DEVELOPING YOURPERSONAL CAREER PLANDeliverables.docx

DEVELOPING YOUR
PERSONAL CAREER PLAN
Deliverables:
1. Complete the Personal Career Plan Tools in the Appendix at
the end of the document. You should copy and paste the tools
into a separate word document. Name the document
YourlastnameCareerPlanTools.doc. You will upload this
document to the Assignments area in Blackboard.
2. Create a personal resume. Name the document
YourlastnameResume.doc. You will upload this document to the
Assignments area in Blackboard.
3. Write a 3-5 page reflection paper (12 point font, double
spaced) addressing your personal experience in Career Planning.
Address each component from the Six-stage Career
Development model included in this packet. (See page 2.) What
did you learn from this exercise? You may need think about
activities you would like to do for Steps 5 and 6 to include in
this assignment. This paper is based on your thoughts and
supportive documentation is not required.
Objectives of the Personal Career Strategy Assignment
1. Identify characteristics/attributes in support of your personal
career brand.
2. Explore personal and University of Louisville institutional
assets that will enhance your education and job search process.
3. Package past activity and build clear future goals.
Developing Your Personal Career Strategy

Successful organizations create strategic plans to provide a
long-term vision of what they aim to become. They also specify
goals and related objectives and then strategic plans that will
take them incrementally toward the realization of the vision.
This process parallels as a useful paradigm for successful career
management. This document can help you develop a personal
career management strategy and plan. It gives an overview of
the career development process and brief description of each
stage and introduces exercises culminating in your own plan.
The 6 Stages of Career Development
The model below depicts the six stages of the career
development cycle. In progressing through the stages, you will
develop goals and strategies for pursuing a satisfying career.
Over time, you will cycle through the process again as you
evolve. Career decisions are not one-time events, but steps in a
life-long career development process. Research indicates that,
on average, people change jobs seven times and careers three
times in a life-time. This information is presented as an
educational experience rather than a simple map to help you get
a job.
Self-Exploration is an opportunity to reflect on your skills,
interests, passions, values and whether/how you’ve integrated
these into your past assignments.
Market Research involves investigating industries, companies
and functions of interest.
Focus is the intersection of the first two stages, overlapping
your interests with what is happening in the market and setting
a goal for your internship search.

Planning is creating your marketing materials to reflect your
personal brand.
Implementation is the stage at which you venture out in career
fairs, networking, applying and interviewing for jobs and then
successfully negotiating for the best offer.
Career Management covers the transition into your new role as
well as periodic evaluations of your career and the flow back
into the next reiteration of the job cycle.
This Personal Career Plan document contains exercises for the
first four stages of the process to get you started. Data
generated will later be used to develop your key marketing
materials (resume, cover letter and interview responses). This is
an important project as you undertake in your professional
development, so it is worth investing the time up front in order
to ultimately achieve your end goals.
Stage One: Self– Exploration
Self-Assessment
Self-assessment is essential for career planning and ongoing
professional development. Conducting a regular inventory
produces self-awareness that includes identifying knowledge,
talents, strengths and skills, which can be leveraged in pursuit
of your goals. Beyond that, knowing yourself is foundational for
success in leading others. It can also help identify performance
and skills gaps that could potentially undermine your
professional development.
While assessments can be very useful, valid data is also derived
by simply reflecting on your past experiences and performance.
As you deconstruct past accomplishments, pay particular

attention to clues regarding your interests, values, strengths and
skills. This information will be helpful later, in forming your
career decisions and planning. Focus on interests not only
where you excel, but also that you enjoy! By identifying careers
whose demands and requirements map directly to your core
interests, you increase the likelihood of enjoying your work and
being motivated to do it well.
Please complete Appendix A: Career History.
Assessing Personality
In addition to interests, values, and strengths, other aspects of
your personality are important to consider in your career
choices and planning. You may have an intuitive sense of who
you are and with a little self-reflection or input from people
close to you, be able to identify certain aspects of your
personality that are important to consider with regard to your
career trajectory. Certain characteristics are likely to be very
important to a potential employer and in later promotional
decisions. Having this self-knowledge will be critical in
promoting these assets. In an employment decision, these traits
may also differentiate you from other candidates.
Please complete Appendix A: Personality Profile.
Stage Two: Market Research
People and published sources are two general categories of
resources for gathering market information.
People are an excellent resource for industry and especially
company information.They simultaneously canbecome the

foundation for a growing professional network on which to rely
not only in job searches, but also throughout your career. Did
you know 65-70% of people get their jobs through networking?
Sessions in orientation will cover how to find contacts, then
reach out to request and conduct informational interviews.
Your market research goals will be focused on gathering
information about business functions, industries and/or
organizations to inform your career choices. Ask about:
· Duties/Tasks: typical projects, needed knowledge, skills and
abilities
· Roles: leader, manager, supervisor, contributor
· Responsibilities: level of accountability for various functions
· Rewards: compensation, job security, prestige, challenge, etc.
· Culture: values regarding norms, behaviors and organizational
processes
· Resources: publications or professional associations you could
read/join
Published resources (including books, web-sites, professional
associations, and on-line business databases) are valuable for
gathering basic field, industry, and company information.
LinkedIn is the world’s largest networking site. I strongly
suggest you build a profile now. Getting familiar with LinkedIn
and its benefits (job postings, company information and
networking groups) will aid your job search and networking
power tremendously.
Professional Associations provide resources to understand the
scope and purpose of a particular industry or function.
Membership can include access to a membership directory,
which is often useful in identifying potential networking
contacts with whom to conduct informational interviews. Some
association web sites (Society for Human Resource
Management) even contain information on student scholarships,

internship and permanent job opportunities or executive search
firms. Do a Google search for “professional associations” and
other key words e.g. training, to find them.
Stage Three: FOCUS
FIT
As you develop insight into yourself and your occupational
options, you will begin to eliminate options that previously
appeared to be appropriate, in favor of better choices. The goal
is to identify a functional role whose duties, tasks, role and
responsibilities are a good “fit” with your interests, skills,
knowledge and experience, while also defining an
organizational context (industry and company) whose culture is
compatible with your personality and provides rewards that will
satisfy your value system. A good fit increases the likelihood
that you will enjoy your work and enhances the probability that
you will perform at an exceptional level. This level of focus
enables you to strategically segment the employment market and
create a marketing campaign that specifically targets an
audience that is inclined to place high value on what you have
to offer, when you can articulate how you meet their needs.
As you assess your "fit" with various occupational options,
consider the following:
· Which of your key interests, skills and abilities are consistent
with typical duties and tasks of the position?
· Which key interests map to the industry and company products
or services?
· Which values are likely to be satisfied within the culture and
reward system?
· Which personality traits are consistent with the culture of the
organization?
· What of your knowledge and/or experience maps to the
function, industry, company, product, or service?

