example of academic discourse essay

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Essay Writing

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

This resource begins with a general description of essay writing and moves to a discussion of common essay genres students may encounter across the curriculum. The four genres of essays (description, narration, exposition, and argumentation) are common paper assignments you may encounter in your writing classes. Although these genres, also known as the modes of discourse, have been criticized by some composition scholars, the Purdue OWL recognizes the wide spread use of these genres and students’ need to understand and produce these types of essays. We hope these resources will help.

The essay is a commonly assigned form of writing that every student will encounter while in academia. Therefore, it is wise for the student to become capable and comfortable with this type of writing early on in her training.

Essays can be a rewarding and challenging type of writing and are often assigned either to be done in class, which requires previous planning and practice (and a bit of creativity) on the part of the student, or as homework, which likewise demands a certain amount of preparation. Many poorly crafted essays have been produced on account of a lack of preparation and confidence. However, students can avoid the discomfort often associated with essay writing by understanding some common genres.

Before delving into its various genres, let’s begin with a basic definition of the essay.

What is an essay?

Though the word essay has come to be understood as a type of writing in Modern English, its origins provide us with some useful insights. The word comes into the English language through the French influence on Middle English; tracing it back further, we find that the French form of the word comes from the Latin verb exigere , which means "to examine, test, or (literally) to drive out." Through the excavation of this ancient word, we are able to unearth the essence of the academic essay: to encourage students to test or examine their ideas concerning a particular topic.

Essays are shorter pieces of writing that often require the student to hone a number of skills such as close reading, analysis, comparison and contrast, persuasion, conciseness, clarity, and exposition. As is evidenced by this list of attributes, there is much to be gained by the student who strives to succeed at essay writing.

The purpose of an essay is to encourage students to develop ideas and concepts in their writing with the direction of little more than their own thoughts (it may be helpful to view the essay as the converse of a research paper). Therefore, essays are (by nature) concise and require clarity in purpose and direction. This means that there is no room for the student’s thoughts to wander or stray from his or her purpose; the writing must be deliberate and interesting.

This handout should help students become familiar and comfortable with the process of essay composition through the introduction of some common essay genres.

This handout includes a brief introduction to the following genres of essay writing:

• Expository essays
• Descriptive essays
• Narrative essays
• Argumentative (Persuasive) essays

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Annotating Your Way into Academic Discourse

What is academic discourse.

In the simplest terms, academic discourse is how scholars—or academics, as they are sometimes called—speak and write. Believe it or not, you already have some experience with academic discourse. Think back to the type of writing you completed in high school. You were probably expected to write in a more formal manner than if you were writing a text message or email to your friends. This formality is one aspect of academic discourse. Think, too, about your participation in class discussions. You probably spoke more formally and precisely during these discussions than if you were simply hanging out and talking with your friends. Academic discourse is not as casual as everyday speaking and writing, but strives to be more formal, complex, and precise. At the college level, you will be expected to further develop your abilities to participate in academic discourse. While each field or discipline (e.g. Biology, English, Psychology) has its own specific ways of writing, all disciplines within the academy encourage more sophisticated forms of communication than those we use every day.

In order to participate in the conversations that go on across disciplines within the academy, you will need to hone your abilities to use academic discourse effectively. This is a goal that should guide you early in your general education courses and all the way through the courses in your major. Inserting your voice into scholarly conversations—rather than just summarizing what other scholars have said—may be new for you. Some previous instructors may have told you not to include your “opinion” or “voice” in your writing. Maybe you have been prohibited from using “I.” This was the case for one of my students who described the difficulty this posed for him while writing a research paper: “I had to concentrate most of my efforts on analyzing my sources while trying to make sure my own voice was heard. I will admit that it was tough due to the fact that much of my high school writing career had been focused on keeping my voice out of [my] paper[s].” While it may take some time for you to become comfortable inserting your own voice into scholarly conversations, as a college-level reader and writer it is important that you become a visible and active part of your writing, just as you are expected to be an active reader. As noted in the introduction, annotation—which brings the acts of reading and writing together—can lay the foundation for your productive participation in scholarly conversations.

What is Annotation?

You have probably been asked by instructors to “mark-up” something you are reading. Maybe you were asked to jot down questions or notes in the margins, highlight the important parts, or circle words you don’t know. Maybe you have developed these habits on your own. The act of marking up a text is commonly referred to as annotating. The word “annotate” comes from the Latin word for “to note or mark” or “to note down.” To annotate is exactly that—it’s when you make notes on a text. “What does this have to do with entering scholarly conversations?” you may be wondering. How can marking up a reading help you respond to other scholars in your discipline?

When you annotate you are writing as you read. You make notes, you comment, react, and raise questions in the margins of your text. Reflections of your engagement with the text and its author, annotations represent the initial and preliminary ways you are participating in a scholarly conversation with the author of what you are reading. As such, your annotations can serve as the basis for the more extensive contributions you will be expected to make to scholarly conversations. For example, if you need to write an essay about something you have read, you can return to your annotations—to the questions you posed and comments you made in the margins—because these are moments in which you are already interacting with the text and its author. From there you can develop those preliminary interactions into a more detailed and comprehensive response.

Annotations can be handwritten on a printed text or applied digitally on an electronic text. As noted in the Introduction, annotating digitally will allow you to mark up any text, including those on the Web, access your annotations from any computer, and share your annotations with others. See the Introduction for specific instructions on how to digitally annotate the reading selections in this textbook.

Instead of annotating the readings digitally, some instructors might ask you to print out the readings from this textbook and annotate them by hand as in the sample that follows

As you read the annotations in the sample text, notice the way the student uses annotations. The students ask questions, challenge points, define some words, and make personal connections. In this example, the students are engaging in more general annotation practices that are not governed by a specific reading strategy like those you will be introduced to in Chapter 2.

What Are the Differences Between Annotating and Highlighting?

It is important to keep in mind that annotating and highlighting often serve different purposes. Highlighting draws your attention to what you deem to be the important parts of a reading. Highlighting can help you recall those moments and the information presented in them. On the other hand, annotating encourages you to mark additional elements of the text—those beyond just “the important parts.” You will notice that in the previous samples highlighting is never used on its own. Rather, the yellow highlighting that does appear is accompanied by a comment, question, or some kind of written response. Although highlighting may be an important supplement to annotating, highlighting on its own is usually better preparation for assignments that ask you to memorize concepts and ideas from readings as opposed to those that ask you to write about and respond to what you have read. A record of your reading and your responses to the text and its author, annotations can provide you with the foundation for entering scholarly conversations, which is what you will be asked to do throughout college.

Writing as Critical Inquiry Copyright © by Keri Sanburn Behre, Ph.D. and Kate Comer, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

26 Planning a Discursive Essay

Discursive essay – description.

A discursive essay is a form of critical essay that attempts to provide the reader with a balanced argument on a topic, supported by evidence. It requires critical thinking, as well as sound and valid arguments (see Chapter 25) that acknowledge and analyse arguments both for and against any given topic, plus discursive essay writing appeals to reason, not emotions or opinions. While it may draw some tentative conclusions, based on evidence, the main aim of a discursive essay is to inform the reader of the key arguments and allow them to arrive at their own conclusion.

The writer needs to research the topic thoroughly to present more than one perspective and should check their own biases and assumptions through critical reflection (see Chapter 30).

Unlike persuasive writing, the writer does not need to have knowledge of the audience, though should write using academic tone and language (see Chapter 20).

Choose Your Topic Carefully

A basic guide to choosing an assignment topic is available in Chapter 23, however choosing a topic for a discursive essay means considering more than one perspective. Not only do you need to find information about the topic via academic sources, you need to be able to construct a worthwhile discussion, moving from idea to idea. Therefore, more forward planning is required. The following are decisions that need to be considered when choosing a discursive essay topic:

• These will become the controlling ideas for your three body paragraphs (some essays may require more). Each controlling idea will need arguments both for and against.
• For example, if my topic is “renewable energy” and my three main (controlling) ideas are “cost”, “storage”, “environmental impact”, then I will need to consider arguments both for and against each of these three concepts. I will also need to have good academic sources with examples or evidence to support my claim and counter claim for each controlling idea (More about this in Chapter 27).
• Am I able to write a thesis statement about this topic based on the available research? In other words, do my own ideas align with the available research, or am I going to be struggling to support my own ideas due to a lack of academic sources or research? You need to be smart about your topic choice. Do not make it harder than it has to be. Writing a discursive essay is challenging enough without struggling to find appropriate sources.
• For example, perhaps I find a great academic journal article about the uptake of solar panel installation in suburban Australia and how this household decision is cost-effective long-term, locally stored, and has minimal, even beneficial environmental impact due to the lowering of carbon emissions. Seems too good to be true, yet it is perfect for my assignment. I would have to then find arguments AGAINST everything in the article that supports transitioning suburbs to solar power. I would have to challenge the cost-effectiveness, the storage, and the environmental impact study. Now, all of a sudden my task just became much more challenging.
• There may be vast numbers of journal articles written about your topic, but consider how relevant they may be to your tentative thesis statement. It takes a great deal of time to search for appropriate academic sources. Do you have a good internet connection at home or will you need to spend some quality time at the library? Setting time aside to complete your essay research is crucial for success.

It is only through complete forward planning about the shape and content of your essay that you may be able to choose the topic that best suits your interests, academic ability and time management. Consider how you will approach the overall project, not only the next step.

Research Your Topic

When completing a library search for online peer reviewed journal articles, do not forget to use Boolean Operators to refine or narrow your search field. Standard Boolean Operators are (capitalized) AND, OR and NOT. While using OR will expand your search, AND and NOT will reduce the scope of your search. For example, if I want information on ageism and care giving, but I only want it to relate to the elderly, I might use the following to search a database: ageism AND care NOT children. Remember to keep track of your search strings (like the one just used) and then you’ll know what worked and what didn’t as you come and go from your academic research.

