literature review discourse analysis

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Published on August 23, 2019 by Amy Luo . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Critical discourse analysis (or discourse analysis) is a research method for studying written or spoken language in relation to its social context. It aims to understand how language is used in real life situations.

When you conduct discourse analysis, you might focus on:

• The purposes and effects of different types of language
• Cultural rules and conventions in communication
• How values, beliefs and assumptions are communicated
• How language use relates to its social, political and historical context

Discourse analysis is a common qualitative research method in many humanities and social science disciplines, including linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology and cultural studies.  

Table of contents

What is discourse analysis used for, how is discourse analysis different from other methods, how to conduct discourse analysis, other interesting articles.

Conducting discourse analysis means examining how language functions and how meaning is created in different social contexts. It can be applied to any instance of written or oral language, as well as non-verbal aspects of communication such as tone and gestures.

Materials that are suitable for discourse analysis include:

• Books, newspapers and periodicals
• Marketing material, such as brochures and advertisements
• Business and government documents
• Websites, forums, social media posts and comments
• Interviews and conversations

By analyzing these types of discourse, researchers aim to gain an understanding of social groups and how they communicate.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Unlike linguistic approaches that focus only on the rules of language use, discourse analysis emphasizes the contextual meaning of language.

It focuses on the social aspects of communication and the ways people use language to achieve specific effects (e.g. to build trust, to create doubt, to evoke emotions, or to manage conflict).

Instead of focusing on smaller units of language, such as sounds, words or phrases, discourse analysis is used to study larger chunks of language, such as entire conversations, texts, or collections of texts. The selected sources can be analyzed on multiple levels.

Discourse analysis is a qualitative and interpretive method of analyzing texts (in contrast to more systematic methods like content analysis ). You make interpretations based on both the details of the material itself and on contextual knowledge.

There are many different approaches and techniques you can use to conduct discourse analysis, but the steps below outline the basic structure you need to follow. Following these steps can help you avoid pitfalls of confirmation bias that can cloud your analysis.

Step 1: Define the research question and select the content of analysis

To do discourse analysis, you begin with a clearly defined research question . Once you have developed your question, select a range of material that is appropriate to answer it.

Discourse analysis is a method that can be applied both to large volumes of material and to smaller samples, depending on the aims and timescale of your research.

Step 2: Gather information and theory on the context

Next, you must establish the social and historical context in which the material was produced and intended to be received. Gather factual details of when and where the content was created, who the author is, who published it, and whom it was disseminated to.

As well as understanding the real-life context of the discourse, you can also conduct a literature review on the topic and construct a theoretical framework to guide your analysis.

Step 3: Analyze the content for themes and patterns

This step involves closely examining various elements of the material – such as words, sentences, paragraphs, and overall structure – and relating them to attributes, themes, and patterns relevant to your research question.

Step 4: Review your results and draw conclusions

Once you have assigned particular attributes to elements of the material, reflect on your results to examine the function and meaning of the language used. Here, you will consider your analysis in relation to the broader context that you established earlier to draw conclusions that answer your research question.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Luo, A. (2023, June 22). Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 24, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/discourse-analysis/

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked

What is qualitative research | methods & examples, what is a case study | definition, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education: A Review of the Literature, 2004 to 2012

This article reviews critical discourse analysis scholarship in education research from 2004 to 2012. Our methodology was carried out in three stages. First, we searched educational databases. Second, we completed an analytic review template for each article and encoded these data into a digital spreadsheet to assess macro-trends in the field. Third, we developed sche-mata to interpret the complexity of research design. Our examination of 257 articles reveals trends in research questions, the theories researchers find useful, and the kinds of interactions that capture their attention. We explore areas in the field especially ripe for debate and critique: reflexivity, decon-structive–reconstructive stance toward inquiry, and social action. We compare the findings with an earlier review published in 2005, reflecting on three decades of critical discourse analysis in education research.

