Revisiting the role of ‘discipline’ in writing for publication in two social sciences

Abstract

The role of discipline in shaping writing for publication has been widely acknowledged in EAP research, and a wealth of studies that seek to characterise and differentiate disciplinary writing have been published. However, a conceptualisation of disciplines as clearly demarcated territories may be outdated given the "constantly changing and dynamic […] contemporary university" (Manathunga & Brew, 2014, p.45). In light of these changes, our article interrogates the centrality of discipline in research-based writing, from the academics' perspective. To do so, we adopt Trowler's (2014a) reconceptualization of discipline as an analytical framework. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven scholars in two social sciences. Interview data was supplemented by an analysis of the participants' researchbased outputs. The results highlight the contested nature of disciplinary affiliation and reveal the range of factors that participants perceive to be "shapers" of writing for publication, beyond discipline: epistemological/methodological, structural and individual. Based on the results, we argue that Trowler's new metaphor of discipline enables us to account for our findings, and conclude with recommendations for EAP writing for publication interventions.

“I’m Applying Mathematical Methods to Social Sciences” : Norms in Disciplinary Writing and Methodological Paradigms

“…In general, for the majority of scholars participating in the study methodological norms seem to be a significant factor to consider while writing research texts. This conclusion is in line with the results of some recent studies that include methodological paradigm into their focus (Cao & Hu, 2014;Hu & Cao, 2015;Kaufhold & McGrath, 2019;Liu & Tseng, 2021).…”

“…I chose semi-structured interviews as the main interview type because they allow us to explore writers' experiences with research writing and their beliefs about disciplinary writing conventions (Harwood & Petrić, 2012;Kaufhold & McGrath, 2019). I used an interview protocol to ensure the comparability of results.…”

“…The results of the interview analysis suggested that the participants did not seem to have a shared understanding of disciplinary norms; however, their narratives highlighted the importance of the methodological paradigm for their writing practices. Based on these results and taken into consideration the conclusions drawn by Gray (2015) and Kaufhold and McGrath (2019), this study investigates how L2 researchers from the broad domain of social sciences and humanities (SSH) perceive disciplinary norms and norms of methodological paradigm. It reports the results of the analysis of parts of longer interviews with 18 scholars working in a research university in Russia.…”

Searching for Metacognitive Generalities: Areas of Convergence in Learning to Write for Publication Across Doctoral Students in Science and Engineering

“…Academic writing poses unique challenges to learners, who may benefit from enhanced metacognition. Scientific writing is multifaceted, polychromic, and eclectic: academic genres often reflect the work of interdisciplinary communities of discourse, requiring pedagogical approaches that promote flexibility (Kaufhold & McGrath, 2019). Quality criteria are inevitably situated and often implicit, embedded in the genres legitimized by scientific communities that are fluid and often converging from different "fields" (Wingate, 2016).…”

The value of academics’ research-related online writing

“…The uptake of hybrid genres both in production and consumption broadens the range of genres academics engage in. These genres provide additional tools for networking, which has been identified as a significant factor for research -based writing (Kaufhold & McGrath, 2019). More specifically, hybrid genres can be part of chains of genres and encompass activities that directly contribute to the writing process of core research genres, either in terms of writing alongside a research project (cf.…”