The UQ Library provides an excellent step-by-step guide to searching databases:

Searching in databases – Library – University of Queensland (uq.edu.au)

Did you know that you can also link the UQ Library to Google Scholar? This link tells you how:

Google Scholar – Library – University of Queensland (uq.edu.au)

Write the Thesis Statement

The concept of a thesis statement was introduced in Chapter 21. The information below relates specifically to a discursive essay thesis statement.

As noted in the introduction to this chapter, the discursive essay should not take a stance and therefore the thesis statement must also impartially indicate more than one perspective. The goal is to present both sides of an argument equally and allow the reader to make an informed and well-reasoned choice after providing supporting evidence for each side of the argument.

Sample thesis statements: Solar energy is a cost -effective solution to burning fossil fuels for electricity , however lower income families cannot afford the installation costs .

Some studies indicate that teacher comments written in red may have no effect on students’ emotions , however other studies suggest that seeing red ink on papers could cause some students unnecessary stress. [1]

According to social justice principles, education should be available to all , yet historically, the intellectually and physically impaired may have been exempt from participation due to their supposed inability to learn. [2]

This is where your pros and cons list comes into play. For each pro, or positive statement you make, about your topic, create an equivalent con, or negative statement and this will enable you to arrive at two opposing assertions – the claim and counter claim.

While there may be multiple arguments or perspectives related to your essay topic, it is important that you match each claim with a counter-claim. This applies to the thesis statement and each supporting argument within the body paragraphs of the essay.

It is not just a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. A neutral tone is crucial. Do not include positive or negative leading statements, such as “It is undeniable that…” or “One should not accept the view that…”. You are NOT attempting to persuade the reader to choose one viewpoint over another.

Leading statements / language will be discussed further, in class, within term three of the Academic English course.

Thesis Structure:

• Note the two sides (indicated in green and orange)
• Note the use of tentative language: “Some studies”, “may have”, “could cause”, “some students”
• As the thesis is yet to be discussed in-depth, and you are not an expert in the field, do not use definitive language
• The statement is also one sentence, with a “pivot point” in the middle, with a comma and signposting to indicate a contradictory perspective (in black). Other examples include, nevertheless, though, although, regardless, yet, albeit. DO NOT use the word “but” as it lacks academic tone. Some signposts (e.g., although, though, while) may be placed at the start of the two clauses rather than in the middle – just remember the comma, for example, “While some studies suggest solar energy is cost-effective, other critical research questions its affordability.”
• Also note that it is based on preliminary research and not opinion: “some studies”, “other studies”, “according to social justice principles”, “critical research”.

Claims and Counter Claims

NOTE: Please do not confuse the words ‘claim’ and ‘counter-claim’ with moral or value judgements about right/wrong, good/bad, successful/unsuccessful, or the like. The term ‘claim’ simply refers to the first position or argument you put forward (whether for or against), and ‘counter-claim’ is the alternate position or argument.

In a discursive essay the goal is to present both sides equally and then draw some tentative conclusions based on the evidence presented.

• To formulate your claims and counter claims, write a list of pros and cons.
• For each pro there should be a corresponding con.
• Three sets of pros and cons will be required for your discursive essay. One set for each body paragraph. These become your claims and counter claims.
• For a longer essay, you would need further claims and counter claims.
• Some instructors prefer students to keep the pros and cons in the same order across the body paragraphs. Each paragraph would then have a pro followed by a con or else a con followed by a pro. The order should align with your thesis; if the thesis gives a pro view of the topic followed by a negative view (con) then the paragraphs should also start with the pro and follow with the con, or else vice versa. If not aligned and consistent, the reader may easily become confused as the argument proceeds. Ask your teacher if this is a requirement for your assessment.

Use previous chapters to explore your chosen topic through concept mapping (Chapter 18) and essay outlining (Chapter 19), with one variance; you must include your proposed claims and counter claims in your proposed paragraph structures. What follows is a generic model for a discursive essay. The following Chapter 27 will examine this in further details.

Sample Discursive Essay Outline 

The paragraphs are continuous; the dot-points are only meant to indicate content.

Introduction

• Thesis statement
• Essay outline (including 3 controlling ideas)

Body Paragraphs X 3 (Elaboration and evidence will be more than one sentence, though the topic, claim and counter claim should be succinct)

• T opic sentence, including 1/3 controlling ideas (the topic remains the same throughout the entire essay; it is the controlling idea that changes)
• A claim/assertion about the controlling idea
• E laboration – more information about the claim
• E vidence -academic research (Don’t forget to tell the reader how / why the evidence supports the claim. Be explicit in your E valuation rather than assuming the connection is obvious to the reader)
• A counter claim (remember it must be COUNTER to the claim you made, not about something different)
• E laboration – more information about the counter claim
• E vidence – academic research (Don’t forget to tell the reader how / why the evidence supports the claim. Be explicit in your E valuation rather than assuming the connection is obvious to the reader)
• Concluding sentence – L inks back to the topic and/or the next controlling idea in the following paragraph

Mirror the introduction. The essay outline should have stated the plan for the essay – “This essay will discuss…”, therefore the conclusion should identify that this has been fulfilled, “This essay has discussed…”, plus summarise the controlling ideas and key arguments. ONLY draw tentative conclusions BOTH for and against, allowing the reader to make up their own mind about the topic. Also remember to re-state the thesis in the conclusion. If it is part of the marking criteria, you should also include a recommendation or prediction about the future use or cost/benefit of the chosen topic/concept.

A word of warning, many students fall into the generic realm of stating that there should be further research on their topic or in the field of study. This is a gross statement of the obvious as all academia is ongoing. Try to be more practical with your recommendations and also think about who would instigate them and where the funding might come from.

This chapter gives an overview of what a discursive essay is and a few things to consider when choosing your topic. It also provides a generic outline for a discursive essay structure. The following chapter examines the structure in further detail.

• Inez, S. M. (2018, September 10). What is a discursive essay, and how do you write a good one? Kibin. ↵
• Hale, A., & Basides, H. (2013). The keys to academic English. Palgrave ↵

researched, reliable, written by academics and published by reputable publishers; often, but not always peer reviewed

assertion, maintain as fact

The term ‘claim’ simply refers to the first position or argument you put forward (whether for or against), and ‘counter-claim’ is the alternate position or argument.

Academic Writing Skills Copyright © 2021 by Patricia Williamson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

1b. Discourse Communities

Overview + objectives.

Image Attribution: Saying hello in different languages by 1940162 Hari chandana C is licenced under a CC BY 4.0 licence , via Wikimedia Commons

The first major concept we discuss that will be the foundation of your reading and writing in Writing 121 is discourse community . Considering your discourse community can give your writing its audience, context, and purpose, which are crucial for motivating your writing. In this chapter, we will:

• Define discourse community
• Identify the various discourse communities of which you are a part
• Understand how a discourse community shapes your writing
• Consider ways to craft a unique voice within a discourse community
• Reflect on how knowledge of discourse community can improve your writing

What is a discourse community?

To define this concept, let’s break it down into its separate parts:  discourse  and  community . We’ll start with the simpler word,  community . A community is simply a group of people who are joined together by something they have in common. It could be a shared interest, such as a gaming community, a set of beliefs, such as a religious community, a similar geographical location, such as a local community, or a profession, such as the academic community. A family is a type of community. Your friends also form a community. Take a moment and think of the various communities to which you belong. What binds individuals together in these communities? Do members of these communities engage with each other virtually or in real life?

Next let’s look at the other word in this term,  discourse . The word in its original usage meant reasoned argument or thought. However, in contemporary usage we sometimes think of it generally as any written or spoken communication, a conversation. We more often use it to refer to written or spoken communication related to a particular intellectual or social activity, such as scientific discourse or political discourse. In this sense, a synonym for discourse might be  language . A discourse is defined by its unique language, vocabulary, themes, ideas, values, and beliefs. Think about your major. What are the unique characteristics of the discourse in your disciplinary or professional field?

Now let’s put our two words together,  discourse community . Any guesses on what it means? If you are thinking that it is a group of people—real, imaginary, virtual, or otherwise—with shared interests, goals, language, and ways of communicating, then, yes, you’ve got it!

Image Attribution: Your WR 121 discourse community Discussion icons created by Freepik – Flaticon .

What does a discourse community look like?

Let’s work through a few examples. The following are five lists of words. Do you recognize any of the groups of words and what they have in common?

• CPA, general ledger, liabilities, return on investment, owner’s equity, net income, expenses (fixed, variable, accrued, operation)
• ISO, aperture, depth of field, autofocus, exposure, shutter speed
• gracias, de nada, salud, buen provecho, estadounidense, te quiero
• iron throne, direwolf, Khaleesi, the Wall, Valyrian steel, Night Walkers
• once a Duck always a Duck, show your “O,” Carson, EMU, it never rains in Autzen Stadium, Arts and Letters, Social Science, and Science groups

If you are a business major and have taken an accounting class, you’ve likely learned about the set of words in #1. If you are a photographer, you probably know the terminology in #2. If you speak Spanish, then you understand the words in #3. If you’re a Game of Thrones fan, then you recognize the words in #4. And if you are a UO student, then the words in #5 should seem familiar to you. Sco Ducks!

So you can see that discourse, or language, is one way that a community is bound together. It shapes it, strengthens it, and even defines it. The members of the community generally agree on what the terms mean; however, that is not always the case, as we will explore later in the course.

But what if you didn’t know a group of words? Let’s say you are in a conversation with a group of people using the technical terms in #2, but your only camera is your iPhone. Or perhaps you are reading an article that is in Spanish, but you don’t know that language. How would you feel? You would probably feel confused, frustrated, and excluded.