As you assess the match between information gathered in your
market assessment and the results of your self-assessment, you
will direct your search toward a particular functional focus,
industry preference, and preferred organizational
context/culture. These choices are the central factors in a
personally-relevant career plan and strategy.
SWOT Analysis
A SWOT analysis reveals Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities
and Threats in you and the employment market. It enables you
to analyze the realism of your vision and plan accordingly.
Additionally, it could help you specify goals and objectives to
mitigate gaps (weakness and threats that separate you from
where you would like to be) while also strategically leveraging
personal strengths and market opportunities.
For individuals planning a shift into a new function or industry,
an early and ongoing SWOT analysis is vital. This is
particularly true if your aim is to break into brand management,
management consulting, or investment banking because these
are highly competitive fields. You must understand your
personal barriers to entry and be able to express to a potential
employer why you are capable of such a transition.
S.W.O.T. Chart
Internal
Strengths
Weaknesses
YOU
Where do you excel? What skills, knowledge, abilities,
personality traits and experience can you offer an employer?
E.g. Skills and experience in the industry and/or function, new

contact has taken a particular interest in your potential
In what areas are you not comfortable or proficient?
E.g. No professional network in the industry and/or function,
poor interviewing skills
External
Opportunities
Threats
THE MARKET
What market situations exist that will help you get a job in a
particular function or industry you are targeting?
E.g. High demand for people with your skills, a recent merger
results in a demand for your offerings
What market scenarios exist that pose a risk to your goals?
E.g. Weak economy, target industry hit particularly hard by
economy
Please complete Appendix B: S.W.O.T. Analysis.
Stage Four: Planning
In this stage you will integrate what you learned in the previous
exercises into a strategic development plan that includes a five-
year vision for where you want to go, as well as mid-term
objectives to achieve along the way. While you may not know
exactly what you will be doing in five years, you can take the

information you currently have and create an image of your
ideal future career. Writing down the vision will facilitate your
creation of goals and plans to help you get there. A strategic
plan is a living document so you can update it periodically as
you and your environment change.
Mid-term steps are useful when conditions preclude your ability
to directly achieve your goals, or if personal weaknesses or
external threats make your plan unrealistic in the short-term.
For example, a competitive job market, along with insufficient
functional or industry experience, may necessitate seeking an
intermediate-level job to obtain the experience, which later
enables you to pursue your larger goal. In addition, your SWOT
analysis may indicate that you may need to pursue an
alternative step for other developmental experiences (e.g.
training or skill development.) Over time, your realistic and
well-informed intermediate steps will take you closer to your
vision.
Please complete Appendix C: Career Development Plan.
Personal Career Plan Tools
Name:
APPENDIX A: Career History
Objective: To identify your prior learning and critical
experiences. Identify transferable skills to highlight in resume
&/or interviews. Focus on past 3-5 years for this exercise &

explore the rest on your own if applicable.
Company/ Organization
Position Held
Achievements
Skills Used
Life Lessons Learned
What are the three most significant events in my career?
Why?
APPENDIX A: Personality and Work Styles
The list below contains words that describe various personality

styles. As you read through the list, bold those items that reflect
aspects of your personality. Be honest and realistic in your
choices. This is an inventory of who you actually are, not who
you would like to be or how you would like others to perceive
you. (As a useful point of comparison, consider asking a recent
co-worker to complete a duplicate form and identify your top
five descriptors from his perspective.)
Accommodating
Cautious
Determined
Instinctive
Patient
Self-Confident
Accurate
Charismatic
Dignified
Introvert
Perceptive
Selfless
Action-oriented
Cheerful
Diligent
Intuitive
Perfectionist
Self-motivated
Active
Clever
Diplomatic
Inventive
Persevering
Self-reliant
Adaptable
Collaborative
Discreet

Investigative
Persistent
Sensitive
Adventurous
Competent
Dominant
Kind
Persuasive
Serious
Aggressive
Competitive
Dynamic
Knowledgeable
Pioneering
Sincere
Alert
Compliant
Easy-going
Leader
Poised
Social
Altruistic
Confident
Effective
Logical
Polite
Solitary
Ambitious
Conscientious
Energetic
Loyal
Practical
Stable
Analytical
Conventional
Enthusiastic

Mature
Pragmatic
Steady
Appreciative
Cooperative
Ethical
Methodical
Precise
Strong
Artistic
Critical
Exceptional
Moral
Principled
Supportive
Assertive
Curious
Expert
Motivated
Professional
Tactful
Astute
Decisive
Extrovert
Motivating
Rational
Thorough
Authoritative
Dedicated
Imaginative
Objective
Realistic
Thoughtful
Bold
Disciplined
Independent

Observant
Reserved
Tolerant
Calm
Deliberate
Influential
Open-minded
Resilient
Trustworthy
Candid
Dependable
Innovative
Optimistic
Resourceful
Versatile
Caring
Dependent
Inquisitive
Outgoing
Retiring
APPENDIX B: S.W.O.T. Analysis
Fill in the boxes with your responses.
Internal
Strengths
Weaknesses
YOU
Where do you excel? What skills, knowledge, abilities,
personality traits and experience can you offer an employer?
E.g. Skills and experience in the industry and/or function, new

contact has taken a particular interest in your potential
In what areas are you not comfortable or proficient?
E.g. No professional network in the industry and/or function,
poor interviewing skills
External
Opportunities
Threats
THE MARKET
What market situations exist that will help you get a job in a
particular function or industry you are targeting?
E.g. High demand for people with your skills, a recent merger
results in a demand for your offerings
What market scenarios exist which pose a risk to your goals?

E.g. Weak economy, target industry hit particularly hard by
economy
APPENDIX C - Career Development Plan
Use what you have learned about yourself and market
opportunities to formulate a vision and the associated goals that
are personally meaningful and motivating for you.
Where do I want to be in two years? e.g. job function,
industry/ies, geographic location etc.
What are the key skills that I need to develop to get there?
Where do I want to be in five years?
What are the additional skills that I need to develop to get
there?
How does that fit in with where the job market is headed?