Related Papers

Tarik Ait Hssaine

Phương Dung

education policy analysis archives

Rachael Gabriel

This article introduces the first of a two-part Special Issue on Discourse Perspectives and Education Policy. This first special issue is focused on critical discourse analysis and education policy. Within this article, we provide a brief overview of discourse analysis generally and critical discourse analysis specifically. We highlight some of the ways in which policy researchers have applied the theories and methods associated with CDA and note the methodological and substantive contributions of this work. Then, we provide an overview of the six papers included within this special issue, noting each paper’s key points and explicit links to policy. We conclude by pointing to future directions for research at the intersection of education policy and discourse studies.

Zouheir Maalej

Sovicheth Boun

Trevor Warburton

This article explores the use of Critical Discourse Analysis in truth-telling in education research. I argue that without critical reflexivity Critical Discourse Analysis can become a means of reinforcing and reinscribing some of the same dominant discourses that we critique. Here I suggest the recognition that in the role of teacher and researcher we are also caught up in dominant discourses. As such we need to include our own discourse use (both teaching and writing) in our analysis and critique. In doing so we can more effectively use CDA for truth-telling. To illustrate I present two sample analyses from a social justice oriented action research course for secondary preservice mathematics teachers. I include my own use of discourse in the analysis both as the teacher of the course and then critique my written analysis of the same class.

Kate Anderson , Doris Warriner

Discourse analysis as a method of inquiry has improved our collective understanding of teaching and learning processes for at least four decades. This chapter provides some historical context for understanding the emergence of discourse analysis within educational research, describes some of the different ways that discourse analysis continues to be used and useful in educational research, and synthesizes scholarship that has influenced how discourse analysis has enhanced educational research. It explores key contributions in the study of discourse, including how underlying social systems shape (and are shaped by) interaction, how identities are constructed in and through talk, the relationship between interaction and learning in both formal and informal educational contexts, and how embodiment, multimodality, and virtual spaces offer new sites of analysis, which raises important questions about what new modes of communication imply for discursive methods of research and representation. It also covers four major approaches to discourse analysis in education – anthropological, narrative, classroom-based, and critical – and shows that the study of language and discourse in education has blossomed into a dynamic and interdisciplinary endeavor. Although educational researchers using discourse analysis as a method/tool of inquiry continue to wrestle with questions of context, definitions of “text,” and notions of discourse, this approach to inquiry remains extremely useful and influential. After describing recent advances in the study of discourse within educational research and the problems and challenges that remain, the chapter concludes with a discussion of future directions and suggests recommended additional reading.

Nordic Journal of English Studies

Encarnacion Hidalgo Tenorio

Journal of Education Policy

Kate Anderson

Discourse has featured in studies of educational policy as an analytic and methodological tool, theoretical frame, realm of implication, and even a foundational definition of educational policy itself (e.g.) Despite the centrality of discourse as a frame for exploring educational policy and its implications, the ways that discourse is defined or operationalized in educational policy research are often left implicit which can lead to murky relations to larger ontoepistemological questions of how we construct findings from data as well as the nature of policy. In this interpretive analysis, we synthesize a corpus of 37 peer-reviewed journal articles that bring together educational policy and analyses of discourse from varying theoretical and methodological perspectives in order to better understand the breadth and scope of how discourse is defined and operationalized in studies of educational policy, including in ways that are sometimes incommensurate with authors' stated theoretical and methodological positions. After first laying the theoretical groundwork for analyses of discourse in the field of educational policy, we then illustrate how discourse analysis is used differently, and sometimes inconsistently, within contested paradigmatic landscapes. We conclude with an argument for discussions across theoretical frameworks and methodological paradigms about how the concept of discourse lends itself to different epistemological vantage points on educational policy.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Language in Society

Steve Bialostok

Norma Manjarrés

Iranian Evolutionary Educational Psychology Journal

YEARBOOK-NATIONAL READING …

Ernest Morrell

Culture Society Education

Karolina Starego

Pragmatics 21.4

Ruth Breeze

International journal of Arabic-English studies

Nadia Shalaby

Franck Amoussou

Bernard McKenna

Pedagogy, Culture & Society

Méthod(e)s: African Review of Social Sciences Methodology

Kapil D Regmi

Ruth Wodak , Martin Reisigl , Gerlinde Mautner

Mariaelena Bartesaghi , Kate Pantelides

Regina Bösch

Cynthia Lewis

International Journal of Humanities and Innovation (IJHI)