Because language and modes of communication differ among various groups, a discourse community can exclude others as much as it brings people together. Think about one of the communities to which you belong. What is the discourse of that group? What is the shared language and terminology? What are the primary ways of communicating between members of the community? How do members communicate their ideas or activities with those outside of the community?

What is a discourse community to which you belong and. . .

• What are the unique characteristics of communicating within this community?
• How has it shaped the way you think and write?
• Is it possible to assert your unique voice within that community? How so or why not?

Images (above, from left to right):

• Balance sheet:  RODNAE Productions from  Pexels  
• Photography:  Pxhere  
• Dany: Creative Commons
• Puddles the Duck by Brian licensed under a CC BY SA 4.0 license via  Wikimedia Commons

How does the discourse community shape your writing?

Image Attribution: Workshop by fauxels via Pexe l.

In his book on academic writing,  The Shape of Reason , John Gage defines a  discourse community  as “any kind of community in which the members attempt to achieve cooperation and assert their individuality through the use of language. We are all members of discourse communities, each of which uses language in different ways” (2).

What keywords can you pull out of this definition? I identify the following keywords:  cooperation ,  individuality , and  language . A community generally assumes members who  cooperate  with each other. The group has a common goal or set of goals and its members want to work or live together to achieve those goals. They use  a common language and mode of communication  to maintain and strengthen the community. For an individual to thrive within this community, understanding and being able to use that common language and mode of communication are essential. When we as individuals have thoughts, ideas, or actions we would like to share with others in the community, we want to convey those thoughts, ideas, or actions in a way that others can understand and engage with them. No one likes to feel misunderstood. In this way, a discourse community influences how we communicate our  individuality  to the group.

We can illustrate how discourse community shapes your writing with a few examples. It is probably easy and fun for you to write and send texts to your friends. What kind of language do you use when texting? If your friend’s primary language is English, then you’ll probably use English in your texts. You’ll probably also use textspeak abbreviations like “lol” and “idk.” You might even use some visual language, such as emoji or gifs. If your friend does not speak English, does not know what the abbreviations stand for, or is unfamiliar with emoji, then they will not understand your message. Now, let’s say you are sending an email to your professor. Would you use the same discourse that you use when texting your friend? Probably not. In other words: an awareness of discourse community probably already shapes how you communicate your ideas.

This is all well and good when you feel confident about your membership in a community. But what about when you are new to a community? How do you learn that community’s discourse? Or what if you struggle to feel like you truly belong in a community? How do these things affect how you communicate and interact with the group? As you become more familiar with a community’s discourse, your written communication with the group will also improve. However, do you think it is possible to assert  your unique voice and identity  within the limits of a community’s discourse?

Let’s consider the university as a discourse community. The university comprises intellectuals (including you!) in various academic disciplines. Each academic discipline has its own discourse, but for the most part all academic disciplines communicate and share knowledge, as well as debate theories and ideas, through discussion and writing. What characterizes  academic discourse ? What is  academic writing ? Who gets to speak and write in this community?

Once you have read the sections on discourse community and thought about the various communities of which you are a part and the discourses used in these communities, you’re ready to get to know your WR 121 discourse community. What can you learn about your peers and instructor? What languages do they speak? What common goals do you all share? Do you agree on what effective writing looks like? What support will you offer each other as you work on your writing this term?

Acknowledgment:

Gage, John.  The Shape of Reason , 4th Edition. New York: Pearson, 2006: 2.

Writing as Inquiry Copyright © 2021 by Kara Clevinger and Stephen Rust is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

What is Discourse? Definition, Usage, and Literary Example

Discourse definition.

Discourse  (DISK-horse) is another word for written or spoken communication. The term is a broad one that has slightly different definitions depending on the discipline in which it is used; in literature, discourse refers to a presentation of thought through language. Discursive language typically contains long, detailed  sentences  that address a specific subject in a formal manner.

Discourse  comes from the Latin  discursus , which means “a running about.” This illustrates the basic idea of relaying information through the natural  rhythm  and flow of language.

Types of Literary Discourse

Generally speaking, any time someone uses language to communicate, they’re utilizing discourse. The job of the writer, then, is one that primarily relies on discourse to tell stories, share ideas, and disseminate information. Essentially, without discourse, there would be no literature.

Not all discourse is the same, however, and literary scholars break it down into four main types: argument, description, exposition, and narration.

• Argument:  An argument is an attempt to convince the reader through logic and reasoning. The writer will make a specific claim and then present evidence that supports that claim. For example, academic essays employ argumentative discourse to  persuade  readers about the truth of an overarching thesis.
• Description:  Description is a sensory experience for the reader, one that aims to help them develop clear mental images of the information presented. Novels, short stories, and  poems  depend on the power of description to entertain and move readers.
• Exposition:  Exposition informs the audience of a certain fact but doesn’t seek to influence the audience’s opinion of that fact. Expositional discourse is neutral in language and  tone  to avoid persuading or stirring emotion in the reader; its purpose is purely informational. News stories and other journalistic writings, as well as comparative analyses and other research-oriented literature, commonly utilize exposition.
• Narration:  Narration is the written commentary that presents the story to the reader. Put another way, it is the voice of the storyteller. Narration engages the reader through compelling language that elicits emotion and empathy and keeps the reader turning the page. Narration is a cornerstone of novels, short stories, and some plays.

Other schools of thoughts break literary discourse down into the categories of expressive, poetic, and transactional discourse.

• Expressive:  Expressive discourse reflects the emotions of the writer. Its focus is on generating and discussing ideas, with little or no emphasis on concrete facts or attempts to persuade others of a central argument. Works of expressive discourse are always nonfiction; diaries and journals, blogs, and  memoirs  are all examples.
• Poetic:  Poetic discourse is a highly creative approach to fictional writing. The writer presents thoughts, feelings, events, places, and characters in imaginative, sometimes  rhythmic , language that appeals to readers’ emotions. Poetic discourse emphasizes theme,  imagery , and feelings. It is a central component of  poetry  but is also evident, to some degree, in most novels and short stories.
• Transactional:  Transactional discourse is less of a literary approach and more of an instructional one. It lays out a clear action or plan, typically in an  active voice , that compels the reader to act. Advertising and marketing writing, instruction manuals, and business correspondence are all common sources of transactional discourse.

The Function of Discourse

Discourse is crucial to how readers understand the world the author is trying to create, but its function is much larger in scope than any one literary work.

Discourse serves to inform and shape how the individual sees the world and how they form a baseline for responding to different concepts. At its most basic, it may seem like discourse is only communication, but communication is how we interact with one another, with ourselves, and with our societies.

Written communications—be they novels, poems, nonfiction books, letters, diary entries, or emails—are records of how a society shares information. They provide insights into why we think the way we do and how we connect with people and ideas. They influence behavior, relationships, and social change.

Discourse Outside of Literature

Discourse in Rhetoric

Discourse has a somewhat different meaning in the field of  rhetoric , which is how speakers inform and persuade their audience of a specific perception of reality. Rhetorical discourse contains a central, organizing voice—the person doing the speaking or narrating—attempting to motivate the audience to come to a conclusion that serves the speaker’s goals. Rhetorical discourse only utilizes  narrative  elements to convince the reader or listener; they’re rarely complete narratives. The purpose here is  persuasion , not aestheticism,  didacticism , or poetic expression.

Discourse in Semantics

The application of discourse in semantics is even more complex. Discourse semantics is an analysis of how we utilize vocabulary in specific areas of intellectual inquiry. This analysis explores the connection between language and structure, such as the relationship between a  sentence  and the larger context it exists in. An example of this is the use of a pronoun in a sentence, which a reader or listener can only understand as it relates to another part that denotes to whom the pronoun refers.

Discourse in Social Sciences

Social sciences and the humanities describe discourse as a formalized way of thinking expressed through language. It is the way society thinks and communicates about people, things, and social organization, as well as the relationship between these three elements.

Sociology considers discourse to be a way to give meaning to reality. Political science understands it as a formal exchange of rational views to solve a social problem. Finally, psychological discourse assesses language form and function, whether written or verbal, as they relate to mental health.

Examples of Discourse in Literature

1. William Shakespeare,  Romeo and Juliet

Shakespeare’s classic tragedy of star-crossed teenage lovers opens with a narrative discourse:

Two households, both alike in dignity,

In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,

From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,

Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.

From forth the fatal loins of these two foes

A pair of star-cross’d lovers take their life;

Whose misadventured piteous overthrows

Do with their death bury their parents’ strife.

This introduction sets the scene to give the audience a clear idea of where and in what conditions the action of the play occurs. It also does something unique: It tells the audience right from the beginning that Romeo and Juliet will ultimately kill themselves. Rather than serve as a spoiler, this approach imbues the play with a sense of urgency, underscoring the depth of the lovers’ feelings for one another and the serious risks they face in pursuing their relationship.

2. Anaïs Nin,  The Diary of Anaïs Nin, Vol. 2: 1934-1939

Nin was one of the foremost diarists of the 20th century. Her diaries, like all diaries, abound with expressive discourse. Much of her writing examines what it means to be a woman and an artist in the modern world. She wrote this passage as she prepared to leave Paris just before the Second World War came to France:

I knew I could not separate myself from the world’s death, even though I was not one of those who brought it about. I had to make clear the relation of our individual dramas to the larger one, and our responsibility. I was never one with the world, yet I was to be destroyed with it. I always lived seeing beyond it. I was not in harmony with its explosions and collapse. I had, as an artist, another rhythm, another death, another renewal. That was it. I was not at one with the world, I was seeking to create one by other rules…. The struggle against destruction which I lived out in my intimate relationships had to be transposed and become of use to the whole world.

