研究文章文献综述部分的引文内容:信息系统中设计科学与解释主义研究的跨范式比较

IF 3.2 1区 文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS English for Specific Purposes Pub Date : 2023-09-14 DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2023.08.001
Thomas Hon Tung Chan , Becky Siu Chu Kwan
{"title":"研究文章文献综述部分的引文内容:信息系统中设计科学与解释主义研究的跨范式比较","authors":"Thomas Hon Tung Chan ,&nbsp;Becky Siu Chu Kwan","doi":"10.1016/j.esp.2023.08.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Despite a long history of citation research, its focus has been on the linguistic and rhetorical characteristics of citations rather than their semantic nature. Using a move-based approach grounded in the CARS model (Swales, 1990), this paper studies the sorts of source ideas cited in different parts of literature reviews (LR) of Information Systems research articles following the design science research (DSR) and interpretivist research (IR) paradigms. Findings reveal three types of epistemically-oriented semantic content – theoretical, research, and methodological – and one type that is non-epistemically-framed, which vary quantitatively and qualitatively between the DSR and IR LRs. For example, both types of LRs cite more often in Move 1 Establishing a territory than in Moves 2 and 3 Establishing a niche and Occupying the niche, with theoretical terminologies, definitions, propositions being referred to more frequently in the IR writing than in the DSR writing. On the other hand, citations in the DSR writing often display prescriptive propositions, design concepts, artefacts, and methods which are absent from the IR writing. These findings not only help us better understand how citation is shaped and constrained by rhetorical moves and research paradigms but also provide implications for the teaching of citation content.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47809,"journal":{"name":"English for Specific Purposes","volume":"73 ","pages":"Pages 1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Citation content in literature review sections of research articles: A cross-paradigm comparison of design science and interpretivist research in information systems\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Hon Tung Chan ,&nbsp;Becky Siu Chu Kwan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.esp.2023.08.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Despite a long history of citation research, its focus has been on the linguistic and rhetorical characteristics of citations rather than their semantic nature. Using a move-based approach grounded in the CARS model (Swales, 1990), this paper studies the sorts of source ideas cited in different parts of literature reviews (LR) of Information Systems research articles following the design science research (DSR) and interpretivist research (IR) paradigms. Findings reveal three types of epistemically-oriented semantic content – theoretical, research, and methodological – and one type that is non-epistemically-framed, which vary quantitatively and qualitatively between the DSR and IR LRs. For example, both types of LRs cite more often in Move 1 Establishing a territory than in Moves 2 and 3 Establishing a niche and Occupying the niche, with theoretical terminologies, definitions, propositions being referred to more frequently in the IR writing than in the DSR writing. On the other hand, citations in the DSR writing often display prescriptive propositions, design concepts, artefacts, and methods which are absent from the IR writing. These findings not only help us better understand how citation is shaped and constrained by rhetorical moves and research paradigms but also provide implications for the teaching of citation content.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47809,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"English for Specific Purposes\",\"volume\":\"73 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 1-19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"English for Specific Purposes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889490623000534\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"English for Specific Purposes","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889490623000534","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管引文研究历史悠久,但其重点一直是引文的语言和修辞特征,而不是其语义性质。本文采用基于CARS模型(Swales,1990)的基于移动的方法,按照设计科学研究(DSR)和解释主义研究(IR)范式,研究了信息系统研究文章文献综述(LR)不同部分引用的各种源思想。研究结果揭示了三种类型的以认知为导向的语义内容——理论、研究和方法论——以及一种非认知框架的语义内容,它们在DSR和IR LRs之间在数量和质量上都有所不同。例如,这两种类型的LRs在动作1中引用的次数都比在动作2和3中引用的要多,理论术语、定义和命题在IR写作中比在DSR写作中更频繁地被提及。另一方面,DSR写作中的引文经常显示IR写作中没有的规定性命题、设计概念、人工制品和方法。这些发现不仅有助于我们更好地理解引文是如何被修辞动作和研究范式所塑造和约束的,而且为引文内容的教学提供了启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Citation content in literature review sections of research articles: A cross-paradigm comparison of design science and interpretivist research in information systems

Despite a long history of citation research, its focus has been on the linguistic and rhetorical characteristics of citations rather than their semantic nature. Using a move-based approach grounded in the CARS model (Swales, 1990), this paper studies the sorts of source ideas cited in different parts of literature reviews (LR) of Information Systems research articles following the design science research (DSR) and interpretivist research (IR) paradigms. Findings reveal three types of epistemically-oriented semantic content – theoretical, research, and methodological – and one type that is non-epistemically-framed, which vary quantitatively and qualitatively between the DSR and IR LRs. For example, both types of LRs cite more often in Move 1 Establishing a territory than in Moves 2 and 3 Establishing a niche and Occupying the niche, with theoretical terminologies, definitions, propositions being referred to more frequently in the IR writing than in the DSR writing. On the other hand, citations in the DSR writing often display prescriptive propositions, design concepts, artefacts, and methods which are absent from the IR writing. These findings not only help us better understand how citation is shaped and constrained by rhetorical moves and research paradigms but also provide implications for the teaching of citation content.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
8.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: English For Specific Purposes is an international peer-reviewed journal that welcomes submissions from across the world. Authors are encouraged to submit articles and research/discussion notes on topics relevant to the teaching and learning of discourse for specific communities: academic, occupational, or otherwise specialized. Topics such as the following may be treated from the perspective of English for specific purposes: second language acquisition in specialized contexts, needs assessment, curriculum development and evaluation, materials preparation, discourse analysis, descriptions of specialized varieties of English.
期刊最新文献
Genre learning from the EAP class to undergraduate research symposiums Verbal-visual skill-building and perceptional changes in English presentation Guiding and engaging the audience: Visual metadiscourse in PowerPoint slides of Three Minute Thesis presentations Lexical coverage in science popularization discourse: The case of popular science news from Scientific American
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1