Zifirdaus Adnan

Teun van Dijk

Jay L Lemke

Journal of Literacy Research

Junaid Akram

The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

Angel M. Y. Lin

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education

Mary B Ziskin

Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education

hilary janks

Kultura i Edukacja

Monika Ryndzionek

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Journals
• > Language Teaching
• > Volume 8 Issue 2
• > Discourse Analysis in English- A Short Review of the...

Article contents

Discourse analysis in english- a short review of the literature.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2008

Access options

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

• Google Scholar

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

• Volume 8, Issue 2
• Malcolm Coulthard (a1)
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800002664

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

Table of Contents

Collaboration, information literacy, writing process, how to frame research questions, literature reviews, & citations: qualitative vs. quantitative.

• © 2023 by Joseph M. Moxley - University of South Florida

This assignment will guide you through the analysis of how qualitative , quantitative , and mixed-methods researchers frame research questions, construct literature reviews, and integrate citations. You will engage in discourse analysis, rhetorical analysis, and citation analysis of one qualitative study and one quantitative or mixed-methods research study. This creative challenge will help you understand the different methodologies and the scholarly conventions in Professional and Technical Communication.

• Research Questions: Explore how the formulation of research questions differs between qualitative and quantitative or mixed-methods studies. Consider whether these questions are open-ended or specific, reflecting the underlying methodologies.
• Literature Reviews: Analyze how authors frame their literature reviews, emphasizing themes and sources. Consider how these reviews set the stage for the research questions or hypotheses.
• Citation Analysis: Evaluate how researchers use citations to support their arguments and research questions, noting the conventions followed and their alignment with audience expectations.
• Methodological Alignment: Assess how research questions align with qualitative or quantitative approaches, and how literature reviews and citations support the formulation of hypotheses.

Why Do Different Research Methodologies Frame Research Questions, Literature Reviews, and Citations Differently?

In research methods, understanding why different methodologies frame research questions, literature reviews, and citations differently is crucial. These differences are deeply rooted in contrasting epistemological assumptions about knowledge construction. Qualitative research, informed by interpretivist and constructivist epistemologies, explores subjective meanings and interpretations through methods like interviews, observations, and textual analysis. Researchers using these approaches view knowledge as socially constructed, emphasizing the contextual and subjective nature of understanding.

Conversely, quantitative research, rooted in positivist or post-positivist epistemologies, seeks objective measurement and hypothesis testing. Positivist epistemology emphasizes empirical observation and hypothesis verification, assuming an objective reality that can be measured and confirmed. Post-positivist epistemology extends this by acknowledging the role of interpretation and multiple perspectives in constructing knowledge, integrating critical perspectives into empirical inquiry.

These methodological differences significantly influence how researchers approach and interpret their findings in academic and professional contexts. Language practices, such as the formulation of research questions, the construction of literature reviews, and the use of citations, reflect these underlying epistemological assumptions. Qualitative researchers frame open-ended questions to delve into complex phenomena, reflecting their belief in the constructed nature of knowledge. Their literature reviews emphasize thematic analysis and the interpretation of texts to uncover underlying meanings, often citing sources that contribute to theoretical understanding.

In contrast, quantitative researchers frame specific, measurable questions aimed at testing hypotheses and generalizing findings. Their literature reviews synthesize empirical studies and statistically analyze data to validate or refute hypotheses, prioritizing citations that provide empirical evidence and support for their claims.

By understanding these epistemological foundations and their influence on language practices, researchers can navigate and critically evaluate different methodological approaches to research in Professional and Technical Communication and beyond.

Writing Prompt

Choose one qualitative and quantitative or mixed-methods research study from Jason Tham’s list of PTC Journals, listed below. Reflect on the differences and similarities in how qualitative and quantitative or mixed-methods researchers frame their research questions, literature reviews, and use of citations.