What else should I consider?
Action Plan
What are your next steps?
Congratulations on investing time in planning your career- it
will pay off!
11
Page |
Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and
professional science
Ken Hyland*
Centre for Applied English Studies, Room 709, KK Leung
Building, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulham Road, Hong
Kong, China
Abstract
The view of academic discourse as a rhetorical activity
involving interactions between writers and readers is now
central to most
perspectives on EAP, but these interactions are conducted
differently in different disciplinary and generic contexts. In this
paper I

use the term proximity to refer to a writer’s control of those
rhetorical features which display both authority as an expert and
a personal position towards issues in an unfolding text.
Examining a corpus of texts in two very different genres,
research papers and
popular science articles, I attempt to highlight some of the ways
writers manage their display of expertise and interactions with
readers through rhetorical choices which textually construct
both the writer and the reader as people with similar
understandings
and goals.
! 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: popular science; research articles; academic writing;
interaction
1. Interpersonality and proximity
The view that academic writing is interpersonal is no longer
news. Over the last twenty years analyses of academic
texts have shown us that while they may be more lexically
dense, cautious and nominalised than many other kinds of
writing, they aren’t as completely ‘author evacuated’ as we had
once supposed (e.g. Hyland, 2004; Swales, 2004).
Instead, they are actually comprised of careful evaluations and
interactions. Research papers, we have discovered, are
sites where academics don’t just offer a view of the world, but
negotiate a credible account of themselves and their
work by claiming solidarity with readers, appraising ideas and
acknowledging alternative views. Interpersonality,
then, concerns the ways that writers use language to negotiate
social relationships by telling their readers what they see
as important, how they believe they should select and present
material for them, and how they feel about what they
write about. It concerns the explicit system of meanings which
link the participants in a text as interactants, adopting

an acceptable persona and a tenor consistent with the norms of
the community.
The important interactional norms in research writing involve
‘establishing a judicious, discipline-defined balance
of tentativeness and assertion, and a suitable relationship to
one’s data, arguments and audience’ (Hyland, 2005, p. 54),
but not all academic writing is the same. Any text is part of a
register which spans a range of purposes, audiences and
* Tel.: !852 2859 2009.
E-mail address: [email protected]
1475-1585/$ - see front matter ! 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003
Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 116e127
www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap
mailto:[email protected]
contexts from undergraduate essays to Nobel speeches. In other
words, the work of the academy is interpreted using
language for different audiences: for experts, for students, for
industry, and for practitioners, and in each case, this
recontextualization of material offers different ways of
understanding academic practices. By extending our interest
beyond the mainstream discourses of the academy we access
very different scientific discourses and gain insights into
how relations between science and society are mediated and the
cultural authority of science is promoted. More
centrally for this paper, we also learn something of how
interpersonality is negotiated with different audiences. We
discover the ways writers display who they are and construct a
convincing argument drawing on different discoursal

conventions to establish proximity with readers.
I use the term proximity here to refer to a writer’s control of
rhetorical features which display both authority as an
expert and a personal position towards issues in an unfolding
text. It involves responding to the context of the text,
particularly the readers who form part of that context, textually
constructing both the writer and the reader as people
with similar understandings and goals. While it embraces the
notion of interpersonality, proximity is a slightly wider
idea as it not only includes how writers manage themselves and
their interactions with others, but also the ways
ideational material, what the text is ‘about’, is presented for a
particular audience. It is concerned with how writers
represent not only themselves and their readers, but also their
material, in ways which are most likely to meet their
readers’ expectations.
So proximity captures 2 key aspects of acting interpersonally.
The first refers to what might be called the proximity
of membership: How academic writers demonstrate their
authority to colleagues through use of disciplinary
conventions. What does the writer do to position him or herself
as a disciplinary expert and competent colleague? The
second concerns the proximity of commitment, or how the
writer takes a personal position towards issues in an
unfolding text. That is, what does the writer do to locate him or
herself in relation to the material presented? One points
to how we position ourselves in relation to our communities,
and the other to how we position ourselves in relation to
our text. These are, of course, difficult to separate in practice as
we can’t express a stance towards the things we talk
about without using the language of our social groups. But the
concept does allow us to say something about how
writers take their readers’ likely objections, background
knowledge, rhetorical expectations and reading purposes into

account.
Proximity emphasizes a reader-oriented view of writing and is
closely related to Sacks, Schlegloff and Jefferson
(1974: p. 272) notion of ‘‘recipient design’’, or how text and
talk are shaped to make sense to the current recipient.
In writing, as in conversation, we display an orientation and
sensitivity to the particular others who are our co-
participants through lexical choice, topic selection, conventions
of argument, and so on. In academic writing this
means that the process of writing involves creating a text that
we assume the reader will recognise and expect and the
process of reading involves drawing on assumptions about what
the writer is trying to do. Hoey (2001) likens this to
dancers following each other’s steps, each building sense from a
text by anticipating what the other is likely to do.
Skilled writers are therefore able to create a mutual frame of
reference and anticipate when their purposes will be
retrieved by their audiences.
The concept of proximity therefore helps us to understand how
writers typically position themselves and their work
in relation to others, so we can see interpersonality as the
rhetorical construction of proximity. In this paper I plan to
look at how writers in two very different genres, research
papers and popular science articles, create a sense of
proximity by textually constructing themselves and readers as
having shared interests and understandings. Comparing
key features from these contexts, I show how different language
choices are employed to negotiate academic claims
and construct proximity with two very different audiences.
2. A tale of two genres
Despite competition from electronic publishing alternatives
such as e-journals and personal websites, the research

article (RA) remains the pre-eminent genre of the academy. The
RA is not only the principal site of disciplinary
knowledge-making but, as Montgomery (1996) has it, ‘the
master narrative of our time’. One reason for this pre-
eminence is the value attached to the processes of peer review
as a control mechanism for transforming beliefs
into knowledge. Another is the prestige attached to a genre
which restructures the processes of thought and research it
describes to establish a discourse for scientific fact-creation. In
this context language becomes a form of technology, or
a resource for controlling an environment, by presenting
interpretations and positioning participants in particular ways
to establish knowledge.
117K. Hyland / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9
(2010) 116e127
Several studies have shown the ways that serial drafts and
reviewers’ comments guide science writers to rhetor-
ically accommodate their laboratory activity to the concerns of
the discipline (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995;
Casanave & Vandrick, 2003). Through reviewers’
recommendations to modify the strength of their claims, provide
propositional warrants, and establish a context through citation,
writers gradually integrate their new claims into the
weave of disciplinary relevance and prior work. This process
indicates that new facts are not added piecemeal to the
heap of existing knowledge, but are the extension of an ongoing
conversation among members, conducted in a shared
‘theory-laden’ language and particular patterns of
argumentation. Professional research writing is therefore seen
as
a tension between originality and deference to the community,
and the language authors use to argue their claims

