2015.ESP

Distinguishing textual features characterizing structural
variation in research articles across three engineering
sub-discipline corpora
Budsaba Kanoksilapatham*
English Department, Faculty of Arts, Silpakorn University, Nakhon Pathom 73000, Thailand
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Available online
Keywords:
Corpus
Genre
Disciplinary variation
Engineering
Research articles
Textual organization
a b s t r a c t
Genre analysis has provided insights into the textual organization of different genres. In
the research article (RA) genre, previous studies demonstrate that disciplinary variation is
discernible. To raise the investigation to the level of sub-disciplines, this study addresses
two research questions: (1) What is the textual organization of individual RA sections in
corpora from three engineering sub-disciplines? and (2) What are the significant statistical
variations in textual organization that distinguish one engineering sub-discipline from
another? Initially, three corpora were compiled, consisting of 180 full length high quality
RAs representing three sub-disciplines of engineering (civil, software, and biomedical).
Then, the corpora were analyzed using genre analysis to identify the textual organization
prevalent in individual RA sections of each engineering sub-discipline. Subsequently, units
of textual analysis called ‘move’ and ‘step’ were quantified and statistically analyzed to
capture significant statistical variations in each section. The analysis reveals the influence
of the sub-disciplines on the textual organization variations across the corpora, high-
lighting the unique characteristics and perspectives of each sub-discipline. The findings
contribute to enhanced quality professional communication by creating and raising
awareness and sensitivity among prospective engineering students and practitioners when
they are involved in the task of reading and/or writing RAs.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Currently, advanced degree students, university faculty members, and practitioners from diverse academic disciplines are
encouraged to publish and disseminate their research discoveries in international journals. As a result, the expertise needed
to be successfully involved in international professional communication is essential for academic and career growth. In this
regard, Swales’ genre analysis (1990, 2004), created initially to analyze the research article (RA) introduction section, has been
very useful, providing a model that captures textual organization typically followed by RA authors. An increasing body of
research along this line has focused on other sections of the academic RA genre (e.g., Basturkmen, 2012; Kanoksilapatham,
2005; Pho, 2008) and non-academic genres, including fund-raising letters (Connor & Gladkov, 2004), and recruitment ad-
vertisements (Tisapramotekul, 2008).
* Tel.: þ66 81 8584403.
E-mail address: kanoksib@hotmail.com.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
English for Specific Purposes
journal homepage: http://ees.elsevier.com/esp/default.asp
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.008
0889-4906/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
English for Specific Purposes 37 (2015) 74–86

A multitude of genre-based studies have been conducted on the genre of RAs and have provided valuable insight into
the rhetorical structure of the RA genre. However, certain criticisms have been raised against the application of genre
analysis. First, many genre-based studies have focused on individual RA sections (e.g., Basturkmen, 2012; Bruce, 2008;
Kanoksilapatham, 2012; Lim, 2006; Peacock, 2011), resulting in fragmented knowledge of how this genre, in its entirety,
is constructed. In addition, many studies have analyzed a small number of texts pertaining to individual sections of RAs
which were subjectively selected (e.g., Anthony, 1999; Basturkmen, 2009; Posteguillo, 1999), leading to limited general-
ization of the findings. Thus, very little is known about textual organization across a large representative sample of texts
from a genre. At the same time, corpus studies are currently revolutionizing the study of language use (Biber, Connor, &
Upton, 2007). The analysis of large and representative text corpora can therefore provide a more rigorous and accurate
description of textual organization that holds across all texts in the corpus (Kanoksilapatham, 2005; Stoller & Robinson,
2013). Moreover, given the inherent nature of textual segmentation which is semantically driven and thus likely to be
subjective, the integration of expert coders at the analysis stage can help validate move segmentation performed by
different individuals (Basturkmen, 2009, 2012; Stoller & Robinson, 2013). Finally, although studies have congruently
revealed the influence of disciplines on the internal discourse structure of each RA section, it remains to be investigated
whether the influence of sub-disciplines associated with a single discipline can be observed in textual organization, and if
so, to what extent.
This study extends the application of genre analysis to examine the RA textual organization of three different engineering
sub-disciplines, by addressing the following two research questions: (1) What is the textual organization of individual RA
sections in corpora from three engineering sub-disciplines? and (2) What are the significant statistical variations in textual
organization that distinguish one engineering sub-discipline from another? The answers to these two questions provide a
representative description of how each RA section is structured. They also highlight the unique characteristics and per-
spectives of individual sub-disciplines manifested in textual variations.
This article is structured as follows. First, an overview of Swales’ genre analysis and previous genre-based studies on
different RA sections is presented, as well as their shortcomings, which will be addressed by the current study in order to
make the analytical framework of genre analysis more solid and compelling. Next, the compilation and the analysis of three
sizeable corpora representing prestigious and full length RAs from the three engineering sub-disciplines are described.
Inter-coder analysis involving six experts was conducted to help validate the researcher’s textual demarcation. Then, the
findings generated from the genre analysis are presented, including the textual organization represented by a sequence of
‘moves’ and ‘steps.’ Also, the frequencies of occurrence of individual moves and steps were compared and contrasted to
observe significant textual variations across the three corpora. Finally, certain limitations and implications of this study are
stated.
2. Genre analysis
This section provides a brief introduction to Swales’ genre analysis – the analytical framework adopted by this study.
Subsequently, previous genre-based studies are reviewed, particularly those on the four RA sections. Concurrently, drawbacks
of the application of the framework are highlighted.
2.1. Swales’ genre analysis
The basic tenet of Swales’ genre or move analysis (1990, 2004) is that a text within a genre usually follows a typical
structural pattern or organization, consisting of a series of moves sequenced in a particular order. A move refers to a
text segment that performs a communicative function, contributing to the global function of a whole text. Moves can
vary in length, but normally contain a proposition (Connor & Mauranen, 1999) and can be recognized by a set of
linguistic features. The flexibility of the model is made possible by incorporating the obligatory versus optional status
of the steps, based on the frequency of occurrence of each move. Finally, the model introduces the notion of the
‘cyclicity’ of moves, referring to a situation in which a move can recur within a single introduction. To help contribute
to the function of individual moves, each move may, in turn, contain multiple sub-units or a combination of sub-units
called ‘steps.’
The analysis of RA introductions from diverse academic disciplines led Swales to propose a three-move model in 1990,
which was revised in 2004 to capture the variations of RA introductions reported. Swales’ (1990 and 2004) models for RA
introductions are generally similar, consisting of three principal moves: Move 1: Establishing a territory, Move 2: Establishing a
niche, and Move 3: Presenting the present study. Move 1 introduces the research topic, Move 2 identifies the specific areas that
require further investigation, and Move 3 introduces the current research study highlighting certain prominent features of
the research being presented.
In turn, each move can accomplish its function by a number, or combination, of steps, sub-units of a move. For instance, in
Swales’ (2004) model, Move 2 can be realized by three possible steps including Step 1: Indicating a gap, Step 2: Adding to what
is known, and Step 3: Presenting positive justification. Similarly, Move 3 can be accomplished by as many as seven steps. As
opposed to Move 2, Moves 1 and 3 are quite frequent. Finally, as stipulated in the model, Moves 1 and 2 tend to be cyclical or
recursive, particularly in longer introductions.
B. Kanoksilapatham / English for Specific Purposes 37 (2015) 74–86 75

