
2.1.2.1 A glimpse on Hong Kong – socioeconomic relations of domination
3. Unpacking the social myths: a closer look at the government’s actions towards falling English
standards
2.2 A REFLEXIVE APPROACH TO SOCIAL LIFE – BOURDIEU’S THEORY OF PRACTICE
2.3.1 Gee’s Works
2.3.2 Wenger’s Works
2.4 AN APPRECIATION OF CLASSIC AND CURRENT STUDIES OF CRITICAL
PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES
2.5 AN OVERIEW OF RESEARCH HISTORY OF LANGUAGE LEARNER STRATEGIES
2.5.1 OVERSEAS WORKS ON LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY
DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS
2.5.2 LOCAL WORKS ON LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY DIFFERENT
AGE GROUPS
2.6 OVERSEAS LITERATURE ON L2 VOCABULARY
2.6.1 An Overview Of The Complex Nature Of Vocabulary
2.6.2 Studies On Vocabulary In Second Language Development
2.6.3 Studies On Vocabulary Learning Strategies
2.7 LOCAL LITERATURE ON L2 VOCABULARY LEARNING AND TEACHING
2.8 THE WORLD OF IMMIGRANT ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
2.8.1 Literacy Programs For Immigrant Students
2.8.2 Academic Achievements Of Immigrant Students
2.8.3 Beyond The Language Issues
 261

As can be detected from the two lists of headings, Chloe adopted a more or less

cognitive approach to the framing of her study of vocabulary learning. The entire

Section 4 of the LR in the Qualifying Report (see bolded parts), which takes up one

major part of the report, is devoted to the discussion of vocabulary learning strategies.

This orientation stands in sharp contrast to the sociological and critical position she

took in her doctoral thesis as evidenced by headings of Sections 2.1 to 2.3 (see bold

parts) though it still keeps the discussion of the cognitive approach in the remainder of

review (Sections 2.5 and 2.6). The section of vocabulary learning strategies discussed

in the QR report now only takes up about one-third of the LR in the thesis.

An examination of the citations in the LR of the thesis reveals works by such critique

linguists and pedagogues as Apple, Norton, and Bourdieu. Intrigued by the additions

of these citations and also the shift in her theoretical perspectives, I asked Chloe how

she had come to learn about the critical framework. She recalled that it was introduced

to her by her supervisor, who was also a critical pedagogue and sociolinguist, and a

prolific author in the area.

Becky Like just now you said the part on critical pedagogy was actually added to
your study when you were converted into a Ph.D. study.

Chloe After I've revised my draft.

Becky You mean the M.Phil draft.
Chloe Yes and I started to develop myself in that area.
Becky Why? Why such a big turning point?
Chloe Actually I didn't know much about these things [critical work by Apple and
Norton] it was Betty who introduced them to me and so gradually she
wanted me to read after I've finished reading some she asked me to add
something about that to my PhD. study
Becky Why did Betty suggest you to add this area?
Chloe She said you needed to have a focus yes and so there should be a theory to
support your stuff and she said you've got something empirical and you have
examples but you don't have any theories but she said but this is not difficult
 262

and she told me to look for some theories which could fit the findings and I
didn't know anything about this [strategy] at the very beginning and
gradually she told me all about these but there're a lot of information gaps

Becky Such as…?

Chloe She would suggest me to read this and that [supposedly themes] but she'd
never explain why [laughs] she would be very mad when she found out this
[this comment on her; more laughs]

Yixin had also gone through some critical changes to his theoretical orientation in

framing the phenomenon that he studied. His shifts were of a similar but more radical

kind than Chloe’s. Yixin worked with a topic that had to do with English teacher

education located in the discipline of English Language Teaching (ELT) and more

specifically the problems associated with a particular teaching practice on Mainland

China. He had held a strong conviction that the problems were results of problematic

leadership and teacher training. Yixin brought this assumption to his study in what has

been described in Chapter 5 as an inter-disciplinary department, which houses experts

from the several major fields of Applied Linguistics, ELT, and Intercultural

Communication. He attempted to search for a theoretical framework that could fit best

this assumption and explain some of the data that he had already collected prior to the

start of his study at the university. However, Yixin gradually shifted his orientation

and eventually selected two theories that were notably sociologically and ideology-

oriented. As his supervisor Alan recalled, the theoretical shift actually took place

towards the middle stage of his study.

Alan Yes. I remember in the first half of the first year he often, like, through
informal exchanges he told me that he was still reading literature on leadership style
and differences relating to pedagogies like East vs West and during a middle stage he
felt that these were not enough. … He felt that a more appropriate and promising
topic would be on the ideological impact of this teaching practice. …The final topic
he had settled on was related to X [the teaching practice] as an apparently ideology-
free transfer that is to say an ideology-free transfer uh adoption of a methodology
 263

considered to be advanced in the West which he held some reservation about so his
thesis basically studied if there would be any ideological conflicts

Yixin related a similar version of story about his theoretical shift.

Yixin Initially, I'd planned to do a course evaluation. I had brought my own data
here [to this university to start my study here], which was a good course..eval…[had]
very rich contents. And then, there was one chapter [of the thesis] derived from this
course evaluation. And then, that [the course evaluation] was also part of the corpus,
from which I will generate a model. My Ph.d proposal started from Leadership
Style…, i.e., the culturally specific leadership style. That is, the difference between
the Western style of leadership and Chinese style of leadership in English teaching.
Mainly, I did it from the angle of social psychology… The data was already there
[when Yixin started his doctoral study]. I just searched for literature to construct my
conceptual framework. Later, I read literature on leadership a lot of which was
related to concepts of socialization or hierarchy or conformity or large or small, or
power distance. Slowly, I came in contact with lot of things [ideas]. Coz social
psychology includes social and includes psycho…

I was curious about Alan’s involvement in Yixin’s theoretical shift:

Becky What was your involvement like this process [of reorientation]?
Alan He did talk to me about the reorientation throughout the process and initially
I also mentioned to him. I said to him that the topic on leadership was too broad and
I also asked him if he could bring about some constructive, concrete insights into
ELT while remaining broad with the topic on leadership. I also told him that I had
some reservation about // and I remember I advised him to broaden his field through
his reading so you could say the change in his topic at that later stage was a result of
taking my advice that is to read extensively about issues relating to ELT. At a later
stage, I should say, in a middle stage, his exploration of the political aspects of
language teaching especially the role of imperialistic role of English in the world//as
a world language and issues like these made him feel the need to move the orientation
towards the direction of ideology.

Alan elaborated that the adoption of the framework was also a result of Yixin’s

frequent discussions with two influential authors in person, one of whom was a

member of Yixin’s advisory panel:

Alan yes actually one important point to make [about his shift] is that throughout
his research process Gareth and Faye played a very important role and that is many
comments on information gaps and stuff were made through many informal
interactions between Yixin and the authors and gradually this had made him // of
course I also had read stuff written by the authors and so when he wrote his work I
wouldn't find his the stuff he wrote unfamiliar but in terms of like the topic, and stuff
which Yixin drew from the authors and the process in which Yixin arrived at the
theoretical framework all these took place against the background of which I had
little knowledge this you can take into account …My feeling was that when Gareth
 264

had contacts with him, he didn't do that as fulfilling his duty as a panel member and
so informally they had got to know each better and so it was like friend-supervisor
kind of role.

Yixin also ascribed his adoption of ideology framework to the influence Gareth, Faye

(a research associate of Gareth) as well as other non-ELT faculty members in the

department.

Yixin Since most people who work in this field are inter-cultural [communication]
people, and …Yes, I had come into contact with Gareth. Finally, I should say, the
current framework is the discourse system of Gareth and one of his colleagues
[Faye], … The form of discourse matches my current form of pedagogy, which is it
requires the teacher to do certain things and students to do certain things, and how the
textbook should be taught [used or presented]. These are forms of discourse. …This
is a big framework, which is very powerful. It is quite powerful. It's quite big. But,
since it's big, I need to read many books. I believe I have come in contact with quite
many books. Articles are relatively less. I have read more books.

As Yixin recalled, ‘There are many books that [the panel member] recommended,

like … Rosendall an anthropologist's // his books about remaking of culture and

Foucault's books.’ At the time of the first interview, both Gareth and Faye had

published prolifically in an area of communication and had developed a theory which

can explain issues arising from inter-cultural communication. It also forms a core part

of Yixin’s theoretical framework which is discussed in one of his thesis chapters. Note

that the two authors had not particularly produced works on the teaching methodology

which Yixin studied. Yixin had only borrowed the discourse framework to explain the

various cultural and ideological issues arising from the implementation of the

methodology.

Chloe and Yixin’s stories of theoretical shifts reveal much about the complexity of

the reviewing process. Firstly the shifts suggest that the process is intertwined with (if
 265

not embedded in) the process of negotiating disciplinary alignment. Chloe started out

being psycholinguistically-oriented. In the process of reviewing the literature which

her supervisor introduced, she became critically and sociologically-inclined in the

treatment of her data. Yixin on the other hand strongly convicted of the applicability

of leadership training theories as lenses to explain his findings came out as a ‘convert’

committed to the discourse framework he acquired from Gareth and Faye through the

references they suggested.

Chloe and Yixin’s stories also reflect the negotiable nature of disciplinary knowledge

and the fluidity of disciplinary boundaries. Chloe’s shift from a psycholinguistic

orientation to a critical-sociolinguistic one shows the co-existence of the two different

paradigms in the discipline of SLA. As for Yixin’s case, the theoretical shift is more

of a cross-disciplinary negotiation which suggests the blurred and porous boundary of

the ELT discipline – a point raised earlier in the discussion of Joshua’s narrative.

From this, we can also see that the core paradigm and the core literature perhaps do

not exist as such and what belongs to the core is in fact socially constructed.

In short, from the stories reported in this section, we can see that acquisition and

negotiation of theoretical frameworks, and hence theoretical readings for one’s

research, sometimes do not occur in asocial ways. Nor was it a necessary result of

laborious library searches as suggested in instructional manuals. As the students

recounted, knowledge of their theoretical frameworks flowed from supervisors or

panel members, a major medium between the novice and the fields into which they are
 266

acculturated. This learning did not happen in a straightforward lecturing mode. It was

realized in guided participation located within various informal discussions with the

supervisors and in their responses to their students’ work (e.g., Yixin’s discussion of

his data). In several of the cases as reported above (e.g., Jiawen and Chloe), the

frameworks actually came after data had been collected, as a response to the written

output of the students’ progress (e.g. qualifying reports, and drafts of thesis).

Similar stories of acquiring theoretical frameworks from supervisors have been

reported anecdotally in the literature but mostly in passing. For instance, in his advice

for students doing interpretation research, Pöchhacker (2001) related his personal

journey of selecting the framework that he adopted in his doctoral work. Pöchhacker

made the debut of his theoretical position at a conference when he was involved as an

assistant to his then boss-supervisor at the University of Vienna. Pöchhacker gives the

following account when recollecting this juncture in his doctoral journey:

One of my first tasks as a rookie universitätsassistent was to organize my professor’s

inaugural lecture and send out announcements (“invitations”) to most of the ‘big
names’ in Translation studies. When many of them actually came to Vienna to attend
the that event, my professor confidently introduced me to people like Hans Vermeer
and Justa Holz-Mänttäri as his assistant with this idea about interpreting and
translation theory. I was absolutely terrified when Hans Vermeer then invited me to
give a talk in his research seminar at the University of Heidelberg on the implications
of his theory for interpreting. No better way than this to focus one’s work on (a
particular) theory! (Pöchhacker 2001 p.205)

Pöchhacker also comments that the choice of a theoretical framework is very much

shaped by different factors, including one’s supervisor:

…On top of predisposing factors like prior knowledge and academic socialization,
some power personal, sociological and cultural forces may push and pull the aspiring
researcher towards – or away from – a particular approach. As much as you will have
to take full responsibility for your choice of approach, especially since you are likely
to be drafted into a certain ‘school’ by academic peers, it should be admitted that the
 267

PhD researcher’s choice of theoretical framework is often subject to incidental factors

associated with the socio-academic and institutional environment. A key player in
this is of course one’s supervisor, whose attitude may range from complete laissez-
faire one of the spectrum to a “see-what-you-can-do-with-my-theory” mandate on the
other. In the latter case, one’s choice of supervisor is tantamount to opting for a
particular theoretical framework. (p.205)

7.1.4 Strategic knowledge and LPP

Among all the stories of situated learning of RS, Patricia’s stands out as the most

marked with legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) that had facilitated much of her

RS4. As mentioned briefly in Section 7.1.1.4, her strategic knowledge of what to read

and whose works to choose for reading in fact had developed from her experience of

LPP both prior and after her enrollment in the Ph.D. program. Patricia had been a

research assistant to her supervisor for a couple of years before entering her doctoral

study. In this capacity, Patricia had developed her research skills as well as

connections with scholars in the field.

Patricia The work I did for my supervisor helped me a lot. Why did I say that? The
project had helped in developing my research skills. Like if I hadn't worked on the
project, I would probably have not learned my research skills like how to collect data
how to uh… look at things from different angles, like how to triangulate, that is,
cross-checking, like using different sources to see the validity of my data. I think
mainly the research skills had grown a lot. Another kind of help was the connections.
What does it mean by connections? By that I mean the skills of contacting others to
establish my connections, to look for my resources. So my work in that project helped
me develop my skills to look for resources…

As a later part of her story unfolds, these contacts became some of the major channels

through which she acquired the strategic knowledge of the literature that she

considered citing in her thesis and her literature review in particular.

4
Of course Rebecca and Liza’s stories as discussed earlier in section 7.1.1.3 on work experience may
suggest some kinds of LPP that had afforded their choices of themes and specific references for reading.
The reason that only Patricia’s case was highlighted here for discussion in this section is that she was
the only one who was able to account for her RS and RLR in terms of her LPP experience and provided
the most details as such.
 268

At the time of the interview, Patricia also worked as an assistant to both her supervisor

Roger and another faculty member Hank in her department, as a part of the obligation

for her studentship. In the description of her work for Roger and Hank, Patricia related

that it was more of a learning process and considered herself ‘stealing’ skills from

both persons.

Patricia … Like I'm working for Roger [Patricia’s supervisor] and Hank. I'm
learning from them. Like I'm learning from them how to do things. I learn from them
how to handle things, how to handle people and how to interact with people and stuff.
Actually, I'm observing. Strictly speaking, I'm stealing the master's skills [a Chinese
idiomatic expression for learning from masters] to put it more … Yes, like I'm
observing.

Patricia got along with her supervisor quite well and volunteered to assist him in many

ways that had afforded her to learn more about the conversations in the field

(Bazerman 1988). For instance, she offered to do clerical work for him when he was

extremely busy and also volunteered to handle some of the correspondences for

important academic events in which he played key roles. On top of these, Patricia sat

in some of Roger’s classes to observe his teaching and learned from his lectures. In a

casual conversation, Patricia related several times that she did not want to disappoint

her supervisor, revealing much respect for him as a supervisor and academic master.

It is thus not surprising to see that Patricia took Roger’s advice to pursue a topic

which was a spin-off from one of Roger’s former major research projects in which

Patricia had been involved as a research assistant.

The experience as an assistant to Roger greatly facilitated her theoretical alignment

with Roger’s and thus the start of her RS. As such, it became very natural that Patricia

read quite a number of Roger’s works. In recalling her reading process, she stated, ‘I
 269

keep a copy of his book [one of the widely cited book by Roger] … It’s my Bible

[laughs]’.

Patricia also described her acquisition of Hank’s analytical scheme and her

supervisor’s theoretical framework through her work relations with them.

Becky It's very interesting, isn't it? Through connections you know a lot of
scholars.
Patricia Oh yes. Like if I hadn't known Hank, I wouldn't have read his stuff. If I
hadn't known him, I wouldn't know that he's working on metadiscourse.
Like this is also an area I’m working on in my study. Like since I'm doing
some text analysis, I am going to use his analytical scheme. And of course,
I will use my boss's [supervisor] genre analysis framework and what he
subscribes to and I just basically follow him. I don't have a particular
framework of my own. Like since I'm working towards a genre analysis, I
model on how they analyze the genre and language and stuff [laughs] and
look at the lexical items and stuff [laughs] as he does. So when I worked
on the analysis of feature Y, I read Hank's previous works. Like he has a
list words [a scheme to describe different types of Y ]. And I follow those
words [the scheme] to categorize my data such as the interpersonal and
textual aspects. And so, I follow uh===[Becky: the scheme] Yes, and so I
follow his scheme.

Because of her involvement in Roger’s former project, Patricia had established some

connections with a number of prominent local and foreign scholars in her field of

studies and also developed some knowledge of their expertise. This network gave her

an edge in starting her reading. At one point of the interview when I asked Patricia

whose works she would read for her thesis, Patricia readily produced a list that

included names she had come into contact with in Roger’s project. Patricia also

recalled that she had sought advice from these scholars:

Patricia Like I know Merrill Johnson in person. And Merrill Johnson has done a lot
of works on X. I would search some of her works to see if there's anything
relevant to me. And there's a possibility, I'm not ruling out this possibility,
that she would be one of my examiners.
Becky Through what channel did you come to know Merrill Johnson in person?
Patricia That, now, actually, uh…I was involved in Roger’s research project in
which she was one of the co-investigators. Yes, mainly because of this I've
 270

got to know her in person. … when I was working on my proposal, I took

the initiative and sent an email to Merrill Johnson. I told her I was working
on X. Roger also told me that Merrill Johnson has done a lot of works on X.
And I went to her directly and told her my case and asked if she had any
suggestions for reading. Yes, Merrill Johnson // I thought maybe her field
was relevant to mine. So, I searched her works.

Because of the connections established, Patricia ‘felt very comfortable with contacting

these people directly through email for [advice on] reading references’.

Not only could Patricia recall with certainty whom she had approached for advice on

sources for reading, she was also able to identify the circle of people with whom her

work as well as herself was associated. In fact, she was one of the few students who

were able to articulate this network assertively when asked which field she belonged

to.

Patricia Actually, of course. Like I've been reading stuff by Matthew and Roger. So,
I kind feel affiliated with that group. I think yes. I see myself as more like a
greenhorn, like a novice. I don't belong to them but feel like entering the circle or
somehow operating on the outskirts. There's still a long distance [to become the core
part].

One interesting point to raise here is that Patricia was the only person who had

explicitly commented (without prompts) that gate-keepers were one of her concerns

when considering whose works to read. In a previous quote, Patricia envisaged the

possibility that Merrill Johnson would be one of the examiners of her thesis while

considering the reading of her works. A similar concern surfaced in another part of the

interview in which Patricia mentioned in great detail her encounter with one of the

panel members who queried one part of her data-reporting in her qualifying report.

According to Patricia, the member was not an insider of the circle with which her
 271

thesis topic was associated. However, Patricia reported that she would read his works.

She felt the obligation of ‘entertaining’ the member by creating a ‘legitimate’ slot to

cite his works in her literature review.

Patricia’s stories remind us of the strategic knowledge that the two biologists Crew

and Bloc developed, of how the two negotiated key literature for citation in their

proposals, as documented in Myers’s accounts (1985, 1990). Through peripheral

participation (LLP) in some major Projects of her supervisor, Patricia construed the

field to which her thesis belonged and at the same time developed part of her strategic

knowledge of the key players whose works could be considered for reading and

codifying into her literature review. Her former LPP also afforded her the connections

to obtain further guided participation, suggesting a mixed mode of situated learning in

which Patricia was engaged in her RS.

7.1.5 Section Summary

Using a social constructivist and in particular situated learning perspective, I have

examined how a group of doctoral students negotiated the access to some crucial

literature for their RS. I also have explored the different events that implicated these

choices. From the stories related by the students, it was found that many of their major

choices of sources and focuses (themes) of reading came as direct suggestions from

their supervisors at the outset of their studies. Scaffolding of the type had not only

helped some of the students to focus their reading but also locate researchable topics,

and in some cases negotiate the different theoretical, conceptual as well as

 272

methodological terrains of their work and fields of study. Other times, suggestions

came in situ from supervisors’ responses to the students’ written products. The stories

in short reflect that RS is a social process in one way or another in that students’

selection of readings flowed not from library searches alone but from experienced

members in the field.

In several cases, assistance was obtained from both panel members and other extrinsic

networks of experts (Kaufer & Geisler 1989) whose paths crossed the students’ on

such occasions as conferences, workshops, scholarly visits to the students’

departments, and also peripheral participation in the supervisor’s Project. Where

extrinsic networks of experts were involved, it was the students themselves who

initiated the communication, suggesting that doctoral students need to play a proactive

role in their learning. However, only three out of the students recalled resorting to

extrinsic networks for guidance, suggesting that this source is not particularly tapped

into by the majority of the group.

It is also worth noting that though study groups have been argued elsewhere as useful

circles from which students can gain insights and support for their studies (Piantanida

& Garman 1999; Aitchison 2003), none of the students recalled receiving help on

their RS/RLR from such sources. Quite surprisingly, most students reported that they

were pretty much isolated in their studies, implying that study groups as such are not

common among the student informants.

 273

There are various reasons for this sense of isolation. Firstly, the part-time students

who held full-time positions in non-academic settings and worked long hours during

the week often felt quite ‘cut-off’ from other doctoral students. This situation seems to

have been further aggravated for those who did their studies through distance learning

programs at overseas universities. Secondly, while it may be assumed that those doing

their full time studies in the local institutions could have better access to study groups,

many such students also reported working quite independently. It seems that most of

them tended to consult their supervisors or panel members as the de facto source of

input, as reflected in a comment which Chloe related, ‘She’s my boss, and so I need to

listen to her.’ Though evidence from the current study to support this claim is still

lacking, the belief that many students held about the central importance of their

supervisors may have come from their socialization that the supervisor (teacher and

master) is the authority and the most important gate-keeper. This perceived

importance, as some of the stories of supervisor-supervisee mismatch revealed, can be

a counter-productive assumption. One final reason could be related to the choice of

research topics. Unlike the practice in U.S., most of the students interviewed were not

encouraged to take up parts of their supervisors’ on-going Projects for their Ph.D.

studies. This practice reduces the chances of having a group of students working on

different parts of the Project who themselves can form a network through which ideas

are circulated and shared. The stories thus reflect a different institutional context in

which RS is practiced.
 274

7.2 Reading, researching and writing

Student Informant Marjorie:

Hey, we [colleagues from the seminar group of University X] always talk about this
issue of when the right time should be to do literature review. This is a problem
which I haven't resolved yet up till now. This is a question that many colleagues talk
about. Some ask if we should write it after we have finished gathering data or before
gathering our data like to inform our data gathering. Erm, we talked about this.
Personally, this is an on-going process and it's very difficult to say now you should
start reading now. But, I need to be prepared that the literature review needs to be
revised constantly.