constructs this proximity with readers.
This extract from an article in The Astrophysical Journal
Letters, a highly-regarded molecular science periodical,
helps to illustrate this:
(1) We used Suzaku observations to measure the spatial
variation of the Fe Ka line with radius in the Tycho
supernova remnant. The Fe line widths show a significant
decrease from a FWHM value of 210 eV at the
center to 130 eV at the rim. Over the same radial range the line
center energy remains nearly constant. These
observations are consistent with a scenario in which the shell of
Fe-emitting ejecta in Tycho is expanding at
speeds of 2800e3350 km s"1. The minimum line width we
measure is still a factor of two larger than expected
from a single component plasma emission model. If thermal
Doppler broadening is the dominant additional
source of broadening, we infer an ion temperature of (1e3) #
1010 K. (Astrophysical Journal Letters 693L61)
This text is written for a professional audience with a high
degree of specialised expertise. Information is presented
with considerable exactness, foregrounding procedures and
using technical jargon, nominalisations, precise
measurements, cautious inferences from data, and acronyms. It
is a discourse of exclusivity underpinned by a spe-
cialised knowledge of methods and of the meanings which
results have for insiders.
‘Popular science’, in contrast, is produced for audiences without
a professional need for information about science
but who want to keep abreast of developments. In fact, popular
science discourses play an enormous role in shaping
most people’s views of academic research: informing lay
understandings of the interests, methods and knowledge that

it produces. Their existence underlines that ‘science’ is not a
monolithic entity always understood in the same way, but
a social construct created by different groups with different
interests. Popular science itself also addresses a range of
different audiences (Hyland, 2009). While many popular science
books are written by scientists for an elite educated
audience, the public gets most of its information about science
from specialised magazines like New Scientist and
Scientific American. Most daily newspapers now have
specialized science sections and the number of science articles
in the press has been increasing (Pellechia, 1997).
These offer interpretations of academic activity recast with an
eye for the interests, beliefs and preoccupations of
a new readership. But it would be a great oversimplification to
dismiss popular science as merely infotainment. This is
a discourse related to the academy, its work, and its forms of
communication but stripped of its more forbidding
rhetorical features. While attempting to wield the authority of
science, both scientific facts and the argument forms of
professional science are transformed in the process.
The different purposes and audiences of the two genres mean
that writers negotiate proximity and represent science
in very different ways to those employed by professional
scientists in research journals. This can easily be seen by
comparing example 1) with the same research reported in the
popular journal Science Daily:
(2) The most crowded collision of galaxy clusters has been
identified by combining information from three
different telescopes. This result gives scientists a chance to
learn what happens when some of the largest
objects in the Universe go at each other in a cosmic free-for-all.
The researchers found that four separate
galaxy clusters are involved in a triple merger, the first time

such a phenomenon has been documented. Galaxy
clusters are the largest objects bound by gravity in the
Universe... ‘‘In addition to this enormous pileup,
MACSJ0717 is also remarkable because of its temperature,’’
said Cheng-Jiun Ma of the University of Hawaii
and lead author of the study. ‘‘Since each of these collisions
releases energy in the form of heat, MACS0717
has one of the highest temperatures ever seen in such a
system.’’ (Science Daily, Apr. 17, 2009)
In contrast to the research report, the popularization places an
emphasis on the actors and their interpretations with
short sentences, congruent grammar and use of first person
quotes. Priority is given to the potential payoffs of the
research and results, rather than the means of obtaining them.
118 K. Hyland / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9
(2010) 116e127
Criticism of this kind of writing as a journalistic dumbing down
of science, disseminating simplified and often
sensationalised accounts to a passive mass readership, misses
the point. Popular science does not just report scientific
facts to a less specialist audience but represents phenomena in
different ways to achieve different purposes. Most
fundamentally, proximity helps science writers transform
beliefs into knowledge, producing evidence for claims to
persuade specialists of the reliability of their interpretations and
the rigour of their methods. Popular science, in
contrast, is concerned with establishing the novelty and
relevance of a topic to celebrate scientific results, with their
validity taken for granted. Popularizers, then, actually transform
the products of an academic culture in the process of
appropriating them and so influence the nature of elite science

itself.
3. Facets of proximity
There are various ways writers achieve proximity and I want to
discuss five in the remainder of this paper. Drawing
on two corpora, a collection of 120 research articles from four
science and engineering fields and a sample of 120
popular science articles, I explore how writers use Organisation,
Argument, Credibility, Stance and Engagement to
negotiate proximity with readers.
3.1. Organisation
There are several aspects of presentation which distinguish
these genres. One is the role of visuals, for example,
which play a key role as arguments in the research papers by
giving visibility to information and offering a proof for
interpretations, and as explanations in the popularizations,
where they work mainly to attract the reader and elucidate
the text (Miller, 1998). The most striking difference, however,
is the way that the genres are organised. Instead of
finding the main claim towards the end of the paper as in a
research article, it is typically foregrounded at the
beginning. Nwogu (1991), for instance, found that journalistic
accounts typically open with a background move which
contextualizes the research issue as a problem for readers and
then follows this with the main outcome, often including
reference to the scientists themselves. These examples are
typical:
(3) New moms beware: If you want to shed those extra pounds
you packed on while pregnant, you better get
your sleep. A new study shows that women are more likely to
lose baby fat if they get over five hours of shut-
eye a night. (Scientific American, Nov 2007)

When we emerge from a supermarket laden down with bags and
faced with a sea of vehicles, how do we
remember where we’ve parked our car and translate the memory
into the correct action to get back there? New
research identifies the specific parts of the brain responsible for
solving this everyday problem. The results
could have implications for understanding the functional
significance of a prominent brain abnormality
observed in neuropsychiatric diseases such as schizophrenia.
(Science Daily, April, 2009)
This deductive rhetorical pattern highlights the novelty and
importance of the topic to lay readers rather than the
methodological steps taken to get there, and while this provides
a hook to bait the uninitiated, it can be confusing for
scientists. Myers (1990: p. 141), for example, reports how the
editor of the New England Journal of Medicine published
both an original immunology article and a version rewritten by
a Science journalist who gave greater attention to
organization, explication and clarity. General physicians
subsequently wrote applauding the fact that even difficult topics
could be made accessible to non-specialists while
immunologists complained that the revised version was harder
to read
because information wasn’t where they expected to find it. Both
groups therefore had different views about the best way
to write immunology based on their own needs, background
knowledge, discourse expectations, and reading purposes.
3.2. Argument structures
Arguments are also structured very differently to shape material
for the two audiences, reaching out to dissimilar
audiences through distinctive kinds of appeals, focuses, and
framings.