Guidelines:

• Do not engage in methodological critique for this assignment.
• Demonstrate an awareness of the research terms and conventions defined in the assigned readings and from the first creative challenge
• Adopt a professional writing style.
• Before each of the studies you analyze, provide a full bibliographic reference in APA 7 style

Recommended Readings:

• Scholarship as a Conversation – Explores the ongoing dialogues shaping scholarly research.
• Credibility & Authority – Guides on establishing credibility and authority in academic writing and research.
• Citation – How to Connect Evidence to Your Claims
• Citation & Voice – How to Distinguish Your Ideas from Your Sources
• Citation Conventions – What is the Role of Citation in Academic & Professional Writing?
• Citation Conventions – When Are Citations Required in Academic & Professional Writing?
• Paraphrasing – How to Paraphrase with Clarity & Concision
• Block Quotations
• Summary – Learn How To Summarize Sources in Academic & Professional Writing

Deliverables

• A comparative analysis paper of 4-5 pages
• A reflection on your processes responding to this creative challenge, including a summary of how you used AI tools.

Step 1 – Select Two Studies to Analyze

Review the list of academic and professional journals below, which has been compiled and annotated by Professor Jason Tham, an associate professor of technical communication and rhetoric at Texas Tech. To log on to many of these journals, because they are locked behind a paywall, you may need to log on to the University’s Library Services portal.

Journal of Business and Technical Communication (SAGE) 

• Nature: Theory driven; seems to balance qualitative and quantitative research
• Focus: Technical and business communication practices and pedagogy; discussions about training students to be professionals; some useful teaching strategies and cases 
• Notes: Currently one of the top journals in technical communication; arguably most cited; has a strong tie to Iowa State’s professional communication program 

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication (SAGE) 

• Nature:   Slightly less theoretical than JBTC and TCQ but still heavy academic-speak  
• Focus: Trends and approaches in technical communication practices and research 
• Notes: One of the oldest technical communication journals in the US

Technical Communication (Society for Technical Communication) 

• Nature: Arguably more practical than JTWC, JBTC, TCQ, and IEEE Transactions; caters to STC’s professional audience… and it’s associated with the STC’s annual summit 
• Focus: Emerging topics, methods, and practices in technical communication; content management, information architecture, and usability research  
• Notes: It’s behind a paywall some university libraries may not even access; there is an online version of the journal called Technical Communication Online… but it’s not as prominent as the print journal; seems to have a strong association with Texas Tech’s technical communication program 

Technical Communication Quarterly (Association for Teachers of Technical Writing) (Taylor & Francis) 

• Nature:   Theoretical + pedagogical 
• Focus: Teaching methods and exemplary approaches to research; features many exemplary qualitative research cases 
• Notes: Another top journal in technical communication; produces many award-winning pieces; associated with ATTW so it has a huge academic following… especially those who also attend the annual Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) 

IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication (Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers – Professional Communication Society) 

• Nature:  50-50 theory and practice 
• Focus: Engineering communication as professional communication; empirical research 
• Notes: Another old journal that has a lot of history; seems to have a strong tie to the University of North Texas’s technical communication department  

IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society (IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology) 

• Nature: 30% technical, 70% philosophical discussions about social technologies  
• Focus: Computers science, CS education, technical design, social computing 
• Notes: Good for interdisciplinary work, digital humanities, and digital education

Communication Design Quarterly (Association for Computing Machinery – Special Interest Group on Design of Communication) 

• Nature:   Theoretical, methodological 
• Focus: Offers many accessible (comprehensible) research reports on design methods, research practices, teaching approaches, and industry trends 
• Notes: Open access…yay! Recently pursued an “online first” model where articles are published on a rolling basis; it’s considered the second-tier journal in the academic circle but it’s surely becoming more popular among technical communication scholars 

Journal of Usability Studies (User Experience Professionals Association)

• Nature: For academics, this is highly practical
• Focus: Empirical research; mostly quantitative 
• Notes: Independent journal not associated with an academic institution 