7.2.1 Pilot studies and RS

Almost all the informants (except Wan Yu) related stories which reflect that focuses

of their reading emerged or became sharpened when they started gathering or

analyzing their data. This shared experience suggests that though the LR and other

parts of the thesis such as the methodology section and the findings section make up

three distinct parts of the thesis with the LR always preceding the other two, it does

not mean that they are distinct in the development of the student’s thesis, nor do they

necessarily proceed in that order. This section will relate some of the stories of how

pilot studies had informed the (re)formulation of their research questions and

controlling ideas of some of the students’ reading.

As mentioned in Section 7.1.2.1, Jiawen had spent the first couple of months of his

study searching for a researchable topic and finally settled on the topic related to the

acquisition of speech acts. However, he still had not decided which particular kind of

speech act he wanted to pursue and his reading was thus primarily associated more

with theories and studies of SLA. He recalled that his supervisor Ted advised him to

do some preliminary investigation to identify a particular speech act for investigation.

 275

Several months before the submission of his qualifying report, Jiawen visited a

university to conduct a pilot study. Spending time with some of the teachers and

students of the institution, Jiawen sat in classes, administered tests to students, and

interviewed them. It was from the interviews that the need for teaching the speech act

associated with X emerged:

Jiawen … And I interviewed // I uh sat in classes and I // I also tested //

administered some tests and I collected some data and I found that uh X [a category
of speech act] actually in their classroom // was not available actually to the learners.
And the learners actually eeeh//were inadequate in [using some] expressions [to
realize speech act X]. For example, I finished my interviews with ‘X’. But, uh//I
interviewed 17 learners. I finished each interview with [by saying] ‘X’. But the only
response I've got was uh // uh//what was the response? Actually the responses were
not correct. I got only one response, actually [laughs]. …Yeah… There was a period
of silence before they // uh produced that inappropriate response, actually even.

Jiawen decided to conduct a study on the acquisition of the speech act associated with

X through instructional input and ‘began to focus reading on the speech act… and

specifically the development of the act [in non-native speaking students]’. With the

decision made, Jiawen also started to read ‘the methodology of how to collect data

related to this area of linguistic performance. …’ It was the observations in his pilot

study that prompted Jiawen to choose his research focus and in turn guided him to

look for references related to the focus and the methodology.

Liza also told a similar story about how her reading had been informed by her pilot

study. However, her pilot study actually led her to stop pursuing a theme of reading.

As what was outlined in the proposal she submitted to apply for the doctoral study,

Liza had planned to investigate how teachers in Hong Kong applied the task-based

approach to the teaching of reading. She spent about six months in her first year of
 276

study reviewing sources related to reading literacy. However, Liza regarded the work

done in the period as a waste of time as she later found out that she would not be able

to collect data relating to the teaching of reading since her informants and also her

own colleagues did not do much teaching of the skill.

Liza To tell you the truth, in the first year, I was going in circles// going in circles
[sighs] reading things which I shouldn’t have been reading, being off-track. …
Strictly speaking, I wasn’t exactly off-track, I was focusing on how to teach reading
using the task-based approach. But, the problem was when I started to find out more
about the situation, I realized that my friends and also my colleagues, like they would
just teach just one reading lesson a week, like maximum one lesson. And they don’t
have the practice of teaching reading.

Started worrying about her access to data, Liza made a ‘detour’ and broadened the

research question and hence the focus of her reading to task-based language teaching

in general.

Liza And so, how could I have access to data? And if I wanted the data to do this
study, the focus could be too narrow as such. And so, I made up my mind to broaden
my scope to language teaching in general [task-based language teaching]. If I just
focus on that skill [reading], like if I spent three years on collecting data, I still
wouldn’t be able to get my data. Like if I take the more general focus, it would be
much [emphasized originally] easier to collect the data. And so, to a certain extent,
you can say that my reading was data-driven. But the problem was, like in the first
half year, I was just going in circles reading things on reading. And I wasted time
[emphasized originally] reading things I shouldn’t have been reading [emphasized
originally].

Sylvia, who was completing her analysis, recalled how the pilot analysis of one part

of her study actually made her start reading a new theme and hence revising one part

of her literature review, which she had been working on since her first year of study.

Sylvia was conducting a genre analysis, comparing text type X written in Chinese

with that written in English. Originally, she had intended it to be a comparison of the

cultural contexts and how it impacted on the use of language and content in text type
 277

X, one part of which was a theme analysis. Drawing on Halliday’s systemic linguistic

theory, she explored the thematic differences between the two groups of texts.

Two months before the interview, Sylvia completed a pilot study of the theme

analysis. She recalled that through the pilot analysis, she came to realize that there

was a tendency for Chinese writers to drop the sentence subject and use four-word

idiomatic expressions. It was a phenomenon which she ‘had never thought of before’

and therefore got in her way of classifying such expressions. Because of this, Sylvia

went back to the literature to ‘read the linguistic stuff and the formal side of things’

relating to that particular aspect of the Chinese language. The pilot study caused

Sylvia to redefine the direction of her research as well as that of her reading. The

knowledge she gained from the reading and the analysis motivated her to revise one

part of the literature review she had written.

Sylvia after one part of this pilot study // coz the pilot study is very important to me.
After I have finished my pilot study, I became clear with my direction. And so it
turned out that I was then more motivated to improve my lit review to make it
stronger...

Sylvia explained that her reading developed alongside her data analysis. This

‘traveling back and forth between data analysis and reading’, as she commented, ‘had

deepened [her] knowledge of the topic’.

The stories recounted by Jiawen and Liza reveal that they actually conducted the two

tasks of reading and pilot-study in parallel. What emerged in their pilot studies

informed what was possible or impossible for their research focuses, which in turn
 278

shaped what they read. As for Sylvia’s case, her pilot analysis informed the new

theme she needed to pursue for her study and at the same time implicated the revisions

to the literature review which she had started writing since Year 1. She considered that

the interrelated processes of reading and pilot-studying had ‘deepened her knowledge

of the topic’, suggesting that purpose of the reading process is broader than simply

choosing materials to write for the literature review and is a process in which one

gains knowledge about the subject matter.

7.2.2 RS, RLR and the data analysis proper

Student Informant Joshua:

So, it’s [reading] much kind of dynamic, two-way, dynamic thing. And that made the
research much more difficult. Erh, I had to read a lot more because of that like
opening many many different cans of worms. [laughs]

Similar co-implication of the processes of RS/RLR, WLR, and the data analysis

proper was also reported by the student informants who were completing or had

completed their theses at the time of the interviews. The stories they related reveal that

new themes and new focuses had emerged from their research that called for new

directions in their RS/RLR and WLR. Below, I will present four representative stories

retold by Rebecca, Mary, Anita, and Joshua.

Rebecca related a dramatic experience of literature reviewing. As a part-time student,

a full time academic, and a mother, Rebecca needed to juggle many balls while

pursuing her doctoral study. Constrained by time, she worked around very tight

schedules and became ‘strategic’ with her reading and thesis-writing. At the outset of
 279

her study, with the literature review in mind, she carefully chose her sources of

reading (primarily research studies) and planned how they could be incorporated into

her writing. Within the first year of her study, Rebecca had already written a complete

literature review, which she thought could be recycled ‘wholesale’ in her final thesis.

However, towards the final few months, it ‘dawned on her’ that the literature review

was almost ‘inapplicable’.

Rebecca …my literature review was almost rewritten after I had got my data. I
discovered that my [original] literature review couldn't reflect my data. Yes, …I was
very scared coz the literature review was completely irrelevant to my findings. Aya,
what crummy work! [laughs]

In a last minute attempt, she worked ‘backwards’, doing an intensive round of

literature reviewing. She recalled, ‘Waa! [imitating her panicking] Lots of new

literature has already been published at that time.’ She quickly rewrote some major

parts of the literature review chapters and ‘added more relevant and updated

references.’

Rebecca’s story suggests that what one has read and written in the initial stages may

not necessarily match up with or reflect what one actually does in a later stage of

investigation. Much interim ‘patch work’ needs to be done, which necessitates a

parallel operation of RS/RLR, WLR, and DA (data analysis). Indeed this experience

of ‘patching up’ was also what many finishing informants recalled.

Mary related her story of discovering a new theme of reading sparked by some

interesting findings that emerged from her studies. She pursued a topic on how the
 280

first cohort of Mainland Chinese students engaged themselves in the academic and

cultural exchange programs run at the universities in Hong Kong. As described in the

introductory chapter of her thesis, the study was partly motivated by the Chief

Executive’s Policy Address delivered in 1997 (cited in Mary’s introductory chapter):

Universities should be places for cross cultural learning and exchange. From the next
academic year, we will double the number for non-local undergraduates and taught
postgraduates from 2% to 4% and increase the ratio of non-local research
postgraduates from 20% to one-third. We have asked the institutions to recruit
outstanding students from the Mainland to enroll in first-degree courses.

Chief Executive’s Policy Address 1997, paragraph 95

Her study sought to answer the following questions:

1. In what ways and to what extent the scheme has fulfilled its objectives as seen
from the students’ views?
2. How did the Mainland students as well as their Hong Kong counterparts adjust to
the new learning and cultural environment?
3. What factors have facilitated and hindered the success of the scheme? To what
extent they are related to the intercultural and interpersonal communication
between the Mainland and the Hong Kong students? (cited from the introductory
chaper)

The narrative presented here concerns the italicized part of the third research question,

which had to do with intercultural and interpersonal communication between the local

and Mainland students. In fact, one major section (approximately one-third) of Mary’s

single literature review chapter is devoted to the notion of intercultural and

interpersonal communication, relating existing studies and theories drawn on the

updated literature to explain the phenomena observed elsewhere. I was intrigued by

how the research question and the theme had come to the fore in her reading and what
 281

motivated her to read the sources cited in the section. I asked her to describe her

journey of reading for the topic:

Mary Yes, in the second year of // in the second year of my study when I started
contacting the informants, I noticed this phenomenon [of intercultural communication
between Hong Kong Chinese students and Mainland Chinese students in universities
in Hong Kong]. Then, I started to read some literature to see what it says about this
phenomenon. …At first I did read something related to cultural adaptation or
adjustment most. Coz they have different theories about the phenomenon like
whether overseas would want to integrate into the host society within such a short
period of time when they are physically there but they don't really need to integrate
into it. And like, initially, I read about how an overseas person being a new place
would adapt himself [herself] to the new environment. Yes, mmm…towards the mid
or end of the second year of my study I noticed that this area [intercultural
communication] would be more interesting [italicized for highlighting purpose].

Note that it was after some data analysis that Mary became clear of what she wanted

to investigate and what literature to consult for her theoretical framework that could

be used to explain the phenomenon she observed. Mary related this ‘working

backwards’ to the fact that she was conducting an ethnographic study.

Mary Coz like when you're doing ethnographic studies, you could collect all kinds
of data and you really don't know what you'll find nor your direction. And at this
point, my supervisor came to suggest Kim's works coz my data suggested some
phenomena which could be explained using Kim's theoretical framework.

Mary further elaborated on the rough sequence of data-gathering ~ reading ~ adding

research focus involved in her RS/RLR:

Mary In the middle the second year // yes, yes after I have collected parts of my
data…. Actually, that's how I did it. I had collected some data and then I searched for
some literature and then I would collect more data and more literature. Actually, there
had been some literature which I had got already before my data-gathering. But then,
my data made me look more for other literature. And so, the two processes [literature
reviewing & data gathering] were done almost together, like in sync. Like I had
searched for literature in the area before I set questions to guide my observations. I
really needed to know what I wanted to observe like what to observe and what not to
observe. But, the literature I read then was not very specific // like not as specific as
what I searched for after I had got my first batch of data when I realized what I
wanted to focus on like intercultural communication.
 282

Anita related an assortment of new directions which her data analysis developed into

and which she had not been aware of in the planning stage of her study. These new

directions called for more in-depth reading of various themes in the middle stage of

her study. Anita described these new focuses of areas of analysis as ‘puddles5 she had

stepped into’. I will present a few of these ‘puddles’ that Anita recalled in vivid details.

When I interviewed her, Anita was well into the third year of her part-time studies and

had already finished collecting data. She also worked as a full time manager of a large

education project which involved training and providing support to teachers in a

number of schools in Hong Kong. Her study had grown out of a large scale Project

which her supervisor and some other collaborators had completed prior to her

enrolment in the program. Anita told me that in the original plan she intended to

investigate the language development of a group of primary students mediated by the

two different types of input provided for them and examine how the learning

environments (i.e., cooperative-learning vs. non-cooperative learning) might impact

on the development. She was only interested in the proficiency of the students and did

not plan to study the speaking and writing skills that the student developed over the

span of time. However, as she looked at the massive data she had collected, she grew

increasingly aware of the importance to analyze other aspects of the students’ learning

including their literacy skills. This awareness motivated her to start reading a lot more

than what she had planned. Anita recounted the ‘evolution’ of her research:

5
This is a Chinese idiomatic expression which is usually used to describe the experience of running
into unexpected tricky issues one needs to struggle with.
 283

Becky You said the research evolved. What did you mean?
Anita Coz initially when I designed it, the research was intended to be small scale.
Like, when I first piloted it, I tried it on something small, and actually I tried
out the entire procedure, collecting almost the same kind of data. The
outcomes turned out to be expected. And so // but we noticed that there was
massive data, which made the analysis very difficult. And so, the evolution
was//initially I imagined that I would focus more on the social dynamics but
in the process I looked at their [informants’] language development more.
And also, I hadn't expected there were so many things emerging [laughs]…

I prompted Anita to recount some of the evolving focuses of her analysis:

Anita Like, initially I looked at their oral re-telling when I did the piloting, I just
looked at the development of their oral-retelling. That part was very easy to
handle coz the data was quite straightforward. And, I did collect the data of
writing but I didn't analyze it. But, now, the weighting of my analysis is more
on the writing [italicized for emphatic purposes] bit. Like, the weighting of
my analysis on their writing development is bigger [than other bits]. And so,
what I hadn't thought about was their language performance // the linguistic
side but their // coz my project is mainly about story-writing // I thought about
only their story development // their awareness of story structure // story
grammar and stuff. Uh, it turned out that there was more than what I'd
anticipated. There are many things and I don't know what I should attend
to….
Becky Like you don't know how big the ‘puddle’ [a Chinese metaphor Anita used in
an earlier part of the interview, which means tricky area or issue] is.

I asked Anita whether the changes had in fact impacted the literature review that she

wrote in her qualifying report. She replied that it had and that the focuses of her

reading had not changed much, but the ‘stuff [she] read has turned out to be more

extensive and cover more areas – finer focuses.’ She explained:

Anita When the study developed into its third year // actually in my second year, I
discovered that there were many things to do and that the literature review I gave
though covering most areas, was // first it was not in depth and second there were
many gaps which I haven't addressed’.

She did not consider the gaps as digressions but rather new ‘puddles’ she discovered

along the way that required further investigation.

Anita So, Joan reminded me that there were this, this and this which I needed to
handle // to know. But, every time you plodded into a puddle, there might be four five
 284

areas there to handle. And so, within each area, I needed to read more. And, things
actually accumulated and there wasn't any digression. It's only that things grew more.
Yes, and what is covered is getting bigger.

I prompted Anita to give me some examples of the areas that she had delved into for

reading:

Anita Yes, there are. Like initially I was aware//coz initially I wasn't aware of the
need to take care of their story development [a genre skill]. I only wanted to look at
the language. So//but now that the study has developed into one of studying their
story development as well, I need to consider that he/she [the subject] is a second
language learner. So, what has he done [regarding story telling] in his first language?
He//he//starting at the very young age//in his primary four//possibly in his Chinese
classes he has to write stories. Or he is telling stories every day. Right? So, I need to
touch on this area. Like recently, just now I've been reading non-stop literature on
Chinese story telling. Like I'm reading things about training in story-writing for
Chinese children that is Cantonese-speaking children, what their practices are like
and also what the development is like. Coz initially I only read L1 that is literature
related to first// English native-speakers.

Anita’s case further confirms the interactions among the three processes of her

RS/RLR, DA, and WLR.

The ‘constant’ emergence of new issues could create traps for students’ RS. As such,

not only did Joan advise Anita on what she needed to read but also when to stop.

Anita Yes. Sometimes you step into one puddle, which is very big and yet very
interesting. But, Joan [Anita’s supervisor] will say to me that I need to stop coz that is
not my focus. And then I will need to redefine my focus. … Recently, I'm reading
Chinese literature and I'm reading Tse Shek Kim's works. [laughter] I don't know him.
Last heard of//I'm not sure if he's still at Hong Kong U. Anyway, he's a local person.
He works in the area of children's writing and erh new approaches to teaching
Chinese writing. I'm pursuing this line. Now, I actually plodded into this puddle of
literature. But then, Joan [Anita’s supervisor] reminds me again to stop…..

Anita recalled the frustration she experienced each time after she had seen Joan

because the latter would tell her the many holes in Anita’s literature review that she

needed to fill by doing more reading. When I asked her how she handled the
 285

frustration, Anita mentioned that it was also Joan who had helped sharing some of the

frustration as result of the harmonious supervisor-supervisee relation they had

developed from the Project, which had ‘facilitated the progress in [her] study’.

Becky So you have many gaps

Anita Many holes to fill so many that I get very frustrated every time I have seen her
[Joan]. [laughs]
Becky So, how do you handle your frustration?
Anita Frustration right? Oh, she's [Joan] very nice. I'm not sure if you need this
information. Coz my relationship with her is very//starting from my first job
with her, I had this work relationship and it has developed more into friendship
when I followed her here [this university] and also master-apprenticeship kind
of relationship more. But, we have been working with each other for a very
long time. So, we understand each other quite well. So, what she told me what
I couldn't do // whatever she tells me to do //she knows that I will be able to
take. Whatever she knows that I won't able to take, she will be very nice, she
will help me. Like she may tell me to find this and that books or this and that
persons' works. So, I find this quite helpful, facilitating the progress of my
study.

Anita had commented several times her reliance on Joan’s guidance because of the

time constraint on finding things out on her own and the fact that she was only a part

time student, which made her ‘pretty cut off’ from the intellectual environment of the

university. To her, it was really ‘a luxury to be able to maintain constant contacts with

other doctoral students or academics in the field’. Apparently, Joan had become the

major source of intellectual support for Anita.

Another student, Joshua, recalled in great detail the twists and turns of both his

research and reading, and how the two processes actually had implicated each other.

Recall that in the initial round of reading (see Section 7.1.2.1), Joshua was consulting

works that his supervisor suggested (works by prominent discourse theorists) as well

as the audience analysis literature he had acquired from his previous master studies.
 286

He had also published two working papers largely based on this body of literature.

However, well into this middle phase of study, the reading he had done since the first

year had gone through major changes. Joshua explained that the focuses of much of

his latest reading emerged from what he encountered in the various stages of his

research work, including the preparation for his interviews, observations of the

informants’ reactions in the interviews, as well as the patterns which surfaced from his

data analysis.

Remember that Joshua originally planned to study how viewers respond to one TV

genre that suggests discrimination against some ethnic minorities in Hong Kong.

However, as his research ‘rolled along’, his understanding of the topic had undergone

some major metamorphoses:

Joshua Yeah, they have changed a lot I think. They’ve changed…let’s see.
They’ve changed from looking at how different ethnicities in Hong Kong being
portrayed in various advertisements …At first, I wanted to see how they are being
portrayed. But, now coming to the end, I seem to look further in that through how
they are being portrayed, actually I think that their portrayals are reflections of // how
people in Hong Kong project their anxiety. This is like if I don’t like say blacks, I
think they’re lazy, they’re da la da da da da. It seems like they are actually reflections
of how we as local Hong Kong Chinese don’t want to be perceived as. I think they’ve
become objects we project our worst fantasies our worst anxiety our worst fears. We
don’t want to be. Yeah, because they’re already those dirty things // because they’re
those negative things. So, we don’t have to [?] those. We can be ourselves... So, it
seems that it has come back to the Hong Kong identity. …At first, I go out to look at
all these different ethnicities // people and how they’re being discriminated. They all
seem to be a [?] now.

Joshua came to realize how ‘simple’ his research hypothesis was:

Joshua It’s just a bit too simple to say, oh this is a black, and she’s being
discriminated. Oh, isn’t she sad? That kind you know kind of === it’s like she’s the
victim. We are the oppressor. So, it’s not [as such]. You know the way we
discriminate against them actually reflects our identity. Our identity is being
formulated. So, it’s much kind of dynamic, two-way, dynamic thing.
 287

Here, we see a major transformation of Joshua’s research focus from one of studying

local people’s discrimination against an ethnic group as reflected in the biased

portrayals of the group in advertisements to one of reflection of the local people’s

anxiety of ‘what they do not want to be perceived to be’. As a result, his research had

become ‘much more difficult and ... [he] had to read a lot more because of that’,

which he compared to ‘opening many many different cans of worms. [laughs]’.

One ‘can of worms’ that led Joshua to read into areas which he would not have

imagined was the contingencies arising from various stages of his research design.