In terms of appeals, both genres are driven by novelty, although
this is presented differently for the two audiences.
Novelty is clearly a key feature of academic advancement and
intellectual change in disciplinary communities,
a means by which individuals gain credit for themselves,
prestige for their field, and growth for their discipline within
(2010) 116e127
a shared understanding of what is worth knowing and where to
take this. Kaufer and Geisler (1989: p. 286), in fact,
refer to academic disciplines as ‘factories of novelty,
encouraging members to plod towards their yearly quota of
inspirational leaps’.
In research papers novelty is negotiated by being the first to
synthesize a contribution with the existing weave of
community knowledge, situating local research in the broader
concerns of the discipline. To be new, work must
recognize the knowledge which has already gained consent and
against which it makes a claim for change, so
innovation is managed by establishing explicit intertextual links
to existing disciplinary knowledge. So while claims
for novelty are often made (as in 4), they are also backed up by
arguments which relate them to the literature:
(4) The assays presented herein illustrate two novel approaches
to monitor the intracellular dynamics of
nuclear proteins. (Bio RA)
This paper proposes a new methodology that further develops
Taguchi’s method to incorporate multiple

objectives and constraints in product design. (Mech Eng RA)
Novelty thus acknowledges what has gone before and builds on
the field’s organizational structures, beliefs and
current hot topics. Topics, in fact are more than a research
focus: they represent resources of joint attention which
coordinate activities and mark co-participation in communities.
Selecting a topic and arguing for its novelty and
relevance is thus critical in securing colleagues’ interest and in
displaying membership credentials.
Popular texts, on the other hand, transform the novel into the
newsworthy. Journalistic criteria mean that academic
claims are changed into scientific breakthroughs and presented
in terms of what is of immediate value or potential
benefit to readers. Newsworthiness establishes proximity by
suggesting a common enthusiasm for science and
a technocratic ideology that our lives are constantly improved
through scientific progress. There is a celebration of
relentless advancement which science is said to produce and
which the current case is just one example:
(5) Very young brains process memories of fear differently than
more mature ones, new research indicates.
The work significantly advances scientific understanding of
when and how fear is stored and unlearned, and
introduces new thinking on the implications of fear experience
early in life. (Science Daily, March, 2008)
In contrast to women, men are fertile throughout life. But new
research at the Sahlgrenska Academy has now
shown that a fertilising sperm can get help from the egg to
rejuvenate. The result is an important step towards
future stem cell therapy. ‘‘We are the first to show that egg
cells have the ability to rejuvenate other cells, and
this is an important result for future stem cell research’’, says

Associate Professor Tomas Simonsson, who
leads the research group at that has made this discovery.
(Science Today March 2009)
In both academic and popular contexts, novelty is related to
proximity by appealing to what is assumed about
readers’ knowledge and interests. Newness is not a property of
the ideas themselves, but a relation between ideas and
communities as professional writers package material for
particular readers.
We also find writers managing proximity in the focus of the
argument, or what writers chose to concentrate on. Quite
simply, we can see that science journalism centres on the
objects of study rather than the disciplinary procedures by
which they are analysed. Professional papers construct what
Myers (1990) calls a ‘narrative of science’ which follows the
argument of the scientist by arranging time into a parallel series
of events and emphasizing the conceptual structure of the
discipline in their syntax and vocabulary. The discourse
embodies key assumptions of academic practice: impersonality,
cumulative knowledge construction, and empiricism, so that
readers can relate a current claim to their understandings of
the epistemological beliefs, prior findings, and currently
approved methods. This is a typical example:
(6) Leukocyte telomere length was positively associated with
increasing physical activity level in leisure time
(P < .001); this association remained significant after
adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, smoking,
socioeconomic status, and physical activity at work. The LTLs
of the most active subjects were 200 nucleotides
longer than those of the least active subjects (7.1 and 6.9
kilobases, respectively; P $ .006). This finding was
confirmed in a small group of twin pairs discordant for physical
activity level (on average, the LTL of more active

twins was 88 nucleotides longer than that of less active twins;
P$ .03). (Archives of Internal Medicine, Jan 2008)
A narrative of science, then, traces what is of interest to the
discipline, employing rhetorical and linguistic choices
which imply anonymity, precision, induction,
comprehensiveness, and specialist knowledge of methods.
(2010) 116e127
Popular articles, on the other hand, present a ‘narrative of
nature’ concentrating on the thing studied. This extract
reports the same research in a very different way:
(7) Individuals who are physically active during their leisure
time appear to be biologically younger than those
with sedentary lifestyles, according to a report in the Archives
of Internal Medicine. ‘‘Our results show that
adults who partake in regular physical activity are biologically
younger than sedentary individuals. This
conclusion provides a powerful message that could be used by
clinicians to promote the potential anti-aging
effect of regular exercise.’’ The authors say. (Science Daily Jan
2008)
Here the focus is more explicitly concerned with the connection
between exercise and aging, which is likely to be
of greater interest to lay readers than the precise methodological
procedures. Material is assembled to enhance the
visibility of information and make the message more convincing
through a chronological presentation and high-
lighting concerns readers may be expected to have about ageing,
youthful appearance, and exercise. These different

language choices convey meanings which change
understandings of both research and of science.
Finally, proximity is achieved in argument by the ways writers
frame information for their target readers. Framing
is achieved by tailoring information to the assumed knowledge
base of potential readers, creating proximity for
different audiences through language choices which ask readers
to recognise something as familiar or accepted. In
research papers this is largely accomplished though the use of
technical terminology, acronyms, reference to routine
craft practices and specialised forms of equipment. This
example from physics is typical:
(8) The sample used was 80% H2O with 20% D2O as the lock
substance. Two dimensional proton NMR
experiments were conducted on a Bruker ARX-500 spectrometer
with a 5 mm inverse probe and a 10 mm
normal broad band probe tuned at 500.13 MHz using the
standard J-resolved and COSY pulse sequences. The
transmitter offset was located at 162 Hz up (for SECSY) or
down (for COSY) field from the resonance of
water for both dimensions. In 2D data acquisition 512 points
were used and the number of tl-increments was
changed. Data matrix for Fourier transformation was 512X512
with zero filling in the t domain only. (Phy RA)
Appealing to proximity through this abbreviated, highly
specialised reference to shared knowledge is possible
in the natural sciences because research is typically
characterized by linearity and well-defined and agreed upon
problems (Becher & Trowler, 2001). New knowledge is
generated from what is known and each new finding
inexorably contributes to the eventual solution of the issue
under study. Specialism is encouraged by this as
research often occupies considerable investments in money,