2.2. Previous genre-based studies on the four major RA sections
With reference to Swales’ introduction framework (1990, 2004), genre-based studies are numerous, sharing the common
goal of identifying textual organization. In this section, the application of genre analysis on the RA genre is scrutinized, and the
areas where genre analysis falls short are identified.
Genre analysis, as a discourse framework, is inherently semantically driven because text segmentation is determined by
how an analyst interprets its communicative function. Thus, individuals, when analyzing the same segment of texts, can
possibly have different opinions with regard to its communicative function because different definitions are assigned to a
move and step. For example, Kanoksilapatham (2005) considered Procedures and Procedural justification as two distinct moves
in the results section, which might be considered as one single move by other researchers. Therefore, to help verify the
outcomes and validate the analysis, genre analysis should be complemented by an additional inter-coder procedure (e.g.,
Basturkmen, 2009, 2012; Kanoksilapatham, 2005, 2007a; Stoller & Robinson, 2013). This procedure, including coder training
and the actual coding of a portion of a corpus, is strongly encouraged, particularly when a researcher is not a member of the
discipline or discourse community and/or a researcher is not familiar with, or has limited knowledge of, the topics. A
satisfactory level of agreement reached by this inter-coder analysis can help confirm that the textual analysis is accurately and
reliably conducted.
A number of studies focus on individual sections of RAs (e.g., Basturkmen, 2012; Bruce, 2008, 2009; Kanoksilapatham,
2011a, 2011b, 2012, 2013; Lim, 2006; Ozturk, 2007; Peacock, 2002, 2011; Posteguillo, 1999; Williams, 1999) and a com-
bined section of, for instance, results and discussion (Yang & Allison, 2003). Although the focus on individual sections allows
us to have a better knowledge of how particular RA sections are constructed, in order for advanced degree students, faculty
members, and practitioners in engineering to survive and thrive, the fragmented knowledge of each section does not
contribute much in this regard. Moreover, as required by genre analysis, in order to accurately understand RAs in their en-
tirety, it is crucial that the researcher read the preceding and following sections to understand how the information is related.
Therefore, studies that focus on full length RAs are beneficial for research community members (Kanoksilapatham, 2005,
2007a; Lin & Evans, 2012; Nwogu, 1997; Stoller & Robinson, 2013).
A number of genre-based studies have analyzed relatively small datasets (e.g., Anthony, 1999 – 12 software engineering
introductions; Basturkmen, 2009, 2012 – 10 discussions in language teaching and dentistry, respectively; Brett, 1994 – 20
sociology introductions; Lim, 2006 – 20 business management methods). The application of genre analysis on a small dataset
renders the findings questionable and ungeneralizable. These findings thus remain to be substantiated by the analysis of a
sizable corpus. In this regard, the integration of the corpus notion with genre analysis is likely to provide us with more
convincing and generalizable results. For instance, Kanoksilapatham’s (2005 and 2007a) studies on biochemistry and
microbiology and Stoller and Robinson’ (2013) on chemistry, each with a corpus of 60 RAs, seem to provide assurance in the
findings generated.
With relevance to the size of a corpus, the representativeness of the corpus must be taken into consideration. For instance,
Peacock (2011) analyzed 288 RA methods of eight disciplines taken from different journals nominated by two faculty
members of each academic department and published during the years 2002–2003. Bruce (2008) analyzed RA methods
sections from the journals nominated by academics from one university and medical staff from one hospital in New Zealand.
Posteguillo’s (1999) study examined 40 RA introductions in computer science selected from three different academic journals
recommended by university teachers in Spain. Similar selection procedures have been adopted by many studies (e.g.,
Anthony,1999; Basturkmen, 2009, 2012; Stoller & Robinson, 2013). Journal nomination by individuals can be quite subjective,
varying depending on their preference or familiarity. As a result, the representativeness of the corpora analyzed is ques-
tionable. In an attempt to reduce subjectivity and enhance representativeness, an objective set of criterion in compiling a
corpus was pursued by Kanoksilapatham (2005, 2007a). In her studies, based on the journal impact factors, the top five high
quality journals were identified, providing the source of RAs to be analyzed. The RAs selected can be seen to represent high
quality RAs in the discipline in focus. Subsequently, the textual organization that the analysis of representative corpora yields
can be seen to represent the preferred organization of high quality RAs.
In short, previous genre-based studies have provided insights into a better understanding of textual organization.
However, to strengthen the analytical framework, more attention should be paid to the stage of corpus compilation to make
sure that it is sizable, representative, and covers the major RA sections. At the stage of genre analysis, the subjective nature of
the analysis can be compensated for by integrating inter-coder analysis. For a valid comparison of textual organization across
disciplines, in order to accurately observe the impact of disciplinary variation, the move/step definition needs to be
controlled. Even so, textual differences identified can be a result of chance or the idiosyncrasy of individual authors. In this
study, with the use of statistical analysis, it is expected that significant statistical differences or substantial variations sta-
tistically established can potentially be claimed as distinguishing features across disciplines, highlighting the impacts of sub-
disciplines on the RA rhetorical structure.
Even though genre analysis has contributed substantially to a better understanding of how the RA genre is constructed, as
Hyland (2002) remarks, specific needs and demands for language use should be catered to. At this point, research in genre
analysis has, to a certain extent, accomplished its goal, illuminating the influence of disciplines on textual organization.
However, given Hyland’s comments on specificity, a more intriguing and pertinent question emerges: Do RAs belonging to
different sub-disciplines associated with a single academic discipline share the same textual organization? For example, sub-
disciplines of applied linguistics include language acquisition and second language writing (Ozturk, 2007) and those of
B. Kanoksilapatham / English for Specific Purposes 37 (2015) 74–8676