As one major part of his research touched upon racial discrimination, it would be very

sensitive to discuss issues openly in settings such as focus group interviews, a

consideration which he realized shortly before the first interview:

Joshua In the lit review? The literature review I have one [chapter] for the
methodology. One to explain what's race uh what's meant by race? What's ethnicity
and what's racialization and all that. It's // it proves to be too much of a sensitive
subject. That needs elaboration. And there's so much limitation for this thesis.
Otherwise, I feel I will be prone to various sorts of attack. So, that's another worm.
And oh, I've talked about audience research. I've been reading into a lot of em that I
wasn't really // I didn't even notice until I was preparing for my first focus group
interview. It's the problem about sensitivity. Talking about race. If I invite you to my
focus group, wouldn't you be afraid //wouldn't be worried with what I'm going to do
with the data? If I say something like, oh I hate Filipinos, I hate blacks. So, how do
you reassure your // your // your participants is really quite difficult I think. But, at
the same time you really need to get the data that you want… em without cheating
them, and without being unethical. So, the ethics of this so-called covert research is
one can of worms, a small can but is equally deadly.

When I studied the literature review of the methodology draft that Joshua provided, I

also noticed a small draft section briefly arguing for the use of a covert research

strategy.
 288

Another can of methodology ‘worms’ concerned triangulation. It was a theme that

grew out of his discussion with his supervisor about his focus group interviews.

Joshua recalled the different focus group interviews that he conducted. The interviews

included informants of several ethnicities, among whom were people from X. He

explained that the group was in fact interviewed at a later stage of his research:

Joshua Like for example say when I looked at those // I actually managed to do
some focus groups with people from X later on. .. And em, the reason why I [?] did
some focus groups with these people is because I’ve got the criticism from Walter
[Joshua’s supervisor] and other people. He said that you know all your focus groups
have been done with are British you know white participants and local Chinese. You
never consulted the real ethnic people who are being [?] portrayed [italicized for
emphatic purpose]. So, I had looked into that. That’s one can of worm[s].

As a result of the comment from Walter on his unsatisfactory triangulation process,

Joshua began to read literature on the topic:

Joshua ‘I’ve looked at what’s really meant by triangulation. Umm…what sorts of

people have been using triangulation and doing what sorts of stuff // what sorts of
research have been done by using triangulation, like how I can appropriate that into
my research. And there’s a load of literature review that I needed to do there already.
That’s one can of worms.’

As I checked his methodology draft, I also noticed that the theme of triangulation

takes up one major section.

Similar to Anita and Mary’s experiences recounted earlier, the decision on reading for

triangulation actually grew out of the discussion with his supervisor, suggesting once

again that supervisors are one major source of insights for reading at various stages of

the informants’ studies. Note that what emerged from the process of Joshua’s RS was

his developing cognition about triangulation, such as its meaning, the type of scholars
 289

who employed the methodology, and the research studies done associated with the

methodology.

Joshua continued to recall other cans of worms that ‘popped up’ along his way of

analyzing the data. Originally thinking of exploring how X (the ethnic group referred

to in the first quote given on the previous page) see themselves being discriminated

against in the TV genre under study, Joshua was surprised to see that his informants

who were from the minority group did not really see themselves as being

discriminated nor oppressed. About this, Joshua said:

Joshua And when I had done the focus group with the X people, the findings were
fairly striking in the way that they didn’t really consider themselves being
discriminated against [laughs]. … So [laughs] that's like [laughs] a slap in the face.

The surprising data emerging from his focus group interviews moved him to

reformulate his original research focus and led him to think about how his informants

‘read’ the text in the genre he showed his informants and the ‘meanings’ they

generated, which in short made him query his original research question and

reformulate his hypothesis established at the outset of his research.

Joshua Like say as though I was saying that they're poor da la da la. But, all of these
seem to have come back to this interesting point which is that they have the power //
they have the agency to negotiate certain meanings of the advertisements. Like, it
doesn't mean that like my readings of [responses given by] X are being discriminated
against is not valid. And, it doesn't mean that their reading is not valid either. We're
all valid. But, it's just that things have [?] different backgrounds. It seems that text
have different meanings generated for different people. People use these texts for
their purposes. So, it seems like the agency problem is another thing. And I [?] how
do they manage to generate meanings that are meaningful to them but not to me?
 290

For this reason, Joshua felt that ‘he had to read into a load of literature for how to

explain like [his] findings coz they seem to be contradictory but at the same time it

seems to be perfectly okay’.

Note that Joshua was conscious that he would need doing some reading for the

explanation he made in the chapter in which he would discuss his findings. What is

apparent here is that Joshua’s RS was not done purely for the LR chapters. His

experience echoes what some of the informants have expressed regarding their

differentiation of reading for different sections of their thesis, a point that I will come

back to in Section 7.2.5.

Joshua then recalled that the fourth can of worms he opened was to do with the

discursive strategies his informants had in presenting themselves—‘glorifying

themselves’—during the interviews:

Joshua And then justa// I had to //after I'd done all these things, I really needed to
triangulate things like what British people say, Hong Kong people say and people of
Group X say like what they say. And… it seems like // by that time probably I needed
to look into something like discourse analysis to kind of gel it together. Like although
the contents are very different but the way they kind of self-glorify and then they kind
of condescend the others but not us. This seems to be very universal. Even if // if
you're British and you [?] Hong Kong ad and you say 'I'm not interested in Hong
Kong because they're all kind of primitive. So, the Hong Kong people is the Other
and the British there is the Us. It seems to apply the same in Hong Kong. When you
see X, they're the Other and we are the Hong Kong people. We're much better than
they are. And even if you look at X, [?] they speak much better English than [many
local people]. Erh the [local people] need to speak in Cantonese because they can't
speak English.

Joshua anticipated that this ‘self-glorifying’ would appear ‘formulaic’ and reflect a

‘certain degree of fascism’ in his interview data, which made him read into issues

relating to discursive strategy.

 291

In short, various issues grew out of Joshua’s research process, through which he

developed a critical awareness of the inadequacy of his original research design, the

need to set new directions for analysis, and the need to reformulate his hypotheses.

The issues also exerted centrifugal forces that moved Joshua away from his original

core of literature consulted earlier and at the same time created new learning spaces

for him to explore different methodological, conceptual, and theoretical terrains of his

topic.

Probably because of all these other findings that he obtained from this later stage of

the research, Joshua anticipated that the two working papers that he had published

earlier based which had cited the two discourse analysts’ theories (see Section 7.1.2.1)

would need to be condensed into the background of his literature review.

7.2.3 Refocusing

While the stories provided up till this point indicate that reading focuses emerged at

various stages of data collection and analysis, which led the students to read literature

that they had not considered in previous stages of research, Silvia recounted an

experience of revisiting some of the consulted literature with a different orientation.

Silvia related in great detail how one of her focuses of RLR was fine-tuned because of

some problems that arose in her data analysis. At the point of interview, she had

already finished a major part of her investigation, which involved a sophisticated

analysis of a group of texts and was about to embark on the second part of the study.

As mentioned before, Silvia had brought with her the knowledge of the Hallidayan
 292

systemic theory (gained while working on her M.A. thesis) and in particular some of

its theoretical constructs into her doctoral study which had bearing on her text analysis.

She even incorporated some parts of the literature review in the thesis into the annual

report that she submitted in her first year of study. Thinking that it was already a

robust theoretical framework, she went on to plan her research procedures based on

the theoretical constructs without paying much attention to their drawbacks though

she had read about and was well aware of their limitations. As her research proceeded,

however, she ran into some crucial difficulties concerning the operational definitions

of the constructs that she needed for coding her data. She reported ‘getting stuck’

there, which pushed her to revisit what she had read regarding constructs. She also re-

read some of the articles which she had read earlier regarding Halliday’s systemic

theory. However, her reading focuses had shifted from those on his theory to those

critiquing the theory.

Sylvia And also, there's one more thing which is worth mentioning … I'm not sure
if you're familiar with systemics…Actually, Halliday has a theory but it is very
controversial. Like many people question how to define // like how you analyze a
sentence into its parts. How can you define a sentence part as belonging to a certain
category according to Halliday’s theory. There're a lot of debates about his theory.
There's not much // like there're a lot of differences in the answers to these questions.
And, when I did my pilot study, the differences rang true [italicized here for emphatic
purpose]. Like when I needed to parse up clauses, I got stuck. Where should I parse
them up? Like I could categorize a part as one element and I could also categorize it
as another element. And so what should I do? Because of this process, I needed to do
extra rounds of work for my literature review. For example, my strategy was I did
one round of pilot study and then I go back to literature I’ve read. I highlight all the
confusion arising from my pilot study or things I wasn't sure. Then, I go back to
literature to see if there are similar cases [problems and contradictions] mentioned.

The re-reading episode related by Sylvia once again reminds us of what van Dijk

(1979) describes as contextual relevance in selecting one’s reading and the iterative

process of reading. Sylvia’s experience also reveals the kind of intertextual reading
 293

(Lemke 1995) that a researcher does (i.e., making connection between one findings

and earlier readings, and making sense of the findings by finding support in earlier

readings). More importantly, the experience reflects a transformed cognition of

Halliday’s theory. Her returning to Halliday’s literature reflects what Green and

Ackerman (1995) refer to as a ‘conceptual breakthrough’, a result of Sylvia’s

continual critical thinking about Halliday’s theory.

Sylvia had not only developed her knowledge of Hallidy’s theory but also an

awareness of the limitations of the theory at the outset of her reading when she came

across sources which queried the validity of some of its constructs – i.e., she had

developed a critical discourse about them. The critical discourse had apparently

existed alongside the theory, un-integrated. The fact that the controversies

surrounding Halliday’s theory had not ‘rung true’ to her suggests that Sylvia had

initially taken the theory as canonical, somewhat close to an authoritative discourse6

(Bakhtin 1981). The integration appeared to begin only when Silvia encountered

operational problems in her own data analysis. Her re-reading of the critiquing sources

and Halliday’s works brought the two discourses together, with Sylvia becoming more

critical about the theory and perhaps more so in practice, an experience that turned

Sylvia’s knowledge of the theory into an internally persuasive discourse7.

6
It is a notion borrowed from Bakhtin (1981). The authoritative discourse carries the authority. Some
examples which Bakhtin provides are religious discourse, political discourse, the word of a father. As
Bakhtin explains, ‘authoritative discourse permits no play with the context framing it, no play with its
borders, no gradual and flexible transitions, no spontaneously creative stylizing variants on it. It enters
our verbal consciousness as a compact and indivisible mass; one must either totally affirm it, or totally
reject it. It is indissolubly fused with its authority…’ (p.343)
7
The internally persuasive discourse somewhat contrasts the authoritative discourse. As Bakhtin (1981)
writes, ‘In the everyday rounds of our consciousness, the internally persuasive word is half-ours and
 294

This revisiting of works counter-claiming Halliday’s theory brought Sylvia back to

revise one of her literature review chapters accordingly:

Sylvia And then I added them into my literature review to revise it. Then, I went
for a second round of pilot study. And I discovered new problems. I went back to
literature again. And then, I looked for similar cases [problems in literature]. If I
couldn’t find any, I needed to do some speculations, like I needed to draw my own
conclusion. Like I would explain how I made my own decisions like what kind of
reasons the decisions are based. Like I would explain why I define a certain category
in my analysis. And of course I need to justify myself. And I think through this on-
going process// actually it's a process…

Several implications can be drawn from Silvia’s narrative. First, it confirms the co-

constructiveness of the three processes of RLR, WLR and DA (data analysis).

Secondly, what appears to be in the figure in the first round of reading can become the

ground at a later time, a switch that is implicated by the events emerging from DA (i.e.

Sylvia’s refocusing on the controversies in her second reading of them). Thirdly, her

awareness of the shortcomings in Halliday’s work did not ring true until she had hit a

problem in her own analysis, suggesting the possibility that a student’s critical

awareness about a theory or works read may not transform immediately into his or her

own voice until the student has a chance to interact with the theory in concrete

research experiences when the theory is put to a litmus test.

Sylvia’s epiphany reminds us of the Bakhtinian view of dialogicism in language and

text production:

The word in language is half someone else’s. It becomes “one’s own” only when the
speaker populates it with his own intentions, his own accent, when he appropriates
the word, adapting it to his own semantic and expressive intention. Prior to this

half-someone else’s ... [I]t enters into an intense interaction, a struggle with other internally persuasive
discourses. Our ideological development is just such an intense struggle within us for hegemony among
various available verbal and ideological points of view, approaches, directions and values. The
semantic structure of an internally persuasive discourse is not finite, it is open; in each of the new
contexts that dialogize it, this discourse is able to reveal ever newer ways to mean’ (pp.345-346).
 295

moment of appropriation, the word does not exist in a neutral and impersonal
language… but rather it exists in other people’s mouths, in other people’s contexts,
serving other people’s intentions: it is from there that one must take the word, and
make it one’s own (Bakhtin, 1981, pp.293-294).

Others’ critiques that had come Sylvia’s way in the process of reading were simply

‘words in other people’s mouths … and serving others’ intentions.’ They do not

become Sylvia’s own until they were populated with her own experiences, the point at

which Halliday’s theory was transformed from an authoritative discourse into an

internally persuasive discourse. The fourth implication is that critical cognition about

paradigmatic orthodoxies in part grows in situ, and this growth is afforded by the

countering evidence that emerges in one’s research.

The narratives presented in this and previous sections suggest that the research

process is indeed a dynamic one. With new problems and issues emerging, new

focuses arising, backtracking caused by false moves, and premature assumptions, the

student needs to reformulate his/her research questions and focuses, revise the

research design, and becomes more critical about what has been learned. All these

issues generate a centrifugal force, leading the student away from where he/she was

originally and moving him/her to venture into various unanticipated epistemological

domains. It is also through such an organic growth of the student’s research that

various conceptual, epistemological, and methodological themes of the topic develop

in a way that is not possibly envisaged at the outset of the study journey. It is also

such an organic growth that significantly shapes the directions of the student’s

reading. Meanwhile, coaching from supervisors is particularly crucial at these

 296

junctures. On the one hand, advice provided can ease the cognitive demands on the

students in solving the problems. On the other, these junctures provide critical

opportunities to further initiate the students further into the target disciplinary

community.

7.2.4 WLR as a micro guiding force for RLR

In the previous sections I have presented stories that suggest that major themes of RS

can be implicated by what emerges from one’s research. In this section, I will report

stories which show that RS/RLR can also be shaped by what one has produced in the

literature review.

7.2.4.1 Self-initiated RLR

Patricia related the following experience in recalling the time approaching the

submission of her Qualifying Report. The literature review she included was adapted

from the one presented in the proposal she had submitted for admission into the Ph.D.

program. In the first year of study, Patricia spent quite a lot of her time working with

her data (see Section 7.1.1.4) and had left little time for writing her literature review.

Shortly before she submitted her qualifying report, Patricia ‘started to panic’. Feeling

that she had not included enough sources in this initial literature review, she did a

somewhat ‘last-minute’ dash in searching for more sources on two of the important

themes:

Patricia What struck me most is the month before I submitted my qualifying

report, actually three months before the submission. Like I was supposed to submit
my report in July. Then in March or April, I started to panic coz I didn't know how to
 297

do it. I hadn't done much I mean I hadn't written much. Like I'd collected the data and
I'd read. And then in May and June, I started to work on my literature review. What I
did was I added some of the literature review from my proposal to that in the
qualifying report. And then I read more, and then I surfed the net and went down to
the library and searched thoroughly. And actually, before that I had already read
something on genre or discourse analysis, I'd got a little of that already coz I covered
some of these in the proposal. But then I felt that they were not enough for my
literature review [in the qualifying report]. And why? If my research had something
about genre analysis and genre X, then my literature review should include a
discussion of this area [and they were not there]. And then, I searched like crazy for
literature in these two areas. And I made a pile of photocopies of sources and read
them. And as I read along, I tag the readings with post-its.

Jiawen related a similar story of his reading being shaped by what he had written in

his literature review for his qualifying report. I asked Jiawen how he went about

writing the literature review he included in the Qualifying Report, which was to be

submitted in two weeks’ time after the interview. Jiawen told me that he started with a

‘very rough outline’ that included the headings of individual sections. At the same

time he began to sort out the notes he took during his previous months of reading. He

then went back to the outline and slotted in some authors’ works with their years of

publication into the relevant sections. As the outline was still rather sketchy, he

needed to go back to the respective sources cited for information to flesh it out.

Jiawen did not do the writing ‘in one sitting’ as he explained:

Jiawen I wrote for several days and then I found that I needed to read more about
certain areas, about certain ideas, about certain methodology or certain articles. So, I
stopped writing. I began to read and then came back to the writing. ...Yeah, when I
came to a certain point, I found that I knew so little about this writer or this idea, then
I referred to my reading notes and if I couldn’t find it, I would go to list of available
sources to see if I have article or a book available in my drawers, you know. If they're
not there, I will [sic] go to the library for that article that should be read at that point
of time. Then I will get the book or the article and then I will read it and then I will
come back to the writing task.
 298

Experiences such as Jiawen and Patricia’s were also shared by completing students

such as Florence and Yixin, who related similar stories of aligning their reading with

their WLR when submission deadlines were approaching. Florence recalled one of

her reading sprees in the second year of her study when the time came that she needed

to submit an interim report that required a literature review. She planned to write a

section on teachers’ beliefs and knowledge, which she said she ‘did not feel

comfortable with’. Because of the report, she started to read ‘frantically’ to fill her

knowledge gaps of the topic.

Florence Like my supervisor began to ask me to submit a literature review. It was in

April this last summer when I was supposed to submit a progress report in which I was
supposed to submit a literature review. And then before the submission of the annual
report, so I like started to read about the topic 'frantically' again.

Florence also recounted that her RS though on-going was most of the time rather slow

and ‘focus-less’ in the sense that it would not be directly targeted at the literature

review section. It was usually punctuated with intense RLR when a time came that

she needed to write up something.

Florence Yeah. But, during other times, I would still read but then I read quite
slowly. Efficiency would be low. Like what I have told you, I would read almost
anything in this period. I would jot down everything I read. Reading in this period is
usually not focused enough. But, like before I submit my thesis, the literature review
or other reports, then I would be very focused in my reading for the literature review.
Like I knew what I wanted and I would just take what I wanted for the literature
review.

Yixin alluded to a similar practice in the final stage of his writing when his reading

was more WLR-oriented.

Becky How far are you now in your completion of your thesis?
 299

Yixin I still have the introduction and literature review to write up, which are half
done already. … I will accordingly reconfigure the background literature
review…I'm quite clear basically… So, basically the framework is there.
And, I still have a theoretical summary, that is I am going to supply a…that
is, what you call contribute a…my own indigenous approach to the teaching
methodology, that is cultural sensitivity…[?] those concurrent issues?
These are almost done, but just need to be filled in with some cases, specific
examples to substantiate the literature, it’s just like sau sau bo bo [mending
here and there for the gaps of specific readings]. I’m still reading and found
that many people have done works in this area. It's kind of a regret [laughs],
but I'm glad to see that many new books published in 1999 which reflect
frameworks [ways of thinking] same as mine. I’m reading to see if I could
provide specific examples to substantiate the literature review a bit more.

7.2.4.2 Gate-keepers initiated RLR

Knowledge gaps in the literature review can sometimes be identified by supervisors

and panel members, through which they provide scaffolding to extend students’

reading. In a follow-up interview after he had submitted and presented his qualifying

report, Jiawen showed me some major revisions he had made in his literature review:

Becky Did you read more since you have presented your QR?
Jiawen Yeah, I // I read everything… which I mentioned here [in the revised version of
the report]. I've added another thing here.
Becky Ah, yeah. Right.
Jiawen Yeah, thirty more pages. Just imagine.
Becky Wow, that's quite a lot. This is the research design part?
Jiawen No, no, not the research design part. It's just the instruction part. [clicking and
showing different sections on the screen]. Yeah, I added this section, X. Yeah,
yeah, this part is missing actually in the original uh Qualifying Report. And uh,
there're more than perhaps more than 10 pages for this part.

Jiawen explained that his supervisor had suggested to him that he add the section that

caused him to read more on the topic.

Jiawen And also, my advisor had advised me to make a detailed uh, a list of all of
those // uh//uh strengths and weaknesses instructional research. There is a lot of
research concerning the effects of different types of instruction. But, there're some
strengths and weaknesses in each research design. So, my advisor advised me to // to
make a detailed list of all those [strengths and weaknesses]. And here's the list [Qn
showed me a table tabulating the strengths and weaknesses of the research he reviews
in that section of the literature review], yeah, the list of flaws [?] in that type of
instructional type of research. And I have to make a list of considerations of all those
 300

flaws and or how to avoid them in my own research, like research settings, research
design, measurement, and flaws in their analyses also results.

Jiawen went back to the literature on instructional research studies and re-read for

their strengths and weaknesses.

Jiawen So, all these are the flaws I have detected by myself and by some other
researchers. Yeah, so all these flaws should be avoided in future research. Yeah…

In a similar vein, Florence related her searches for sources as a response to a comment

made by a panel member on a gap in her literature review in a progress report that she

presented as a requirement to qualify her as a Ph.D candidate in her second year of

studies.

Florence mmm.. I needed to look for empirical studies. Like I made my

presentation, one of the professors on the panel queried my literature review,
commenting that there were not many studies surveyed in my literature review. And
I said, this is the selling point [of my study]. There aren't that many studies done.
But, he said there should be quite a few like studies of teacher education. And so, in
the summer last year, when I had more time to read, I was able to dig up more
studies. There were only a few more, not many more, which I added.