training, equipment and expertise, which means
individuals are often committed to particular research areas for
many years and build their careers through precise
contributions to a highly delimited field. Readers are often
familiar with prior texts and research, and can see
whether procedures and materials have been used appropriately
and what results mean, so writers can describe
their work economically.
Popularisations, on the other hand, can’t assume this degree of
shared knowledge and have to make connections to
what readers are likely to already know. This involves
constantly defining new concepts as they are introduced and
making explicit links between entities. They therefore tend to
avoid jargon and offer an immediate gloss where this is
not possible. Clarifications are often inserted on-the-fly where
the writer assumes an unfamiliar usage (9) or where
complex processes are related to more familiar everyday events
through simile (10):
(9) Prozac, the popular antidepressant, blocks the action of a
pump that sucks serotonin, a key mood-regulating
chemical, out of the gaps between two neurons. (Popular
Science, Nov, 2007)
(10) To get into the brain they must be shuttled across the
bloodebrain barrier by specialized transport
proteins. Like passengers trying to board a crowded bus, amino
acids compete for rides on these transporters.
Not only does tryptophan have paltry representation among the
passengers; it also competes with five other
amino acids for the same transporter. Aced out by other amino
acids, tryptophan thereby has a tough time
hitching a ride to the brain. (Scientific American, Nov 2007)
The unfamiliar is thus made intelligible by brief definitions and

explanations which relate complex processes to
everyday events, taking the reader’s perspective to present the
strange and exotic in the terms of the commonplace and
unexceptional.
(2010) 116e127
Non-scientists are also accommodated by the writer’s
management of cohesion. Cohesion depends on the
semantic structure of a text and therefore on the reader’s
expectations and knowledge, particularly knowledge of
lexical relations. However, because scientific texts rarely
contain replacement or pronouns for cohesion, non-
specialists may struggle to see connections across sentences
(Myers, 1991). Journalists, however, make these
links explicit by using a variety of cohesive devices to serve as
the basis for inferences about the meanings of any
unfamiliar terms. In this extract, for example, the writer is
careful to ensure that the reader is able to recover the
links describing the genetic causes of mental retardation.
Through the use of repetition, conjunctive phrases such as
‘which means that’, determiners (the, those), and synonyms,
connections are specified and the passage becomes
transparent:
(11) In humans, the disorder stems from a mutation on the X
chromosome as a three-base sequence begins to
repeat over and over in a section of the fragile X mental
retardation 1 gene (FMR1). The portion of the gene
where this error multiplies does not code for a protein, which
means that several repetitions of the sequence
can occur without damaging the fragile X mental retardation
protein (FMRP). People who have a gene with

a sequence that is repeated 50 or fewer times are considered
normal; those with fewer than 200 repetitions are
carriers of the disorder. Individuals with more than 200 triplets,
however, have disruptions to the promoter
region of FMR1 that block the gene from being transcribed into
RNA and forming a protein, thereby
prompting onset of the syndrome. (Scientific American Nov
2007)
Clearly the ‘na!ıve reader’ is unable to learn the cultural system
encoded in the language of science merely through
reading scientific texts, but the representation of scientific
knowledge in popularizations at least provides a basis for
understanding the products of that culture.
3.3. Credibility
A third way in which popularizations seek to promote proximity
with readers and engage with the incomplete
knowledge-base of the non-specialist is to emphasize the
credibility of the source of the information they report. In
professional articles reliability is largely bestowed on findings
by the writer’s display of craft practices and expert
handling of recognized research methods. Attributions to other
scientists mainly function to align the writer with
a particular camp or reward researchers who have conducted
relevant prior work. Popularizations, on the other hand,
can’t assume this level of knowledge in readers and so bestow
credibility on scientists through their position in an
institution, only identifying particular scientists when they are
directly relevant to the research being reported:
(12) Animal scientist William Dozier, formerly with the ARS
Poultry Research Unit in Mississippi State, has been
working with colleagues at the ARS Swine Odor and Manure
Management Research Unit in Ames, Iowa, and Iowa

State University to find ways to supplement animal diets with
glycerin. (Scientific American, April 2009)
‘‘By controlling muscle groups instead of individual muscles,
we’re reducing the variables, but we’re not
losing efficiency,’’ said Matthew Tresch, assistant professor of
biomedical engineering at the McCormick
School of Engineering and Applied Science and of physical
medicine and rehabilitation at the Feinberg School
of Medicine. (Science Daily, April, 2009)
Unable to demonstrate the relevance and importance of new
work by embedding it in a community generated
literature, popularizations import material through the quotes of
insiders and give credence to that material by drawing
attention to the credibility of its source. Not only is authority
given to the research by underlining the status of informants,
but scientists are often allowed to tell the story themselves
through direct quotes introduced by the verb say. These
options are hardly ever found in the article genre where
imported material is overwhelmingly rewritten as a summary
from a single source or as a generalization combining several
different studies. In popularizations, then, science is both
made intelligible in the characteristics of conversation and
brought to life through the voices of those involved.
(13) the two groups compiled drafts of the bovine genome,
identifying genes important for fighting disease,
digesting food and producing milk. ‘‘It gives you a window into
what makes a cow a cow,’’ says Harris Lewin,
of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (Science
News, April, 2009)
(2010) 116e127

Not only are quotes rare in the articles, but the reporting verb
say to introduce the work of other researchers is
a significant rhetorical choice and almost never found in science
and engineering papers (Hyland, 2004). Not only
does the choice of reporting verb allow writers to convey the
kind of activity reported and to express an attitude to that
information, but it also represents a key way of achieving
proximity with peers because it signals shared rhetorical
practices among disciplinary members. Figure 1 shows the most
common forms in a larger corpus of 240 RAs in 8
disciplines, indicating the clear demarcations in the structure of
subject-area knowledge systems and the fact that
different domains use almost completely different verbs.
So while all writers draw intertextual links to their disciplines,
they do so in ways which reflect disciplinary
distinctions. The humanities and social sciences tend to use
verbs which refer to Discourse activities (e.g. discuss,
hypothesize, suggest, argue, etc.) which involve the expression
of arguments and evaluation. Engineers and scientists, in
contrast, prefer verbs which point to the research itself (like
observe, discover, show, analyse) which represent actions in
the real world.
Scientists try to suggest that results would be the same whoever
conducted the research and so rhetorically distance
themselves from their interpretations. Impersonality is used to
give objectivity to conclusions through use of passive
voice, dummy it subjects, and the attribution of agency to
inanimate tables or results. By subordinating their own voice
to that of nature, scientists emphasise the methods, procedures
and equipment used, and not the researcher. In other
words, in direct contrast to the personalising strategies of
popularizations, credibility is increased in science articles

