Writing to make a difference: Discursive analysis of writer identity in research articles on management

Abstract

Our purpose in this research is to quantitatively analyse how the communication of managerial knowledge is realised in research articles written by experienced writers for publication and those produced by graduate students as a course grade requirement. Specifically, we look at the ways these writers construct their authorial identities (textually conveyed in ‘voice’). To do so, we combine Hyland’s (2008) interactional model of voice with the Author’s (xxxx) conceptualisation of ‘writer identity.’
 The study results reveal important differences with regard to the expression of interaction in written discourse, with novices employing more interpersonal features to involve readers and experienced authors making linguistic choices to establish authority in their texts. We show that the use of interpersonal metadiscourse renders academic texts more accessible, reader engaging and interesting. This enables us to work towards the development of more effective writing instruction which is particularly relevant for English for Academic Purposes pedagogy.
 Keywords: discourse analysis, management writing, writer identity, reader inclusion

Reader Perceptions of Authorial Voice in Top-Tier Management Journals: The Case of Doctoral Students of Management From Eastern Europe

“…Source. Lehman et al, 2022. individual voice, the collective voice and the depersonalized voice) which constitute the identity of a scholarly writer (see Lehman, 2018;Lehman et al, 2022;Lehman & Sułkowski, 2021).…”

“…If we consider the trichotomy of voice captured in Lehman’s model of writer identity (2018), which is conceived of as three distinct ways of expression, a Bakhtinian approach is useful to understand how these different self-representations can co-exist within the same author and the same text. As a way of exposition, Table 1 presents the textual realizations of the three types of voice (the individual voice, the collective voice and the depersonalized voice) which constitute the identity of a scholarly writer (see Lehman, 2018; Lehman et al, 2022; Lehman & Sułkowski, 2021).…”

“…The first group tends to opt for, or conform to, a traditional writing style which entails the use of a more impersonal voice (and hence suggests rigor) whereas novices are more open to appreciate alternative voice strategies that show connection to the reader (and hence suggest relevance). Furthermore, Lehman et al (2022) showed that there is also a discrepancy in how these two groups textually manifest their voice. The study looked at the ways novice and experienced management writers construct their authorial identities (linguistically conveyed in “voice”) and revealed that novices employ more interpersonal features to involve readers and experienced authors make linguistic choices which are not reader-considerate.…”

“…Why is it important that graduate students recognize the use and the rhetorical function of authorial voice? Although there are no studies showing the direct link between the lack of graduate writing pedagogy in management and novices’ success in journal publications, it is possible to make this assumption given the empirical evidence of the importance of metadiscourse features in the construction of authorial voice (see Ädel’s, 2006; Lehman et al, 2022; Vasheghani Farahani & Pahlevansadegh, 2019). “Metadiscourse” is described as “discourse about discourse” which seeks to capture the interactive character of communication.…”

“…The findings of Vasheghani Farahani and Pahlevansadegh’s (2019) study show that there is a positive correlation between the teaching of metadiscourse features and writing performance of IELTS learners. The quantitative study of Lehman et al (2022) provides an exploration of how writer identity (linguistically conveyed in voice) is construed by the use of metadiscourse markers in management-related research articles authored by established academics and students. The analysis of a corpus of over 10,000 articles produced robust findings which revealed that novices intuitively establish equality and commonality with their readers by creating a reader-inclusive dialog in their texts.…”