The narratives presented in this section suggest that the literature review is not just a

written product to be included in the thesis; it actually plays a crucial function of

crystallizing for the students what they have read, and provides a ‘heuristic form’

(Spivey 1990) or in van Dijk’s term (1977) a macro semantic structure8 for the writer

as well as the gate-keeper to identify gaps of knowledge. In this sense, WLR generates

a local centripetal force that guides the student to read specific sources on

8
Drawing the notion on works by Bierwisc (1965), van Dijk and his colleague Kintsch developed the
construct of macro structure to refer to the semantic composition in discourses. They are ‘assumed to be
semantic structures of discourse whose meaning and reference is defined in terms of their constituents’
meanings. Just as the value of a sentence is a function of its predicates, arguments, and operators,
similarly the meaning of macro-structures is a function of the meaning and reference of the constituent
propositions of the explicit text base and the relations between those propositions.’ (van Dijk 1977, p.7)
 301

preconceived themes primarily to substantiate claims made in the review. This kind of

reading also finds resonance in what Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) describe as a

‘two-way interaction between continuously developing knowledge and a continuously

developing text’ (p.12). Though the narratives do not provide information about

whether the students actually took this reading process as a way to develop their

cognition about the themes, it is suspected that such could be the case, though it might

not be the primary intention of WLR.

The narratives also provide some answers to the questions raised in Chapter 5

regarding the co-constructiveness of RS, RLR and WLR, i.e., how the three processes

inform and constrain each other. The reading at the outset of one’s research journey

provides materials for the later process of WLR, and it is the WLR which eventually

provides the controlling ideas that shape and fine-tune RLR.

RLR does not occur constantly. It becomes most marked when the student is

intensively drafting the LR. In the stories related so far, reading in the initial stage of

study and at some other stages was less directed at the prospective literature review.

Some had at most only tried to be strategic with their reading by aligning it with their

reviews (e.g., Rebecca and Liza). While some of the reading done may eventually be

cited in their literature reviews, finding one’s research focus, learning, and mapping

out the conceptual terrains of one’s research topic appear to be the overriding

concerns as some of the students recalled. Marjorie considered the process to be both

for learning and for collecting materials for her literature review:
 302

Becky When you did your reading, did you envisage that your reading will
eventually become part of your literature review? Or did you have another
intention in mind?
Marjorie I think I had the first intention and at the same time the reading will give
me more ideas. Like what I said, I'm now reading autobiographies and
stories. I hope these can give me some ideas to inform my own
methodology and to see how others present. So, it is not just for my
literature review but to inform my own // how I should proceed with my
work ahead.

Patricia described how she learned about the practices of the disciplines in which the

genre she was analyzing was situated.

Becky Would it be that you intended to learn something when reading?

Partricia Yes, it would. Like you would gain more understanding of the topic. Like
though I haven't read that much, I still read some documents published in
the discipline of X to see what they talk about X. Yes, I need to know a
bit of that [discipline]. And also, I'm not sure if this is appropriate to say
this. Like//like/like in the initial stage, I haven't read that much literature
or written that much for my literature review, in my second year coz I
need to understand //gain some knowledge of the 5 disciplines [related to
J's study]. Actually, I have read a lot of textbooks of those five disciplines
instead of reading very traditional literature to my general area of
research [discourse analysis]. I read a lot of textbooks of the disciplines to
see how they talk about their disciplines.

Likewise Jiawen recalled:

Jiawen ‘Uh, in the first year of reading, well, I was preoccupied with the topic I was
going to work on, [Becky: like ‘learning about the topic] Yeah, yeah. Reading for a
topic. Like, what I'm going to work on in the coming two years to [?] the degree.
[laughs]’.

Jiawen’s preoccupation with learning about the topic and his research in general can

be reflected in a Word document that he showed me in the second interview. The file

contained an assortment of notes taken from his reading done in his first year of study.

The notes were primarily concerned with different issues relating to his topic but did

not show any particular macro-semantic structure (van Dijk 1977) or any specific

thematic-grouping that appeared to be readily transferable to his literature review.

 303

Jiawen Yeah, yeah. Now, I have more than 128 pages now of my notes. I have
mentioned all those the articles and writers I have read about. I have read about 81
authors or researchers' articles. Some are of them are edited books. … It's just a
document that records all the articles I have already read. Yeah, uh, for example,
[rolling down the screen for examples], SLA readings. I've kept very detailed notes
about teaching articles, the methodology, the theoretical claim, the theoretical
background, and it's analysis, and its findings, and problems in learners' studies and
its discussions. So, I have kept detailed uh // in this document I have kept very
detailed notes of everything that may be important in that article and that may be
important for future research. …

To Jiawen, the folder is only a resource file for different purposes, one of which was

the writing of his qualifying report.

Jiawen For example, if I happen to // if I think these three persons [pointing

to some authors on the screen] may tell how to develop a framework concerning a
social variable, but I don't know // but I do not know the idea in great detail, then I
will check this document to see // but this article is quite familiar to me. So, I do not
keep great details. But, for some unfamiliar writers, I will keep greater details. For
example, which journal, which year and what the issue number, and the page
numbers so that I will go back to. I don't have to go back to the journal, I go back to
// I go back another document to see if I happen to have got this article or not. This
is a document what resources I have already got on hand // I have already got
photocopies printed. … When I wrote my qualifying report, I came back to this
document very frequently. Yeah, yeah. This is the document I came back to most
frequently when I was writing up the qualifying report.

In short, what I want to highlight from the themed narratives in this section is the

postulation that WLR is a local RLR guiding force, which exerts its influence on RLR

most markedly when a deadline for submitting an LR approaches. The type of RLR

during the writing period is done mostly based on the ‘gaps’ in the literature review.

Other times, WLR and RLR (and reading for other sections to be discussed later)

dissolve into the background when RS (for one’s research methodology, conceptual

tools, and clarification of one’s understanding) takes over. In other words, one is not

primarily preoccupied by producing a literature review when reading. However, the

fact that WLR exerts a centripetal force on one’s RLR (a secondary function) suggests
 304

the need to produce an LR to create a monitoring mechanism to guide and constrain

the reading or else one will fall in the possible trap of doing infinite reading.

7.2.5 Reading for non-LR chapters

In Section 7.2.3.2, I have provided Joshua’s narrative of how he had developed new

themes of reading, which he eventually wrote about in his methodology section (e.g.,

triangulation, conducting covert research) and the section of interpretation of findings

(i.e., issues related to agency, self-glorifying, and discursive strategy). The narrative

suggests that the purpose of RS becomes differentiated into reading for non-LR

chapters (methodology and discussion) at various stages of research development. As

also indicated in the narrative presented in Section 7.1.2.1, Jiawen started his

methodology reading at a very early stage prior to his QR submission. He also began

his conception –however preliminary it might be–about his discussion chapter in

the same period. In the same follow-up interview reported in Section 7.2.4.4, Jiawen

showed me another folder of notes that he had just started developing after the

submission of his qualifying report. He explained that the folder mainly carried

information that he would cite in his discussion section though he had not yet started

writing it.

Jiawen Actually, …[clicking open another folder]. Now, this is another way of
keeping notes. I, you know, when I am reading randomly, or extensively. Uh,
some ideas may just come // uh// occur to me. And then I just keep notes uh
in this way [in word doc files] so that I would incorporate them into my
discussion part.
Becky Discussion?
Jiawen Discussion part in my dissertation. You know, I haven't come to that part. I
have not yet done my experiment. But, I think some of the ideas may be
useful in the discussion part. Of course, all of them will be discussed [in the
literature review?] but some of them will be incorporated in the discussion
 305

part. So, I'm // I keep notes // I//put them into these documents as a way for
insights when I'm discussing the results.

I prompted him to tell me when he actually developed the folder.

Becky In other words, when you're doing your reading, you're actually organizing
your reading your ideas according to the ideas you read according to the
different compartments of your thesis.
Jiawen Yeah.
Becky Did this strategy occur to you in the first year of your reading?
Jiawen No, no. Uh, in the first year of reading, well, I was preoccupied with the
topic I was going to work on ===
Becky Learning about the topic.
Jiawen Yeah, yeah. Reading for a topic. Like, what I'm going to work on in the
coming two years to [?] the degree. [laughs]
Becky You're now better at it. You're organizing your reading according to the
chapters.
Jiawen Yeah, yeah. [laughs]
Jiawen Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's really a time thing, I think.

Patricia also revealed her concern for what to cite in her discussion section, though

she was only in her second year of study when she was interviewed. She expressed

earlier in the interview that she was not particularly worried about her literature

reviewing at the stage of her study, believing that what she wrote in her literature

review section would not be anything ‘exciting’ for the examiners and that they

‘would already know all the stuff [she would cite]’. However, she mentioned three

times at separate points of the interview the literature review that she would write in

her discussion section. She commented, ‘I would prefer to put all the good stuff

[literature] in the discussion section.’ This concern with the discussion section re-

emerged when Patricia described how she would go about reading a research article.

Patricia I would go to the lit review part to see if anything there can go into my
own lit review coz for the methodology part, I only need to skim through it and I
know how the research had been conducted and also the author's methodology may
not be the same as mine. Yes, so basically methodology// I will also read the
discussion to see how it is written.
 306

One of the reasons that Patricia alluded to for her concern about the discussion section

was the large amount of work she needed to do when she reached the stage of thesis-

writing.

Patricia Eventually they [readings] would go into my thesis but they may not
necessarily go into the literature review section. I may put them in the
discussion section. That means when I need to do my data analysis, the
things I've read can be used to support // or how to do [the analysis]. This
is one way to pave the way for a later stage so that it'll involve less work
by then.
Becky In other words, in the process of reading, you're also calculating that this
part of my reading may go to the literature review and that goes into the
discussion section.
Patricia Yeah.…

It needs to be noted that the narratives described so far provide only a tentative

representation of reading for the methodology chapter (RM) and reading for the

discussion chapter (RD). Details about the informants’ concern with the discussion

chapter are limited as they are not the main focus of the present study. However, as

the narratives suggest, students do start reading for other non-LR chapters in the initial

and middle stages of their work. More research can be conducted to examine the

practice of RM and RD.

7.2.6 Section Summary

As speculated in Chapter 5, the three processes of reading (RS/RLR/RD), WLR, and

data analysis are not distinct processes nor do they necessarily proceed in a sequential

manner as they are presented in a thesis. This speculation is borne out by the

narratives presented in this chapter. As the students’ experiences tell us, what one

reads and what is deemed to be relevant in one’s reading depends very much on the
 307

on-going writing as well as on-going research work one is engaged in. At certain

points of the study development, the three processes can be enmeshed with each other

in that they occur synchronically, and in that development in one process guides or

constrains that in the other two in their characteristic ways. As the stories of the

informants reveal, one’s data analysis may:

• generate new focuses of research;

• develop constraints on the student’s research and inform him/her what is

possible or not as research directions;

• produce insights informing the student’s false assumptions and premature

hypotheses or research questions, and hence their reformulations;

• foster the student’s understanding and critical awareness of the theoretical

framework employed; and

• reveal methodological loopholes and other issues which call for remediation.

These new focuses, insights, and methodological issues become some principal

shaping forces in developing new themes for reading, which in turn impact on the

themes and issues discussed in the respective sections (i.e. literature review,

methodology, and discussion of findings) of the developing thesis. As Sylvia

commented,

Like it's through the process of doing your data collection or analysis that you come
to realize what is possible and what is not. And when something is not possible, then
you need to change [research] to something else and like there're a lot of revisions to
the literature review.
 308

In other words, one cannot possibly predict what he/she needs to read and write

exactly at the outset of the research study, though with some guidance and previous

knowledge about the topic, certain themes may seem apparent.

Meanwhile, RLR can also be implicated by WLR, which forms local shaping forces

that guide the reading especially during periods of intensive writing. It provides a

heuristic form that reflects minor gaps to fill in one’s reading. Reading in this sense is

the most RLR-marked. WLR also forms a useful mechanism in constraining what

one needs to read further (which may be likely the case for the writing of the other

sections). In the absence of this product – no matter how tentative and sketchy it

might be, reading can become an infinite process, as there are forever new issues one

needs to pay heed to, read about, and learn about concerning one’s research. As

Marjorie put it,

The biggest impression I've got from this process [reading] is that there's no shore to
the sea of study [a Chinese idiom to mean that there’s no end to one’s learning]. I
realized that there're so many things I don't know. Like if you just talk about life
history or autobiographies [an area which Marjorie was reading at the moment], I
thought it was just like writing journals. And also, the process is also shaping my
writing style. Like when I was doing the reading, I noticed that so this is how you can
present your data. Uh, in the future, I think I might also try this out. But this kind of
influence is not as big. But, I think I have this intention i.e., to see how others write.

It is easy for the student to fly off at a ‘tangent’ and to become distracted by the ever

growing body of literature, one’s curiosity about the fascinating knowledge, theories,

methodology found in one’s reading, or as in Marjorie case, even the desire to learn

about ‘how you can present your data’. Thus, how much one should read depends, as

informant Mary commented, depends on ‘how deep [the various knowledge domains
 309

relating to one’s research] you want to go into’. There needs to be some mechanisms

to constrain one’s reading. As the stories narratives outlined here suggest, one such

mechanism is the writing of the LR and the other is monitoring of the supervisor.

7.3 Exigencies of RS and RLR

The second part of the thesis explores how a group of doctoral students negotiated the

selection of references and focuses of reading for their theses and in particular for

their literature reviews. The narratives provided in this chapter reveal that at different

stages of their studies, the student informants were engaged in reading for various

purposes. In the initial stage, most of the students reviewed literature to gain some

preliminary understanding about the research topics and the methodological traditions

involved in the area and/or the theoretical frameworks which could inform their

research. Reading at this stage was not the most fruitful to some students as a result of

various ‘false starts’ that led them to formulate ineffective controlling focuses of

reviewing. Once they started their research process (e.g., pilot studying, data

collection and data analysis), reading became much more oriented with issues

emerging from their own research. These issues created various technical exigencies

which called for reading of specific themes and consulting particular types of sources

to fine-tune one’s understanding of the theoretical frameworks, revising research

procedures, and clarifying improperly operationalized concepts, metalanguage, or

theories to describe or interpret data. These issues formed major centrifugal forces that

drew the students away from the core literature or controlling themes reviewed earlier.

They also made some of the students grow more critical about their early assumptions,
 310

the literature they read, and the work they had produced. RS is most marked in these

two stages of their study journeys. In other words, reading during this period did not

aim at any specific sections of their theses, though writing of the sections eventually

drew on the materials reviewed at this stage.

RLR became most marked and most intensive when the students embarked on their

WLR and, as some informants recalled, especially when the deadlines of some major

qualifying documents approached (e.g. qualifying report, the thesis). The LRs that

they produced revealed various minor gaps of information, calling for reading for

specific details and/or specific source types. As recalled by informants who had

completed their theses, RLR at the final stage of their studies was done to update

citations in their literature reviews. The gaps were identified by the student themselves

and sometimes by their gate-keepers, such as supervisors or panel members. The co-

construction of RS, Research processes (data collection, analysis, and interpretation),

RLR and reading for other sections (e.g., methodology—RM and reading for

discussion—RD) of the thesis, are diagrammatically represented in Figure 7.1 (see

p.311). The boxes framed with solid lines signify the processes focused on in the

present study. Boxes bordered with dotted lines refer to those processes which fall

outside of the present study. The arrow heads indicate the direction of implication of

the processes with double arrow-heads meaning two-way implication. For instance, as

the arrows indicate, RS and the research process co-construct each other whereas the

writing of the LR and the reading for the RLR are also co-constrained in significant

ways.
 311

Figure 7.1 a schematic representation of the relations among RS, RLR and other processes

Guided participation (supervisors, panel members, examiners & other

external experts)

RS
Writing, reviewing Discussing
and revising specific the RD
parts of the thesis findings

Research Reporting
processes findings

Writing of the |Writing of the

LR Methodology

RLR RM

Legitimate peripheral participation in the field (as a practicing academic, a

vocational practitioner, a research assistant, a former master student)

It needs to be noted that the schematic representation only summarizes how in general

the reading (RS/RLR), WLR, and research processes may proceed and co-implicate

each other. It also aims at showing that these processes are embedded in a social

milieu (at the macro- and also the micro-levels), which exerts equal forces in shaping

what students choose to read. The diagram however is by no means to drive out the

situated and concrete complexities involved in the negotiation of RS and RLR each

individual doctoral student experiences as has been borne out by the idiosyncratic

stories related in this chapter.

 312

The narratives also reveal that cognition of what themes to read and whose works to

read also develops as a result of situated learning. Most of the informants recounted

developing their strategic awareness of what to read for their theses and LR chapters

through guided participation in their thesis-making. The guided participation was

situated within the more macro initiation activity in which the students came to learn

about the discipline-specific paradigms (i.e., epistemological, theoretical, conceptual,

and methodological issues most related to their studies). The initiation was provided

primarily by an intrinsic network of people, consisting of the student’s supervisor and

occasionally members sitting on the thesis-advisory panel. In several cases in which

the supervisors’ expertise did not match the students’ research topics, members of

extrinsic networks would be consulted. These were people with whom the student

came into contact during peripheral participation in such academic activities as

conferences and seminars.

A few of the students had developed their initial knowledge of what to read through

prior or current work experience in various capacities (e.g., research assistants in

supervisors’ projects, practicing academics or teaching practitioners), which afforded

them the opportunities to learn what to read. Some had gained some familiarity with

what the phenomenon under study or the topic might involve because of their

extended exposure to the phenomenon as part of their work. Some had developed their

schema of the key figures and key sources for reviewing as a result of constant

immersion in the field and also contacts with some of the authors. These social forces
 313

shaping RS, RLR, RM, and RD are represented as an outer layer of the context of

thesis-making in Figure 7.1.

 314

Chapter 8 Conclusion

Research into thesis-writing theses began about a decade ago. However, theorizing

and investigation of the task of literature reviewing to date is still underdeveloped.

One possible reason for the lack of attention is captured wittily and quite rightly by

Swales and Feaks’ remark in English in Today’s Research World (2000):

The LR as part of a research paper, proposal, thesis, or dissertation is often thought of

as being a boring but necessary chore. Such LRs are often criticized but are rarely
praised. After all, one rarely hears comments such as “The most brilliant part of your
thesis was the literature review”! (Swales & Feak 2000, p. 16)

The scarcity of research can also be attributed to the length of the genre, which is

always a central concern in thesis studies. The present study is an attempt to fill the

theoretical and research void. As discussed in the introductory chapter, one of the

goals of this thesis is to establish some theoretical groundwork for the present and

future research into the task of literature reviewing. At the macro level, the

groundwork has been built around a theoretical nexus connecting the product and the

process views of the notion of genre. The product view is developed primarily from

the Swalesian (1990) consideration of genre as a group of texts sharing similar

features including their communicative purposes and rhetorical organization. Research

premised on this view primarily takes characterizing textual properties as the main

goal of analysis. The process view on the other hand considers genres as ‘typified

social responses to recurring situations’ (Miller 1984). The process analyst is

concerned with how texts of a genre are instantiated and in particular how local social
 315

milieu contributes to their instantiation (Brandt 1990; Bhatia 1991, 2004). The two

theoretical assumptions of genre are often dichotomized and pursued separately with

the product (strong text) view usually adopted in analyses conducted within the field

of EAP while the process view of genre enjoys wider currency in the field of New

Rhetoric studies. One of the major contentions developed in this thesis is that the

product-process dichotomy may not necessarily be productive in conceiving studies

which seek pedagogical implications. In fact, there have been increasing calls to

integrate the two approaches in studies of various professional genres (see Devitt 1993;

Bhatia 2004).

Bringing together the above two theoretical conceptions of genre, this present study

examines one textual and one process aspects of literature reviewing. The textual

analysis, also called the thin analysis, investigates the schematic patterns of literature

review chapters in the ILrMRD thesis. Given the length and extensive discussion in

most LR chapters, schematic patterns identified in this study can provide useful

reference for students to organize and develop arguments therein. The process

analysis, referred to as the thick analysis, examines how doctoral students choose the

literature for reviewing. This focus has been motivated by the challenges which

students need to face when reading for their studies (RS) and the reading for their

literature review chapters (RLR). One central question often asked by doctoral

students is ‘What should be reviewed theme-wise and author-wise?’ With the ever-

growing body of academic literature and its accessibility enhanced by library

information technology, the question has been made all the more difficult to answer.
 316

The thick analysis thus considers the events that implicate students’ choices of reading

at various junctures of their studies. In particular, it explicates how the selection of

literature for reviewing in RS and RLR is implicated by the technical (research /

writing) and the social exigencies which emerge in the doctoral journey.

This closing chapter discusses some of the major findings generated in the thin and

the thick analyses and considers how they contribute to the existing understanding of

literature reviewing. It also provides suggestions for both students and supervisors in

tackling and supervising RS and RLR by drawing on the insights gained from the

study. The chapter ends with a note on how the theoretical perspectives adopted for

and developed herein can be extended to research into other aspects of literature

reviewing as well as other parts of the doctoral thesis.

8.1 Some major contributions made to the understanding of LRs

8.1.1 The schematic pattern of LRs

The thin analysis presented in Chapters 2 to 5 is premised on two theoretical

assumptions. The first assumption is that LRs and Introductions in ILrMRD theses

share similar rhetorical purposes. This leads to the second assumption that the two

part-genres may display similar move structures. The CARS model and especially

that posited by Bunton (2002) for thesis introductions was employed as the starting

framework to identify the move patterns in the LR texts drawn from 20 theses

produced by a group of Chinese doctoral students based in Hong Kong. It was found

that at the chapter level, many of the LR texts display an Introduction-Body-

 317

Conclusion structure, which is absent in Bunton’s description of thesis introductions.

The body part of most of the LR chapters is divided into thematic sections, many of

which display move structures and move elements which resemble those described in

Bunton’s model.

There are, nonetheless, differences between what are represented in the model and

what emerge in the corpus. First, none of the 3 moves identified in the corpus is

obligatory1. Second, both Moves 1 and 2 figure more frequently than Move 3, and are

thus considered to be moves of strong preference. The high preponderance of Moves

1-2 pairing in the corpus implies that the pattern is more representative of the move

structure of the thematic units. Third, elements within each of the three moves were

also found to be optional only and do not display any fixed sequential pattern, and as

such these elements can only be considered to be strategies. Fourth, three niche-

creating strategies which were not accounted for in previous CARS studies were

identified in a notable number of the Move 2 instances. The strategies are Making

confirmative claims, Relevancy-claiming, and Abstracting/synthesizing theoretical

frameworks / positions.