Nin explores her detachment from the world during such a scary and uncertain time, but she also finds a connection between the intensity of her personal dramas and the violence of war-ravaged Europe. Her emphasis on emotions and ideas in this passage is a hallmark of expressive discourse.

3. Ta-Nehisi Coates, “The Case for Reparations”

Coates’s landmark essay first appeared  The Atlantic  in 2014. He delves into the relationship between America’s prosperity and its long history of slavery and racism:

The lives of black Americans are better than they were half a century ago. The humiliation of whites only signs are gone. Rates of black poverty have decreased. Black teen-pregnancy rates are at record lows—and the gap between black and white teen-pregnancy rates has shrunk significantly. But such progress rests on a shaky foundation, and fault lines are everywhere. The income gap between black and white households is roughly the same today as it was in 1970. Patrick Sharkey, a sociologist at New York University, studied children born from 1955 through 1970 and found that 4 percent of whites and 62 percent of blacks across America had been raised in poor neighborhoods. A generation later, the same study showed, virtually nothing had changed. And whereas whites born into affluent neighborhoods tended to remain in affluent neighborhoods, blacks tended to fall out of them.

Coates argues that without slave labor and the systematic oppression of black people after the abolishment of slavery, America never could have become such a wealthy and modernized nation. For this reason, he suggests that black people of today deserve reparations from the government as compensation for the critical, backbreaking labor performed by their ancestors. The above excerpt illustrates one of the ways systemic racism prevents black Americans from achieving economic stability and functions as a point in support of Coates’s argumentative discourse.

Further Resources on Discourse

The Living Handbook of Narratology goes in-depth on  narratives in rhetorical discourse .

Discourse.org  offers an open source discussion about modern internet discourse.

ThoughtCo. provides an introduction to  discourse in sociology .

Science Encyclopedia has  a brief historical overview of rhetorical discourse .

Read a classic essay  on discourse  by English philosopher Francis Bacon.

Related Terms

• Active Voice
• Didacticism

What (Exactly) Is Discourse Analysis? A Plain-Language Explanation & Definition (With Examples)

By: Jenna Crosley (PhD). Expert Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

Discourse analysis is one of the most popular qualitative analysis techniques we encounter at Grad Coach. If you’ve landed on this post, you’re probably interested in discourse analysis, but you’re not sure whether it’s the right fit for your project, or you don’t know where to start. If so, you’ve come to the right place.

Overview: Discourse Analysis Basics

In this post, we’ll explain in plain, straightforward language :

• What discourse analysis is
• When to use discourse analysis
• The main approaches to discourse analysis
• How to conduct discourse analysis

What is discourse analysis?

Let’s start with the word “discourse”.

In its simplest form, discourse is verbal or written communication between people that goes beyond a single sentence . Importantly, discourse is more than just language. The term “language” can include all forms of linguistic and symbolic units (even things such as road signs), and language studies can focus on the individual meanings of words. Discourse goes beyond this and looks at the overall meanings conveyed by language in context .  “Context” here refers to the social, cultural, political, and historical background of the discourse, and it is important to take this into account to understand underlying meanings expressed through language.

A popular way of viewing discourse is as language used in specific social contexts, and as such language serves as a means of prompting some form of social change or meeting some form of goal.

Now that we’ve defined discourse, let’s look at discourse analysis .

Discourse analysis uses the language presented in a corpus or body of data to draw meaning . This body of data could include a set of interviews or focus group discussion transcripts. While some forms of discourse analysis center in on the specifics of language (such as sounds or grammar), other forms focus on how this language is used to achieve its aims. We’ll dig deeper into these two above-mentioned approaches later.

As Wodak and Krzyżanowski (2008) put it: “discourse analysis provides a general framework to problem-oriented social research”. Basically, discourse analysis is used to conduct research on the use of language in context in a wide variety of social problems (i.e., issues in society that affect individuals negatively).

For example, discourse analysis could be used to assess how language is used to express differing viewpoints on financial inequality and would look at how the topic should or shouldn’t be addressed or resolved, and whether this so-called inequality is perceived as such by participants.

What makes discourse analysis unique is that it posits that social reality is socially constructed , or that our experience of the world is understood from a subjective standpoint. Discourse analysis goes beyond the literal meaning of words and languages

For example, people in countries that make use of a lot of censorship will likely have their knowledge, and thus views, limited by this, and will thus have a different subjective reality to those within countries with more lax laws on censorship.

When should you use discourse analysis?

There are many ways to analyze qualitative data (such as content analysis , narrative analysis , and thematic analysis ), so why should you choose discourse analysis? Well, as with all analysis methods, the nature of your research aims, objectives and research questions (i.e. the purpose of your research) will heavily influence the right choice of analysis method.

The purpose of discourse analysis is to investigate the functions of language (i.e., what language is used for) and how meaning is constructed in different contexts, which, to recap, include the social, cultural, political, and historical backgrounds of the discourse.

For example, if you were to study a politician’s speeches, you would need to situate these speeches in their context, which would involve looking at the politician’s background and views, the reasons for presenting the speech, the history or context of the audience, and the country’s social and political history (just to name a few – there are always multiple contextual factors).

Discourse analysis can also tell you a lot about power and power imbalances , including how this is developed and maintained, how this plays out in real life (for example, inequalities because of this power), and how language can be used to maintain it. For example, you could look at the way that someone with more power (for example, a CEO) speaks to someone with less power (for example, a lower-level employee).

Therefore, you may consider discourse analysis if you are researching:

• Some form of power or inequality (for example, how affluent individuals interact with those who are less wealthy
• How people communicate in a specific context (such as in a social situation with colleagues versus a board meeting)
• Ideology and how ideas (such as values and beliefs) are shared using language (like in political speeches)
• How communication is used to achieve social goals (such as maintaining a friendship or navigating conflict)

As you can see, discourse analysis can be a powerful tool for assessing social issues , as well as power and power imbalances . So, if your research aims and objectives are oriented around these types of issues, discourse analysis could be a good fit for you.

Discourse Analysis: The main approaches

There are two main approaches to discourse analysis. These are the language-in-use (also referred to as socially situated text and talk ) approaches and the socio-political approaches (most commonly Critical Discourse Analysis ). Let’s take a look at each of these.

Approach #1: Language-in-use

Language-in-use approaches focus on the finer details of language used within discourse, such as sentence structures (grammar) and phonology (sounds). This approach is very descriptive and is seldom seen outside of studies focusing on literature and/or linguistics.

Because of its formalist roots, language-in-use pays attention to different rules of communication, such as grammaticality (i.e., when something “sounds okay” to a native speaker of a language). Analyzing discourse through a language-in-use framework involves identifying key technicalities of language used in discourse and investigating how the features are used within a particular social context.

For example, English makes use of affixes (for example, “un” in “unbelievable”) and suffixes (“able” in “unbelievable”) but doesn’t typically make use of infixes (units that can be placed within other words to alter their meaning). However, an English speaker may say something along the lines of, “that’s un-flipping-believable”. From a language-in-use perspective, the infix “flipping” could be investigated by assessing how rare the phenomenon is in English, and then answering questions such as, “What role does the infix play?” or “What is the goal of using such an infix?”

Need a helping hand?

Approach #2: Socio-political

Socio-political approaches to discourse analysis look beyond the technicalities of language and instead focus on the influence that language has in social context , and vice versa. One of the main socio-political approaches is Critical Discourse Analysis , which focuses on power structures (for example, the power dynamic between a teacher and a student) and how discourse is influenced by society and culture. Critical Discourse Analysis is born out of Michel Foucault’s early work on power, which focuses on power structures through the analysis of normalized power .

Normalized power is ingrained and relatively allusive. It’s what makes us exist within society (and within the underlying norms of society, as accepted in a specific social context) and do the things that we need to do. Contrasted to this, a more obvious form of power is repressive power , which is power that is actively asserted.

Sounds a bit fluffy? Let’s look at an example.

Consider a situation where a teacher threatens a student with detention if they don’t stop speaking in class. This would be an example of repressive power (i.e. it was actively asserted).

Normalized power, on the other hand, is what makes us not want to talk in class . It’s the subtle clues we’re given from our environment that tell us how to behave, and this form of power is so normal to us that we don’t even realize that our beliefs, desires, and decisions are being shaped by it.

In the view of Critical Discourse Analysis, language is power and, if we want to understand power dynamics and structures in society, we must look to language for answers. In other words, analyzing the use of language can help us understand the social context, especially the power dynamics.

While the above-mentioned approaches are the two most popular approaches to discourse analysis, other forms of analysis exist. For example, ethnography-based discourse analysis and multimodal analysis. Ethnography-based discourse analysis aims to gain an insider understanding of culture , customs, and habits through participant observation (i.e. directly observing participants, rather than focusing on pre-existing texts).

On the other hand, multimodal analysis focuses on a variety of texts that are both verbal and nonverbal (such as a combination of political speeches and written press releases). So, if you’re considering using discourse analysis, familiarize yourself with the various approaches available so that you can make a well-informed decision.

How to “do” discourse analysis

As every study is different, it’s challenging to outline exactly what steps need to be taken to complete your research. However, the following steps can be used as a guideline if you choose to adopt discourse analysis for your research.

Step 1: Decide on your discourse analysis approach

The first step of the process is to decide on which approach you will take in terms. For example, the language in use approach or a socio-political approach such as critical discourse analysis. To do this, you need to consider your research aims, objectives and research questions . Of course, this means that you need to have these components clearly defined. If you’re still a bit uncertain about these, check out our video post covering topic development here.

While discourse analysis can be exploratory (as in, used to find out about a topic that hasn’t really been touched on yet), it is still vital to have a set of clearly defined research questions to guide your analysis. Without these, you may find that you lack direction when you get to your analysis. Since discourse analysis places such a focus on context, it is also vital that your research questions are linked to studying language within context.