psychology include clinical and health psychology and behavioral, cognitive and neural, social, developmental and educa-
tional psychology (Martín & Pérez, 2014). Engineering as a discipline is quite diverse, encapsulating a multitude of sub-
disciplines including civil engineering, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, industrial en-
gineering, and so forth (Ward, 2009). It is thus of interest to investigate whether the RAs of different sub-disciplines are
organizationally identical.
As pointed out by one of the reviewers of a previous draft of this article, these sub-disciplines might be considered a
constellation of disciplines, rather than sub-disciplines. This article, following Ozturk (2007) and Ward (2009), highlights the
general coverage of the field (e.g., engineering), and the relatively more specific scope of its branches (e.g., civil engineering,
chemical engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and industrial engineering). Therefore, the term sub-
discipline is adopted in this study.
Multiple sub-disciplines associated with engineering, for example, are situated in various contexts, and involve groups of
people from different professional domains with diverse interests. It is therefore worth examining how these different sub-
disciplines construct knowledge through RAs (i.e., how knowledge is formulated, transformed, and acknowledged as new).
Although it cannot be assumed that all RAs in engineering follow the introduction–methods–results–discussion or IMRD
format, a large number of previous genre-based studies focus on individual sections or a combined section of IMRD. In order
to provide prospective engineering students and scholars with a headstart when undertaking the task of RA writing/reading
in their disciplinary discourse, this study focuses on the analysis of the four principal RA sections from three sub-disciplines of
engineering: civil (CE), software (SE), and biomedical (BE).
3. Methodology
This section first introduces the two research questions addressed in this study. Next, the background of the three en-
gineering sub-disciplines is presented. Finally, the details of the procedures adopted by this study are discussed. These include
corpus compilation, corpus analysis by genre analysis, inter-coder reliability analysis, textual organization formulation, and
identifying distinguishing textual features by multiple chi-square tests.
3.1. Research questions
This study focuses on the four macro sections of RAs (introduction, methods, results, and discussion) in three engineering
sub-disciplines, addressing two major research questions: (1) What is the textual organization of individual RA sections in
three sub-disciplines associated with engineering? and (2) What are the significant statistical variations that distinguish
individual sections of one engineering sub-discipline from another?
The first research question is motivated by the findings of previous genre-based studies of different sections of RAs that
highlight the influence of disciplinary variation on textual organization. By extension and to provide further levels of spec-
ificity, this study investigates whether the RAs of the three sub-disciplines are structurally different. The second research
question is triggered by the need to capture specific textual features that differentiate the sub-disciplines.
3.2. Description of three engineering sub-disciplines
The three engineering sub-disciplines selected CE, SE and BE are characteristically distinct with regard to their history,
course of development, and nature. First, CE is an engineering sub-discipline with a long history that dates back more than
300 years to 1711 (Ferguson & Chrimes, 2011). This sub-discipline deals with the design, construction, and maintenance of the
physical and naturally-built environment, including works like roads, bridges, dams, and buildings. Second, as a consequence
of the rapid development of technology, engineering has experienced dramatic growth, resulting in additional engineering
sub-disciplines including computer engineering and SE. SE emerged in the 1940s, and is now an established profession,
focusing on the systematic application, maintenance, and development of computer programs (Glass, Vessey, & Ramesh,
2002). Finally, BE is one of the fastest growing fields of technology which emerged as a new discipline in 1952. This sub-
discipline emphasizes the application of engineering principles and techniques of engineering to solve biological and
medical problems and improve healthcare (Nebeker, 2002). Due to its interdisciplinary nature, it is of interest to observe the
extent to which the fusion of biology and engineering exerts influence on the textual organization of the RAs in this sub-
discipline.
3.3. Corpus compilation
In order to obtain valid genre analysis results, corpus compilation must be carefully executed, ascertaining that the corpora
meet the basic requirements, including being sizable and representative of the genre. The top five high quality journals in
each of the three engineering sub-disciplines were identified. To minimize subjectivity and enhance the validity of the
analysis in terms of the prestige of the journals, the more objective criterion of journal impact factors was used.
Journal impact factors are widely recognized as one of the key indices of quality for scientific journals. Although methods
used to calculate the impact factor have been criticized (Hansson, 1995; Seglen, 1997), Saha, Saint, and Christakis (2003)
successfully tested the impact factor’s association with journal quality as rated by clinical practitioners and researchers,

empirically verifying the impact factor’s validity as a quality measure for journals. In this study, the use of impact factors
represents a step in improving the representativeness of the corpora in engineering.
The top five journals for each sub-discipline based upon impact factors for 2005 (the latest ones available at the onset of
the study) were identified. From each journal, 12 experimental RAs were randomly selected to ensure that they were evenly
distributed throughout the publication year of 2006. The length, research topic, and authors of the articles were not controlled
in this selection. In summary, each sub-discipline was represented by a corpus of 60 RAs. The three corpora of 180 RAs yield
approximately 1 million running words. A complete list of the journals consulted and the titles of the articles constituting the
corpora are provided in the section of Supplementary Materials.
Given that the purpose of this study was to identify the textual organization of individual sections of introduction,
methods, results, and discussion, scrutiny of the three corpora was necessary to obtain the actual number of individual
sections for subsequent analysis. The introduction section is the most straightforward, being easily recognized by the explicit
heading of Introduction. All of the RAs in the corpora have an independent introduction section, except one RA in BE, resulting
in a total number of 179 introductions to be analyzed by move analysis. The other three sections of methods, results, and
discussion are diversely labeled and not always independent. For instance, the methods section is diversely labeled (e.g.,
Experiment, Experimental runs and measurements, Study area and instrumentation, Materials and methods), and sometimes
combined with the results section (e.g., Experimental setup and results). Similarly, the results section is either under other
labels (e.g., Experimental setup and results) or combined with the discussion, whereas the discussion section is either com-
bined with the results or conclusions section, or under other labels (e.g., Summary and conclusions). To maintain the focus of
the study, only the four independent macro sections were analyzed. The total numbers of these sections analyzed in this study
are reported in Section 4.1.
3.4. Genre analysis
To address the first research question (i.e., What is the textual organization of individual RA sections in three sub-
disciplines associated with engineering?), individual RA sections were analyzed by genre analysis to identify the moves
and steps used. Even though these two central units of genre analysis are qualitative in nature, the researcher’s reliance on the
same definition of moves and steps corresponding to their communicative functions facilitated the identification task across
the three corpora.
Then, to formulate the rhetorical structure of each section for each sub-discipline, the preferred sequence of moves and
steps demonstrated in the three corpora was identified. As remarked in Swales’ model, certain moves seem to occur more
frequently than others. Even though Swales (1990, 2004) made the distinction between the two classifications of a move
(obligatory and optional), no specific criterion was offered. In this study, to determine the potential status of each move, the
frequencies of occurrence of individual moves were recorded. Based on Kanoksilapatham’s criterion (2005) and with some
modifications, in this study, a move was classified as obligatory, conventional, or optional if found 100%, more than 60%, and in
less than 60% of the corpora, respectively.
3.5. Inter-coder reliability analysis
Genre analysis in this study includes textual analysis by the researcher and inter-coder analysis that involved six experts
(two from each of the three engineering sub-disciplines). Inter-coder reliability analysis was conducted to demonstrate that a
unit of text can be defined in such a manner that different individuals can demarcate the boundary of text units at a suffi-
ciently high agreement rate. Two university faculty members in each of the three sub-disciplines, with a PhD from an English-
speaking country were invited to serve as coders. Following Kanoksilapatham (2005), for each RA section, the inter-coder
procedure included a two-hour training session for the coders, coding practice of the section in one RA, and independent
coding of the section in four RAs. For more details on this procedure, refer to Kanoksilapatham (2005). The percentage
agreement rate by the two coders for each RA section of each sub-discipline was calculated.
3.6. Formulating textual organization
First, to address the first research question, the textual organization of each section is presented, delineating all moves and
steps. The genre analysis of the three corpora reveals a preferred pattern of moves and steps, leading to the organization of
individual sections. The status of each move and step, based on its frequency of occurrence (in %), was classified into
obligatory, conventional, or optional. Finally, the cyclical patterning (if observed, when a move recurs) is reported.
3.7. Identifying distinguishing textual features
Genre-based studies have revealed that the textual organization of one discipline is distinct from another (e.g.,
Kanoksilapatham, 2007a; Peacock, 2011; Stoller & Robinson, 2013). As a result, textual differences or variations found can be
considered distinguishing features between academic disciplines. To address the second research question (i.e., What are
substantial variations that distinguish individual sections of one engineering sub-discipline from one another?), the fre-
quencies of occurrence of all moves and steps employed were analyzed by multiple chi-square tests to statistically establish