through impersonalization; by writers downplaying their
personal role.
3.4. Stance
The use of direct quotes, relevant topics, researcher
identification and a sense of immediate value all reaffirm the
role of personal activity in scientific research reported in
popularizations which is usually rhetorically airbrushed in
professional academic discourses. In addition, journalistic
practices also intrude into popular articles through more
emphatic claims about the findings and a fuller expression of
personal attitude. In other words, writers also establish
proximity with readers by taking a clear stance. Here we draw
closer to core notions of interpersonality and the fact
that statements don’t just communicate ideas, but also the
writer’s attitude to those ideas and to their readers.
Modality is a much discussed feature of interpersonality
(Hyland, 2004; Martin & White, 2005) and is important in
constructing proximity by allowing writers to use language
flexibly to adopt positions, express points of view and claim
affinity with readers. Hedges and other devices which allow
writers to comment on the factual status of propositions are
therefore abundant in research genres, indicating the degree of
caution or assurance that can be attached to a statement.
Writing for a peer audience, academics must carefully handle
their claims to avoid overstating their case and risk inviting
the rejection of their arguments. By withholding complete
commitment to a proposition, hedges imply that a claim is
based on the writer’s plausible reasoning rather than certain
knowledge while opening a space for readers to dispute
interpretations. This example from a research paper is typical of
this recognition of alternative voices:
(14) An early flowering response to high temperature is

maintained in pif4 mutants, suggesting that archi-
tectural and flowering responses may operate via separate
signaling pathways. The role of PIF4 in temperature
signaling does not, however, appear to operate through
interaction with either phytochrome or DELLA
proteins, suggesting the existence of a novel regulatory
mechanism. We conclude that PIF4 is a potentially
important component of plant high temperature signaling and
integrates multiple environmental cues during
plant development. (Current Biology, 2009; 19 (5))
Fig 1. Most frequent reporting verbs in articles in 8 disciplines
(Hyland, 2004)
(2010) 116e127
The frequent use of hedges therefore marks out a modest and
careful researcher trying to keep interpretations close
to the data and unwilling to make overblown claims.
But scientists see their work as far more tentative and mediated
than journalists, who take a very different view
towards facts. The process of transforming research into popular
accounts involves removing doubts and upgrading
the significance of claims to emphasize their uniqueness, rarity
or originality. This can be seen in the way that the same
research is reported in a popular science journal, with the
tentativeness removed in favour of unmodified or boosted
assertions which amplify the certainty of the claims and, in so
doing, the impact of the story:
(15) Researchers at the universities of Leicester and Oxford
have made a discovery about plant growth which

could have an enormous impact on crop production as global
warming increases. Dr Franklin said: ‘‘This study
provides the first major advance in understanding how plants
regulate growth responses to elevated temper-
ature at the molecular level. This discovery will prove
fundamental in understanding the effects of global
climate change on crop productivity.’’ (Science Today April
2009)
For the science journalist, hedges simply reduce the importance
and newsworthiness of a story by drawing attention
to its uncertain truth value, but in glamorizing material for a
wider audience, popular science texts do not help readers
to see how scientific facts can be questioned.
In addition to using hedges to manipulate proximity to an
audience and distance from a text, scientists also
reduce their use of explicit attitude. My science RA corpus
contains one expression of attitude every 350 words in
engineering and one every 200 words in the sciences. This
works to increase the objectivity of claims and the
persuasiveness of the argument, and where they do occur it is
typically to express significance (16) or to comment
on results (17):
(16) The interaction of light with the scanning tunneling
microscope (STM) junction should provide an
important tool for the characterization of surfaces. (Phy RA)
ATP plays a central role not only in the energy status of the
cell, including microorganisms, but also as
a regulator of enzyme activity. (EE RA)
(17) This result was unexpected as the degree of internal
colonization by the mycoparasite was greaer in
sclerotia of the latter fungus. (Bio RA)

There is one important limitation in working with systems of
only a few hundred particles. (Phy RA)
In contrast, the popularizations are littered with attitude
markers, indicating the writer’s affective responses to
material, pointing out what is important and encouraging
readers to engage with the topic. Unlike their role in research
papers, however, these markers do not signal the writer’s
affiliation to shared disciplinary attitudes and values. Instead,
they help to impart an informal tone and underline the
accessibility of the material. In fact, the attitudes are often not
the writer’s at all, but those which the interested lay reader
might be expected to hold:
(18) In May this year astronomers announced the first weather
report for an alien world. Although fairly crude,
it hints that some pretty wild weather is blowing on a giant
Jupiter-like planet. (New Scientist, Sept 2007)
Physicists at the University of Toronto have cracked the
mystery behind the strange and uncannily well-
ordered hexagonal columns found at such popular tourist sites
as Northern Ireland’s Giant’s Causeway and
California’s Devil’s Postpile. (Science Daily, Dec 2008)
After digging their way out and molting into adults, billions of
the big, clumsy, red-eyed insects will sing their
ear-splitting love songs. (Scientific American, 2004)
Proximity with readers is, then, achieved by writers attributing
attitudes to them. This is what a lay audience might
think and believe on the basis of a community-endorsed
common sense.

(2010) 116e127
3.5. Reader engagement
Finally, proximity is negotiated through the ways writers
explicitly address their readers. Engagement (Hyland, 2005)
is an alignment dimension of interaction where writers
acknowledge and connect to others, recognising the presence of
their readers, pulling them along with their argument, focusing
their attention, acknowledging their uncertainties,
including them as discourse participants, and guiding them to
interpretations. I only have space to mention two aspects of
engagement here, reader pronouns and questions, both of which
are far more common in the popular texts.
Reader pronouns offer the most explicit ways of achieving
proximity by bringing readers into a discourse, and while
you and your are actually the clearest way a writer can
acknowledge the reader’s presence, these forms are rare in
research
papers. Instead, inclusive we is prominent. There are several
reasons for using this form, but most centrally it identifies the
reader as someone who shares a point of view or ways of seeing
with the writer. It sends a clear signal of membership by
textually constructing both the writer and the reader as
participants with similar understanding and goals, as we see
here:
(19) We would expect that over time, plant genotypes that
maximize mycorrhizal benefits would be at
a selective advantage. (Bio RA)
At the moment we tend to accept that the incident light, or at
least most of it, is bounced twice before returning

and re-emerging outside the eye. (Phy RA)
This emphasis on binding writer and reader together through
inclusive we is also a feature of popular articles, where
it functions less to claim community solidarity than to insinuate
a shared, taken-for-granted way of seeing the world.
This helps guide readers towards a perceived relevance of the
reported research, aligning the reader with the writer,
and perhaps against an institutional ‘they’:
(20) On the list of things we’re supposed to do but generally
don’t, nothing ranks higher than eating well. And
no wonder, considering that they keep changing the rules on us.
Margarine was once supposed to be better than
butter d until it turned out to be worse. Low-fat eating was
supposed to be the way to lose weight d until it
was low-carb, then back to low-fat again. (Popular Science
April, 2009)
While this shades into a positioning of the reader, the
considerable use of the second person does this more
explicitly, directly involving readers in the topic of the article
through common experiences or drawing them into
a credible, but unknown, world:
(21) You’re just about ready to buy a pair of tickets on
Ticketmaster, but before you can take the next step, an
annoying box with wavy letters and numbers shows up on your
screen. You dutifully enter in what you
seedand what a robot presumably can’tdin the name of security.
But what you may not know is that you also
have helped archivists decipher distorted characters in old
books and newspapers so that they can be posted on
the Web. (Scientific American Aug 2008)
One look at the effects of a bomb blast suggests that you’d have