Taken together, the findings call for a separate scheme to describe the thematic units

found in the LR chapters, which I have posited in Chapter and I will revisit here (see

Figure 8.1 on the following page). It needs to be stressed that the schematic pattern is

posited for LRs in theses on topics of social sciences and humanities. It may not

1
See Section 2.2.3.2 in Chapter 2 (p.56) for the definition of the obligatory and optional statuses of
moves and move elements.
 318

necessarily represent LRs in theses of hard disciplines such as chemistry, physics, and

engineering.

Figure 8.1 A prototypical schematic pattern of thematic sections in the LR chapter

Move 1 (strong preference)
Strategy A (strong preference)
Strategy B (strong preference)
Strategy C
Move 2(strong preference)
Strategy A (strong preference)
Strategy B
Strategy C
Strategy D
Strategy E
Strategy F
Move 3 (weak preference)
Strategy A (strong preference)
Strategy B (strong preference)
Strategy C
*Optional post-strategy
element
Establishing one part of the territory of one’s own research by
z Surveying non-research-fronted practices or knowledge claims
z Claiming centrality of the theme
z Surveying research activities
Creating a research niche by responding to Move 1
z Making counter claims
z Indicating gaps
z Confirming strengths
z Synthesizing a theoretical framework (or position)
z Claiming relevancy
z Question-raising
Occupying the research niche by responding to Move 2
z Announcing targets of investigation (+*)
z Announcing theoretical framework / position (+ *)
z Announcing research design (+*)
Justifying or claiming contributions of claims announced

8.1.2 Accessing literature for RS and RLR

Premised on the co-constructivist assumption about reading, writing, research acts as

posited by composing theorists and anecdotal accounts offered in research-writing

studies, the thick analysis discussed in Chapters 6 and 7 examines how technical

events such as WLR and research activities may implicate the development of RS and

RLR. This assumption is primarily cognitive in its orientation, which acknowledges

doctoral students’ agency in making their own decisions for what to read and what to

cite. This investigation is complemented by an exploration of the social exigencies

involved in literature reviewing. It is underpinned by social constructivist theory and

in particular situated learning theory, which postulate that knowledge and discursive

practices are shaped at both the sociological and social levels. As such, the thick
 319

analysis also considers how cognition of what constitutes major reading develops by

taking into consideration the social milieu in which doctoral students carry out their

research studies and in particular their legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) in

various academic activities and guided participation (GP) in their thesis-taking.

This dual-approach (cognitive and socio-cognitive) to conceptualizations of literacy

practices is seldom pursued in thesis or EAP research in general. However, as it has

been argued in Chapter 1, such a nexus is necessary for the present investigation into

literature reviewing as it could afford a broader perspective to examine the complex

experiential terrains of this specialized practice as borne out by the stories related in

the previous chapter.

The thick analysis involved a group of 16 Chinese student informants, and stories of

their RS and RLR were collected. As the accounts reveal, many of the subject

informants developed their cognition of what they needed to read (e.g., themes,

specific authors, specific sources, and specific theoretical frameworks) while working

on the other parts of their studies, including the pilot studies, data collection, data

analysis, and drafting of the literature review chapters in major official documents

such as the proposal, the qualifying report, and the thesis.

The stories also suggest that literature reviewing served different purposes at various

stages of the informants’ study journeys. Most of the students began the task as RS

through which they gained preliminary knowledge about their areas of research that
 320

includes conceptual frameworks and methodological concerns characteristic of their

fields of studies. Reading was also done to fine-tune research focuses and in some

cases to inform the research design in general. Reading at this stage was the least

focused, which only began to resolve at the commencement of various research

activities such as pilot studies, data collection, and data analysis. The focus refinement

was gradually implicated by various exigencies arising from different parts of the

research activities, in which some of the students came to realize their immaturely

formulated hypotheses, inadequacy in theoretical postulation, poorly-operationalized

constructs, lack of technical knowledge or lack of technical linguistic repertoire.

Realization of these limitations pushed some of the students to become critical about

their own research while forcing them to read into specific themes and consult more

literature. It can be said that these exigencies became major forces steering the

students away from the core literature or controlling themes they had reviewed earlier.

RS of the types was most marked during the first and the second stages of their studies.

RLR became the most marked and most intensive when institution-imposed deadlines

of submission of major qualifying documents approached. The LRs the students

produced at during this period were useful ‘heuristic’ forms which helped them to

identify minor gaps of information that necessitated further reading for specific details.

To the completing or graduated students, RLR during the final stage (Stage 3) also

served the purpose of updating information and citations in their LR drafts.

 321

Knowledge of what to read also flowed from experienced members in the fields of the

students’ studies through guided participation in various parts of the students’ research

studies. These experienced members were primarily the students’ supervisors and

occasionally panel members, who monitored the study progress made by the students.

Many students reported receiving reading lists from their supervisors during the initial

stage (mostly during the first few months) of their studies. Some students recalled

receiving specific instruction for reading while they were discussing their research

progress or written outputs with their supervisors or panel members at various stages

of their studies. These stories suggest the importance of the students’ interim written

products as springboards for specific literature reviewing supervision.

Three students recounted learning about crucial sources and names of key authors for

their RS through experts whom they met in conferences, workshops, scholarly visits

to the students’ departments, or during legitimate peripheral participation in the

supervisor’s Project. These informal links form what Kaufer & Geisler (1989) refer to

as extrinsic networks. In all three cases which involved LPP, the students played a

proactive role and initiated communication with the scholars. In two of the three cases,

the students needed to seek advice from external scholars because of the mismatch

between their supervisors’ expertise and the subject matters of their studies. In short,

the stories reported in the thick analysis of the study reflect the highly social nature of

the RS and RLR processes and suggest the importance of supervisors and experienced

members of the field as key mediators in initiating students into the paradigms of their

fields of studies.
 322

8.2 Pedagogical implications

Knowledge about the task of reviewing the literature has thus far remained tacit and

nebulous. While much has been known regarding its aims, library searches and note-

taking, little is said how the part of the thesis is organized (Swales & Lindemann

2002) and much less is known about how RS and RLR proceed, which makes the

part-genre and the two processes particularly defying for teaching and learning. In this

section, I will discuss how some of the findings generated in the study can be turned

into useful insights for students, supervisors and EAP instructors2. I will first outline

what students can do when negotiating their RS and RLR, and what supervisors can

do in facilitating the negotiation for their students. I will then briefly consider how the

schematic patterns of LRs as identified in the thin analysis can be applied in LR-

writing instruction.

2
As the texts analyzed were produced by NNS Chinese in Hong Kong and the stories were collected
from informants chosen from the same population, pedagogical implications which can be drawn from
the thin and thick analyses may only be said to be applicable to analogous student populations.
However, as far as the findings of another separate study (Kwan in press) of LR texts produced by NS
show, there appear very few noticeable differences between the move structures identified in both
groups of texts. As such, I believe that implications generated from the thin analysis should be
applicable to LR texts produced by NNS and NS students. Likewise, the pedagogical implications
drawn from the thick analysis should equally be applicable to NS and NNS students as the part of the
study did not address issues which are only unique to NNS students. The technical contingencies
emerging from the progress of one’s research as well as the social forces arising from interactions with
supervisors and non-supervisors (i.e., members of the intrinsic and the extrinsic networks) are believed
to exist in RS and RLR for both the NS and NNS students. My contention is that the line should not be
drawn between the NS and the NNS groupings but rather between disciplines (e.g., physical sciences as
distinct from sociology or anthropology). Nevertheless, these contentions need to be confirmed with
empirical accounts (see Section 8.3 for what further studies are needed for validation of the claims
made here and in the thesis in general).
 323

8.2.1 Negotiating RS and RLR

Stories presented in Chapter 7 are illuminating in that they reveal what students and

supervisors can do to facilitate RS and RLR.

8.2.1.1 Some macro areas of reading

Both the thin and the thick analyses point to the following major domains of

knowledge which students need to gain through their reading and which can be

discussed in their literature review chapters.

Terminology

Explanations of technical concepts and terminology make up one major category of

propositional content of the LR texts analyzed, which suggests that while reading,

students need to pay special attention to the terms and concepts which will be invoked

and/or operationalize in their studies.

Non-research phenomena or non-research practices under investigation

Many applied studies conducted in the humanities and social sciences are related to

non-research-oriented phenomena or some non-research practices. This at least was

the case as revealed in the thin analysis of the LR texts with non-research practices

making up one prominent type of propositional content of Strategy 1.A Making topical

generalizations and Strategy 1.B Centrality claiming and (e.g., poverty in low cost

housing estates, parenting, academic literacy practices, cross-cultural communication,

physical exercise, unionization, board governance, curriculum design, assessment,

 324

language acquisition, etc.). This observation implies that students whose topics fall

into one of the types need to gain and hence read for some essential background

understanding about the characteristics of the phenomenon or practice under

investigation. When reading, they can seek preliminary answers to the following

questions which are addressed in many of the LR texts analyzed.

For phenomena

z What is the phenomenon like?

z What are some of its characteristics?

z What do people know about these characteristics?

z What could be the cause of the phenomenon?

z If the phenomenon warrants actions/intervention, what actions have been taken

about the phenomenon?

For practices

z How is the practice realized?

z What are some major characteristics of the practice?

z How much and what is known about the practice?

z What motivate the practice?

z How do the community or stakeholders view and interpret the practice?

z If the practice warrants actions/intervention, what actions have been taken about the

practice ?
 325

Answers to these questions can be sought from both research publications (e.g.,

monographs, research articles) and non-research literature (e.g., manuals, government

reports). While the research literature can provide some empirical facts about the

phenomenon or practices, discussions in non-research sources can augment with

theoretical and practical insights, which can help students maintain a balanced

knowledge about the topic (see also the next section on reading for theories).

Theories

As findings in the thin analysis and the thick analysis suggest, theories also form one

core theme of reading and discussion in the LRs studied. The types of theory

identified in the present study cover quite well those illustrated in Creswell’s (1998)

definition of theory which include

z epistemological assumptions (theoretical assumptions about how the object of

study should be investigated, e.g., empiricism, phenomenology, positivism,

natural observation, clinical testing, etc.)

z ontological assumptions (some general assumptions about the ‘real’ nature or

‘assumed’ nature of human experiences and behavior in grand theories, e.g.,

statistically decided nature of poverty, the socially constructed nature of

‘poverty’ or poverty as lived experiences)

z ideological stances (what are some of the political orientations and reasons

which the researcher have for the doing the research, e.g., feminism, critical

research to unveil oppression or marginalization and to emancipate the

oppressed and the marginalized)

 326

z refined “theories” (Flinders & Mills, 1993) such as models, propositions and

hypotheses about the object of studies (e.g., different models developed to

explain what constitutes stress; the reflection hypothesis in communication

studies; hypotheses about backwash effects, etc.)

The list may provide a starting taxonomy for students to refer to when considering

reading for theories to inform various levels of their studies. Though a bigger number

of theories identified in the thin analysis belong to the refined types, it does not mean

that students do not need to gain some understanding of the theoretical orientations at

the more general and macro levels (i.e., epistemology and ontology) as they equally

influence their research design and interpretation of findings.

Research in the field

Though review of research studies does not make up one major strategy as observed

in the thin analysis, it does appear in some of the literature reviews while findings of

research studies are sometimes cited to highlight the updated knowledge about the

topic under investigation. Students therefore need to be aware of the types and

specific research studies that have been conducted in their fields and particularly that

which has some relevance to their own research. Students need to pay special

attention to the focuses, the contexts, the subjects, the research design and outcomes

of the studies, from which they can learn about the research protocols as followed by

members of their disciplines and at the same time the knowledge about the topic
 327

generated from the studies, both of which can inform their own research studies and

can be later cited in their literature review chapters3.

Students also need to consult specialized literature regarding the general types of

research methodology (e.g., quantitative research, phenomenology, qualitative

research, narrative inquiry, ethnographic inquiry, field studies, grounded theory, case

studies, triangulation, action research; see also the section on Theories discussed

above) and their associated specific research techniques (e.g., statistical analysis,

focus group interviews, subject sampling, participant observation, document analysis)

that can lend to their own research or that tend to be adopted by researchers in the

field.

Reading for implications for the research and the literature review chapter

When doing reading to gain knowledge of the above domains, students also need to

think ahead and form tentative plans for how the gained knowledge can apply to their

own research design and writing the literature review chapters. To read for their

research, they should read critically. Instead of taking wholesale what are presented in

the literature (e.g., prospective theories, methodology and research design), they

should consider their strengths and weaknesses to make an informed choice of

conceptual and research tools. In this regard, some of the move-specific strategies

identified in the LR corpus might form useful reference. Note that in Moves 2 of

various thematic sections of the review chapters, writers evaluate the theories,

research methods and conceptual tools that they have reviewed in their respective

3
See also Kuhn’s (1977) analogy of how physics students come to learn solve physics problems by
observing examples provided in their textbooks.
 328

Moves 1. The six strategies in which the evaluation is realized may shed light on what

students can consider when reading critically. The Making counter-claims strategy

(2.A) suggests that researchers need to be aware of the different kinds of flaws in

existing research and non-research practices which they address in their research.

Likewise, students can consider the potential flaws in the theories and research

methods as widely upheld or practiced by scholars in the discipline so that they can

revise or circumvent them when applying them to their own research. The strategies

of Confirming strengths (2.C) and Claiming relevancy (2.E) on the other hand suggest

that students can consider the strengths, relevancy and applicability of the reviewed

theories or methods to guide their own research. Critical reading may also mean

identifying gaps and niches for one’s own research (Strategy 2.B). Knowing what is

known and what has been researched into provides students some ideas of whether it

is worth pursuing their topics further. In short, whether they read the literature

negatively or positively, students’ critical reviewing of literature can help inform their

own research work and at the same time facilitate their writing of the Move 2

strategies when they reach the stage of study.

The areas of reading as suggested by the thin analysis are only some general

categories of knowledge which students need to gain when doing their RS and RLR.

They cannot reveal how the specific themes associated them are chosen for reading.

As the narratives presented in Chapter 7 suggest, these fine focuses may normally

emerge in the process of researching and writing. For this reason, in the next few

sections, I will provide suggestions for how students can negotiate the specific reading
 329

that they need to do for their studies by taking a nexus view of the three processes of

reading, writing and researching.

8.2.1.2 Understanding the nexus of processes

The three groups of processes – reading (RS, RLR, RM, and RD), writing (WLR,

other parts of the thesis and other qualifying documents) and researching – were found

to be highly interactive and iterative. Though many of the student informants in fact

reported that they had experienced this interactivity and iterativeness, many also

considered their own accounts as anomalous and surprising. For instance, at several

points of the interview when Joshua related the iterative process of his RS and

research process, he commented on the experience and doubted if it was ‘erratic’. Liza

on the other hand considered herself as ‘wasting time’ on reading something which

she should not have been reading after she had found out that the type of data which

was closely related to her on-going reading and which she planned to collect would

not be available. Chloe expressed her surprise at the fact that she could write the

literature review ‘as the last thing’ and that she could do so according to what she

claimed in her findings chapters:

When doing the lit review umm… the writing was not very painful the most painful
part comes after the writing and also the most painful is actually I found that I can
write the lit review as the last thing [laughs] like you need to add almost non-
stoppingly yes it is actually done according to my findings I actually know it now.

While this view about their RS and RLR as ‘erratic’ practices did not cause

‘detrimental’ consequences, it did take its psychological toll on some of the students,

causing them to feel frustrated and at times defeated. Frustration came particularly
 330

strong when some of the students realized that their reading led them nowhere, that

their hypotheses and reading focuses were prematurely formulated, or that

unanticipated issues emerged, which ‘wrecked’ their earlier attempts of reviewing and

made them start new lines of reading. As it can be recalled from some of the

narratives, this experience was compared to stepping into ‘new [messy] puddles’ or

‘opening different cans of worms’, creating a sense of being trapped in an infinite loop

of reading. This experience and more importantly the interpretation of the experience

could be demoralizing.

Contingencies resulting from taking the ‘wrong’ paths or discovering new ones in fact

are not uncommon in research undertakings. Even experienced researchers could not

be spared from making mistakes, speculating about their claims (see e.g., Gilbert and

Mulkay 1987), shifting one’s theoretical position and reformulating hypotheses (see

e.g., Thornton 1993; Prior 1998), all of which can arise at various junctures of one’s

research journey and implicate new directions for reading – though this theoretical

shift is more often reported in qualitative studies in humanities and social sciences. In

short, contingencies that implicate one’s reading and writing such as those revealed in

the narratives presented in Chapter 7 are ‘part and parcel’ of research and research

literacy practices, a fact which the doctoral student aspiring to becoming an academic

needs to be aware of. However, the acceptance of contingencies does not mean that

students should be encouraged to change their theoretical positions a priori or

jumping from one reading focus to another without a principled direction. Rather, they

need to be prepared for the ‘mistakes’ they make, the remediation to be carried out,
 331

and the backtracking to be taken at various points of their studies. Each of these

moves necessarily creates exigencies for further reading and revising of the LR and

other sections of the thesis.

The remarks about the erratic and anomalous RS and RLR practices also reflect the

students’ view that the reading, writing, and research processes are demarcated and

sequential as they are presented in the thesis. This conception is unfortunately

reinforced in many training manuals. For instance, in his latest volume on using mixed

methods approach to doing research, Creswell (2003) devotes several sections to the

discussion of how students can locate relevant literature and in particular conduct

library searches. He also proposes a sequence of steps and strategies for classifying

reading sources. In a different chapter the author provides tips on how to write the

literature review section, making no mention of the iterativeness and co-

constructiveness of RS, RLR and WLR. Elsewhere, students are advised to do

thorough literature searches before attempting to write the proposal or even the thesis

(e.g., Hart 1998, 2001; Piantanida & Garman 1999).

Meanwhile, we see that there are specialized volumes focusing on either of the

activities (e.g., Swales & Feak 2002), creating the impression that RS and RLR are

independent of other research and writing processes. Separate instruction of the

processes of reading for and the writing of the literature review can also be observed

in programs for thesis-writing, which usually attend more to the latter skill (e.g.,
 332

Torrance, Thomas & Robinson 1993). As Sylvia remarked, she had been instructed

the sequential progression of the processes:

Silvia The lecturers have taught us to set our research questions first. Okay? And
then you go for your literature review and when you have finished your
literature review, you could start your data collection and data analysis. Like
the procedure is very clear-cut. But, when you do your doctoral work, you
will realize that the boundaries [between the steps] are getting more and
more unclear. You come to realize that like what my supervisor said, the
introduction is usually as the last chapter.
Becky What hits you most is that the process itself is not that structured. It could be
very messy.
Silvia Yes, it is very messy.
Becky What about the library searches? Does the training you've received also help?
Or would it be that in reality, you don't just rely on your library searches?

Silvia I would feel that the training in keyword searches could only help you locate
one part of what you need to read. There're many which you could not
possibly find from such searches.

Given the complexity involved, it is conceivable that RS/RLR, WLR and research

need to be dealt with separately in instruction. However, this separate treatment may

obscure students’ understanding of how literature reviewing proceeds and may drive

out the contingencies they are very likely to encounter in their doctoral journeys.

More instructional work is thus needed to bring the nexus of the processes back into

focus (Lee 1998). In short, students need to be educated to appreciate the hybridity of

RS, RLR and other research processes in the context of research writing. As the

processes of data collection and data analysis may implicate new directions for

reading, students need to be prepared to:

z fine-tune or even reset focuses of the on-going investigation that can implicate

changes to the themes and focuses of their reading. Revisions as such are

particularly likely if pre-conceived research focuses cannot be pursued for

various feasibility reasons;

 333

z read and learn about unpredictable issues emerging from the research design

and which they need to discuss in their literature reviews or methodology

chapters; For instance, students may encounter coding problems or problems

in eliciting ‘valid’ data during focus group interviews, which might call for

remedies and hence more reading regarding specific issues of methodological

design. Students might also need to examine the literature to see if similar

issues have been raised and how they have been dealt with in past studies. This

is to arrive at some informed solutions to their problems;

z re-read some theories as a result of mismatch between their findings and what

the theories have been claimed to be able to predict. Students can re-assess the

applicability of the theories to the phenomenon being investigated. This re-

assessment also means developing a critical awareness about the limitations of

the theories, which can facilitate the writing of their evaluations (e.g., Strategy

2.A) of the theories in the literature review chapter;

z Do their reading, pilot studies, and data analysis in parallel, allowing each

process to inform and constrain the others.

The co-implication of RS, RLR, WLR and research activities suggests that students

need to develop their themes of reviewing in situ and in response to events which arise

in their research processes. They can document these themes and their respective

reading together with the events which implicate them in their note-taking systems in

preparation for the tentative thematic sections which they might need to include in the

literature review, methodology or even findings/discussion chapters.

 334

8.2.1.3 Allowing one’s WLR to constrain and guide RS/RLR

Students need to develop some mechanisms to constrain their reading so that it can be

finished within a reasonable time frame. As some of the stories in Chapter 7 reveal,

the writing of literature review (WLR) can be one such effective mechanism. Through

the writing of the review (and the thesis), students can crystallize ideas collected and

insights generated from their reading as well as their data analysis, and at the same

time decide whether enough has been read for the writing. With a concrete written LR

product, RLR can be made more focused and target-oriented. Students can make use

of approaching official deadlines for such interim products as proposals, qualifying

reports, annual reports to create cut-off points for their RS and RLR at a particular

stage of reading.

Meanwhile, supervisors can consider setting up deadlines for the submission of

literature review drafts or drafts of some major parts to monitor their students’

progress in RS and RLR. This practice may be needed for part-time and particularly

distance-learning students who hold full time jobs that may distract them from making

progress in their studies. Reading students’ earlier drafts of LR may also provide

supervisors some ideas of the themes and arguments they have developed and at the

same time the information holes that need to be filled through further reading. This

can help arresting problems in students’ work before they develop into an irreparable

proportion (Phillips 1994).