significant variations across the three engineering sub-disciplines. With a systematic control of the corpus design (with
regard to size, representativeness, and coverage) and the use of the same set of definitions to identify moves and steps, the
substantial differences pertaining to individual sub-disciplines and captured by chi-square tests can be claimed to represent
distinguishing textual features across the three engineering sub-disciplines.
4. Results and discussion
This section reports on the total number of individual sections actually analyzed by genre analysis, followed by the results
of the inter-coder reliability analysis. Next, to address the first question, the moves and steps identified in the sections of
introductions, methods, results, and discussion are described. Then, the textual organization of each section is presented. To
address the second research question, substantial variations determined by chi-squares (p < 0.01) are highlighted and
discussed.
4.1. Total number of texts for each section analyzed
To address the first research question of this study, only individual sections of introduction, methods, results, and dis-
cussion were analyzed. In this regard, the examination of the three corpora revealed that 179 RAs had independent and clearly
marked introduction sections (i.e., 60 from CE and SE each, and 59 from BE), 101 methods (32, 16, and 53 from CE, SE, and BE,
respectively), 105 results (18, 27, and 60 from CE, SE, and BE, respectively), and 92 discussion sections (16, 39, and 37 from CE,
SE, and BE, respectively).
4.2. Inter-coder reliability analysis
In general, high overall inter-coder reliability of identifying moves between the researcher and the coders across the four
sections from each of the three engineering sub-disciplines was attained, ranging from 82.46% to 93.32%, with the highest
average rate being for the introduction section (91.06%), followed by the discussion (86.17%), methods (83.42%), and results
(83.32%).
4.3. Structural organization of the introduction section
Moves and steps constituting the textual organization of the three sub-disciplines introductions are shown in Table 1.
Compatible with Swales’ (1990 and 2004) models, these introductions display the same sequence of three moves including
Move 1: Establishing a territory to provide background information of the research topic, Move 2: Establishing a niche to justify
the presence of the research being reported, and Move 3: Presenting the present study to introduce the current research. Move
1 can be realized by a maximum of three steps including Step 1: Claiming centrality highlighting the importance of the
Table 1
Textual structure and organization of introductions in three engineering sub-disciplines (N ¼ 179).
Move/Step CE (N ¼ 60) SE (N ¼ 60) BE (N ¼ 59) p-Value
Introduction Percent Introduction Percent Introduction Percent
Move 1: Establishing a territoryc
60/60 100.00a
60/60 100.00a
59/59 100.00a
N/A
Step 1: Claiming centrality 29/60 48.33 45/60 75.00 44/59 74.58 .002*
Step 2: Making topic generalization 58/60 96.67 57/60 95.00 58/59 98.31 .606
Step 3: Reviewing previous studies 56/60 93.33 44/60 73.33 58/59 98.31 <.001*
Move 2: Establishing a nichec
43/60 71.67b
49/60 81.67b
51/59 86.44b
.121
Step 1: Indicating gaps 37/43 86.05 45/49 91.84 39/51 76.47 <.001*
Step 2: Adding to what is known 8/43 18.60 8/49 16.33 11/51 21.57 .002*
Step 3: Presenting positive justification 5/43 11.63 5/49 10.20 21/51 41.18 <.001*
Move 3: Presenting the present study 60/60 100.00a
60/60 100.00a
59/59 100.00a
N/A
Step 1: Announcing purposes 47/60 78.33 49/60 81.67 49/59 83.05 .796
Step 2: Summarizing methods 40/60 66.67 55/60 91.67 47/59 79.67 .003*
Step 3: Announcing principal outcomes 27/60 45.00 50/60 83.33 27/59 45.76 <.001*
Step 4: Claiming research values 23/60 38.33 44/60 73.33 16/59 27.12 <.001*
Step 5: Outlining article structure 17/60 28.33 30/60 50.00 6/59 10.17 <.001*
Step 6: Offering procedural justification 12/60 20.00 3/60 5.00 3/59 5.08 .007*
Step 7: Clarifying terms 0/60 None 6/60 10.00 1/59 1.69 .01*
Step 8: Describing study sites 9/60 15.00 0/60 None 0/59 None <.001*
Step 9: Suggesting further research 0/60 None 1/60 1.67 1/59 1.69 .600
* ¼ Significant variation (p < 0.01).
a
Obligatory.
b
Conventional.
c
Cyclical patterning.

research topic, Step 2: Making topic generalization presenting established general knowledge related to the topic, and Step 3:
Reviewing previous studies contextualizing the study within the existing literature. Move 2 consists of three steps including
Step 1: Indicating gaps critically evaluating previous research, Step 2: Adding to what is known emphasizing additional insight
along the line of previous research, and Step 3: Presenting positive justification giving reasons why the current study is needed.
Finally, Move 3 usually concludes the introductions, with a maximum use of nine steps. Not all of the nine steps of Move 3
were used in the three sub-disciplines. For instance, Step 8: Describing study sites was employed only in CE introductions,
whereas Step 9: Suggesting further research was found in SE and BE, not CE introductions.
Based on the frequency of occurrence of each move and step, across three sub-disciplines, Moves 1 and 3 are obligatory,
being found in every introduction, whereas Move 2 is conventional with the occurrence rates ranging from about 72% to 86%.
Move 1 usually begins the introduction section, followed by Move 2 (if used); Move 3 usually concludes the section. Moves 1
and 2 are likely to be cyclical especially when the research reported is complex, addressing a set of research gaps or objectives.
Two steps of Move 1 represent distinguishing textual features among the three sub-disciplines. First, Move 1, Step 1:
Claiming centrality was used at about the same rate of 75% in SE and BE, but was infrequently used in CE (only 48%). The less
frequent use of this move/step may be the result of the maturity of CE. That is, as one of the oldest engineering sub-disciplines,
the announcement of the significance of the field might be unnecessary. Second, Move 1, Step 3: Reviewing previous studies was
frequent in CE and BE (about 93% and 98%, respectively), but only moderately frequent in SE (about 73%). The lower rate of use
of this step might be because SE is evolving rapidly to satisfy industry demands of changing expectations and competitive
markets. Moreover, software development is so diverse that literature pertaining to particular topics may not be extensive or
even relevant (Ferguson & Chrimes, 2011).
Similarly, Move 2 displays three substantial variations at the step level across the three corpora. Move 2, Step 1: Indicating
gaps was frequently used in CE (about 86%) and SE (about 92%), but relatively frequent in BE (about 76%). Move 2, Step 2:
Adding to what is known, as opposed to Move 2, Step 1, was much less frequent. This step was found in BE (about 22%), but less
frequent in CE and SE (about 19% and 16%, respectively). Finally, Move 2, Step 3: Presenting positive justification, was used in CE
and SE only about 12% and 10%, respectively, but 41% in BE. Because BE seeks to address medical challenges in order to
improve the quality of human health and life, a research study in BE must be meticulously justified to avoid disastrous or
unpleasant effects on humans. For instance, implants have been developed for human enhancement. In this regard,
biomedical engineers need to justify why a study on the use of implants in clinical trials or a study on the use of certain
materials for implants is necessary before these devices go on the market.
Move 3 displays substantial variations in the frequencies of the five steps. Four out of five steps (Step 2: Summarizing
methods, Step 3: Announcing principal outcomes, Step 4: Claiming research values, and Step 5: Outlining article structure) were
significantly frequent in SE. For instance, Step 3: Announcing principal outcomes was found at a high rate of about 83% in SE, but
only about 45% and 46% in CE and BE, respectively. Similarly, Step 4: Claiming research values was frequently used in about 73%
of the SE corpus, but only about 38% and 27% in CE and BE, respectively. These significant statistical differences highlight the
pertinent characteristics of this sub-discipline. Specifically, the frequent use of Step 5: Outlining article structure in SE was
previously reported by Posteguillo (1999) in computer science RAs. In this study, the frequency of this step in SE (50%) was
recorded as twice as frequently as that in CE (about 28%) and five times as frequently as that in BE (only about 10%). A number
of explanations are possible. According to Glass et al. (2002), SE is a relatively new fast moving field with some journals being
published 15 times per year. Thus, the article outline, along with the other steps, potentially helps RA readers rapidly locate
what they would like to read for further details, expediting the dissemination of research discovery.
Another plausible explanation lies in the inherent unique characteristic of research methods in SE (Ferguson & Chrimes,
2011; Glass et al., 2002; Kitchenham, 2002; Shaw, 2001). Specifically, Glass et al. (2002) stated that SE is a research field that
exhibits a plethora of research methods or paradigms under the taxonomies of, for instance, mathematical and mathematical
proof (for studies utilizing mathematical techniques), simulation (for studies utilizing simulation as a research method),
concept implementation (for studies whose research method is to demonstrate proof of a concept), laboratory experiment (for
studies comparing the performance of a newly proposed system with other existing systems), and exploratory survey (for
studies conducting an exploratory field study). Since each research method entails a set of research procedures or research
paradigms that might not be widely understood, RA authors may feel compelled to prepare prospective readers for the field’s
large research method repertoire.
The corpus-based analysis of the introductions is illuminating for a number of reasons. As summarized in Table 1, no
significant statistical differences were found at the move level. In other words, the introduction section seems to be con-
structed similarly across the three sub-disciplines, suggesting that, generally, these sub-disciplines share the same goal in
introducing their research topics. However, the analysis demonstrates that the identity of the sub-disciplines, as reflected
through multiple significant statistical differences, is imprinted in the introduction section. The findings, corroborating
Basturkmen’s (2012) observation, reveal that variations in textual structures can be captured at the step level. Basturkmen
(2012) claimed that the motivations that trigger those variations include differences pertaining to the subject matter, as
well as the goals and aims of individual sub-disciplines. In addition to the above-mentioned factors, this study supports
Bazerman et al. (2005), who propose that the impact of the sub-disciplinary contexts, including the objects studied, the
nature of the focus of the research (be they human or not), and the pace of sub-disciplinary evolution, play a role in framing
and addressing scientific inquiries and creating new knowledge, in turn shaping specific textual organization across sub-
disciplines. It is thus interesting to explore whether the texts belonging to the other three sections of RAs in the three
sub-disciplines are as textually distinct as those in introductions.

