A Rhetorical Move Analysis of Graduate Thesis Abstracts in Field of Forest Economics

Abstract

Abstracts must be carefully constructed since they lead readers to take up the full text of research. In Turkey, there have been some investigations on the rhetorical move analysis of the research article and thesis abstracts. Yet no study has dealt with the move analysis of forestry research. This study intended to make rhetorical move analysis of master and PhD thesis abstracts considering the effects of time and thesis type. The paper explored 197 thesis abstracts between 1987 and 2018. Text of thesis abstracts were coded by five-move model. The most frequent moves were purpose (P), methods (M) and results (R) while half of the theses omitted the introduction and discussion moves. In terms of allocated text space, results had the biggest share whereas discussion had the smallest share. The most frequent co-occurring moves were purpose, methods and product, while P-M-R was the most common move sequence. Results revealed the need for graduate institutes to offer a course on research/thesis writing especially for master students. Writing guide for thesis should clearly indicate the required information for abstracts based on the rhetorical moves.

Keywords

• Move analysis,Forest economics,Thesis abstracts

Orman Ekonomisi Alanındaki Lisansüstü Tez Özetlerinin Sözbilimsel Hareket Çözümlemesi

Abstract

Özet, okuyucunun tam metne ilgi duyup duymadığına karar verdiği araştırma bölümü olduğu için özenle hazırlanmalıdır. Türkiye’de araştırma makalesi ve tez özetlerinin sözbilimsel çözümlemesine ilişkin bazı çalışmalar bulunmasına karşın, ormancılık alanında bu tür bir çalışmaya rastlanmamıştır. Bu çalışma, orman ekonomisi alanında yapılmış yüksek lisans ve doktora tez özetlerinin, zaman ve tez türü etkilerini de dikkate alarak sözbilimsel hareket çözümlemesini yapmayı amaçlamıştır. 1987-2018 yılları arasında yapılan 197 adet tez özeti incelenmiştir. Özet metinleri beşli hareket modeline göre kodlanmıştır. Çalışmada, yazarların özetlerde en çok amaç (A), yöntem (Y) ve sonuçlar (S) hareketlerine yer verdiği, tezlerin yarısında tartışma ve giriş hareketinin yer bulmadığı belirlenmiştir. Metin büyüklüğü bakımından özet içindeki ağırlığı en fazla olan hareket sonuçlar, en az olan ise tartışma olmuştur. Tezlerde en fazla bir arada bulunan hareketler amaç, yöntem ve sonuçlar iken, A-Y-S düzeni de en fazla görülen hareket düzeni olmuştur. Sonuçlar, araştırma/tez yazımı üzerine bir dersin enstitülerde özellikle yüksek lisans öğrencilerine okutulmasının gerekliliğini ortaya koymuştur. Tez yazım rehberinde tez özetinde hangi bilgilere yer verilmesi gerektiği, sözbilimsel hareket temelli olarak ayrıntılı verilmelidir. 

Keywords

• Hareket analizi,Orman ekonomisi,Tez özetleri

References

1. [1] J. M. Swales, Aspects of article introductions, Ann Arbor, USA: University of Michigan Press, 2011, pp. 104.
2. [2] K. N. Nwogu, “The medical research paper: Structure and functions,” English for Specific Purposes, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 119–138, 1997.
3. [3] J. M. Swales, Genre analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 260.
4. [4] B. Kanoksilapatham, “Introduction to move analysis,” Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure, Amsterdam, Holland: John Benjamins Pub., 2014, ch. 5, pp. 23–41.
5. [5] R. Lorés, “On RA abstracts: from rhetorical structure to thematic organisation,” English for Specific Purposes, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 280–302, 2004.
6. [6] W. Amnuai, “Analyses of Rhetorical Moves and Linguistic Realizations in Accounting Research Article Abstracts Published in International and Thai-Based Journals,” SAGE Open, vol. January-March, pp. 1-9, 2019.
7. [7] H. Ren and Y. Li, “A Comparison Study on the Rhetorical Moves of Abstracts in Published Research Articles and Master’s Foreign-language Theses,” English Language Teaching, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 162-166, 2011.
8. [8] S. Can, E. Karabacak, ve J. Qin, “Structure of Moves in Research Article Abstracts in Applied Linguistics,” Publications, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1-16, 2016.

9. [9] S. G. Abdolmalaki, H. Tan, A. N. Abdullah, S. Sharmini, and L. Geok Imm, “Introduction Chapter of Traditional and Article-based Theses: A Comparison of Rhetorical Structures and Linguistic Realisations,” GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 116–135, 2019.
10. [10] E. Cotos, S. Huffman, and S. Link, “A move/step model for methods sections: Demonstrating Rigour and Credibility,” English for Specific Purposes, vol. 46, pp. 90–106, 2017.
11. [11] M. O. Kan ve G. L. Uzun, “Türkçe Eğitimi Alanındaki Yüksek Lisans Tezlerinin Yöntem Bölümlerine İlişkin Sözbilimsel Yapı Özellikleri,” Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, c. 12, s. 1, ss. 331-343, 2016.
12. [12] M. R. Hashemi and I. Gohari Moghaddam, “A Mixed Methods Genre Analysis of the Discussion Section of MMR Articles in Applied Linguistics,” Journal of Mixed Methods Research, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 242–260, 2019. [13] M. Peacock, “Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles,” System, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 479–497, 2002.
13. [14] H. Basturkmen, “A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in Dentistry and disciplinary variation,” Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 134–144, 2012.
14. [15] P. Brett, “A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles,” English for Specific Purposes, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 47–59, 1994.
15. [16] D. Bunton, “The structure of PhD conclusion chapters,” Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 207–224, 2005.
16. [17] K. Hyland, “Dissertation Acknowledgements,” Written Communication, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 242–268, 2003.
17. [18] A. Zare-ee and Y. Hejazi, “Acknowledgement Structure in Persian and English Theses and Dissertations: A Contrastive Genre Analysis,” Arab World English Journal, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 347–360, 2019.
18. [19] N. Rashidi and H. Meihami, “Informetrics of Scientometrics abstracts: a rhetorical move analysis of the research abstracts published in Scientometrics journal,” Scientometrics, vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 1975-1994, 2018.
19. [20] K. Hyland, Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, USA: University of Michigan Press, 2013, pp. 211.
20. [21] P. D. Pho, “Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: a study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance,” Discourse Studies, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 231–250, 2008.
21. [22] B. Kanoksilapatham, “Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles,” English for Specific Purposes, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 269–292, 2005.
22. [23] A. Zand-Moghadam and H. Meihami, “A Rhetorical Move Analysis of TEFL Thesis Abstracts: The Case of Allameh Tabataba’i University,” Issues in Language Teaching, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1-23, 2016.
23. [24] N. A. G. Al-Zubaidi, “Analyzing the Rhetorical Structure of Linguistics Dissertation Abstracts Written by Iraqi EFL Graduates,” Journal of the College of Education for Human Sciences-Ibn Rushd-University of Baghdad, vol. 2, no. 204, pp. 1–32, 2013.
24. [25] D. A. S. El-Dakhs, “Why are abstracts in PhD theses and research articles different? A genre-specific perspective,” Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 36, pp. 48–60, 2018.