 335

8.2.1.4 Establishing social networks

As revealed in some of the stories, some of the students (Frank, Rebecca and Patricia)

turned ‘external’ for assistance in their RS and benefited from the process. Similar

experiences of seeking assistance from people other than supervisors have been

reported in Pearson’s (1996) longitudinal study of eight doctoral students’ experiences,

though she did not specify the types of assistance the students sought (cited in Chapter

5). As her findings reveal, among the highest-ranking groups of people from whom

the students received help were academics in the department and elsewhere. Pearson

suggests that seeking guidance from others can be interpreted as a sign of

independence and of an ‘effective strategy… in learning more of the craft or “artistry”

of research and scholarship’ (p.313).

In fact, establishing contacts is becoming a way of life for many academics not just

for RS but also for other aspects of their research activities. Students thus need to

consider developing their own relevant academic networks. To do so, they can

participate in conferences or attending seminars and workshops presented by scholars.

These are useful occasions when they can meet experts and other fellow doctoral

students of their fields of studies and these are also good opportunities for students to

share their own work with others and obtain feedback from them. Piantanida and

Garman (1999) refer to the above types of involvement as immersion in real-time

discourses. Though the authors have not specified how such forms of involvement

may allow students the access to the literature of the fields, contacts such as these can

at least afford students the chances to become acquainted with the most updated
 336

‘conversations’ in the field (Bazerman 1988), which include the current issues,

concerns, research practices that can also help students to map out, confirm, or even

expand the conceptual and epistemological contours of and hence specific themes of

reading for their research topics. They can also observe the types of literature cited by

presenters to gain an awareness of the updated ‘codification’ of the field (Geisler 1994)

as practiced by Rebecca (i.e. gaining awareness of some essential literature through a

visiting scholar by attending a local conference).

Piantanida and Garman (1999) also suggest that students participate in forums set up

by doctoral students themselves. Some of the anecdotes the authors relate in their

volume reveal that through such forums students can exchange ideas of reading. This

form of network, however, is lacking among the group of students interviewed. Many

of them expressed that they had been working in isolation. In this regard, supervisors

can play a crucial role in mediating the development of social networks for their

students at least by encouraging them to participate in the activities outlined above.

They can introduce students to key figures through their own personal connections.

Help of this type is particularly needed for part-time students who work full time at

non-academic institutions and have restricted access to scholars in the field and hence

a smaller chance of establishing extrinsic social networks.

8.2.1.5 Supervision on reading

The traditional pedagogy assumed of Ph.D. education that started since the

Enlightenment has long catered to elitists whose socio-economic backgrounds have

 337

afforded them the opportunities to be socialized into scholarly academic activities well

before they enter their doctoral studies. For this reason, elitist doctoral programs tend

to espouse student’s independence and autonomy. However, with the expansion of

Ph.D. programs in universities in Hong Kong and elsewhere, we increasingly see

students entering postgraduate programs who have been barely initiated into the

‘demands and rigors of an academic scholarly and research culture’ (Yeatman 1998),

which seems to be the case for some of the local doctoral students. More often than

not, these students are poorly equipped for the independence and autonomy expected

of them in handling their doctoral pursuits. The laissez-faire approach to supervision

is thus no longer adequate (Johnson, Lee and Green 2000) to this new breed of

students, who might need particular supervision on their studies – e.g., the conceptual

contours of their study topics – as well as initiation into the paradigm matrix (Kuhn

1977) of the disciplines they seek entry into. As stories in Chapter 7 unfold,

supervision and initiation of the type usually entail coaching on the RS and RLR

processes. Recall that Jiawen and Wenzhong developed their strategic cognition of

whose works to read and what themes to read and what loopholes to look for in

previous research while consulting their supervisors. A similar story was told by

Joshua when he discussed his research design with his supervisor, which opened up a

new direction of reading for triangulation.

Initiation into the disciplinary paradigm matrix and in particular supervision on

reading apparently is most needed for students whose topics are located in disciplines

where a paradigm core does not exist or competing cores are available (see e.g.,
 338

Chloe’s story), or whose research is situated at cross-disciplinary nexuses (see e.g.,

Yixin’s and Joshua’s stories) where coming to grips with a core literature, core themes

for reading proves especially slippery.

As reflected in some of the stories, students who had received an appropriate amount

of supervision from their supervisors at the outset of their studies seem to have

benefited most and find the process of RLR/RS less frustrating. While too much

handholding may not be preferred at the doctoral level, some ideas of where to begin

can greatly save the student’s time of ‘shooting in the dark’ and reduce their anxiety.

Supervisors can consider providing the following types of coaching:

z initiating students into core readings or works by crucial figures;

z sharing with students the updated literature that they read (though it is also students’

responsibility to update themselves of the latest literature in their fields);

z advising students on reading of specific methodological, theoretical and conceptual

issues

8.2.1.6 Aligning studies with supervisors’ expertise

Alignment between a student’s research topic and the supervisor’s field of expertise is

a crucial element for effective supervision on various aspects of the student’s work

which include RS and RLR. The supervisor’s familiarity with the literature of the field

obviously can facilitate the advice he/she can provide for the student. More
 339

importantly, his/her own publications and the literature codified therein can provide

useful materials for initiation.

Students need to be aware of the importance of this alignment while identifying

institutions for their doctoral studies. Before submitting proposals for enrolment,

students may need to find out more about the faculty of the target department where

they plan to do their doctoral work. They can also identify suitable, potential faculty

members whose field expertise (methodology-wise or subject-matter-wise) can lend to

the supervision of their theses. To do so, students can check out the potential

supervisors’ publications (usually available in departmental or personal websites) and,

if possible, select topics which fall within the areas of their research or which are

theoretically or methodologically derived from or akin to their work. In Youngman’s

(1994) term, students are advised to enter their doctoral programs ‘warm’ and should

not rely too much on the supervisor-supervisee matching that the institution and the

department arranges. Exact matching sometimes cannot be guaranteed because of

various administrative reasons one of which is the availability of matching

supervisors4. Many students, as Liza did, enter their doctoral programs ‘cold’. They

have only faint ideas about their supervisors’ expertise and may hence experience

difficult ‘kick-offs’.

4
This situation has become more common now that many universities in Hong Kong are in keen
competition for funding by absorbing as many research degree students as possible though sometimes
the expertise in their respective departments may not match the areas of studies which applicants intend
to pursue. See also Strauss, Walton & Madsen (2003).
 340

Aligning one’s topic with the supervisor’s should not be the sole responsibility of the

student. Where exact matches cannot be made, supervisors can guide students to work

on areas with which they are most familiar, as in the cases of Jiawen and Wenzhong,.

If possible, supervisors can encourage their supervisees to develop research in some

areas related to their own on-going Projects that they do not intend to pursue

themselves (that is, to avoid violating regulations set by some local institutes that

forbid students to pursue parts of the supervisor’s project). Alternatively, supervisors

can take the initiative to learn about their students’ areas of studies, to familiarize

themselves with the literature relating to the students’ studies, and to prepare

themselves for supervision on some of the subject matters (after all, students have

paid fees to obtain their doctoral education and the quality of supervision needs to be

ensured).

8.2.2 Writing the literature review chapter

8.2.2.1 Use of LR chapters as teaching material

There has been increasing criticisms about the materials used to present the thesis and

its major parts in instructional literature and EAP classes, many of which are

constructed intuitively, lack empirical support, and hence may not represent what can

usually be observed in a thesis (Paltridge 2002). Though recent moves have been

made to incorporate authentic materials, many such materials have been derived from

the neighboring genre of the research article (RA) which are much shorter and hence

less complex than what are found in theses (see Starfield 2003). In some courses,

writing instructors tend to use introductions from research articles to illustrate how to
 341

present citations and structure a literature review by using Weissberg and Buker’s

(1990) book on writing experimental research reports. While the former purpose can

be served by making use of RA introductions, the latter may not be effectively

achieved. As findings from this study show, the rhetorical movement of LR chapters

can be extremely complex and display noticeable differences from that of

introductions in RAs or even those in doctoral theses. Writing instructors are thus

advised to teach the writing of literature reviews by using authentic LR chapters and

present them in their entirety, which can allow students to appreciate the complexity

and the degree of sophistication involved in constructing an LR and in particular

deliberating the niches in them, which can be a cognitively demanding process (I refer

to such strategies as counter-claiming, evaluating the relevancy of claims to one’s

research, and synthesizing theoretical frameworks).

8.2.2.2 Structuring the LR chapter

Students need to be informed how they can structure their literature review chapters.

In particular, students may need to be shown – and hence consider – the following

structural characteristics of LRs:

The possible structure of the LR chapter

Students can be shown the introduction-body-conclusion pattern in organizing their

LR chapters. Students can be advised to produce introductory texts in which they

perform centrality-claiming for themes to review in the chapter and indicate the

structure of the chapter. They can also be advised to provide overall niche-making and
 342

niche-occupying statements towards the end of their LR chapters so that the reader

can understand in one final glance how their literature reviews can justify and argue

for some major parts of their research. Students can also be shown that in the body of

the LR, discussion can be sectioned into major thematic units, each of which touch

upon one crucial (e.g., theoretical, conceptual, methodological) aspect of their study,

which they might have taken notes of in the process of their reading, or data-gathering

or data analysis (see Section 8.2.1.2 on the nexus of the three processes of reading,

writing and researching).

The theme-bound CARS structuring in the body

Students can be also instructed that the thematic units can be organized using the

schematic patterns identified in the present study (i.e., the LR-CAR model and its

various possible realizations (1-2)n, (1-2)n-3, etc.). The low frequency of Move 3 as

observed in the present LR corpus suggests that the writers do not regularly fill the

niches created in Moves 2 located within the same thematic unit. However, given the

highly recursive nature of 1-2, it is advisable that Move 3 be introduced at an

appropriate point so as to signal to the reader how the survey and evaluation may

eventually lead to one crucial aspect of the writer’ research. Alternatively, meta-

signals where the niche will be taken up in other relevant parts of the thesis (e.g., the

methodology chapter or the discussion chapter) can also be provided.

 343

The possible options to realize the moves

Students can also be instructed on the various strategies they can employ to realize the

different moves in each of their thematic units. Students need to be informed about the

various possibilities of combining them, and in particular the more common

combinations such as Strategy A plus Strategy B, or Strategy 2A plus Strategy 2B.

A note of caution is however in order. Since the LR-CARS model has been generated

based on LR texts drawn from theses produced in soft disciplines (i.e., social sciences

and humanities), there can be cross-disciplinary variations in the realization of the

model5. Writing instructors should consider guiding their students to discover field-

specific patterns. This can be carried out by training students to perform simple move

analyses of LRs in theses undertaken in the disciplines that are most pertinent to their

own research work. In this regard, the framework generated in this study might be

used as a starting reference to guide the analysis.

8.3 Where to go from here

The present study has joined the few reported in the literature (e.g., Bruce’s 1994;

Tchivaega’s 2003 & Dong’s 1996) what looked into various issues and complexities

involved in the task of literature reviewing. While the empirical insights offered so far

can further our understanding of the part-genre as both a written product and a process,

many questions are still left unanswered. More research is needed to probe into other

nebulous and complicated facets of this literacy practice and to develop a reader-
5
Disciplinary backgrounds can affect the approach to the sequencing of citations in as well as the
construction of LRs. See Swales and Lindemann (2002).
 344

friendly vocabulary which can be used to describe this complicated task for

instructional purposes. Some areas for further research are proposed as follows.

8.3.1 Text analysis

8.3.1.1 Validation studies

As the study has been conducted on a limited corpus, validation of the schematic

patterns identified will be needed. For instance, similar studies on LR texts produced

by NS writers and NNS writers from other ethno-linguistic locales are desirable to

examine if the model posited is equally applicable. Cross-disciplinary comparison is

also needed to investigate the extent to which the patterns can be generalized to

represent LR texts from science disciplines. As Hyland’s (1999) study reflects, there

are cross-disciplinary differences in citational practices in research articles. Articles

published in humanities journals exhibit more citations and cite from more sources

than those from sciences and applied sciences do. This suggests that LRs in theses

from humanities may be longer and more complicated than those from their non-

humanities counterpart, a point which can be pursued in future research. Another

useful line of investigation is to ascertain whether Strategy 1.C Surveying research

activities – a strategy of weak presence in the present corpus – and the evaluation of

methodological issues in Move 2 have a stronger presence in LRs in theses of

sciences and applied sciences.

The different roles as well as schematic patterns of LRs and introductory chapters as

discussed in Chapter 4 can be further validated in future studies. Investigation can be

 345

conducted to compare the thematic sections and their respective propositional contents,

as well as the move structures of LRs vis-à-vis those of the introductory chapters from

the same theses.

8.3.1.2 Analysis of individual moves or strategies

Research can be directed at individual elements of the schematic patterns. For instance,

the rhetorical structures of the introductory and concluding texts can be further

established. It will be also useful to study why the students combined various

strategies in Moves 1 and 2 in the ways they did in the present corpus. More rigorous

procedures may be needed to differentiate genuine affirmative strategies such as 2.C

Making confirmative claims from the mitigating acts which preface negational

strategies. Alternatively, this line of inquiry can be turned into an examination of

students’ moderation of negational claims.

Another useful area of further research is to examine how students assign

responsibility when critiquing the existing state of the art. That is, to what extent do

students attribute their criticisms related in Move 2 (e.g., Strategies 2.A and

confirmative claims related in Strategy 2.C) to authorities in the field? Or, in Lewin et

al’s terms, to what extent do they strengthen or dilute claims by resorting to others?

Answers to these questions can shed light on how students develop their critical

thinking about their fields of study and hence can have direct pedagogical

implications for doctoral students’ critical reading for their literature reviews.
 346

8.3.2 Process analysis

8.3.2.1 Cross-group comparison

The present study has examined how students of social sciences and humanities

negotiated their RS and RLR. Insights generated regarding the literacy practice again

may not be generalizable. Further research is needed to examine how the literacy

practice is negotiated by different groups of students as suggested below:

z Mode of study: e.g., full time vs part-time or part-time distance learning,

research degree vs taught degree.

z Major disciplinary domains: sciences and technologies vs humanities and

social sciences, etc.

z Methodological orientations: quantitative studies (e.g., hypothesis-testing and

questionnaire surveys which involve sophisticated statistical analyses) vs

qualitative studies (e.g., grounded theory, ethnographic approaches, text

analysis and field observations).

z Epistemological or ideological orientations: positivism vs feminism.

8.3.2.2 Development of critical awareness

One major part of literature reviewing is to critique the existing state of the art. As

some of the stories reveal, the students involved in the present study developed their

critical awareness in the process of applying the knowledge to their research while

others reportedly developed theirs through the supervisors’ guided participation. The

picture regarding this aspect of learning as generated from this study is still far from

complete. Further research is needed on how students develop their critical awareness
 347

about their topics, the theories they employ, their methodological design, and the

latest developments in their fields of studies.

8.3.2.3 Longitudinal research

The thick analysis conducted in this thesis has taken a cross-sectional approach to the

collection of the stories, which may only represent in gross terms the major issues

involved in the development of students’ RS/LR. In future studies, a longitudinal and

ethnographic approach will be needed to explicate the finer processes and micro-

events that contribute to individual students’ trajectories of RS, RLR, RM, RD, and

the writing of the respective chapters over the entire span of their studies. In particular,

studies can further pursue the co-constructiveness and co-constraining nature of these

processes.

This approach may call for diary-keeping, periodic interviews, analysis of drafts of

different types of output (e.g. the application proposal, the QR, the thesis and

publications), and observation of student participation in various academic activities

as major methods to track and triangulate the trajectories. One source of information

that may also prove useful is that of students’ note-taking systems. As some of the

students interviewed in the study recalled, they were not able to develop consistent or

systematic ways of note-taking to which they could adhere from the beginning till the

end of their studies. One of the major reasons for the lack of systematicity and

consistency was the shifting reading focuses, making some of the earlier taken notes

obsolete while necessitating revisions to the systems. Note-taking practices and the
 348

notes students take may thus be useful artifacts for tracking major changes of reading

and allow in-depth investigations into RS and RLR practices.

8.3.2.4 Quantitative studies

Though the present qualitative study has generated rich insights into some processes

involved in RS and RLR, work still needs to be done to examine the extent the events

revealed in the study can be generalized across a bigger group of students. As such,

quantitative research involving questionnaire surveys will be needed. Work can be

done to identify the predominant types of strategies that students employ in selecting

the crucial literature for their RS/RLR. The strategies revealed in the present study can

be used as a starting framework for developing the taxonomy (e.g., guided by one’s

research, guidance from supervisors, participation in research seminars, etc.).

8.3.2.5 Needs analysis

Needs analysis will also be useful for teaching implications. Different types of need

and training in RS and reading for LR as well as other sections can be explored using

both democratic and diagnostic approaches in particular (Brown 1995). Since the

present study has primarily focused on how students negotiated their RS an RLR,

supervisors and examiners’ views were not included as much. Future needs analysis

can involve more this latter group of informants in soliciting their comments on

students’ RS/RLR processes as well as their literature review products.

 349

8.3.3 Other aspects of literature reviewing

It needs to be stressed that the thick analysis of RS and RLR has been informed by

two theoretical lenses, that of the writing-research-reading nexus and that of social

construction and in particular situated learning. As such, the findings generated reflect

only the crucial technical and social factors which inform and constrain RS and RLR.

Future research might need to consider other factors that might implicate the choices

of literature for reviewing. For instance, investigation is needed to study how students

negotiate the reading of theoretically and conceptually challenging themes, and how

NNS students handle linguistically challenging texts. Studies can also be conducted

to examine how students handle the large volume of reading, how they keep track and

record the information collected and insights generated, how they eventually

synthesize the bulk of information and insights in their LR-writing. Research is

equally needed to look into how reading resources are managed rhetorically and

linguistically in interim and final LR products.

8.3.4 Applying the theoretical groundwork

In this final section of the chapter, I will provide a brief note on how the theoretical

framework developed for the present study can be extended to inform research on

other parts of the thesis. As argued in the introductory chapter, in order to gain full

understanding of a genre, research needs to be done into both its textual properties and

process of construction. The two-part analysis conducted in the present study has

taken this dual-view of literature reviews and has generated rich insights into how the

part-genre is rhetorically organized and how the process of reviewing is negotiated.

 350

This dual-view can also apply to studies of other parts of the thesis which are still

under-explored. For instance, product-process analysis can be conducted on the

methodology chapter or the discussion chapter to examine their schematic patterns as

well as the processes of their construction.

For the process analysis of these other thesis chapters, the reading/research/writing

nexus as postulated in the conclusion of the thick analysis of the present study can

equally be applied to examine how the construction of these chapters is implicated by

other processes (e.g., reading and research activities). For instance, in the analysis of

the production of the methodology chapter which justifies the methodological

approach adopted in the writer’s research, the analyst can examine how reading,

research designing, data collection, data analysis and writing of the chapter construct

each other. Likewise, research can be conducted into the production of the discussion

chapter again by applying the nexus view in exploring, for instance, how data

interpretation, reading and writing are co-constrained.

As revealed in the present study, guided participation provided by intrinsic and

extrinsic academic networks (e.g., supervisors, panel members, external scholars) and

peripheral participation in various academic activities formed some powerful forces

that shaped the student informants’ selection of literature for reviewing. It is

speculated that similar social construction also occurs in the construction of other

parts of the thesis. Research into other parts of the thesis thus can also consider this

social dimension of the process.