4.4. Structural organization of the methods section
Table 2 displays a set of three moves in the methods section. They are Move 4: Describing procedures, Move 5: Featuring
other methodological issues, and Move 6: Reporting and consolidating findings. Move 4 is the only one that is obligatory, with
100% of occurrence across the three sub-disciplines. In contrast, Moves 5 and 6 are optional, with frequencies ranging from
about 38% to 51%. Move 4 usually begins the methods section, followed by Move 5; Move 6 (if used) concludes the section.
Moves 4 and 5 are likely to be cyclical.
Move 4 can be realized by seven steps including Step 1: Announcing objectives, Step 2: Specifying protocolized procedures,
Step 3: Detailing procedures, Step 4: Providing procedural background, Step 5: Justifying procedural decisions, Step 6: Describing
research sites, and Step 7: Declaring ethical statements. Not all of the seven steps of Move 4 were found in all three sub-
disciplines; various combinations of steps across the three sub-disciplines were common in this section.
Two steps were statistically established to be distinguishing textual features of methods in three engineering sub-
disciplines (Step 2: Specifying protocolized procedures and Step 4: Providing procedural background). Step 2 was absent in SE,
but present in CE and BE (about 31% and 49%, respectively), suggesting that a number of scientific procedures have become
established and familiar in CE and BE (e.g., the two-tank filing system in CE and two-step collagenase perfusion technique in BE).
As a consequence, brief reference of the procedures is sufficient for readers to follow the precise steps entailed in individual
procedures. In contrast, the absence of this step in SE can be explained by the fact that SE is the field of study with multiple
research methods and their variants to specifically address the diversity of research questions (Shaw, 2002; Johnson, Ekstedt,
& Jacobson, 2012). Therefore, details of the methodological approaches employed, reflecting different types of inquiry of the
field, are provided to facilitate RA readers’ comprehension while reading the methods section.
Step 4, the other distinguishing feature among the three sub-disciplines in Move 4, is absent in CE but present in SE and BE
about 25% and 51%, respectively. Possibly, in the field of SE, the diverse nature of the research problems requires such a broad
array of research methods or paradigms that readers need to acquire information about the methods in order to better
understand and evaluate the results that are presented. However, in BE, the much higher rate of this step can be explained by
the interdisciplinary nature of the sub-discipline. That is, it is possible that some of the RA readers in BE are from the
discipline of either biology or engineering, and they might not be familiar with certain procedures presented in RAs. For
example, in BE, engineers create biomedical intervention. However, it is doctors, surgeons, and biologists who are ultimately
most interested in the outcomes. Because they are not engineers, it is possible that they do not understand the nuances of
engineering methodology. Therefore, to accommodate the needs of potential RA readers and facilitate the RA reading task,
additional background information about procedure descriptions is provided.
Two steps of Move 4 (Step 6: Describing research sites and Step 7: Declaring ethical statements), although not statistically
established as distinguishing features, deserve our attention. Step 6 was present only in CE (about 44%), but absent in SE and
BE. Under scrutiny, Move 4, Step 6: Describing research sites of CE methods is similar to Move 3, Step 8: Describing study sites in
CE introductions. The use of this move/step in the two sections of CE, in line with Peacock’s (2011) study of environmental
science, is to provide detailed geographical characteristics of the location where the research was conducted. As mentioned,
CE deals with the design, construction and maintenance of the physical built environment. Because environments vary
Table 2
Textual structure and organization of methods in three engineering sub-disciplines (N ¼ 101).
Methods Percent Methods Percent Methods Percent
Move 4: Describing proceduresc
32/32 100.00a
16/16 100.00a
53/53 100.00a
N/A
Step 1: Announcing objectives 23/32 71.88 9/16 56.25 43/53 81.13 .127
Step 2: Specifying protocolized procedures 10/32 31.25 0/16 None 26/53 49.06 .001*
Step 3: Detailing procedures 32/32 100.00 16/16 100.00 53/53 100.00 N/A
Step 4: Providing procedural background 0/32 None 4/16 25.00 27/53 50.94 <.001*
Step 5: Justifying procedures 25/32 78.13 12/16 75.00 33/53 62.26 .266
Step 6: Describing research sites 14/32 43.75 0/16 None 0/53 None N/A
Step 7: Declaring ethical statements 0/32 None 0/16 None 14/53 26.42 N/A
Move 5: Featuring other methodological issuesc
12/32 37.50b
7/16 43.75b
27/53 50.94b
.477
Step 1: Describing materials and participants 11/12 91.67 7/7 100.00 22/27 81.48 .368
Step 2: Setting apparatus 6/12 50.00 0/7 None 11/27 40.74 .076
Step 3: Identifying data sources 4/12 33.33 1/7 14.29 11/27 40.74 .421
Move 6: Reporting and consolidating findings 9/32 28.13b
7/16 43.75b
26/53 49.06b
.162
Step 1: Stating findings 9/9 100.00 6/7 85.71 26/26 100.00 .077
Step 2: Interpreting findings 3/9 33.33 1/7 14.29 2/26 7.69 .166
Step 3: Comparing findings 4/9 44.44 2/7 28.57 2/26 7.69 .042
Step 4: Explaining findings 3/9 33.33 1/7 14.29 1/26 3.85 .061
a
Obligatory.
b
Optional.
c