Behaviour and Information Technology (Taylor & Francis) 

• Nature: Computer science emphasis… so, experimental + theoretical
• Focus: Human-computer interaction; information design, behavioral science 
• Notes: This is a UK journal… provides a nice juxtaposition to US journals and perspectives 

Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (SAGE) 

• Nature:   Similar to BIT, experimental and theoretical
• Focus: Puts emphasis on the human factors and ergonomics discipline; draws from psychology 
• Notes: As shown in its name… it’s a journal for the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications (SAGE) 

• Nature: Slightly more theoretical than Human Factors
• Focus: Theoretical discussions, experiments, and demonstrations 
• Notes: Also an HFES journal 

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (Elsevier) 

• Nature: Theoretical 
• Focus: More interdisciplinary than EID and Human Factors 
• Notes: May be one that technical communication researchers feel more comfortable publishing in even if they are not working directly in HCI or computer science fields 

Human Technology (Independent journal) 

• Nature:  Theoretical, philosophical 
• Focus: Discusses technological futures and human-computer interaction
• Notes: It’s got less prestige compared to EID and Human Factors

Human Communication & Technology (Independent journal) 

• Nature: Theoretical, empirical
• Focus: Communication studies and social technologies
• Notes: It’s fairly new and doesn’t seem to publish multiple issues a year

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (International Communication Association) (Oxford) 

• Nature: Empirical; qualitative; quantitative 
• Focus: Social scientific approach to computer-based communication; media studies and politics; social media research 
• Notes: Top journal for solid communication technologies research 

International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IGI Global)

• Nature: Empirical; qualitative; quantitative; practical  
• Focus: Social scientific approach to technology studies and professional communication; seems catered to practitioner audience 
• Notes: Has an interdisciplinary feel to it; one or two special issues are of specific interest to technical communication design 

Business and Professional Communication Quarterly (SAGE) 

• Nature: Theoretical, pedagogical 
• Focus: Workplace communication studies and teaching cases
• Notes: A journal of the Association for Business Communication (ABC); top tiered for business writing and communication research  

International Journal of Business Communication (SAGE) 

• Nature: Practical, pedagogical, experimental  
• Focus: Similar focus to BPCQ 
• Notes: Also an ABC journal  (I am not sure why there is this other journal) 

Programmatic Perspectives (Council for Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication)

• Nature: Programmatic, pedagogical  
• Focus: Program and curriculum design; teaching issues; professional development of teachers
• Notes: Smaller journal… not sure how big is the readership but it’s got a good reputation 

Xchanges: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Technical Communication, Rhetoric, and Writing across the Curriculum (Independent journal)  

• Nature: Pedagogical, beginner research, experimental, teaching cases
• Focus: Technical communication, writing studies, rhet/comp, and everything in between!  
• Notes: Open access journal with pretty good editorial support; provides mentorship to undergrad and graduate writing; multimedia friendly 

RhetTech Undergraduate Journal (Independent journal) 

• Nature: Beginner research, undergraduate research 
• Focus:   Writing studies, rhet/comp, technical communication 

Notes: Open access; print based (PDF) so not very multimedia-friendly

Step 2 – Engage in Critical Analysis

Consider These Heuristic Questions to Guide Your Analysis

a) Research Question Analysis (discourse analysis)

• How do the investigators present their research question(s)? Do they present their research question in the abstract and intro and throughout the study?
• How do the investigators clarify the significance of their research question(s)?
• Based on the research question and definition of its significance and scholarly roots, what methodological community is the researching targeting as its primary audience?
• How do the research questions differ in their formulation between the qualitative and quantitative or mixed-methods studies?
• Are the research questions open-ended or specific? How does this reflect the study’s methodology?
• Identify and discuss the research questions or hypotheses in both studies.
• Explain how the research questions align with the qualitative or quantitative approach.
• Reflect on how the literature review supports the formulation of these research questions or hypotheses.

b) Types of Literature Cited (Citation Analysis):

• How do the researchers use citations to build their arguments and support their research questions?
• What citation conventions are followed, and how do they reflect the expectations of the target audience?
• Theoretical works (conceptual frameworks, models, theories)
• quantitative studies?
• qualitative studies?
• Past scholarly conversations?
• Policy documents or industry reports (especially in applied research)
• Original research?

c) Information Literacy Conventions (Rhetorical Analysis)

Authority is constructed & contextual:.