Based on your research aims, objectives and research questions, you need to assess which discourse analysis would best suit your needs. Importantly, you  need to adopt an approach that aligns with your study’s purpose . So, think carefully about what you are investigating and what you want to achieve, and then consider the various options available within discourse analysis.

It’s vital to determine your discourse analysis approach from the get-go , so that you don’t waste time randomly analyzing your data without any specific plan.

Step 2: Design your collection method and gather your data

Once you’ve got determined your overarching approach, you can start looking at how to collect your data. Data in discourse analysis is drawn from different forms of “talk” and “text” , which means that it can consist of interviews , ethnographies, discussions, case studies, blog posts.  

The type of data you collect will largely depend on your research questions (and broader research aims and objectives). So, when you’re gathering your data, make sure that you keep in mind the “what”, “who” and “why” of your study, so that you don’t end up with a corpus full of irrelevant data. Discourse analysis can be very time-consuming, so you want to ensure that you’re not wasting time on information that doesn’t directly pertain to your research questions.

When considering potential collection methods, you should also consider the practicalities . What type of data can you access in reality? How many participants do you have access to and how much time do you have available to collect data and make sense of it? These are important factors, as you’ll run into problems if your chosen methods are impractical in light of your constraints.

Once you’ve determined your data collection method, you can get to work with the collection.

Step 3: Investigate the context

A key part of discourse analysis is context and understanding meaning in context. For this reason, it is vital that you thoroughly and systematically investigate the context of your discourse. Make sure that you can answer (at least the majority) of the following questions:

• What is the discourse?
• Why does the discourse exist? What is the purpose and what are the aims of the discourse?
• When did the discourse take place?
• Where did it happen?
• Who participated in the discourse? Who created it and who consumed it?
• What does the discourse say about society in general?
• How is meaning being conveyed in the context of the discourse?

Make sure that you include all aspects of the discourse context in your analysis to eliminate any confounding factors. For example, are there any social, political, or historical reasons as to why the discourse would exist as it does? What other factors could contribute to the existence of the discourse? Discourse can be influenced by many factors, so it is vital that you take as many of them into account as possible.

Once you’ve investigated the context of your data, you’ll have a much better idea of what you’re working with, and you’ll be far more familiar with your content. It’s then time to begin your analysis.

Step 4: Analyze your data

When performing a discourse analysis, you’ll need to look for themes and patterns .  To do this, you’ll start by looking at codes , which are specific topics within your data. You can find more information about the qualitative data coding process here.

Next, you’ll take these codes and identify themes. Themes are patterns of language (such as specific words or sentences) that pop up repeatedly in your data, and that can tell you something about the discourse. For example, if you’re wanting to know about women’s perspectives of living in a certain area, potential themes may be “safety” or “convenience”.

In discourse analysis, it is important to reach what is called data saturation . This refers to when you’ve investigated your topic and analyzed your data to the point where no new information can be found. To achieve this, you need to work your way through your data set multiple times, developing greater depth and insight each time. This can be quite time consuming and even a bit boring at times, but it’s essential.

Once you’ve reached the point of saturation, you should have an almost-complete analysis and you’re ready to move onto the next step – final review.

Step 5: Review your work

Hey, you’re nearly there. Good job! Now it’s time to review your work.

This final step requires you to return to your research questions and compile your answers to them, based on the analysis. Make sure that you can answer your research questions thoroughly, and also substantiate your responses with evidence from your data.

Usually, discourse analysis studies make use of appendices, which are referenced within your thesis or dissertation. This makes it easier for reviewers or markers to jump between your analysis (and findings) and your corpus (your evidence) so that it’s easier for them to assess your work.

When answering your research questions, make you should also revisit your research aims and objectives , and assess your answers against these. This process will help you zoom out a little and give you a bigger picture view. With your newfound insights from the analysis, you may find, for example, that it makes sense to expand the research question set a little to achieve a more comprehensive view of the topic.

Let’s recap…

In this article, we’ve covered quite a bit of ground. The key takeaways are:

• Discourse analysis is a qualitative analysis method used to draw meaning from language in context.
• You should consider using discourse analysis when you wish to analyze the functions and underlying meanings of language in context.
• The two overarching approaches to discourse analysis are language-in-use and socio-political approaches .
• The main steps involved in undertaking discourse analysis are deciding on your analysis approach (based on your research questions), choosing a data collection method, collecting your data, investigating the context of your data, analyzing your data, and reviewing your work.

If you have any questions about discourse analysis, feel free to leave a comment below. If you’d like 1-on-1 help with your analysis, book an initial consultation with a friendly Grad Coach to see how we can help.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

30 Comments

This was really helpful to me

I would like to know the importance of discourse analysis analysis to academic writing

In academic writing coherence and cohesion are very important. DA will assist us to decide cohesiveness of the continuum of discourse that are used in it. We can judge it well.

Thank you so much for this piece, can you please direct how I can use Discourse Analysis to investigate politics of ethnicity in a particular society

Fantastically helpful! Could you write on how discourse analysis can be done using computer aided technique? Many thanks

I would like to know if I can use discourse analysis to research on electoral integrity deviation and when election are considered free & fair

I also to know the importance of discourse analysis and it’s purpose and characteristics

Thanks, we are doing discourse analysis as a subject this year and this helped a lot!

Please can you help explain and answer this question? With illustrations,Hymes’ Acronym SPEAKING, as a feature of Discourse Analysis.

What are the three objectives of discourse analysis especially on the topic how people communicate between doctor and patient

Very useful Thank you for your work and information

thank you so much , I wanna know more about discourse analysis tools , such as , latent analysis , active powers analysis, proof paths analysis, image analysis, rhetorical analysis, propositions analysis, and so on, I wish I can get references about it , thanks in advance

Its beyond my expectations. It made me clear everything which I was struggling since last 4 months. 👏 👏 👏 👏

Thank you so much … It is clear and helpful

Thanks for sharing this material. My question is related to the online newspaper articles on COVID -19 pandemic the way this new normal is constructed as a social reality. How discourse analysis is an appropriate approach to examine theese articles?

This very helpful and interesting information

This was incredible! And massively helpful.

I’m seeking further assistance if you don’t mind.

Found it worth consuming!

What are the four types of discourse analysis?

very helpful. And I’d like to know more about Ethnography-based discourse analysis as I’m studying arts and humanities, I’d like to know how can I use it in my study.

Amazing info. Very happy to read this helpful piece of documentation. Thank you.

is discourse analysis can take data from medias like TV, Radio…?

I need to know what is general discourse analysis

Direct to the point, simple and deep explanation. this is helpful indeed.

Thank you so much was really helpful

really impressive

Thank you very much, for the clear explanations and examples.

It is really awesome. Anybody within just in 5 minutes understand this critical topic so easily. Thank you so much.

Thank you for enriching my knowledge on Discourse Analysis . Very helpful thanks again

This was extremely helpful. I feel less anxious now. Thank you so much.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Individual and Society — Discourse Community

Essays on Discourse Community

Engaging discourse community essay prompts.

Finding the right prompt can set the stage for an insightful essay. Here are some thought-provoking prompts to get you started:

• Evaluate the discourse within an online forum dedicated to sustainability.
• Analyze the communication patterns of a professional esports team.
• Investigate how a local art collective uses language to build community.

Picking a Standout Discourse Community Essay Topic

Choosing a compelling topic is crucial. Here’s how to make sure you land on something engaging:

• Interest : Opt for a community you’re personally interested in or curious about.
• Originality : Seek out topics that aren’t overdone. The more unique, the better.
• Accessibility : Make sure you can access enough information and resources for your essay.

Examples of Discourse Community Essay Topics

To avoid the usual suspects and spark your imagination, consider these unique essay topics:

• Discourse practices in online coding bootcamps.
• Language and identity in expatriate communities.
• How DIY forums challenge traditional expertise.
• Discourse dynamics in feminist activist groups.
• The role of language in local food cooperatives.
• Communication styles within virtual reality spaces.
• Analysis of discourse in mental health support groups.
• Language use in underground music communities.
• How digital nomads create community through discourse.
• Discourse among members of a city council.
• Cross-cultural communication in international business teams.
• Language and power in academic departments.
• Communication strategies in environmental advocacy groups.
• Discourse in online platforms for language learning.
• Community building in co-living spaces.
• Discourse strategies in political campaigning.
• Role of language in crafting a makerspace identity.
• Online forums as spaces for medical discourse.
• Language evolution in multiplayer online games.
• Building a discourse community in coworking spaces.

Inspiration for Your Discourse Community Essay

Need a nudge to get your writing process started? Let these ideas inspire you:

"Exploring the esports team's communication reveals a complex system of language, symbols, and rituals, highlighting the nuanced ways members create a sense of belonging and identity."

"The vibrant discourse within the feminist activist group not only challenges societal norms but also fosters a strong sense of community and shared purpose among its members."

Critical Discourse Analysis: Historical Origins

"discourse community" by john swales: summary, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Critical Discourse Analysis of Race and Racism

My experiences in volleyball discourse community, analysis of a discourse community: craft and diy enthusiasts, the game super smash bros. melee's community as an example of a discourse community, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Discourse Community of Hypebeasts

Six characteristics that can be used to identify what qualifies as a discourse community, a reflection paper on football discourse community, research on discourse community of a small start-up business, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Authority Within a Discourse Community: Personal Reflection

Rhetorical methods in the finance and economics discourse communities, critical discourse analysis and power relations, analyzing gender stereotypes, and empowerment in the always campaign, gender diffrences in political discourse, discourse community, understanding and examples of a discourse community, discourse community practices.