drastically from place to place, a detailed and specific geographical description of study sites is indispensable for this type of
engineering research.
Finally, Move 4, Step 7: Declaring ethical statements was found only in BE (about 26%) and absent in CE and SE. Although
other disciplines and RAs require that declarations be explicitly made when human subjects are involved in the research, the
absence of this step in the methods section in CE and SE indicates that BE is the only sub-discipline that conducts research on
human subjects. As identified in the BE corpus, an approval from the Institutional Review Board and patients’ signatures on
informed consent documents are required, an expected practice when human subjects are involved. The use of this move/step
in the RA methodology section of BE might be the outcome of historical evolution or the professionalization of researchers in
fields that conduct experiments on human subjects. According to Enfield and Truwit (2008), an Institutional Review Board
(IRB) is a committee designated to approve, monitor, and review biomedical and behavioral research involving humans.
Historically, IRBs developed in North America in the 20th century as a response to unethical scientific research having been
conducted on human subjects in the health sciences. An IRB review assures that appropriate methodological procedures are
taken to protect the rights and welfare of humans participating as subjects in a research study. The employment of this move/
step in BE thus demonstrates the enforcement of this measure and the compliance of the BE discourse community with this
ethical research practice.
Move 5: Featuring other methodological issues consists of three steps including Step 1: Describing materials and participants,
Step 2: Setting apparatus, and Step 3: Identifying data sources. Finally, Move 6: Reporting and consolidating findings displays the
use of four steps related to research results including Step 1: Stating findings, Step 2: Interpreting findings, Step 3: Comparing
findings, and Step 4: Explaining findings. No significant statistical difference across sub-disciplines was established in these two
moves and their constituent steps. However, the presence of Move 6 in this section highlights the communicative function of
both reporting and consolidating findings, suggesting that the boundary between the methods and results sections is
becoming less rigid in these three sub-disciplines.
This study has demonstrated that the principal function of the methods section is to provide an account of the research
procedures, as evidenced by the 100% occurrence of Move 4: Describing procedures. Meanwhile, the two significant statistical
textual differences of Move 4, (Step 2: Specifying protocolized procedures and Step 4: Providing procedural background) focusing
on procedure description, are quite revealing. The frequency of occurrence of these two steps indicates that CE research
procedures are reasonably established (with a relatively higher rate of Step 2 and no use of Step 4). In contrast, SE (vice versa
for the rates of the two steps) features a myriad of research procedures, entailing a wide range of methodological approaches
to address the diverse nature of studies taken in the field. BE, a hybrid sub-discipline, features the use of both steps at about
the same rates of 50% and 51%, respectively. This finding highlights the interdisciplinary nature of the field. In short, although
the methods section seems to be monolithic to begin with, under scrutiny, the construction of this section demonstrates
evolutionary paths of individual sub-disciplinary research procedures influenced by multiple factors, including the nature of
the field, the goals, and the research activities employed to create knowledge.
4.5. Structural organization of the results section
Three moves were identified in the results section (Table 3). They are Move 7: Summarizing procedures, Move 8: Reporting
results, and Move 9: Commenting on results. Move 7 consists of four steps including Step 1: Briefing procedures, Step 2: Justifying
Table 3
Textual structure and organization of results in three engineering sub-disciplines (N ¼ 105).
Results Percent Results Percent Results Percent
Move 7: Summarizing proceduresc
15/18 88.89b
24/27 88.89b
51/59 85.00b
.866
Step 1: Briefing procedures 15/15 100.00 23/24 95.83 51/51 100.00 .249
Step 2: Justifying procedures 3/15 20.00 8/24 33.33 27/51 52.94 .045
Step 3: Defining terms 3/15 20.00 1/24 4.17 4/51 7.84 .221
Step 4: Referring to previous studies 10/15 66.67 6/24 25.00 14/51 27.45 .011
Move 8: Reporting resultsc
18/18 100.00a
27/27 100.00a
60/60 100.00a
N/A
Move 9: Commenting resultsc
17/18 94.44b
24/27 88.89b
53/60 88.33b
.753
Step 1: Interpreting results 15/17 88.24 19/24 79.17 46/53 86.79 .632
Step 2: Explaining results 10/17 58.82 17/24 70.83 35/53 66.04 .726
Step 3: Comparing results 11/17 64.71 10/24 41.67 24/53 45.28 .295
Step 4: Exemplifying results 3/17 17.65 3/24 12.50 3/53 5.66 .293
Step 5: Cautioning limitations 2/17 11.76 4/24 16.67 8/53 15.09 .908
Step 6: Summarizing results 2/17 11.76 5/24 20.83 7/53 13.21 .632
Step 7: Directing future research 2/17 11.76 2/24 8.33 1/53 1.89 .215
a
Obligatory.
b
Conventional.
c

procedures, Step 3: Defining terms, and Step 4: Referring to previous studies. Move 8 has no identified step, and Move 9 has seven
steps including Step 1: Interpreting results, Step 2: Explaining results, Step 3: Comparing results, Step 4: Exemplifying results, Step
5: Cautioning limitations, Step 6: Summarizing results, and Step 7: Directing future research.
Move 7: Summarizing procedures and Move 9: Commenting on results are conventional in the three sub-disciplines, ranging
from 85% to 95%. Move 8: Reporting results forms the central and obligatory move of this section. Move 7, if found, begins the
section, followed by Move 8. Move 9 concludes the section. These three moves are cyclical, reporting on individual results or a
set of results. Even though the principal function of the results section is to present major findings generated by the study
being reported (Move 8), a high rate of Move 7: Summarizing procedures across the three sub-disciplines (about 89%, 89% and
85% in CE, SE, and BE, respectively) is remarkable. Move 7 provides a preview of the research procedures in order to prepare
and facilitate RA readers’ understanding of, and appreciation for, the results reported in the subsequent move. The presence of
Move 9: Commenting on results in the methods section at a high rate (about 94%, 89%, and 88% in CE, SE, and BE, respectively)
demonstrates that, similar to biochemistry (Kanoksilapatham, 2005) and different from chemistry (Stoller & Robinson, 2013),
the results section of the three sub-disciplines not only report results but also provides a channel for situating current findings
in context, a venue for arguments to be framed and discussed, and a stage for additional investigation to be conducted.
Multiple chi-square tests conducted showed no significant differences in the frequencies of the moves or steps of this
section. In other words, as shown by this study, the results sections of the three sub-disciplines are constructed similarly,
sharing the same textual organization and reflecting a similar goal across the three sub-disciplines in reporting the results.
4.6. Structural organization of the discussion section
The analysis of the discussion section reveals a list of three moves (Table 4). They are Move 10: Reviewing the present study,
Move 11: Consolidating results, and Move 12: Stating limitations and future research. Moves 10 and 12 have no identified steps.
Move 11 can be realized by a set of seven steps, most of them overlapping with the steps found in Move 6: Reporting and
consolidating findings of the methods section and those of Move 9: Commenting results in the results section.
The three engineering sub-disciplines display a sequence of three moves. Move 10 usually begins the section, followed by
Move 11; Move 12 concludes the section. This finding is in agreement with that of previous studies on diverse disciplines (e.g.,
Basturkmen, 2012 in dentistry; Holmes, 1997 in social sciences; Kanoksilapatham, 2005 in biochemistry).
Move 10 is conventional across the three sub-disciplines, at the rate of about 69%, 74%, and 95% in CE, SE, and BE,
respectively. Move 11, the central and obligatory move of the section, is invariably present in CE, and slightly less frequent in
SE and BE (about 92% and 95%, respectively). Move 12 has a range of frequencies from 69% to 85% in the three sub-disciplines.
Given the fact that the discussion section of these three sub-disciplines usually consists of a number of sub-sections
focusing on individual results or a set of results, recursion of Move 10: Reviewing the present study and Move 11: Consoli-
dating results is common. This finding is compatible with that of other studies of several disciplines, including Peng’s (1987) in
chemical engineering, Kanoksilapatham’s (2005, 2007a, 2007b in biochemistry and microbiology, respectively), and
Basturkmen’s (2009, 2012 in applied linguistics and dentistry, respectively). The use of Move 10 in CE, SE, and BE (about 69%,
74%, and 95%, respectively) suggests that, in general, authors from the three sub-disciplines tend to facilitate potential readers’
gaining access to a snapshot of the study by including and positioning Move 10 at the beginning of the section. Thus, instead
of reading an RA in its entirety, readers can directly proceed to the discussion section to obtain a glimpse of what the entire RA
is about.
Similar to the other three sections, no statistical differences were identified at the move level in the discussion section
across the three sub-disciplines. Again, this finding demonstrates how the argumentative discussion across the three sub-
disciplines is similarly presented, revealing the larger engineering perspective shared by these three sub-disciplines. That
Table 4
Textual structure and organization of discussions in three engineering sub-disciplines (N ¼ 92).
Results Percent Results Percent Results Percent
Move 10: Reviewing the present studyc
11/16 68.75b
29/39 74.36b
35/37 94.59b
.027
Move 11: Consolidating resultsc
16/16 100.00a
36/39 92.31b
35/37 94.59b
.520
Step 1: Reporting results 16/16 100.00 31/36 86.11 35/35 100.00 .214
Step 2: Explaining results 11/16 68.75 12/36 33.33 28/35 80.00 <.001*
Step 3: Summarizing results 5/16 31.25 2/36 5.56 16/35 45.71 .001*
Step 4: Interpreting results 15/16 93.75 22/36 61.11 33/35 94.29 .001*
Step 5: Comparing results 10/16 62.50 2/36 5.56 25/35 71.42 <.001*
Step 6: Exemplifying results 5/16 31.25 11/36 30.56 6/35 17.14 .355
Step 7: Claiming values of results 4/16 25.00 11/36 30.56 15/35 42.86 .402
Move 12: Stating limitations and future research 11/16 68.75b
33/39 84.62b
29/37 73.38b
.411
* ¼ Significant variation (p < .01).
a
Obligatory.
b
Conventional.
c

