From process to producta text-based ethnographic study of ten biomedical research articles by Spanish authors

Abstract

: Longman. Canagarajah, A. S. (2011). Translanguaging in tREFERENCES / BIBLIOGRAFÍA Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre : language use in professional settings. Londonhe classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 1. doi:10.1515/9783110239331.1 Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom: A Pedagogy for Learning and Teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103-115. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00986.x Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis for ESP. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 219-229). London: Routledge. English, F. (2011). Student writing and genre : reconfiguring academic knowledge. London: Continuum. Lillis, T. M., & Curry, M. J. (2006). Professional Academic Writing by Multilingual Scholars: Interactions With Literacy Brokers in the Production of English-Medium Texts. Written Communication, 23(1), 3-35. doi:10.1177/0741088305283754 Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(97)85388-4 Swales, J. M. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 45-58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres : explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, I. A. (1999). Results Sections of Medical Research Articles:: Analysis of Rhetorical Categories for Pedagogical Purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 18(4), 347-366. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00003-9 Abstract The ascent of English as the dominant language of Science over the past several decades has been widely documented, and few now challenge the fact that most high-stakes scientific research is conducted in English. As English has solidified its status as the lingua franca of academia, more and more contributions to academic journals now come from non-native-English-speaking (NNES) authors. The phenomenon of NNES contributions to English-medium international journals and the circumstances under which these scholars may succeed or fail in their attempt to publish has been approached from a number of angles. The in-depth knowledge of the textual and non-textual practices and experiences of native-English-speaking (NES) and NNES authors gained from research within such disciplines as genre studies, corpus studies, intercultural rhetoric, and ethnographic approaches can be used to help NNES academic writers and aspiring writers, creators of training materials, and trainers in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) to achieve their aims. This study examines the discursive processes and textual products behind English-medium academic writing produced by a set of biomedical researchers whose native language (L1) is Spanish. To describe how this writing took shape in the pre- and post-submission stages and how these contributions were received by journal editors and reviewers, I used a modified version of “text histories” (Lillis & Curry, 2006). Specifically, I studied a sample of ten research articles (RAs), analyzing one text each from a group of ten different researchers at a research institution in Spain. I tracked the progress of these texts as they moved toward publication or abandonment, describing how they evolved across multiple drafts and sources of input. Analysis of the texts is rooted in the some of the most influential Swalesian descriptions of rhetorical patterning (Bhatia, 1993; Dudley-Evans, 1994; Nwogu, 1997; Swales, 2004; Williams, 1999), and modifications made to the texts are interpreted in light of ethnographic data on the agents and processes that contributed to the final outcome. The results of this qualitative study reveal that the discussion and introduction sections posed a greater challenge for the authors who contributed texts to my corpus, with these two sections proving more difficult to draft and also drawing more frequent criticism during peer review. Though the methods and results sections were significantly more straightforward for the authors studied, a certain overlap was noted in the rhetorical contents of these two sections, revealing a tendency to favor the results section as the space for certain key information on methodology. In addition to these text-focus observations, insights from the text analyses and the information gathered around these texts revealed a number of key decisions and authoring practices such as the tendency to draft texts independently or share the responsibility of writing among coauthors, the impact of regenring (English, 2011) and code-switching and translanguaging (Canagarajah, 2011; Creese & Blackledge, 2010), strategies for negotiation with journal gatekeepers during peer review, the importance of perseverance in the face of resistance, and the role played by occluded genres (Swales, 1996) in the publication process. Factors that appeared to increase the likelihood of success included local, national, and international networks and the international status of a researcher’s particular discipline. The authors varied in the expectations they have of assistance from language brokers (Lillis & Curry, 2006), with some exhibiting greater openness to proposed changes beyond the word or sentence level. In some cases, the expertise of NNES field experts was shown to be of higher value than the contributions of NES language brokers, especially when field experts could leverage their combined content knowledge, awareness of discourse conventions, and rhetorical aptitude. While some gatekeepers took on a constructive role in assisting the authors with their texts, others were more adversarial. The findings of this study paint a varied picture of the authors included in the sample. While some authors were hampered by apparent rhetorical transfer from their L1, in other text histories rhetorical patterning was much less of an impediment. Despite an overall absence of explicit training in academic writing, clear examples of expertise were evidenced as concerns the authors’ awareness of the social system behind academic writing and peer review, and the fact that nine of the ten RAs secured publications is a testament to their success. Analysis of these best practices and common pitfalls may inform EAP instruction, the policies of research institutions, and the assistance provided by language brokers. REFERENCES / BIBLIOGRAFÍA Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre : language use in professional settings. London: Longman. Canagarajah, A. S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 1. doi:10.1515/9783110239331.1 Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom: A Pedagogy for Learning and Teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103-115. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00986.x Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis for ESP. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 219-229). London: Routledge. English, F. (2011). Student writing and genre : reconfiguring academic knowledge. London: Continuum. Lillis, T. M., & Curry, M. J. (2006). Professional Academic Writing by Multilingual Scholars: Interactions With Literacy Brokers in the Production of English-Medium Texts. Written Communication, 23(1), 3-35. doi:10.1177/0741088305283754 Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119-138. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(97)85388-4 Swales, J. M. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 45-58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres : explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, I. A. (1999). Results Sections of Medical Research Articles:: Analysis of Rhetorical Categories for Pedagogical Purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 18(4), 347-366. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00003-9