• How do the authors address the authority of the sources they cite or use to develop their study or argument?
• Do they evaluate and present the credibility of their sources?

Information Creation as a Process:

• How do the authors describe the research and information creation process?
• Do they acknowledge the iterative nature of research and knowledge development?
• How do they present different formats of information (e.g., raw data, analyzed results, interpretations)?

Information Has Value :

• How do the authors give credit to secondary sources through proper attribution and citation?

Research as Inquiry :

• How do the authors formulate questions based on information gaps or existing conflicting information?
• Do they explain how they determined the scope of their investigation?
• Do they employ research methods appropriate to their inquiry/research questions?
• How do the research questions align with the qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods approach?
• How do the literature reviews and citations support the formulation of these research questions or hypotheses?

Scholarship as Conversation :

• How do the authors situate their work within the larger scholarly conversation?
• Do they cite and build upon contributing work of others in their field?
• How do they identify the contribution their work makes to the disciplinary knowledge?
• Do they acknowledge competing perspectives on the issue?

Searching as Strategic Exploration :

• Do the authors describe their search strategies and how they refined them based on initial results?
• How do they demonstrate the use of different types of searching language (e.g., controlled vocabulary, keywords, natural language)?
• Do they discuss how they determined the initial scope of their literature review and adjusted it as necessary?
• How do they show persistence and flexibility in their information gathering process?

d) Rhetorical Appeals

• Appeals to ethos (credibility) fallacious ethos ?
• Appeals to pathos (emotion)
• Appeals to logos (logic)
• Overall rhetorical strategies used to persuade the audience

e) Literature Reviews

• How do the authors of each study frame their literature review? What themes and sources are emphasized?
• How does the literature review set the stage for the research questions or hypotheses?

Scholarly Conversations:

• How do the investigators root their research questions in existing scholarly conversations?
• What hermeneutic methods are used to interpret and integrate prior research?

Literature Review Analysis:

• Identify the main themes and sources cited in the literature review sections of both studies.
• Discuss how the literature review sets the stage for the research questions or hypotheses.
• Compare the depth and breadth of the literature reviews in both types of studies.

Citation Analysis:

• Analyze how the researchers use citations to support their arguments and research questions.
• Discuss the citation conventions followed and their alignment with the expectations of the target audience.

Evaluation Criteria:

• Depth of Analysis: Thorough identification and discussion of key themes, sources, research questions, and citations.
• Comparative Insight: Ability to compare and contrast framing of research questions, literature reviews, and citations.
• Clarity and Coherence: Clear and coherent presentation of ideas with logical flow.
• Reflective Thought: Depth of reflection on implications of research paradigm differences.

Step 2 – Choose 2 Articles from the List of PTC Journals below — 1 Qualitative Study & 1 Quantitative Study.

Step 2 – engage in discourse, rhetorical, and citation analysis, for each study in parts 1 and 2, analyze:, 3. comparison.

Compare and contrast the two articles, considering

• differences in how quantitative vs. qualitative studies engage with literature
• variations in presenting research questions and their significance
• variations in how each study type uses literature to interpret results
• differences in rhetorical strategies employed.

4. Evaluation

Score each article on:

• Authority (1-4 scale): Assess how well the authors establish their credibility and the legitimacy of their sources
• Clarity (1-4 scale): Evaluate how clearly the authors present their research questions and engage with existing literature. Did the investigators use visual language / data visualizations to clarify and emphasize key concepts?
• Rhetorical Effectiveness (1-4 scale): Evaluate how well the authors use rhetorical strategies to inform and persuade their audience

Featured Articles

Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community

Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World

Credibility & Authority – How to Be Credible & Authoritative in Research, Speech & Writing