is, to convince the reader of the merits of the study results in engineering, the same set of communicative functions is
employed. Initially, the section justifies the presence of the current study, be it by way of the research questions/hypotheses
posed or the literature review. Then, the section highlights major findings of the study by, for instance, contextualizing the
current findings and explaining any new understanding or fresh insights about the research problems. Finally, the discussion
section demonstrates how the study has moved the readers’ understanding of the research problem forward by stating
limitations and suggesting future research.
As far as the steps of this section are concerned, the seven steps of Move 11 were intertwined and combined in diverse
patterns to construct an argumentative discussion. The three sub-disciplines share a common rhetorical structure in the use
of three steps of Move 11. That is, Step 1: Reporting findings is central for this move, providing the basis for other steps to
develop across the three sub-disciplines, with the frequencies of occurrence ranging from 86% in SE to 100% in CE and BE,
respectively. The two other steps that are frequently found across the three corpora include Step 6: Exemplifying results and
Step 7: Claiming values of results.
Four out of the seven steps of Move 11 (Step 2: Explaining results, Step 3: Summarizing results, Step 4: Interpreting results, and
Step 5: Comparing results) were statistically established as distinguishing features for the three engineering sub-disciplines,
contributing to the uniqueness of SE with a low use of these steps. For instance, the use of Step 5: Comparing results was
infrequent in SE at only about 5%, whereas in CE and BE it was as high as about 62% and 71%, respectively, demonstrating that
evaluative elements are a common strategy used in CE and BE in consolidating their findings. A pertinent question arises: why
do SE discussions differ from those of CE and BE, as far as the four steps of Move 11 are concerned? At this point, it should be
noted that the presence of these four steps in the discussion section performs a communicative function of evaluating and
contextualizing results. To provide an explanation for the low occurrence rate of evaluative elements, a scrutiny of how
research was conducted, reported, and discussed in SE is essential. For example, two studies from the SE corpus set out to
improve current practice. To accomplish the objective, a new technique was proposed in both studies. In the first study, to
support that new technique, a tool was implemented and the success of the implementation was announced. In the second
study, the new technique was applied to the example of a toy. Then, the contribution of the study was claimed. As described
earlier, SE is the field that has experienced dramatic rapid growth and development. To accommodate this nature of the field,
as shown in the two examples, the research outcomes seem to be prioritized.
In short, the analysis results of the discussion section seem to be in line with those of the other three sections of intro-
duction, methods, and results. That is, globally, these four individual sections across the three engineering sub-disciplines
share the common goals of introducing a research topic (introduction section), describing research methodologies
(methods section), presenting results (results section), and discussing results (discussion section). Moreover, this study
highlights the remarkable role of steps as distinguishing textual features of the three sub-disciplines associated with engi-
neering. That is, each individual section of each sub-discipline is constructed differently, employing different sets of steps to
create knowledge or an argument. These differences, as captured by steps in different moves pertaining to various sections,
can be accounted for based on the authors’ goals and the nature of the studies belonging to sub-disciplines.
5. Conclusions
A multitude of studies have asserted the role of disciplinary variation in academic discourse. This study has raised the role
of such variation to a finer level of sub-disciplines by demonstrating that the application of genre analysis can successfully
identify the textual organization of the four macro RA sections from three engineering sub-disciplines. With the integration of
the notion of corpus studies and multiple chi-square tests, this study is able to capture crucial textual variations, all of them at
the step level. In this regard, the introduction section is the most textually diverse across the sub-disciplines, followed by the
discussion section and the methods section. The results section, however, seems to display homogeneity with regard to the
employment of moves and steps across sub-disciplines.
The awareness of, and the sensitivity to, the textual organization of individual sub-disciplines can facilitate and enhance
the success of professional international communication, be it academic reading or writing. Pedagogically, teachers of ESP can
make use of the knowledge generated from this study to equip their advanced degree engineering students with the skills of
reading or writing RAs in their discipline. In a similar vein, engineering faculty members and practitioners are likely to be
more successful, bearing in mind the global textual organization revealed by this study, when reading or writing RAs for
publication. Additionally, the classification of moves into three categories based on frequencies allow individuals who embark
on an academic endeavor to be aware that, given a set of moves and steps available for individual sections, they also have
freedom to manipulate the employment of certain moves and steps within the variations of the nature of their research
studies. The findings of this study culminate in the conclusion that each sub-discipline is unique in nature, having a discourse
community with its own conventions and perspectives, which are manifested in the selective deployment of certain moves
and steps. However, as the discourse of RAs evolves. so do disciplinary practices. Therefore, students, academicians, and
practitioners should always be alert to possible textual variations.
The findings of this study contribute to strengthening Swales’ models of textual organization which features two levels of
moves and steps. As illustrated in this study, the same set of moves was identified across the three sub-disciplines, high-
lighting the common larger perspectives shared by the three sub-disciplines when approaching the RA genre in general and
RA individual sections in particular. However, the steps identified in the models, as stipulated by Swales (1990, 2004), are not
only the sub-units of moves contributing to the communicative function of the moves to which they belong. In fact, as