A discourse community refers to a collective of individuals who possess a shared set of discourses, encompassing fundamental values, assumptions, and modes of communication that revolve around common objectives.

A discourse community exhibits distinct characteristics that define its identity and functioning. Firstly, they have a common goal or purpose that unites members and serves as a focal point for their interactions. This shared objective creates a sense of belonging and facilitates effective communication within the community. Secondly, discourse communities have specific language and communication practices unique to their group. These can include specialized terminology, jargon, or even non-verbal cues that enable efficient and meaningful communication among members. Mastery of this shared language is crucial for individuals to participate actively and contribute to the community's discourse. Thirdly, discourse communities often possess established conventions, norms, and expectations regarding appropriate behavior, ethics, and standards of communication. These guidelines ensure cohesion, cooperation, and mutual respect among members. Lastly, discourse communities may have gatekeepers who regulate access and maintain the integrity of the community. These gatekeepers may be experts, mentors, or long-standing members who ensure that new participants meet the community's requirements and contribute positively to its ongoing discourse.

The concept of discourse community emerged as a framework in the field of sociolinguistics and discourse analysis. Although there is no specific historical origin attributed to it, the study of discourse communities can be traced back to the works of scholars such as John Swales and James Gee in the late 20th century. John Swales, a prominent linguist, introduced the term "discourse community" in his influential book "Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings" published in 1990. Swales emphasized the importance of understanding the communicative practices and conventions within specific communities to effectively participate in their discourse. James Gee, another influential scholar, expanded the concept of discourse community and introduced the idea of "situated learning" in his book "Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses" published in 1996. Gee explored how discourse communities shape identity, knowledge acquisition, and socialization processes. Since then, the study of discourse communities has gained prominence in various fields, including linguistics, communication studies, and sociology.

1. Professional Discourse Communities. 2. Academic Discourse Communities. 3. Hobbyist Discourse Communities. 4. Cultural Discourse Communities. 5. Online Discourse Communities:

Academic Discourse Community: Scholars, researchers, and students within a specific discipline form an academic discourse community. They share specialized knowledge, use discipline-specific terminology, and engage in scholarly writing and discussions. Online Gaming Community: Gamers who participate in online multiplayer games create a discourse community. They use game-specific jargon, communicate through forums or chat platforms, and share strategies and experiences related to gaming. Professional Discourse Community: Professions such as medicine, law, or engineering have their own discourse communities. Professionals within these fields communicate using technical terminology, share professional experiences, and adhere to specific codes of conduct. Sports Fan Community: Fans of a particular sports team or sport create a discourse community. They engage in discussions, debates, and analyses of games and players, often using sports-related slang and terms. Social Media Community: Users of social media platforms form discourse communities based on shared interests, such as fashion, food, or photography. They communicate through hashtags, comments, and posts, creating a unique community around their shared topics.

Social Construction of Reality, Situated Learning Theory, Communities of Practice, Genre Theory.

The study of discourse communities holds significant importance as it sheds light on the intricate ways in which individuals and groups interact, communicate, and form shared understandings within specific contexts. Understanding discourse communities allows us to recognize and appreciate the diversity of social groups and their unique discursive practices, values, and goals. Exploring discourse communities helps us comprehend how language shapes social interactions, knowledge construction, and the formation of identities. It allows us to identify the power dynamics and hierarchies that exist within these communities and how they influence individuals' access to resources and opportunities for participation. Moreover, discourse communities play a crucial role in the transmission and dissemination of knowledge, expertise, and cultural practices. By studying discourse communities, we gain insights into how knowledge is constructed, shared, and preserved within specific fields or domains.

The topic of discourse communities is a compelling subject for an essay due to its relevance and wide-ranging implications in various fields of study. By delving into discourse communities, one can explore the intricate ways in which language, communication, and social interaction shape our understanding of the world. Writing an essay on discourse communities allows for an in-depth examination of how different communities form, develop shared understandings, and create meaning through their discursive practices. It offers an opportunity to analyze the power dynamics, norms, and values that influence communication within specific groups. Furthermore, studying discourse communities provides insights into knowledge transmission, expertise, and identity formation. It allows for a critical exploration of the role of language in shaping social relationships, access to resources, and opportunities for participation within specific communities.

1. Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Routledge. 2. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press. 3. Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge University Press. 4. Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Routledge. 5. Bazerman, C. (2004). Speech acts, genres, and activity systems: How texts organize activity and people. Routledge. 6. Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151-167. 7. Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. Continuum. 8. Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. Routledge. 9. Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre, frames and writing in research settings. John Benjamins Publishing. 10. Johns, A. M. (2017). Discourse communities and communities of practice. In T. Johnstone (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of discourse studies (pp. 257-273). Cambridge University Press.

Relevant topics

• Social Justice
• Effects of Social Media
• Sex, Gender and Sexuality
• Media Analysis
• American Identity
• Sociological Imagination
• Social Media
• Cultural Appropriation

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Albert Weideman

Foundations of applied linguistics, what is academic discourse.

Academic discourse, which is historically grounded, includes all lingual activities associated with academia, the output of research being perhaps the most important. The typicality of academic discourse is derived from the (unique) distinction-making activity which is associated with the analytical or logical mode of experience . (Patterson & Weideman 2013).

Explanation

Academic discourse is more than grammar; it has functions like exposition, clarification, and conclusion, requiring us to do things with language like explain, define, compare, contrast, classify, agree, disagree, illustrate, elaborate, make claims, see implications, infer, exemplify, anticipate, and conclude. In addition, imbued as it is with cognitive as well as analytical processing, competence in handling academic language is far more than the ‘skills’ of listening, speaking, reading, and writing … Weideman 2018

The ability to handle this complex kind of language has at its centre the idea of using language in a logically qualified way: to make theoretical distinctions and for the purposes of analysis. Therefore the measurement of the ability must encompass many sub-components, to do justice to the complexity of the language ability being assessed. It follows, too, that a language test that is multifaceted is preferable to a monotone test design, and is likely to be more reliable. The same would apply to language courses to develop academic literacy, as the ability to handle academic discourse is usually termed.

Click to find Albert Weideman’s definition of academic literacy .

Share this:

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

What Is a Discourse Analysis Essay: Example & Guide

Discourse is the way people talk about any specific topic. It’s also the way in which language is used to convey social and historical meanings. Discourse analysis is the process that helps to understand the underlying message of what is being said. Sounds interesting? Keep reading to learn more. 

Our specialists will write a custom essay specially for you!

This in this article, our custom writing team will:

• define discourse and its analysis; 
• explain how to write a discourse analysis essay step by step; 
• provide an essay sample.
• 🤔 Discourse Analysis Definition
• 🔬 Types & Approaches
• 👣 Step-by-Step Guide
• 📑 Discourse Analysis Example

🔍 References

🤔 what is a discourse analysis.

To write a good discourse analysis, it’s essential to understand its key concepts. This section of the article will focus on the definition of discourse itself and then move on to its analysis.

Discourse: Definition

Discourse is verbal or written communication that has unity, meaning, and purpose. In linguistics, discourse refers to a unit of language that is longer than a sentence. When you analyze discourse, you examine how the language is used to construct connected and meaningful texts. 

One crucial thing that can’t be neglected when it comes to discourse is the context. In linguistics, there are different ways to classify contexts. Here is one such classification:

The knowledge of context is crucial for discourse analysis, as it helps interpret the text’s meaning. For that reason, it’s essential to keep the context in mind while analyzing the discourse. No context simply means no discourse.  

Just in 1 hour! We will write you a plagiarism-free paper in hardly more than 1 hour

Discourse vs Syntax: Difference

• Syntax is one of discourse’s dimensions. It encompasses rules for composing grammatical sentences. Unlike discourse, syntax can also be applied to non-verbal instances such as music or any other code.
• Discourse is one level above syntax. It studies how the sets of sentences following syntactic parameters work together and convey the meaning.

Spoken Discourse vs Written Discourse

Discourse itself can be classified as written and spoken (or oral.) One of the main differences is that spoken discourse uses spoken words to transfer information, while written one uses written words. There are also some other differences:

• Spoken discourse needs to be understood immediately. It also usually contains discourse markers— words that create pause or separation of ideas such as “you know,” “like,” or “well.” 
• Written discourse can be referred to several times. For the written discourse to happen, the participants need to know how to write and read, requiring specific skills. It’s also often tied to the genre or structure of the language it uses to imply the purpose or context of the text. 

Discourse Analysis Definition

Discourse analysis is a technique that arose in the late 20th century from the growing interest in qualitative research. The main purpose of discourse analysis is to understand the message and its implications. It can be done by studying the text’s parts and the factors that influence people’s understanding of it.

Discourse analysis is deeply connected with linguistics, anthropology, sociology, socio-psychology, philosophy, communications studies, and literature. It challenges the idea that we should take language for granted and instead encourages more interpretative and qualitative approaches. That’s why it is used in various fields to:

• describe organizational change;
• read between the lines while analyzing policy texts;
• provide greater depth to qualitative accounting research;
• use multiple fields to synthesize information. 

Content Analysis vs. Discourse Analysis

Content analysis and discourse analysis are research techniques used in various disciplines. However, there are several differences between the two:

• Content analysis is quantitative. It focuses on studying and retrieving meaningful information from documents.
• Discourse analysis is qualitative. It focuses on how language is used in texts and contexts.

🔬 Preparing to Write a Discourse Analysis Essay

Now let’s talk about writing a discourse analysis essay. Before you start to work on your paper, it’s best to decide what type of discourse analysis you plan to do and choose the correct approach. It will influence your topic choice and writing techniques. Besides, it will make the whole process easier.

Receive a plagiarism-free paper tailored to your instructions. Cut 15% off your first order!