 351

References

Ahmad, U.K. 1997. Research Article Introductions in Malay: Rhetoric in an Emerging

Research Community. In Duszak, Anna (ed) Culture and styles of academic
discourse, 273-303. Berlin, Federal Republic Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Aitchison, C. 2003. Thesis writing circles. In Cooley, L. & Lewkowicz (eds.), Thesis
and dissertation writing at postgraduate level: Theory and practice, pp.97-115.
(A Special Issue of Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 8, No.2)
Allison, D., Colley, L., Lewkowica, J. and Nunan, D. 1998. Dissertation writing in
action: The development of a dissertation writing program for ESL graduate
research students. English for Specific Puruposes, 17, 2, 199-217.
Anthony, L. 1999. Writing research article introductions in software engineering:
How accurate is a standard model? IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication 42, pp. 38–46.
Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M.Bakhtin. (C.
Emerson & M. Holquist, eds.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Balocco, A. E. 2000. Who's Afraid of Literature? Rhetorical Routines in Literary
Research Articles. ESPecialist, 21, 2, 207-223.
Bazerman. C. 1988. Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the
experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Becher, T. & Trowler, P. R. 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories (2nd edition).
Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research and Higher Education & Open
University Press.
Belcher, D. 1994. The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy:
Graduate students and their mentors. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 1, 23-34.
Bell, J. 2002. Framing and text interpretation across languages and cultures: A case
study. In Flowerdew, J. (ed.) Academic Discourse, pp.287-301. London: Pearson
Education.
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. 1987. The psychology of written composition.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. N. 1995. Genre knowledge in disciplinary
communication : cognition, culture, power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bhatia, V. K. 1991. A genre-based approach to ESP materials. World Englishes, 10, 2,
151-166.
Bhatia, V. K. 1993. Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London:
Longman.
Bhatia, V. K. 1994. Dynamics of genre manipulation. CIEFL Bulletin, 6, 1, 25-42.
Bhatia, V. K. 2001. Analysing genre: some conceptual issues. In M. Hewings (ed.)
Academic writing in context: Implications and applications (Paper in honour of
Tony Dudley-Evans), 79-92. Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham.
Bhatia, V. K. 2004. Worlds of written discourse. London: Continuum.
 352

Blakeslee, A. M. 1997. Activity, context, interaction, and authority: Learning to write

scientific papers in situ. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
Vol.11, No.2, 125-169.
Brandt, D. 1990. Literacy as involvement. The acts of writers, readers, and texts.
Carbondale, U.S.: University of Illinois Press.
Brown, J. D. 1995. The elements of language curriculum. Boston, Massachusetts:
Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Bruce, C. S. 1994. Research students’ early experiences of the dissertation literature
review. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 2, 217-229.
Brunner, J. 1985. Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.
Buckingham, J. & Nevile, M. 1997. A model of citation options. ARAL 20, 2, 51-66.
Bunton, D. 1998. Linguistic and textual problems in Ph.D. and MPhil theses: an
analysis of genre moves and metatext. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Hong Kong:
University of Hong Kong.
Bunton, D. 2002. Generic moves in Ph.D. thesis introductions. In Flowerdew, J. (ed.)
Academic Discourse, pp.57-75. London: Pearson Education.
Burgess, R. G., Pole, C. J. & Hockey, J. 1994. Strategies for managing and
supervising the social science PhD. In Burgess, Robert G. (ed.), Postgraduate
education and training in the social sciences: Processes and products, pp. 13-33.
London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Burgess, S. 2002. Packed houses and intimate gatherings: Audience and rhetorical
structure. In Flowerdew, J. (ed.) Academic Discourse, pp.196-215. London:
Pearson Education.
Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F. M. 1998. Personal experience methods. In Denzin,
Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (eds), Collecting and interpreting qualitative
materials, pp. 150-178. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F. M. 2000. Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in
qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Clark, B. R. 1998. The entrepreneurial university: Demand and response. Tertiary
Education and Management, 4, 1, 5-16.
Connor, U. & Mauranen, A. 1999. Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European
Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 1, 47-62.
Cooley, L. & Lewkowicz, J. 1995. The writing needs of graduate students’ at the
University of Hong Kong: A project report. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics
and Language Teaching, 18, 121-123.
Cooley, L. & Lewkowicz, J. 1997. Developing Awareness of the Rhetorical and
Linguistic Conventions of Writing a Thesis in English: Addressing the Needs of
EFL/ESL Postgraduate Students. In Anna Duszak (Ed), Culture and styles of
academic discourse, pp.113-129. Berlin, Federal Republic Germany: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Cooper, H. M. 1988. Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature
Reviews. Knowledge in Society, 1, 1, 104-126
Creswell, J. W. 1998. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
 353

Creswell, J. W. 2003. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Crookes, G. 1986. Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied
Linguistics, 7, 57-70.
Denzin, N. K. 1997. Interpretative ethnography: Ethnographic practices in the 21st
Century. Sage: London.
Devitt, A. 1993. Generalizing about Genre: New conceptions of an old concept.
College Composition and Communication, 44, 4, 573-586.
Dong, Y. R. 1996. Learning how to use citations for knowledge transformation: Non-
native doctoral students’ dissertation. Research in the Teaching of English, 30, 4,
428-457.
Dong, Y. R. 1998. Non-Native Graduate Students' Thesis/Dissertation Writing in
Science: Self-Reports by Students and Their Advisors from Two U.S.
Institutions. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 4, 369-390.
Dudley-Evans, T. 1986. Genre analysis: an investigation of the introduction and
discussion sections of MSc dissertations. In Coulthard, M. (ed.), Talking about
text, 128-145. Birmingham: English Language Research.
Dudley-Evans, T. 1999. The dissertation: a case of neglect? In P. Thompson (Ed.),
Issues in EAP writing research and instruction, pp.28-36. Reading University:
CALS.
Duszak, A. 1994. Academic discourse and intellectual styles. Journal of Pragmatics,
21, 291-313.
Feng, H. & Shi, L. 2004. Genre Analysis of Research Grant Proposals. LSP and
Professional Communication, vol. 4, no. 1, 8-30.
Flowerdew, J. 2000. Discourse Community, Legitimate Peripheral Participation, and
the Nonnative-English-Speaking Scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 1, 127-150.
Fredrickson, K. M. & Swales, J. M. 1994. Competition and discourse community:
Introductions from Nysvenska Studier. In Gunnarsson, B.L., Text and talk in
professional contexts: Selected papers from the international conference
“Discourse and the Professions” Uppsala, 26-29 August, 1992, 9-22. Uppsala:
ASLA.
Freedman, A. & Adam, C. 1996. learning to write professionally: “Situated learning”
and the transition from university to professional discourse. Journal of Business
and Communication, 10, 4, 395-427.
Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. New York: Basic
Books.
Geisler, C. 1994. Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and
knowing in academic philosophy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gilbert, G. N. & Mulkay, M. 1984. Opening pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of
scientists’ discourse.
Goodfellow, J. 1998a. Analysing data in narrative inquiry research. In Higgs, Joy (ed.)
Writing qualitative research, pp.105-120. Sydney: Hampden Press.
Goodfellow, J. 1998b. Constructing a narrative. In In Higgs, Joy (ed.) Writing
qualitative research, pp.175-187. Sydney: Hampden Press.
Greene, S. 1990. Toward a dialectical theory of composing. Rhetoric review, 9, 1,
149-172.
 354

Greene, S. & Ackerman, J. M. 1995. Expanding the Constructivist Metaphor: A

Rhetorical Perspective on Literacy Research and Practice. Review of
Educational Research, 65, 4, 383-420.
Haas, C. 1994. Learning to read biology; One student’s rhetorical development in
college. Written Communication, 11, 43-84.
Haas, C. & Flower, L. 1988. Rhetorical reading strategies and the construction of
meaning. College Composition and Communication, 39, 167-183.
Hart, C. 1998. Doing a literature review : releasing the social science research
imagination. London: Sage.
Hart, C. 2001. Doing a literature search: A comprehensive guide for the social
sciences. London: Sage.
Henry, A. & Roseberry, Robert L. 2001. A narrow-angled corpus analysis of moves
and strategies of the genre: ‘Letter of Application’. English for Specific
Purposes 20, 153-167.
Hewings, M. 1993. The end! How to conclude a dissertation. In G. Blue (Ed.),
Language, learning and success: study through English, pp.105-112. UK:
Macmillan.
Hinds, J. 1990. Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: Expository writing in Japanese,
Korean, Chinese, and Thai. In U. Connor & A.M. Johns, Coherence in writing:
Research and pedagogical perspective, Alexandria, VA: TESOL, 87 -109.
Hill, T., Acker, S. & Black, E. 1994. Research students and their supervisors in
education and psychology. In Burgess, Robert G. (ed.), Postgraduate education
and training in the social sciences: Processes and products, pp. 54-72. London,
UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Hocking, D. 2003. The genre of the postgraduate exegesis in art and design: an
ethnographic examination. In Cooley, L. & Lewkowicz (eds.), Thesis and
dissertation writing at postgraduate level: Theory and practice, pp.54-77. (A
Special Issue of Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 8, No.2)
Hyland, K. 1999. Academic Attribution: Citation and the Construction of Disciplinary
Knowledge, Applied Linguistics, 20, 3, 341-367.
Ivanic, R. & Simpson, J. 1992. Who’s who in academic writing. In Fairclough,
N.(Ed.), Critical language awareness, pp.141-175. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Ivanic, R. 1994. I is for interpersonal: discoursal construction of writer identities and
the teaching of writing. Linguistics and Education, 6, pp.3-15.
Ivanic, R. 1998. Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in
academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Johnson, L., Lee, A. & Green, B. 2000. The PhD and the autonomous self: gender,
rationality and postgraduate pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 25, 2, 135-
147.
Kaplan, D. & Manners, R. 1986. Culture theory. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland
Press.
Kaufer, D. S. & Geisler, C. 1989. Novelty in Academic Writing. Written
Communication, 6, 3, 286-311.
Kuhn, T. 1977. The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and
change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 355

Kuhn, T. 1979. The structure of scientific knowledge: An essay on the constructivist

and contextual nature of science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Kwan, B. S. C. 1996. Introductions in State-of-the-Art, Argumentative, and Teaching
Tips TESL Journal Articles: Three Possible Sub-Genres of Introduction?
Research Monograph 12. City University of Hong Kong, Department of English.
Kwan, B. S. C. (in preparation) The schematic structure of literature reviews in
doctoral theses of applied linguistics.
Latour, B. 1987. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Haravard University Press.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, A. 1998. Doctoral research as writing. In Higgs, Joy (ed.), Writing qualitative
research, pp.121-136. Sydney: Hampden Press.
Lee, S. 2000. A Contrastive Rhetorical Study on Korean and English Research Paper
Introductions. Journal of Pan Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 4, 2,
316-336.
Lee, S. 2001. A Contrastive Rhetoric Study of Korean and English Research Paper
Introductions. U Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Ann Arbor:United-States: UMI.
Leon, J. A. & Carretero, M. 1995. Intervention in comprehension and memory
strategies; knowledge and use of text structure. Learning and Instruction, 5, 203-
220.
Lemke, J. L. 1992. Intertextuality and educational research. Linguistics and Education,
4, 257-267.
Lewin, B. A., Fine, J. & Young, L. 2001. Expository discourse: a genre-based
approach to social science research texts. New York: Continuum.
Martin, J. R. 1992. English text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mauranen, A. 1993. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in Finnish–English economics
texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 3–22.
Mauranen, A. 2001. Descriptions or explanations? Some methodological issues in
contrastive rhetoric. In Hewings, Martin (ed.), Academic writing in context:
Implications and applications (Papers in honour of Tony Dudley-Evans), pp.43-
54. Birmingham, U.K.: University of Birmingham Press.
Melander, B. 1998. Culture or genres? Issues in the interpretation of cross-cultural
differences in scientific articles. In Fortanet, I., Posteguillo, S., Palmer, J.C., & Coll,
J. F. (eds.), Genre studies in English for academic purposes, pp.211-226. Castello
de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I.
Meloy, J. M. 2002. Writing the qualitative dissertation: Understanding by doing
(second edition). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Merton, R. K., Fisk, M. & Kendall, P. 1990. The focused interview: a manual of
problems and procedures. New York: The Free Press.
Merton, R. K. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical
investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Miller, C. 1984. Genre as Social Action. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70, 151-167.
Miller, C. 1994. Rhetorical Community: The Cultural Basis of Genre Miller. In
Medway, P. & Freedman, A. (eds.), Genre and the New Rhetoric, pp. 67-78.
London: Taylor & Francis.
 356

Mok, K. H. & Welch, A. 2002. Economic rationalism, managerialism and structural

reform in education. In Mok, Ha Ho and Chan, D. (eds.) Globalization and
education: Quest for education quality in Hong Kong, pp.23-40. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press.
Mok, K. H. 2002. Toward entrepreneurial universities: Changing higher education
governance in East Asia. Paper presented at the International Symposium
Globalization and Educational Governance Change in East Asia (2002: City
University of Hong Kong). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.
Murray, D. 1980. Learning by teaching: Selected articles on writing and teaching.
Portsmouth, NJ: Boynton/Cook, Publishers.
Myers, G. 1985. The social construction of two biologists’ proposals. Written
Communication, 2, 219-45.
Myers, G. 1990. Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific
knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Nwogu, K. N. N. 1997. The medial research paper: Structure and functions. English
for Specific Purposes, 16, 2, 129-138.
Ogden, E. Hunt. 1993. Completing your doctoral dissertation or master’s thesis in
two semesters or less (2nd edition). Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Technomic
Publishing Co.
Ostler, S. E. 2002. Contrastive rhetoric: An expanding paradigm. In Flowerdew, J.
(ed.), Academic Discourse, pp. 167-181. London, UK: Pearson Education Ltd.
Paltridge, B. 1994. Genre analysis and the identification of textual boundaries.
Applied Linguistics, 15, 3, 288-299.
Paltridge, P. 2002. Thesis and dissertation writing: an examination of published
advice and actual practice. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 2, 125-143.
Parry, O., Atkinson, P. & Delamont, S. 1994. Disciplinary identities and doctoral
work. In Burgess, Robert G. (ed.), Postgraduate education and training in the
social sciences: Processes and products, pp.34-52. London, UK: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.
Parry, S. 1998. Disciplinary discourse in doctoral education. Higher Education 36,
273-299.
Peacock, M. 2002. Communicative Moves in the Discussion Section of Research
Articles. System, 30, 4, 479-497.
Pearson, M. 1996. Professionalising Ph.D. education to enhance the quality of the
student experience. Higher Education, 32, 3, 303-320.
Peters, R. L. 1997. Getting What You Came For (revised edition). New York:
Noonday.
Phillips, E. M. 1994. Quality in the PhD: Points at which quality may be assessed. In
Burgess, Robert G. (ed.), Postgraduate education and training in the social
sciences: Processes and products, pp.124-148. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Piantanida, M. & Garman, N. B. 1999. The qualitative dissertation: A guide for
students and faculty. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwen Press.
Pique, J. & Andreu-Beso J. V. 1998. Bridging the gap in scientific articles. In Fortanet,
I., Posteguillo, S., Palmer, J.C., & Coll, J. F. (eds), Genre studies in English for
academic purposes, pp.173-191. Castello de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I.
 357

Pöchhacker, F. 2001. Working within a theoretical framework. In D. Gile, Getting

started in interpreting research: methodological reflections, personal accounts
and advice for beginners, pp.199-220. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins
Pub Co.
Prior, P. 1994. Response, Revision, Disciplinarity: A Microhistory of a Dissertation
Prospectus in Sociology. Written Communication, 11, 4, 483-533.
Prior, P. 1998. Writing / disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in
the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Richards, R. T. 1988. Thesis/Dissertation Writing for EFL Students: An ESP Course,
Design, English for Specific Purposes, 7, 3, 171-180.
Rogoff, B. 1995. Observing sociocultural ctivity on three planes: participatory
appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In Wertsch James V.,
del Rio, Alvarez, Pablo Amelia (eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind, pp.139-164.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rorty, R. 1979. Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rudestam, K. Erik & Newton, R. R. 2001. Surviving your dissertation: a
comprehensive guide to content and process (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks,
Calif.:Sage Publications.
Samraj, B. 2002. Introductions in Research Articles: Variations across Disciplines.
English-for-Specific-Purposes, 21, 1, 1-17.
Shaw, P. 1991. Science research students’ composing processes. English for Specific
Purposes, 10, 189-206.
Song, B. 1995. What does reading mean for East Asian students? College ESL, 5, 2,
35-48.
Spivey, N. N. 1990. Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing.
Written Communication, 7, 2, 256-287.
Sporn, B. 1999. Towards more adaptive universities; Trends of institutional reform in
Europe. Higher Education in Europe, XXIV, 1, 23-33.
Starfield, S. 2003. The evolution of a thesis-writing course for Arts and Social
Sciences students: what can applied linguistics offer? Hong Kong Journal
Applied Linguistics, 8, 2, 137-154.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. London: Sage.
Strauss, P., Walton, J. A. & Madsen, S. 2003. “I don’t have time to be an English
teacher.” Supervising the EAL thesis. In Cooley, L. & Lewkowicz (eds.), Thesis
and dissertation writing at postgraduate level: Theory and practice, pp.1-16. (A
Special Issue of Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 8, No.2)
Swales, J. M. 1981. Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, England: LSU,
University of Aston.
Swales, J. M. 1986. Citation analysis and discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics, 7, 1,
39-56.
Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. 2000. English in today’s research world: A writing guide.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
 358

Swales, J. M. & Lindemann, S. 2002. Teaching the literature review to international

graduate students. In A. M. Johns (ed.), Genre in the classroom, pp. 105-120.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swales, J. M. & Najjar, H. 1987. The writing of research article introductions. Written
Communication, 4, 175-192.
Tchigaeva, S. 2003. An activity-theoretical account of a postgraduate student’s
reading. Paper presented at the First METU Postgraduate Conference in
Linguistics and Language Teaching, METU-Turkey.
Thomas, S. and Hawes, T. 1994. Thematic options in reports of previous research.
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 17, 1, 45-72.
Thompson, G. & Ye, Y. 1991. Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic
papers. Applied Linguistics, 12, 4, 365-382.
Thornton, S. J. 1993. The quest for emergent meaning: A personal account. In
Flinders, David J. & Mills, Geoffrey E. (eds.), Theory and concepts in
qualitative research, pp.68-82. New York: Teachers College Press.
Torrance, M. S., Thomas, G. V. & Robinson, E. J. 1993. Training in thesis writing: an
evaluation of three conceptual orientations. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 63, 170-184.
Torrance, M. S. & Thomas, G. V. 1994. The development of writing skill sin doctoral
research students. In Burgess, Robert G. (ed.), Postgraduate education and
training in the social sciences: Processes and products, pp.105-123. London, UK:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Tung, C. H. 1998. Policy Address of year 1998. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government
Printer.
Tung, C. H. 1999. Policy Address of year 199. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government
Printer.
Tung, C. H. 2001. Policy Address of year 2001. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government
Printer.
Turner, J. 2003. Writing a PhD in the contemporary humanities. In Cooley, L. &
Lewkowicz (eds.), Thesis and dissertation writing at postgraduate level: Theory
and practice, pp.34-53. (A Special Issue of Hong Kong Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Vol. 8, No.2)
University Grant Committee. 2005.
http://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/ugc/publication/report/figure2004/figures.htm
Upton, T. A. 2002. Understanding direct mail letters as a genre. International Journal
of Corpus Linguistics, 7, 1, 65-85.
van Dijk, T. A. 1977. Semantic macro-structures and knowledge frames in discourse
comprehension. In Adam Just, Marcel & Carpenter, Patricia, A. (eds.) Cognitive
processes in comprehension, pp.3-32. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
van Dijk, T. A. 1979. Relevance assignment in discourse comprehension. Discourse
Processes, 2, 113-126.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribener, & E. Souberman, eds.).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 359

Weissberg, R. & Buker, S. 1990. Writing up research: experimental research report

writing for students of English. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Regents.
Youngman, M. 1994. Supervisors' and students' experiences of supervision. In
Burgess, Robert G. (ed.), Postgraduate education and training in the social
sciences: processes and products, pp.75-104. London: J. Kingsley.
Yeatman, A. 1998. Making research relationships accountable: Graduate student logs.
In Lee, Alison & Green, Bill (eds.), Postgraduate Studies. Postgraduate
Pedagogy. Sydney: Centre for Language and Literacy, University Graduate
School, University of Technology, Sydney.

Appendix I The semantic scheme for move/step-codingi
Move 1 Establishing the territory
Claiming centrality
Semantic feature group
(sources)
Epistemic (research)
phenomena (Swales, 1990;
Lewin et al 2001)
Non-epistemic (non-
research) phenomena
related to the topic (Connor
& Mauranen 1999; Lewin
et al 2001; Samraj 2000)
Direct centrality of the
above features (Kwan
1996; Lewin et al 2001)
Indirect centrality of the
above features (Swales
1990; Kwan 1996; Lewin
et al 2001)
Making topical generalizations (or reporting what is known about the phenomena under study)
Semantic feature group
(sources)
The phenomenon under
study
(Swales 1990)
Terminology (Duszak 1994;
Kwan 1996; Anthony 1999;
Lewin et al 2001)
Reviewing previous research items (research processes)
Semantic feature group
(sources)
Research processes (Lewin
et al 2001)
360
Features Examples of lexical realizations
ƒ researchers Investigators, researchers
ƒ research aims (or Self-access learning has received research
researched phenomena) attention…
ƒ research products It has been found that…
ƒ a research phenomenon Studies of … Research has been done
ƒ non-research phenomena teaching, stress, self-access learning
or activities discussion of
ƒ non-research people
related to the topic teachers, students,
ƒ circulation of publications … literature of
ƒ significance X is a significant phenomenon
ƒ importance Y is important…
ƒ magnitude There is growing literature…
ƒ salience X has been existing for a number of years
ƒ intensity In recent years,…
ƒ recency A wide range of inability
ƒ frequency A spate of interest
ƒ prevalence X is an influential figure
ƒ impact Mounting encroachment
ƒ influence
Features Examples of lexical realization
ƒ non-research phenomena, teaching, stress, self-access learning
activities or practices discussion of
ƒ non-research people related
to the topic teachers, students,
ƒ knowledge
ƒ Explanations X means…
ƒ Definitions Y is defined as… Z defines Y as…
ƒ Clarifications of concepts X means… whereas Y refers to…
ƒ Examples to illustrate the One example is that…
above
Features * Examples of lexical realization
ƒ Researchers Johnson, Ma & Spencer (1999) found that…
ƒ Research aims The researchers studied the X phenomenon
ƒ Subjects The researchers studied a group of students…
ƒ Research processes The researchers interviewed … think aloud
protocols…
ƒ Research instrumentation The questionnaire,… The software used to…
 361

Move 2 Establishing a niche

Counter-claiming
Semantic feature group Features Examples of lexical realization
(sources)
Defects in established z Flaws Problems, concerns, inaccurate, a view being
knowledge claims or limited, the limitation of a research method;
previous research (Swales z Limitations The study failed to…, The research did not
1990; Pieque & Andreu- z Inconsistencies explain…
Beso 1998; Samraj 2000; Inconsistencies, different findings, disagreement,
Lewin et al 2001)

Gap-indicating
Semantic feature group Features Examples of lexical realization
(sources)
Deficits of knowledge or z scarcity Few has been done… Little has been found
research actions (Swales z paucity X remains unexamined.. Y is left unanswered…
1990; Pieque & Andreu- z gaps There is a gap in…
Beso 1998; Samraj 2000; z needs
Lewin et al 2001)

Question raising
Semantic feature group Features Examples of lexical realization
(sources)
Question-raising z questions What would be the relationship between X and Y?
z queries

Continuing a tradition
Semantic feature group Features Examples of lexical realization
(sources)
Extending a tradition z A research method X should be continued
z A research approach More research is needed to extend this line of
z A non-research practice research.
z Extension

Move 3 Announcing the present research (occupying the niche)

Announcing the purposes
Semantic group (sources) Features Examples of lexical realization

Introducing aims of the z The researchers We, I, the author

thesis (Swales 1990; Lewin z The research
2001; Bunton 2002) z The research report
z Discursive processes
z Research processes
z Purpose or aim of the
research/report
z Contents of the report
The study, investigation, research, analysis
Identifiers + product: This paper, the present
report,, the current study
This paper will present, report, …
This paper will analyze …, examine…
The purpose …
Name the phenomena under study

Announcing the work carried out

Semantic group (sources) Features Examples of lexical realization

Introducing work done z The researchers author

(Bunton 2002) z The research study, test, research
z Events arising from the
research
 362
Announcing research method
Semantic group (sources) Features Examples of lexical realization

Describing one’s own Data-collection Interviewing

research method (Bunton Design of procedures Experimenting
2002) Qualitative

Materials or subjects
Semantic group (sources) Features Examples of lexical realization

Describing the writer’s own • Research instruments Questionnaires, interview protocols, tests
research materials or • The researched Subjects, informants, students, teachers
subjects (Bunton 2002)

Findings or results
Semantic group (sources) Features Examples of lexical realization

Summarizing findings or • Research Study, research, investigation, test,

results (Bunton (2002) • Analytical processes Found, identified, confirmed, show, suggest,
• Claims of findings and Results, findings
results

Significance and justification

Semantic group (sources) Features Examples of lexical realization

Showing the significance or • Research Study, investigation,

justifying one’s own • Claims of significance Important
research (Bunton 2002) • Reasons Because, reasons,

Thesis structure
Semantic group (sources) Features Examples of lexical realization

Announcing the structure • Document Report, thesis, etc.

of the thesis (Bunton 2002) • Chapters Chapter + number
• Themes Literature review, methodology, etc.

i
Note that the scheme has basically followed the schematic pattern developed based on findings from
various CARS studies. Its schematic structure is however modeled on that proposed by Bunton (2002)
for Ph.D thesis introductions to facilitate cross-study comparison.
 363

Appendix IIA Interview Guide

(Student Informants in the initial stage of study)
Name:
Institution:
Field(s) of study:
Supervisor(s):
Duration of study:
Status of study: Starting/completing Year 1, 2
Submitting Qualifying Report (QR)
Qualifying Report submitted/presentation of QR made
Mode of study: Full time / Part time; Local university (HK) / Distance-learning (UK)
History of study:
Date and venue of interview
Duration of interview:
Topic of study:
Aims of the research:
Discipline:
Institution/Department:
Biographical sketch:
Other particulars about the
informant
Written products

Documents provided by informant:

Admission proposal:
Qualifying report:
Interim drafts of thesis/literature review:
Others:

Interview question guide:

I. Introduction to my project:
aims, nature & confidentiality

II. General background of informant’s study:

1. Could you briefly introduce your study, e.g., its aims, methodology, preliminary findings, etc.?
2. What made you choose the topic?
2. What motivated you to pursue a doctoral degree?
3. Could you briefly tell me some of the major events which took place in the process of your study?

