THOUGHTS ON “AN ACADEMIC APPROACH TO WRITING” II (SWALES)

I wish to continue my previous blog post relating to the chapter by Swales. While I feel that some of the questions raised there were pertinent, I now choose to turn my attention to a topic that may indeed cause some to accuse me of frivolity and ‘splitting hairs’. I wonder why Swales has chosen to name the chapter “AN Academic Approach . . .?” Why use the vowel-based indefinite article “AN” (as opposed to the more resolute and definite form “the”)? For instance, in the Purdue OWL online guide dealing with the definite and indefinite articles we read: “‘A’ and ‘an’ signal that the noun modified is indefinite, referring to any member of a group”
(https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/540/01/).
If the academic approach he is referring to is projected in a non-specific way, does this not hint that there are perhaps other academic approaches to academic writing as well? Would this not contradict what Swales writes in specified terms so indicative of the absolute, essential ‘standard’ within which both aspirant and experienced writers are compelled to work? For instance, on the second last page of the chapter, Swales writes: “Now that you are familiar with the most important characteristics of academic writing . . .” (p.31). Of course, I prefer Swales’ use of the indefinite article in the title of this chapter, and I say so for good reason. As stated in my previous blog relating to Swales, some universities do in fact have their own standards for what constitutes academic English. It would be interesting to research how broad the ‘standard’ of Academic English really is. In other words, viewing the total configuration of ‘varieties of standard’ (or standards) in order to better understand the multifaceted nature of English (and Academic English writing) around the world. After all, this has always been the hallmark of ‘English’ . . . varieties are accommodated and appreciated (as opposed to, for instance, the institutionally-controlled French language). Does this reality in and of itself not heighten the relevance of the questions I posed in my first blog on Swales?