Types of Discourse Analysis: How to Choose

Critical Discourse Analysis Characteristics

Critical discourse analysis or CDA is a cross-disciplinary methodological and theoretical approach. It focuses on the issues of power and inequalities in linguistic interactions between individuals and groups. It’s closely related to applied linguistics, cultural and social studies, anthropology, intercultural communication, and critical pedagogy.

Choose a critical discourse analysis if you want to do the following:

• Study meaning and context of the verbal interaction or a text.
• Focus on the topics of identity and power.
• Examine the potential for a change in an area.
• Explore the connections between power and ideology.

Cultural Discourse Analysis Characteristics

Cultural discourse analysis or CuDA is a method of studying culturally distinctive communication practices in our world. In the communication field, CuDA is most often used by scholars of Language and Social Interaction.

Choose a cultural discourse analysis if you’re interested in:

• Studying culturally-specific means of communication in various local contexts.
• Seeing how people talk about identity, relations, actions, and feelings.
• Proving that the differences should be acknowledged, embraced, and celebrated in intercultural dialogue.

Political Discourse Analysis Characteristics

Political discourse analysis or PDA focuses on the use of language in politics, political texts, and documents. It also includes the recipients of communicative political events, such as the citizens and the general public. Therefore, it can be said the discourse is located in both political and public spheres.

Get an originally-written paper according to your instructions!

Choose a political discourse analysis if you want to do the following:

• Deal with the concepts of political power, power   abuse ,  or domination.
• Examine the discursive conditions and consequences of social and political inequality.
• Analyze the words and actions of politicians.

Multimodal Discourse Analysis Characteristics

Multimodal discourse analysis is a technique that implies looking at multiple modes of communication such as text, color, and images. It studies how they interact with one another to create semiotic meaning.

Each mode of communication plays a specific role in the analysis. A picture, for instance, can easily depict something that takes too long to describe in words. Colors are mainly used to highlight specific aspects of the general message.

Choose a multimodal discourse analysis if you plan to:

• Look at several modes of communication at once.
• Conduct a nuanced and complex analysis of visual media.
• Work with online sources and platforms. 

Approaches to Discourse Analysis: How to Choose

Now that you’ve chosen the type of discourse analysis, it’s time to choose a suitable approach. There are two approaches to discourse analysis: language -in-use and socio-political discourse analysis .

• The language-in-use approach mainly focuses on the regular use of language in communication. It pays attention to sentence structure, phonology, and grammar. This approach is very descriptive and is mainly used in linguistics or literature.
• The socio-political approach focuses on how a language influences the social and political context and vice versa. One of the main socio-political approaches is Critical Discourse Analysis, born out of Michel Foucault’s work Discipline and Punish . It identifies two types of power: normalized and repressive (you can read about in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry on Foucault .) 

The language-in-use framework involves identifying the technicalities of language and investigating how the features are used in a particular social context. 

the English language usually uses affixes and suffixes but not infixes. If an English speaker says something similar to “that’s un-flipping-believable,” the questions for this approach would be “What role does the infix play?” or “What is the goal of using such an infix?” 

Now let’s see an example of a socio-political approach. We’ll take the power dynamic between a teacher and a student as an illustration.

A teacher threatening a student with detention if they don’t stop speaking in class can be classified as a repressive power. Normalized power, in contrast, isn’t actively asserted. It’s the power that makes students not want to talk in class. It’s manifested in the subtle clues from our environment that tell students how to behave.

👣 How to Do Discourse Analysis Step by Step

Now you are finally ready to start writing your discourse analysis. Follow our step-by-step guide, and you’ll excel at it.

Step #1: Choose the research question and select the content of the analysis.

Coming up with a clearly defined research question is crucial. There’s no universal set of criteria for a good research question. However, try to make sure that you research question:

• clearly states the purpose of the work;
• is not too broad or too narrow;
• can be investigated and has enough sources to rely on;
• allows you to conduct an analysis;
• is not too difficult to answer.

Step #2: Gather information.

Go through interviews, speeches, discussions, blogs, etc., to collect all the necessary information. Make sure to gather factual details of when and where the content you will use was created, who the author is, and who published it.

Step #3: Study the context.

This step involves a close examination of various elements of the gathered material.

• Take a closer look at the words used in the source text, its sentences, paragraphs, and overall structure.
• Consider 3 constructs of context: participants, setting, and purpose . These 3 characteristics reflect information about the individual, their emotional state, and their identity as members of a societal group.

Step #4: Review the results.

Once you’ve researched and examined all the sources, it’s time to reflect on your results and place your analysis in a broader context.

• To establish a broader context, you may consider what events have impacted the topic you are writing about and the consequences.  
• Finally, draw conclusions that answer your research question. 

Step #5: Make an outline.

Before you are all set with your discourse analysis, one last step is to write an outline. Usually, a discourse analysis essay consists of six parts:

📑 Example of Discourse Analysis Essay

Now that you know all about discourse analysis, we will introduce an example of a discourse analysis essay. From this sample, you can see what the layout of this kind of essay usually looks like. 

You might also want to check out the discourse analysis samples below.

• Dysphemism in Political Discourse Examples  
• Historical Memory Discourse in Public Diplomacy
• Lincoln’s and Dickinson’s Rhetorical Discourses

Discourse Analysis Essay Topics

• Terrorism theories and media discourse
• The benefits of infographics in social media advertising
• Do better communication skills lead to the development of the social self?
• How can you make social media advertising successful?
• Possible causes of the Mayan civilization’s political collapse
• Commission of Education and Communication’s worldwide contribution
• Coach and athletes’ communication strategy
• Celebrities ‘ impact on politics
• Social media marketing for brand promotion
• What makes listening the most effective communication technique?
• Excessive social media usage and its consequences
• Web-based organizational discourses: climate change
• Media as a tool to cause intense emotions
• Verbal and nonverbal communication skills for presentations
• New media technologies and the development of relationships and communication
• Features and issues of the American political system
• Association between social media use and FOMO
• Communication issues between stakeholders
• Why is political opportunity theory essential for social movement studies?
• How do social media and the Internet connect people?
• How can communication be used for self-presentation?
• Does social media limit personal freedom?
• Hamlet’s universality and contemporary cultural discourse
• Is it possible to apply Goffman’s theory of the presentation of self in digital communication?
• The Democratic and Republican party’s position on the issue of terrorism
• How does social media affect families?
• How communication affects the individual’s development
• Characteristics of a political issue
• Ageism in media and society
• Possible mobile communication technologies of the future
• How does social media technology improve democratic processes?
• Persuasion and public communication
• The signs of social media addiction
• Psychometric approach and discourse analysis in the psychology of laughter
• The role of media in a political system
• Cultural differences in nonverbal communication
• The politically socialized vision of the world
• The negative effects of digital media platforms on the lives of young people
• Core beliefs of different political ideologies
• Approaches to overcome miscommunications in the workplace
• The effectiveness of social media tools for educational purposes
• Is technology a threat to face-to-face communication?
• What issues come with using electronic media ?
• Difficulties connected with the development of communication technologies

Thanks for reading till the end! We hope you’ve enjoyed the article and found lots of helpful information. If you did, feel free to share it with your friends. We wish you good luck with the discourse analysis essay!

Further reading

• How to Write a Discursive Essay: Tips to Succeed & Examples
• Case Study Analysis: Examples + How-to Guide & Writing Tips
• How to Write a Literary Analysis Essay Step by Step
• How to Write a Rhetorical Analysis Essay: Outline, Steps, & Examples

❓ Discourse Analysis FAQs

Literary discourse analysis is a type of discourse analysis that deals with literature and is viewed as a relatively new approach to it. It integrates the analysis of literature and non-literary genres in an innovative study of discourse.

Rhetoric uses language to appeal to emotions to persuade, inform, or motivate the audience. Rhetorical discourse is used to study texts aimed at specific audiences. Such texts often try to convince or persuade people by using particular language and arguments. 

Critical discourse analysis focuses on issues of power and inequalities in linguistic interactions between individuals and different groups. It studies the role of power in the social construction of difference and examines how it’s created, questioned or inflicted through communication.

Discourse analysis is a blanket term that encompasses a range of qualitative research approaches that analyze the use of language in social contexts. These techniques help understand the underlying message of what people say and how they say it, whereas in face-to-face conversation, non-verbal interaction, documents, or images.

To write a discourse analysis of any community, you need to examine and understand it. Ask yourself these questions and try to identify the patterns:

1. What ideas or concerns keep the community together? 2. What kind of langue does it use? 3. Does it produce any written documents?

• Discourse: The University of Chicago
• Definition and Examples of Discourse: ThoughtCo
• Discourse: British Council: BBC
• Use Discourse Analysis: Emerald Publishing
• Discourse Analysis—What Speakers Do in Conversation: Linguistic Society of America
• Critical Discourse Analysis and Information and Communication Technology in Education: Oxford Research Encyclopedias
• Political Discourse Analysis: Exploring the Language of Politics and the Politics of Language: Research Gate
• Discourse Analysis and Everything You Need to Know: Voxco
• Multimodal Discourse Analysis: Diggit Magazine
• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to email

A précis is a brief synopsis of a written piece. It is used to summarize and analyze a text’s main points. If you need to write a précis for a research paper or the AP Lang exam, you’ve come to the right place. In this comprehensive guide by Custom-Writing.org, you’ll...

A synthesis essay requires you to work with multiple sources. You combine the information gathered from them to present a well-rounded argument on a topic. Are you looking for the ultimate guide on synthesis essay writing? You’ve come to the right place! In this guide by our custom writing team,...

Do you know how to make your essay stand out? One of the easiest ways is to start your introduction with a catchy hook. A hook is a phrase or a sentence that helps to grab the reader’s attention. After reading this article by Custom-Writing.org, you will be able to...