III. Chronicling the informant’s literature reviewing experience:

4. Could you briefly describe your literature review produced so far? Briefly describe its contents,
arguments or themes and what you want to demonstrate through your literature review chapter(s).
5. When did you start your reviewing (both reading and writing)?
6. When do you plan stop reviewing (both reading and writing)?
7. Describe some of the crucial events which you think had impacted the direction or selection of
reading done in the past year/months of study. Specify the time and the progress made in your
study when these events took place. You can start with the most recent events.
 364
IV. Reconstructing the literature reviewing experience

IV.1 Choosing the literature for reading

Purposes of reviewing
8. Let’s go back to some of the experiences you have shared just now. In those experiences, did you
aim to collect materials for your literature review or did you read for other purposes? What were
the other purposes?

Choosing specific works, themes, theoretical frameworks and authors

9. Describe briefly the reading you have done. Name some of the major items you read, e.g., authors’,
themes, specific sources, etc. [Prompt the informant’s response by referring to the theoretical
framework, some of the major themes and specific references discussed in documents provided or
hints of these items as provided in response to Question 5.]
10. What made you choose the above items for reading?
11. How did you learn about the items which you have chosen to review?
12. What made you decide that they were relevant?
13. Were they relevant to your study, your literature review chapters, or other parts of your thesis? In
what way were they relevant?
14. Whose works did you read most? Why?
15. Which themes did you read most? Why?
16. There’s so much literature out there. What made you eventually decide the items you have
mentioned or cited?
17. Was there any other literature which you had read but not cited? Why not citing them?
18. As shown in your literature review draft, you have adopted X’s theory/framework/conceptual
framework/hypothesis to guide your study/for testing in your study. How did you come to chosen
the theory (etc.)? Can you recall the experience of acquiring this theory? How did find out about
this theory, the literature relating to the theory, the theorist’s works, etc? [Applicable to informants
who had produced drafts / part of the drafts of literature review chapters]
19. What made you choose the theoretical framework used in your study / discussed in the LR chapter?
[Applicable to informants who had produced drafts / part of the drafts of literature review chapters]

Development of literature selection

20. Recall some of the major reading experiences in this past year of your study. What did you read
most intensively, theme-wise, author-wise and reference-wise? Name some specific examples of
focuses.
21. Did your selection of literature go through any major changes throughout these [#] of months of
your study? If did, what were the changes? Recall some of your experiences of change. What do
you think had caused the changes?

Literature reviewing, the research process and the thesis-writing

22. Has your research progress or writing done so far somehow impacted your reading? If so, describe
some of the crucial experiences in which the former two processes have impacted your reading and
describe how they have impacted your reading.

IV.2 Probing into specific WLR (writing of the literature review) experiences

When & relation to previous LR products

23. Could you recall any major events which occurred in the process of writing the literature review
draft for your literature review for the Qualifying Report or literature review draft? Briefly describe
those events.
24. How have these events impacted your choices of sources for citations?
25. You mentioned that you started writing your literature review in _(time)__ [refer to the response
provided in Question 3].
 365
26. Is the current LR very similar to the version you wrote earlier? How similar or how different?
What made you do all the revisions?

IV.3 Probing into situated learning

Guided participation: people’s help

27. Was there anybody involved in the process of selecting the literature for reviewing? It there was,
who was the person(s)? When did this involvement take place? How was the person involved? In
what context was the person involved? Recall some major events which had started the person’s
involvement. How had this person’s involvement impacted your literature reviewing? What
specific aspects of the process had been impacted?
28. Did the writing process involve anybody? Who? Did you integrate their comments into your LR
(for the QR or for draft thesis)? Which parts? What were their comments?
29. Which part(s) of your literature review will be the most crucial to your thesis? Let’s skim through
those parts. Did the selection of literature cited /themes discussed there involve anybody/the
persons mentioned [in the response to Question 31]?

LLP (legitimate peripheral participation) in academic activities

30. Is your study part of your supervisor’s project? If so, briefly describe the project. How is your
study related to your supervisor’s project? Has this experience affected your selection of literature
reviewing? In what way did it affect the selection? Could you recall any events to illustrate this
experience?
31. Have you attended seminars and conferences? How often have you done so? Are the conferences
related to your thesis? Name a few you attended. How did these conferences/seminars help your
selection of literature? Could you recall any events which can illustrate this help?
32. Did you present or publish any part of your on-going work? Which part? Why did you want to
present or publish it?
33. Did you get any feedback from your audience? The reviewers? What were their comments? Did
they relate any comment to your literature review, especially sources to read and issues to review?
Could you recall any events which can illustrate receiving feedback from these people and which
had impacted your literature review?

V. Looking back:
34. Have you learned how to conduct your literature reviewing (reading)? Have you learned how to
write your literature review chapter? When and where have you learned the processes?
35. What are the several things you have learned so far about literature reviewing (both reading and
writing) during your doctoral study? Are what you’ve learned in this study different from what you
have learned/been taught before? In what way are they different? In what way are they the same?
36. How would you develop your literature reviewing practice in the rest of your study? What do you
foresee that you will be reviewing in the coming year and for what purposes?
37. If you were to offer advice to a starting doctoral student regarding literature reviewing, what would
be your advice for the student?
 366

Appendix IIB Interview Guide

(Student Informants in their middle stage of study)
Name:
Institution:
Field(s) of study:
Supervisor(s):
Duration of study:
Status of study: Completing/starting Year 2, 3, 4, etc.
Mode of study: Full time / Part time; Local university (HK) / Distance-learning (UK)
History of study:
Date and venue of interview
Duration of interview:
Topic of study:
Aims of the research:
Discipline:
Institution/Department:
Biographical sketch:
Other particulars about the
informant
Written products

Documents provided by informant:

Admission proposal:
Qualifying report:
Interim drafts of thesis/literature review:
Others:

Interview question guide:

I. Introduction to my project:
aims, nature & confidentiality

II. General background of informant’s study:

1. Could you briefly introduce your study? e.g., its aims, methodology, findings?
2. What made you choose the topic?
2. What motivated you to pursue a doctoral degree?
3. Could you briefly tell me some of the major events which took place in the process of your study?

III. Chronicling the informant’s literature reviewing experience:

4. Could you briefly describe your literature review produced so far? Briefly describe its contents,
arguments or themes and what you want to demonstrate through your literature review chapter(s).
5. When did you start your reviewing (both reading and writing)?
6. When do you plan stop reviewing (both reading and writing)?
7. Describe some of the crucial events which you think had impacted the direction or selection of
reading. Specify the time and the progress made in your study/thesis when these events took place.
You can start with the most recent events.

IV. Reconstructing the literature reviewing experience

IV.1 Choosing the literature for reading
Purposes of reviewing
8. Let’s go back to some of the experiences you have shared just now. In those experiences, did you
aim to collect materials for your literature review or did you read for other purposes? What were
the other purposes?
 367
Choosing specific works, themes, theoretical frameworks and authors
9. Describe briefly the reading you have done. Name some of the major items you read, e.g., authors’,
themes, specific sources, etc. [Prompt the informant’s response by referring to the theoretical
framework, some of the major themes and specific references discussed in the literature review
chapter provided or hints of these items as provided in response to Question 5.]
10. What made you choose the above items for reading?
11. How did you learn about the items which you have chosen to review?
12. What made you decide that they were relevant?
13. Were they relevant to your study, your literature review chapters, or other parts of your thesis? In
what way were they relevant?
14. Whose works did you read most? Why?
15. Which themes did you read most? Why?
16. There’s so much literature out there. What made you eventually decide the items you have
mentioned or cited?
17. Was there any other literature which you had read but not cited? Why not citing them?
18. As shown in your literature review draft, you have adopted X’s theory/framework/conceptual
framework/hypothesis to guide your study/for testing in your study. How did you come to chosen
the theory (etc.)? Can you recall the experience of acquiring this theory? How did find out about
this theory, the literature relating to the theory, the theorist’s works, etc? [Applicable to informants
who had produced drafts / part of the drafts of literature review chapters]
19. What made you choose the theoretical framework used in your study / discussed in the LR chapter?
[Applicable to informants who had produced drafts / part of the drafts of literature review chapters]

Development of literature selection

20. Recall some of the major reading experiences in the first year of your study. What did you read
most intensively, theme-wise, author-wise and reference-wise? Name some specific examples of
focuses.
21. Recall some of the major reading experiences beyond the first year of your study. What did you
read most intensively, theme-wise, author-wise and reference-wise)? Name some specific
examples of focuses.
22. Recall some of the major reading experiences in these past few months. What did you read most
intensively, theme-wise, author-wise and reference-wise? Name some specific examples of focuses.
23. Did your selection of literature go through any major changes throughout these [#] of years? If did,
what were the changes? Recall some of your experiences of change. What do you think had caused
the changes?

Literature reviewing, the research process and the thesis-writing:

24. Has your research progress or writing done so far somehow impacted your reading? If so, describe
some of the crucial experiences in which the former two processes have impacted your reading and
describe how they have impacted your reading.

IV.2 Probing into specific WLR (writing of the literature review) experiences
When & relation to previous LR products
25. Could you recall any major events which occurred in the process of writing the literature review
draft for your literature review for the Qualifying Report or literature review draft? Briefly describe
those events.
26. How have these events impacted your choices of sources for citations?
27. You mentioned that you started writing your literature review in _[time]__ [refer to the response
provided in Question 3].
28. Is the current LR very similar to the version you wrote back then? How similar or how different?
What made you do all the revisions?
 368
IV.3 Probing into situated learning
Guided participation: people’s help
29. Was there anybody involved in the process of selecting the literature for reviewing? It there was,
who was the person(s)? When did this involvement take place? How was the person involved? In
what context was the person involved? Recall some major events which had started the person’s
involvement. How had this person’s involvement impacted your literature reviewing? What
specific aspects of the process had been impacted?
30. Did the writing process involve anybody? Who? Did you integrate their comments into your LR?
Which parts? What were their comments?
31. Which part(s) of your literature review will be the most crucial to your thesis? Let’s skim through
those parts. Did the selection of literature cited /themes discussed there involve anybody/the
persons mentioned [in the response to Question 31]?

LLP (legitimate peripheral participation) in academic activities

32. Is your study part of your supervisor’s project? If so, briefly describe the project. How is your
study related to your supervisor’s project? Has this experience affected your selection of literature
reviewing? In what way did it affect the selection? Could you recall any events to illustrate this
experience?
33. Have you attended seminars and conferences? How often have you done so? Are the conferences
related to your thesis? Name a few you attended. How did these conferences/seminars help your
selection of literature? Could you recall any events which can illustrate this help?
34. Did you present or publish any part of your on-going work? Which part? Why did you want to
present or publish it?
35. Did you get any feedback from your audience? The reviewers? What were their comments? Did
they relate any comment to your literature review, especially sources to read and issues to review?
Could you recall any events which can illustrate receiving feedback from these people and which
had impacted your literature review?

V. Looking back:
36. Have you learned how to conduct your literature reviewing (reading)? Have you learned how to
write your literature review chapter? When and where have you learned the processes?
37. What are the several things you have learned about literature reviewing (both reading and writing)
during your doctoral study? Are what you’ve learned in this study different from what you have
learned/been taught before? In what way are they different? In what way are they the same?
38. How would you develop your literature reviewing practice in the rest of your study? What do you
foresee that you will be reviewing and for what purposes? If you were to offer advice to a starting
doctoral student regarding literature reviewing, what would be your advice for the student?
 369

Appendix IIC Interview Guide

(Completing/Graduated Student Informants)
Name:
Institution:
Field(s) of study:
Supervisor(s):
Duration of study:
Status of study: Completing / completed
Mode of study: Full time / Part time; Local university (HK) / Distance-learning (UK)
History of study:
Date and venue of interview
Duration of interview:
Title of thesis:
Aims of the research:
Discipline:
Institution/Department:
Biographical sketch:
Other particulars about the
informant
Some macro features of the
dissertation

Documents provided by informant:

Completed thesis

Interview question guide:

I. Introduction to my project:
aims, nature & confidentiality

II. General background of informant’s study:

1. Could you briefly introduce your study? e.g., its aims, methodology, findings?
2. What made you choose the topic?
2. What motivated you to pursue a doctoral degree?
3. Could you briefly tell me some of the major events which took place in the process of your study?

III. Chronicling the informant’s literature reviewing experience:

4. Could you briefly describe your literature review? Briefly describe its contents, arguments or themes
and what you want to demonstrate through your literature review chapter(s).
5. When did you start your reviewing (both reading and writing)?
6. When did you stop reviewing (both reading and writing)?
7. Describe some of the crucial events which you think had impacted the direction or selection of reading.
Specify the time and the progress made in your study/thesis when these events took place. You can
start with the most recent events.

IV. Reconstructing the literature reviewing experience

IV.1 Choosing the literature for reading

Purposes of reviewing
8. Let’s go back to some of the experiences you have shared just now. In those experiences, did you aim
to collect materials for your literature review or did you read for other purposes? What were the other
purposes?
 370

Choosing specific works, themes, theoretical frameworks and authors

9. Describe briefly the reading you have done. Name some of the major items you read, e.g., authors’,
themes, specific sources, etc. [Prompt the informant’s response by referring to the theoretical
framework, some of the major themes and specific references discussed in the literature review chapter
provided or hints of these items as provided in response to Question 5.]
10. What made you choose the above items for reading?
11. How did you learn about the items which you have chosen to review?
12. What made you decide that they were relevant?
13. Were they relevant to your study, your literature review chapters, or other parts of your thesis? In what
way were they relevant?
14. Whose works did you read most? Why?
15. Which themes did you read most? Why?
16. There’s so much literature out there. What made you eventually decide the items you have mentioned
or cited?
17. Was there any other literature which you had read but not cited? Why not citing them?
18. As shown in your literature review chapter, you have adopted X’s theory/framework/conceptual
framework/hypothesis to guide your study/for testing in your study. How did you come to chosen the
theory (etc.)? Can you recall the experience of acquiring this theory? How did find out about this
theory, the literature relating to the theory, the theorist’s works, etc?
19. What made you choose the theoretical framework used in your study / discussed in the LR chapter?

Development of literature selection

20. Recall some of the major reading experiences in the first year of your study. What did you read most
intensively, theme-wise, author-wise and reference-wise? Name some specific examples of focuses.
21. Recall some of the major reading experiences in the middle years of your study [depending on the
informants’ duration of study]. What did you read most intensively, theme-wise, author-wise and
reference-wise)? Name some specific examples of focuses.
22. Recall some of the major reading experiences in the final year of your study. What did you read most
intensively, theme-wise, author-wise and reference-wise? Name some specific examples of focuses.
23. Did your selection of literature go through any major changes throughout these [#] of years? If did,
what were the changes? Recall some of your experiences of change. What do you think had caused the
changes?

Literature reviewing, the research process and the thesis-writing:

24. Had your research progress or writing somehow impacted your reading? If so, can you recall some of
the crucial experiences where the former had impacted your reading? How had they impacted your
reading?

IV.2 Probing into specific WLR (writing of the literature review) experiences

When & relation to previous LR products

25. Could you recall any major events which occurred in the process of writing the literature review
chapter? Briefly describe those events.
26. How did those events impact your choices of sources for citations?
27. You mentioned that you started writing your literature review in _[time]__ [refer to the response
provided in Question 3].
28. Is the current LR very similar to the version you wrote back then? How similar or how different? What
made you do all the revisions?
 371

IV.3 Probing into situated learning

Guided participation: people’s help
29. Was there anybody involved in the process of selecting the literature for reviewing? It there was, who
was the person(s)? When did this involvement take place? How was the person involved? In what
context was the person involved? Recall some major events which had started the person’s
involvement. How had this person’s involvement impacted your literature reviewing? What specific
aspects of the process had been impacted?
30. Did the writing process involve anybody? Who? Did you integrate their comments into your LR?
Which parts? What were their comments?
31. Which part(s) of your literature review are the most crucial to your thesis? Let’s skim through those
parts. Did the selection of literature cited /themes discussed there involve anybody/the persons
mentioned [in the response to Question 30]?

LLP (legitimate peripheral participation) in academic activities

32. Was your study part of your supervisor’s project? If so, briefly describe the project. How was your
study related to your supervisor’s project? Had this experience affected your selection of literature
reviewing? In what way had it affect the selection? Could you recall any events to illustrate this
experience?
33. How often did you attend seminars and conferences during your study? Were the conferences related
to your thesis? Name a few you attended. How did these conferences/seminars help your selection of
literature? Could you recall any events which can illustrate this help?
34. Did you present or publish any part of the thesis before you finished writing it up? Which part? Why
did you want to present or publish it?
35. Did you get any feedback from your audience? The reviewers? What were their comments? Did they
relate any comment to your literature review, especially sources to read and issues to review? Could
you recall any events which can illustrate receiving feedback from these people and which had
impacted your literature review?

V. Looking back:
36. Did you learn how to conduct your literature reviewing (reading)? Did you learn how to write your
literature review chapter? When and where did you learn the processes?
37. What are the several things you have learned about literature reviewing (both reading and writing)
during your doctoral study? Are what you’ve learned in this study different from what you have
learned/been taught before? In what way are they different? In what way are the same?
38. If you were to offer advice to a starting doctoral student regarding literature reviewing, what would be
your advice for the student?
 372

Appendix IID Interview Guide

(Supervisor informants)
Name of Informant:
Supervisee:
Institution:
Biographical sketch of informant
Date and venue of interview
Duration of interview:
Language use:

Interview question guide:

I. Introduction to my project:

II. General background of supervisee’s study:

1. What's X (supervisee)'s work about? Aims, theoretical groundwork, methodology, findings, etc.?
2. How has he/she decided on this topic?
3. What role did you play in this decision-making process?
4. How did she come to choose this framework?
5. What role did you play in this framework-negotiating process?

III. Chronicling LR-supervising experiences

6. Is there anything that stands out in supervising X’s study which you would want to remark? What is
it? Can you describe what happened?
7. Is there anything that stands out in supervising X’s literature reviewing process which you would
want to remark? What is it? Can you describe what happened?
8. Can you recall some of the major authors, works or themes which X read? Can you recall some of
the major themes, works or authors cited in X’s literature review (in QR or thesis) [prompts provided
to help the informant recall the supervisee’s work]?
9. Did X go through any changes in his/her literature reviewing over these past # of months/years of
his/her study. If so, what kinds? Are they changes in reading focuses, reading of works by specific
authors, reading of specific theory works, etc.? Specify. Can you relate some specific experiences
which suggest these changes?

IV. Situated learning: guided participation

10. What did you and X discuss most regarding his study, e.g., writing, etc.?
11. How were /are you involved in X’s literature reviewing process, e.g., writing the literature review,
etc.? Recall some major experiences which can illustrate your involvement.
12. How would you describe your relationship with X?
13. What sorts of things did you and X discuss most regarding his/her literature review?
14. What sorts of things did you suggest X to read?
15. How often did/does X consult you for advice on literature reviewing and what kinds of help did/do
you provide?
16. Did X follow your suggestions closely?
17. What sorts of comments did/do you usually make on X's literature review?
18. How much leeway did/do you give X in accepting your feedback?

V. Confirmation of stories provided by student informants

19. X said that …[relating to experiences of reading/supervision on LR]. Is this true? Could you
elaborate and comment on the experience that X related.
e.g.,
Yixin’s case: ‘Yixin mentioned that the theoretical framework was introduced to him by Gareth. Is
this true? Could you elaborate and comment on the experience that Yixin related?’