RESPONSE TO SWALES & FEAK (pp.77-102).

Since Swales & Feak discuss fundamental language-related considerations at length in this chapter (as they do throughout the book), I will not elaborate on these, or on the information they provide relating to the interpretation of graphs, and will make a general observation regarding data commentary instead. The linguistic information provided by Swales & Feak speaks for itself and – being a comprehensive work – requires little elaboration. Data commentary involves – among others – discussing the implications of the data. This is however easier said than done since the meaning of data is bound to be colored (and even obscured) by our own perceptions and perspectives (and even our hidden bias). To this end it is important that our discussion of data within the research work be validated – especially so when our research draws on the words and perceptions of others. Participants need to be included in evaluating our writing prior to commencing with the writing of the final draft. This is a necessary step towards aiming for research work characterized by a greater sensitivity towards integrity.

RESPONSE TO SWALES & FEAK (pp.57-76).

Swales and Feak turn their attention to the argumentative and evaluative nature of problem-solution texts. Among others they discuss the use of verbs and indirect questions in constructing problem-solution texts. Of course, what is implied by the ‘problem-solution’ name is the creation of tension followed by the release of tension through rhetorical process. This can be related to the need for creating urgency (alluded to in the previous blog as ‘creating a hook’), and needs to be incorporated into the text from the outset. The problem is the need in existence and the solution is the manner in which that need is met. How this tension is resolved (if ever, since some good research is bound to end unresolved leading to more questions) can be thought of by drawing a parallel between the text between the introduction and conclusion as a journey. And when this tension eventually surfaces in the interested question of your reader – where is this going to end? – the research work validates itself as relevant.

RESPONSE TO SWALES & FEAK (pp.173-217).

In this section, Swales and Feak provide information relating to constructing five parts usually found at the beginning of the research paper. These introduction sections set the stage for what is to follow, and go a long way to establishing the context of the work from the start. They then go into a discussion of grammatical considerations (such as the use of connectors and negative openings). I think the most important consideration when it comes to writing the introductory section of your research work should be to use language that creates a sense of urgency (some refer to this as ‘creating a hook’). Of course, many people begin writing without really knowing in which direction the writing will take them. This may require that the researcher writes a tentative introductory section which can always be revised at a later point. I’ve found this going back-and-forth to be a liberating way of continuously refining one’s thoughts.