1887
Volume 9, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The research articles(RAs) as the dominant genre of academic writing can be accounted as the sites of reproduction of unequal power relations and dominance. Through critical discourse analysis of epistemological and ontological underpinnings and subsequently methodological aims and values of positivist paradigm as social structures, this article aims to foreground power and ideology stricken latent aspects of empiricist RAs. Research as a social practice mediates between the social structures and the RAs as social events. Textual analysis of practical arguments presented mostly in the pedagogical implications part revealed that the scientific world views manifest themselves as the premises of these arguments. The premises can provide reasons for actions (Searle’s,2010, social ontology theory). The reasons can signify the empiricist interests as the global concerns. They exclude the rival paradigms or ways of understanding the world. These world views maintain the dominance of Western societies on global academic and social discourses.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.19006.kha
2020-10-28
2020-11-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Angus, L. B.
    1986 Research traditions, ideology and critical ethnography. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 7:1, 61–77, doi: 10.1080/0159630860070104nline
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630860070104nline [Google Scholar]
  2. Apple, M. W.
    2006Educating the ‘right’ way: Markets, standards, God and inequality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, M.
    2009 Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. InArgumentation and education (pp.127–144). Springer, Boston, MA. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑98125‑3_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_5 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biesta, G.
    2004 Educational research, evidence-based practice and professional judgement in education. Paper presented at theFaculty of Education of Stellenbosch University, Postgraduate Students Colloquium, 26 March 2004, 1–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brickhouse, N. W., Stanley, W. B., & Whitson, J. A.
    1993 Practical reasoning and science education: Implications for theory and practice. Science & Education, 2(4), 363–375. 10.1007/BF00488172
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00488172 [Google Scholar]
  6. Caterina, D.
    2018 Investigating hegemony struggles: Transdisciplinary considerations on the role of a critical discourse analysis of practical argumentation. Critical Discourse Studies, 15(3), 211–227. 10.1080/17405904.2017.1398670
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2017.1398670 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cobb, T.
    1997 Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing?System, 25(3), 301–315. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(97)00024‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00024-9 [Google Scholar]
  8. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, J. M.
    2012 Research on argumentation in science education in Europe. InD. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science Education Research and Practice in Europe: Retrospective and Prospective (pp.253–289). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑6091‑900‑8_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-900-8_11 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fairclough, N.
    2001Language and Power (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 1989Language and PowerLondon: Longmans
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2010Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Longmans
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2015Language and Power (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fairclough, I., and Fairclough, N.
    2012Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2013 Argument, Deliberation, Dialectic and the Nature of the Political: A CDA Perspective. Political Studies Review, 11 (3). pp.336–344. 10.1111/1478‑9302.12025
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1478-9302.12025 [Google Scholar]
  15. Frederickson, M.
    2004 Surveying gender: Another look at the way we teach United States history. The History Teacher, 37(4), 476–484. 10.2307/1555552
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1555552 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gorur, R., Hamilton, M., Lundahl, C. and Sjödin, E. S.
    2019 Politics by other means? STS and research in education, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(1), 1–15, doi:  10.1080/01596306.2018.1549700
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2018.1549700 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., and Wajcman, J.
    2008 Introduction. InE. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies, third edition (pp.1–9). London, England: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. KhosraviNik, M.
    2010 Actor descriptions, action attributions, and argumentation: towards a Systematization of CDA analytical categories in the representation of social groups. Critical Discourse Studies, 7: 1, 55–72. 10.1080/17405900903453948
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900903453948 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lim, L.
    2014 Ideology, rationality and reproduction in education: a critical discourse analysis, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(1), 61–76, doi:  10.1080/01596306.2012.739467
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2012.739467 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lin, T. C., Lin, T. J., and Tsai, C. C.
    2014 Research Trends in Science Education from 2008 to 2012: a systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1346–1372. 10.1080/09500693.2013.864428
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.864428 [Google Scholar]
  21. Luke, A.
    1995/96 Text and discourse in education: An introduction to critical discourse analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21(1), 3–48. 10.3102/0091732X021001003
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X021001003 [Google Scholar]
  22. Parkinson, J.
    2011 The Discussion section as argument: The language used to prove knowledge claims. English for specific purposes, 30(3), 164–175. 10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Pennycook, A.
    2001Critical applied linguistics: a critical introduction. London. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.. 10.4324/9781410600790
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410600790 [Google Scholar]
  24. Rapanta, C., & Macagno, F.
    2016 Argumentation methods in educational contexts: Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 142–149. 10.1016/j.ijer.2016.03.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.03.006 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ramsden, P.
    1992Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Rangachari, P. K.
    1994 Quality education for undergraduates in pharmacology: a Canadian experiment. Trends in pharmacological sciences, 15(7), 211–214. 10.1016/0165‑6147(94)90313‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-6147(94)90313-1 [Google Scholar]
  27. Samaie, M., Sahragard, R. and Parhizkar, R.
    2006. – A Critical Analysis of Learning and Teaching Goals in Gardner’s Theory of Attitudes and Motivation. Asian EFL Journal, 8(4),151–191.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Swales, J. M.
    2004Research Genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524827
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827 [Google Scholar]
  29. Shaw, P.
    2000 Towards Classifying the Arguments in Research Genres. InTrosborg (ed.). Analyzing professional genres. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.74.06sha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.74.06sha [Google Scholar]
  30. Searle, J.
    2010Making the social world. The structure of human civilization. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195396171.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195396171.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Uzuner-Smith, S. and Englander, K.
    2015 Exposing ideology within university policies: a critical discourse analysis of faculty hiring, promotion and remuneration practices, Journal of Education Policy, 30(1), 62–85, doi:  10.1080/02680939.2014.895853
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2014.895853 [Google Scholar]
  32. van Dijk, T. A.
    1998Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London. Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2006 Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359–383. 10.1177/0957926506060250
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250 [Google Scholar]
  34. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R.
    2004A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. van Eemeren, F. H.
    2018Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95381‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6 [Google Scholar]
  36. van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B. J., and Meuffels, B.
    2015 Effectiveness through reasonableness: A pragma-dialectical perspective. preliminary steps to pragma-dialectical effectiveness research. Invan Eemeren, H. (Ed). Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse. Springer International Publishing Switzerland. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20955‑5_42
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_42 [Google Scholar]
  37. Waghid, Y.
    2006 University education and deliberation: In defence of practical reasoning. Higher Education, 51(3), 315–328. 10.1007/s10734‑004‑6388‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6388-3 [Google Scholar]
  38. Walton, D.
    2013Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers. 10.4324/9780203811160
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203811160 [Google Scholar]
  39. Wodak, R.
    2001 What CDA is About: A Summary of its History. Important Concepts and Its Developments. InWodak, R. and Meyer, C. (Eds.). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London. Sage Publications Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Yoon, H., & Hirvela, A.
    2004 ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of second language writing, 13(4), 257–283. 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.06.002 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.19006.kha
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): domination , ideology , positivist , power and practical reasoning research articles
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