to be extremely lucky to emerge from one
unscathed. If you were not burned by the explosion or blasted
by shrapnel, the chances are you’d be hit by the
shock wave. Travelling at several hundred metres per second,
this causes massive fluctuations in air pressure
which can knock you unconscious, rupture air-filled organs such
as eardrums, lungs and bowels, and stretch
and distort other major organs. (New Scientist, April 2009)
A final way that writers build a connection with readers is
through the use of questions. These are a key strategy of
dialogic involvement in many registers but are almost non-
existent in science and engineering research papers. Their
role in manufacturing immediacy with readers is viewed with
suspicion by professional scientists, although they are
common journalistic devices, representing an important way of
managing proximity:
(22) Solix must struggle for answers before it can sell a thing:
Which species of algae will produce the most
oil? What’s the best way to grow it? And not least, how do you
extract the oil from the algae once it’s grown?
(Popular Science, April 2008)
(2010) 116e127
Presenting the researcher’s problems as questions achieves
proximity with readers by engaging them in the
scientific enterprise, bringing them closer to the concerns of the
scientist at the same time as making the science real
and intelligible.
4. Conclusions

Science journalism illustrates the ways proximity (and
interpersonality) work as writers set out material for
different purposes and readers. Popularizations represent a
discourse which establishes the uniqueness, relevance and
immediacy of topics which might not seem to warrant lay
attention by making information concrete, novel and
accessible. Findings are therefore invested with a factual status,
related to real life concerns, and presented as germane
to readers with little detailed interest in the ways that they were
arrived at or in the controversies surrounding them.
Readers, in fact, experience the academic world and its
discourses as a succession of discoveries in the relentless
advance of inductive science. In sum, science journalism works
as journalism rather than science. It is written in ways
which make the research accessible and allow non-specialists to
recover the interpretive voice of the scientist.
There are several advantages for EAP practitioners in
considering how proximity operates across genres. First it
helps us see how different features combine to orchestrate
interpersonality. Writers position themselves through
rhetorical choices which emphasize a relationship to content
and to readers, displaying an audience sensitivity through
the way the material is organised argued and attributed as well
as choices concerning writer and reader visibility in the
text. Simply, both scientists and journalists have to evaluate
their audiences as they write, and this means that texts tell
us something about how writers see their readers.
Understandings of readers’ goals, interests, knowledge and pro-
cessing capabilities are indexed in rhetorical choices so that
context is constructed in text.
Second, genre comparisons suggest that proximity is important
not only to analysts of academic writing but also to
teachers of it. Clearly, analyses caution us to take care in using

popular texts as models for scientific writing as
differences in constructing proximity mean that they will not
help students see how scientific facts can be questioned
or modified. Comparisons, however, can have an important
consciousness raising function by highlighting features of
scientific discourse for learner noticing. Their study, moreover,
may help students see something of the importance of
audience. In recontextualizing academic research for a lay
audience, much popular science portrays research as an
immediate encounter of a scientist with nature. Scientists
become actors and claims become a discovery event; jargon
is evicted or roughly glossed; certainties replace tentativeness,
and nouns regain their verbal status. Such a reconfi-
guration of discourse reminds us that science is a
communicative activity so science once again becomes ideas to
be
discussed rather than information to be received.
Most importantly, the study of proximity in these genres helps
us to see how each group appropriates and trans-
forms science by presenting the same material for different
purposes and readers. In popular science proximity is
achieved by making research accessible and allowing non-
specialists to recover the voice of the scientist which is
absent in professional papers. In research science writers
position themselves as competent colleagues by displaying
familiarity with methods and a disciplinary literature,
presenting research with caution, and supporting claims with
evidence. Ultimately the insights into academic writing which
these kinds of contrasts reveal makes the study of
interpersonal proximity a highly productive and valuable
activity for researchers and teachers of academic discourses.
References
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and

territories: Intellectual inquiry and the cultures of disciplines.
Milton Keynes: SRHE and
Open University Press.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in
disciplinary communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Casanave, C., & Vandrick, S. (Eds.). (2003). Writing for
scholarly publication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction. London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions
in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of
interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 6(2),
173e191.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. London: Continuum.
Kaufer, D., & Geisler, C. (1989). Novelty in academic writing.
Written Communication, 6(3), 286e311.
Martin, J., & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation:
Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave/MacMillan.
Miller, T. (1998). Visual persuasion: a comparison of visuals in
academic texts and the popular press. English for Specific
Purposes, 17(1), 29e46.
Montgomery, S. (1996). The scientific voice. New York: The
Guildford Press.
Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social
construction of scientific knowledge. Madison, WI: University
of Wisconsin Press.
(2010) 116e127
Myers, G. (1991). Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge
in science and popular science texts. Discourse Processes,

14(1), 1e26.
Nwogu, K. (1991). Structure of science popularizations: a genre
analysis approach to the schema of popularized medical texts.
English for Specific
Purposes, 10, 111e123.
Pellechia, M. (1997). Trends in science coverage: a content
analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of
Science, 6, 49e68.
Sacks, H., Schlegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest
systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation.
Language, 50,
697e735.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres. Cambridge: CUP.
Ken Hyland is Professor of Applied Linguistics and director of
the Centre for Applied English Studies at the University of
Hong Kong. He has
published over 130 articles and 14 books on language teaching
and academic writing, most recently Academic Discourse with
Continuum (2009).
He is co-editor of Applied Linguistics.
(2010) 116e127
Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and
professional scienceInterpersonality and proximityA tale of two
genresFacets of proximityOrganisationArgument
structuresCredibilityStanceReader
engagementConclusionsReferences

DEVELOPING YOURPERSONAL CAREER PLANDeliverables.docx

DEVELOPING YOURPERSONAL CAREER PLANDeliverables.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to DEVELOPING YOURPERSONAL CAREER PLANDeliverables.docx

Similar to DEVELOPING YOURPERSONAL CAREER PLANDeliverables.docx (20)

More from lynettearnold46882

More from lynettearnold46882 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

DEVELOPING YOURPERSONAL CAREER PLANDeliverables.docx