1887
Volume 23, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper analyzes the discourse of academic quality audit reports by drawing upon Appraisal Theory (Martin & White 2005). It focuses on the evaluative prosodies in the discourse leading up to the three main components of the reports, namely commendations, affirmations, and recommendations. These reports are prepared by the audit panels formed by the Quality Assurance Council of the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong upon the completion of academic quality audit visits to each of the city’s eight publicly-funded tertiary institutions. This paper argues that such evaluative prosodies, or the pattern of use of evaluative language, are strategically employed by the audit panels in an attempt to strike a balance between three needs: (1) to discharge their quality assurance responsibilities with their power vested by the Hong Kong Government through the University Grants Committee; (2) to maintain and/or reinforce a credible ethos for the panels themselves; and (3) to attend to the face wants of the institutions and the stakeholders concerned.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.23.3.03ho
2017-02-06
2019-10-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Afros, Elena & Catherine Schryer
    2009 Promotional (meta)discourse in research articles in language and literary studies. English for Specific Purposes28(1). 58–68. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2008.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Billing, David
    2004 International comparisons and trends in external quality assurance of higher education: Commonality or diversity?Higher Education47(1). 113–137. doi: 10.1023/B:HIGH.0000009804.31230.5e
    https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000009804.31230.5e [Google Scholar]
  3. Brennan, John & Tarla Shah
    2000Managing quality in higher education: An international perspective on institutional assessment and change. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, Gillian & George Yule
    1983Discourse analysis. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511805226
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805226 [Google Scholar]
  5. Carr, Sarah , Emma Hamilton & Phil Meade
    2005 Is It possible? Investigating the influence of external quality audit on university performance. Quality in Higher Education11(3). 195–211. doi: 10.1080/13538320500329665
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320500329665 [Google Scholar]
  6. Crismore, Avon & Rodney Farnsworth
    1989 Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review8(1). 91–112. doi: 10.1080/07350198909388880
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198909388880 [Google Scholar]
  7. Findlow, Sally
    2008 Accountability and innovation in higher education: A disabling tension?Studies in Higher Education33(3). 313–329. doi: 10.1080/03075070802049285
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049285 [Google Scholar]
  8. Gallardo, Susana & Laura Ferrari
    2010 How doctors view their health and professional practice: An appraisal analysis of medical discourse. Journal of Pragmatics42(12). 3172–3187. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.008 [Google Scholar]
  9. Hodson, Peter & Harold Thomas
    2003 Quality assurance in higher education: Fit for the new millennium or simply year 2000 compliant?Higher Education45(3). 375–387. doi: 10.1023/A:1022665818216
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022665818216 [Google Scholar]
  10. Hoecht, Andreas
    2006 Quality assurance in UK higher education: Issues of trust, control, professional autonomy and accountability. Higher Education51(4). 541–563. doi: 10.1007/s10734‑004‑2533‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-2533-2 [Google Scholar]
  11. Holmgreen, Lise-Lotte & Torben Vestergaard
    2009 Evaluation and audience acceptance in biotech news texts. Journal of Pragmatics41(3). 586–601. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hyland, Ken
    1998a Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. Journal of Business Communication35(2). 224–245. doi: 10.1177/002194369803500203
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369803500203 [Google Scholar]
  13. 1998b Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics30(4). 437–455. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00009‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2005Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kong, Kenneth
    2008 A filial son or a loving mother? Evaluation as recontextualisation devices in property transaction reports. Journal of Pragmatics40(3). 431–453. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  16. Mackay, Ronald
    1981 Accountability in ESP programmes. The ESP Journal1(2). 107–122. doi: 10.1016/0272‑2380(81)90003‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-2380(81)90003-2 [Google Scholar]
  17. Martin, James R. & Peter R.R. White
    2005The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  18. Mok, Ka-Ho
    2000 Impact of globalization: A study of quality assurance systems of higher education in Hong Kong and Singapore. Comparative Education Review44(2). 148–174. doi: 10.1086/447601
    https://doi.org/10.1086/447601 [Google Scholar]
  19. Morley, Louise
    2003Quality and power in higher education. Maidenhead, PA: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Shore, Cris & Susan Wright
    1999 Audit culture and anthropology: Neo-liberalism in British higher education. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute5(4). 557–575. doi: 10.2307/2661148
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2661148 [Google Scholar]
  21. Spencer-Oatey, Helen
    2008 Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory, 2nd edn., 11–47. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Stensaker, Bjørn
    1999 External quality auditing in Sweden: Are departments affected?Higher Education Quarterly53(4). 353–368. doi: 10.1111/1468‑2273.00136
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2273.00136 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2000 Quality as discourse: An analysis of external audit reports in Sweden 1995-1998. Tertiary Education and Management6(4). 305–317. doi: 10.1080/13583883.2000.9967032
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2000.9967032 [Google Scholar]
  24. Stenvall, Maija
    2008 On emotions and the journalistic ideals of factuality and objectivity: Tools for analysis. Journal of Pragmatics40(9). 1569–1586. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.017 [Google Scholar]
  25. Strathern, Marilyn
    1997 “Improving ratings”: Audit in the British university system. European Review5(3). 305–321. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1234‑981X(199707)5:3<305::AID‑EURO184>3.0.CO;2‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1234-981X(199707)5:3<305::AID-EURO184>3.0.CO;2-4 [Google Scholar]
  26. (ed.) 2000Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203449721
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203449721 [Google Scholar]
  27. Tang, K.H. & Mohamed Zairi
    1998 Benchmarking quality implementation in a service context: A comparative analysis of financial services and institutions of higher education: Part II. Total Quality Management9(7). 539–552. doi: 10.1080/0954412988244
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0954412988244 [Google Scholar]
  28. Thomas, Harold
    2001 Towards a new higher education law in Lithuania: Reflections on the process of policy formulation. Higher Education Policy14(3). 213–223. doi: 10.1016/S0952‑8733(01)00015‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0952-8733(01)00015-0 [Google Scholar]
  29. Trowler, Paul
    1998Academics responding to change: New higher education frameworks and academic cultures. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. University Grants Committee
    2007Quality Assurance Council audit manual. HKSAR: Government Printer.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2010Aspirations for the higher education system in Hong Kong: Report of the University Grants Committee. HKSAR: Government Printer.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/fol.23.3.03ho
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error