demonstrated by this study, certain steps play a crucial role as distinguishing textual features characterizing individual sub-
disciplines, depicting the impact of sub-disciplines in shaping how individual RA sections are constructed. The models
encapsulating both moves and steps presented in this study thus provide engineering students and practitioners with a
flexible and viable channel to marshal their ideas, which can then be manipulated in compliance with their disciplinary
discourse.
The methodological procedures adopted by this study strengthen the analytical procedures entailed by genre analysis in a
number of ways. First, the integration of specialist inter-coders in verifying the textual segmentation task is insightful. This
procedural step might not be deemed essential when analyzing, for example, advertisements or movie reviews that can be
easily understood by laymen. However, in certain disciplines, for example engineering, which involves a certain level of
expertise, this procedure becomes crucial, complementing the semantic-driven nature of genre analysis and contributing to
the reliability of the textual segmentation task. Second, the comparison of textual structures across disciplines has become
attractive to genre analysts. For valid comparison, it is vital that the same set of definitions of moves and steps be employed.
The integration of statistical analysis to capture significant differences or distinguishing textual features potentially mini-
mizes the possibility that the differences captured are due to chance or idiosyncrasy.
In this study, the integration of corpus analysis to genre analysis has moved the project of genre analysis further along.
Based on the two crucial tenets of corpus analysis in selecting the journals, the three sizable and representative corpora were
systematically compiled and subsequently analyzed. The precaution at this initial stage of corpus creation in this study allows
the findings generated by this study to be more solid, more valid, more convincing, and more generalizable. The findings can
eventually lead to a more accurate body of knowledge regarding how individual RA sections are structured.
At this juncture, one caveat is in order: given the size of individual engineering sub-disciplines, the research topics of one
single sub-discipline might be diverse and possibly characteristically different. This study did not exert control of the topics
and thus the findings remain to be substantiated.
Acknowledgments
This research project was financially supported by the Thailand Research Fund (TRF), Grant No. RSA5080005. I would like
to thank two anonymous reviewers and the editor for their constructive comments on the earlier versions of the paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data related to this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.008.
References
Anthony, L. (1999). Writing RA introductions in SE: How accurate is a standard model? The IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42(1), 38-46.
Basturkmen, H. (2009). Commenting on results in published research articles and master’s dissertations in language teaching. English for Academic Purposes,
8(4), 241-251.
Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in dentistry and disciplinary variation. English for Academic
Purposes, 11(2), 134-144.
Bazerman, C., Little, J., Chavkin, T., Fouquette, D., Bethel, L., & Garufis, J. (2005). Reference guides to rhetoric and composition. Parlor Press and WAC
Clearinghouse.
Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. (2007). Discourse on the move. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brett, P. (1994). A move analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 47-59.
Bruce, I. (2008). Cognitive genre structures in methods sections of research articles: A corpus study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 38-54.
Bruce, I. (2009). Results sections in sociology and organic chemistry articles: A move analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 28(2), 105-124.
Connor, U., & Gladkov, K. (2004). Rhetorical appeals in fundraising direct mail letters. In U. Connor, & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives
from corpus linguistics (pp. 257-286). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Connor, U., & Mauranen, A. (1999). Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 47-62.
Enfield, K. B., & Truwit, J. D. (2008). The purpose, composition, and function of an Institutional Review Board: Balancing priorities. Respiratory Care, 53, 1330-
1336.
Ferguson, H., & Chrimes, M. (2011). The civil engineers: The story of the institution of civil engineers and the people who made it. London: ICE Publishing.
Retrieved from http://www.ice.org.uk/News-Public-Affairs/ICE-News/ICE-launches-The-Civil-Engineers–The-Story-of-the
Glass, R. L., Vessey, I., & Ramesh, V. (2002). Research in software engineering: An analysis of the literature. Information and Software Technology, 44(8), 491-
506.
Hansson, S. (1995). Impact factor as a misleading tool in evaluation of medical journals. Lancet, 346(8979), 906.
Holmes, R. (1997). Move analysis and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English
for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321-337.
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. London: Longman.
Johnson, P., Ekstedt, M., & Jacobson, I. (2012). Where’s the theory for software engineering? Software, 29(5), 96.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269-292.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2007a). Writing research articles in English: Microbiology. Journal of the Faculty of Arts, 29, 174-208.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2007b). Writing scientific research articles in Thai and English: Similarities and differences. Silpakorn University International Journal,
7, 172-203.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2011a). Reconciling efforts to understand engineering intellect: Research articles from linguistic perspective. International Journal of
Business and Technopreneurship, 1(1), 137-148.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2011b). Language of civil engineering introductions: Textual structure and linguistic characterizations. Asian ESP Journal, 7(2), 55-84.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2012). Structure of research article introductions in three engineering subdisciplines. The IEEE Transactions on Professional Commu-
nication, 55(4), 294-309.

Kanoksilapatham, B. (2013). Generic characterisation of civil engineering research article abstracts. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language
Studies, 19(3), 1-10.
Kitchenham, B. A. (2002). Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. The IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(8), 721-
734.
Lim, J. M. H. (2006). Methods sections of management research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 282-309.
Lin, L., & Evans, S. (2012). Structural patterns in empirical research articles: A cross-disciplinary study. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 150-160.
Martín, P., & Pérez, I. (2014). Convincing peers of the value of one’s research: A genre analysis of rhetorical promotion in academic texts. English for Specific
Purposes, 34(2), 1-13.
Nebeker, F. (2002). Golden accomplishments in BE. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE History Center. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomedical_engineering
Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138.
Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific
Purpose, 26(1), 25-38.
Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479-497.
Peacock, M. (2011). The structure of the methods section in research articles across eight disciplines. The Asian ESP Journal, 7(2), 99-122.
Peng, P. (1987). Organizational features in chemical engineering research articles. In T. Dudley-Evans (Ed.), Move analysis and ESP (pp. 79-116). Birmingham,
England: University of Birmingham. ELR Journal 1.
Pho, P. D. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and
authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10(2), 231-250.
Posteguillo, S. (1999). The schematic structure of computer science RAs. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 139-158.
Saha, S., Saint, S., & Christakis, D. (2003). Impact factor: A valid measure of journal quality? Journal of Medical Library Association, 91(1), 42-46.
Seglen, P. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498-502.
Shaw, M. (2001). The coming of age of software architecture research. In The proceedings of the 2001 international conference on software engineering.
Retrieved from http://www.scs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/vit/ftp/pdf/shaw-keynote-rev.pdf
Shaw, M. (2002). What makes good research in software engineering? International Journal of Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 4(1), 1-7. Retrieved from
http://marian.shaw-weil.com/displaypaper.php?PAPER_ID¼11&header¼http://spoke.compose.cs.cmu.edu/shaweb/p/
Stoller, F., & Robinson, M. (2013). Chemistry journal articles: An interdisciplinary approach to move analysis with pedagogical aims. English for Specific
Purposes, 32(1), 45-57.
Swales, J. (1990). Move analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Tisapramotekul, O. (2008). Generic variability in English recruitment advertisements of Thai and British newspapers. Language Across Cultures, 1, 171-204.
Ward, J. (2009). A basic engineering English word list for less proficient foundation engineering undergraduates. English for Specific Purposes, 28(3), 170-182.
Williams, I. (1999). Results section of medical research articles. English for Specific Purpose, 18(4), 347-366.
Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). RAs in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 365-385.
Budsba Kanoksilapatham is a Professor in the Department of English, Faculty of Arts, Silpakorn University, Thailand. Her research interests include English
phonetics, sociolinguistics, and discourse analysis.

2015.ESP

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to 2015.ESP

More from Budsaba Kanoksi

2015.ESP