A critical analysis essay is an academic paper that requires a thorough examination of theoretical concepts and ideas. It includes a comparison of facts, differentiation between evidence and argument, and identification of biases. Crafting a good paper can be a daunting experience, but it will be much easier if you...

Critical thinking is the process of evaluating and analyzing information. People who use it in everyday life are open to different opinions. They rely on reason and logic when making conclusions about certain issues. A critical thinking essay shows how your thoughts change as you research your topic. This type...

Process analysis is an explanation of how something works or happens. Want to know more? Read the following article prepared by our custom writing specialists and learn about: process analysis and its typesa process analysis outline tipsfree examples and other tips that might be helpful for your college assignment So,...

A visual analysis essay is an academic paper type that history and art students often deal with. It consists of a detailed description of an image or object. It can also include an interpretation or an argument that is supported by visual evidence. In this article, our custom writing experts...

Want to know how to write a reflection paper for college or school? To do that, you need to connect your personal experiences with theoretical knowledge. Usually, students are asked to reflect on a documentary, a text, or their experience. Sometimes one needs to write a paper about a lesson...

A character analysis is an examination of the personalities and actions of protagonists and antagonists that make up a story. It discusses their role in the story, evaluates their traits, and looks at their conflicts and experiences. You might need to write this assignment in school or college. Like any...

Any critique is nothing more than critical analysis, and the word “analysis” does not have a negative meaning. Critical writing relies on objective evaluations of or a response to an author’s creation. As such, they can be either positive or negative, as the work deserves. To write a critique, you...

Any literary analysis is a challenging task since literature includes many elements that can be interpreted differently. However, a stylistic analysis of all the figurative language the poets use may seem even harder. You may never realize what the author actually meant and how to comment on it! While analyzing...

As a student, you may be asked to write a book review. Unlike an argumentative essay, a book review is an opportunity to convey the central theme of a story while offering a new perspective on the author’s ideas. Knowing how to create a well-organized and coherent review, however, is...

Recommended pages

• Undergraduate open days
• Postgraduate open days
• Accommodation
• Information for teachers
• Maps and directions
• Sport and fitness

Written discourse

Essays marked with a * received a distinction.

• * Analyzing and raising students’ awareness of textual patterns in authentic texts : Mohammad Umar Farooq
• Written Text Analysis : Gregory S. Hadley
• *Show an analysis of the whole text in terms of the main underlying text pattern. Identify the signals that indicate this pattern David Evans
• Critical discourse analysis: A letter to expatriate from the Rt. Hon. Sir Norman Fowler MP : Andrew Atkins
• * Teaching English Textual Patterns to Japanese Students : Michiko Kasuya
• * A analysis of a Korean student’s written English text : Yvette Murdoch
• A text analysis of 'Taking Failure by the Throat' : Marian Dawson
• Problems in processing text produced by a student : Alan Macedo
• Applying written discourse analysis in a Japanese EFL class :  Cindy Cunningham
• Referential discourse structures and the creation of text: an analysis of student writing samples : William Penny
• How to get away with things with words: An Examination of Written Texts : Jeremy Scott Boston
• A Text analysis of a newspaper article about Konglish taken from ‘The Korea Heral d' David Doms
• * Increasing comprehension and production of cohesion through conjunction : Thomas Warren-Price
• * An Evaluation of American Headway 3 Mary Umemoto
• Choose an authentic text in English. Analyze the text in terms of problem-solution, general specific or claim-counterclaim patterns.  Briefly discuss the challenges and opportunities that such text patterns present for teachers of English as a foreign language . Andrew Rolnick
• * The Use of Critical Discourse Analysis with Korean Adult Learners , Terry Faulkner   
• Do Students Need Critical Discourse Awareness? H. Douglas Sewell
• * Paraphrasing: An Introductory Unit In Paraphrasing in Academic Discourse   Deborah Novakova
• * The Value of Enhancing Students’ Critical Awareness of Discourse Philip Shigeo Brown
• * Science or Slaughter? Two Opposing Views on Japanese Whaling: a Critical Discourse Analysis Jason Peppard
• The Findings of Written Discourse Analysis and how they are Articulated in Learning English for Academic Purposes   Sandee Thompson
• * Two Views, Two Discourses: A Critical Analysis of how Ideology is Interpreted and Reinforced through Opinion Articles Michael Chang
• On Analysing a Problem-Solution Text Pattern Fernando Oliveira
• How to Raise Awareness of Textual Patterns Using an Authentic Text   Seiko Matsubara
• * The Politicisation of Death, Methods of Embedding Ideology within the News: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Two News Articles Michael Post
• * Genre analysis of the 'simple joke' (with TESL/TEFL applications) , Robert Murphy
• * Encouraging Problem-Solution Patterning and Co-Textual Referencing in L2 Written Discourse , Steven James Kurowski
• * Japanese Revisionists and the 'Comfort Women' Issue: A Comparison of Two Texts , Michael Cooper
• * 'One-on-One With Obama': An Analysis , Andrew Lawson
• * Genre Analysis of a Job Rejection Letter , Garcia Chambers
• Ideological Variations in the Representation of Hugo Chavez as a Democratic Leader in Two Different Cultures: A Critical Discourse Analysis , Parker Rader
• A Chinese Student's Text Analysis , Soti Vogli
• * Pedagogic applications of the Problem-solution pattern , Benet Vincent
• * Differing Opinions: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Two Articles Stefan Thomson
• * Trends in EBP: A Comparison of Market Leader's Writing Tasks to Findings in Written Discourse Joshua Durey
• Sexual Bias in Institutionalised Forms of Discourse Baljinder Gosal
• From Surface to W ider Context: Two Text Types Analysed , Sirkku Carey
• * Trends in EBP: a Comparison of 'Market Leader''s Writing Tasks to Findings in Written Discourse Joshua Drury
• An Analysis of Two Newspaper Articles in the Aftermath of the 2011 Japanese Tsuna mi Bruce Hope
• An Analysis of a Mexican EFL Tex tbook: A Written Discourse Perspective Elsa Fernanda Gonzalez
• * Korean News vs International News: A Critical Analysis of Two News Reports on North Korea Jonas Robertson
• Immigration Articles in Two Newspapers - A Multimodal Discourse  Dominic Castello
• Gender Relations in Institutionalized Discourses Mehboobkhan Ismail
• *  Critical Discourse Analysis: How the Washington Post and Moscow Times Reported the Russian Airstrikes in Syria   Laurie Knox
• * Critical Discourse Analysis of How Two Newspapers Reported the Treatment of Women at a Sumo Event in Japan Christine Pemberton

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 02 March 2021

Research impact evaluation and academic discourse

• Marta Natalia Wróblewska   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8575-5215 1 , 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  8 , Article number:  58 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

5172 Accesses

12 Citations

40 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Language and linguistics
• Science, technology and society

The introduction of ‘impact’ as an element of assessment constitutes a major change in the construction of research evaluation systems. While various protocols of impact evaluation exist, the most articulated one was implemented as part of the British Research Excellence Framework (REF). This paper investigates the nature and consequences of the rise of ‘research impact’ as an element of academic evaluation from the perspective of discourse. Drawing from linguistic pragmatics and Foucauldian discourse analysis, the study discusses shifts related to the so-called Impact Agenda on four stages, in chronological order: (1) the ‘problematization’ of the notion of ‘impact’, (2) the establishment of an ‘impact infrastructure’, (3) the consolidation of a new genre of writing–impact case study, and (4) academics’ positioning practices towards the notion of ‘impact’, theorized here as the triggering of new practices of ‘subjectivation’ of the academic self. The description of the basic functioning of the ‘discourse of impact’ is based on the analysis of two corpora: case studies submitted by a selected group of academics (linguists) to REF2014 (no = 78) and interviews ( n  = 25) with their authors. Linguistic pragmatics is particularly useful in analyzing linguistic aspects of the data, while Foucault’s theory helps draw together findings from two datasets in a broader analysis based on a governmentality framework. This approach allows for more general conclusions on the practices of governing (academic) subjects within evaluation contexts.

Similar content being viewed by others

Improving microbial phylogeny with citizen science within a mass-market video game

Entropy, irreversibility and inference at the foundations of statistical physics

Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research

Introduction.

The introduction of ‘research impact’ as an element of evaluation constitutes a major change in the construction of research evaluation systems. ‘Impact’, understood broadly as the influence of academic research beyond the academic sphere, including areas such as business, education, public health, policy, public debate, culture etc., has been progressively implemented in various systems of science evaluation—a trend observable worldwide (Donovan, 2011 ; Grant et al., 2009 ; European Science Foundation, 2012 ). Salient examples of attempts to systematically evaluate research impact include the Australian Research Quality Framework–RQF (Donovan, 2008 ) and the Dutch Standard Evaluation Protocol (VSNU–Association of Universities in the Netherlands, 2016 , see ‘societal relevance’).

The most articulated system of impact evaluation to date was implemented in the British cyclical ex post assessment of academic units, Research Excellence Framework (REF), as part of a broader governmental policy—the Impact Agenda. REF is the most-studied and probably the most influential impact evaluation system to date. It has been used as a model for analogous evaluations in other countries. These include the Norwegian Humeval exercise for the humanities (Research Council of Norway, 2017 , pp. 36–37, Wróblewska, 2019 ) and ensuing evaluations of other fields (Research Council of Norway, 2018 , pp. 32–34; Wróblewska, 2019 , pp. 12–16). REF has also directly inspired impact evaluation protocols in Hong-Kong (Hong Kong University Grants Committee, 2018 ) and Poland (Wróblewska, 2017 ). This study is based on data collected in the context of the British REF2014 but it advances a description of the ‘discourse of impact’ that can be generalized and applied to other national and international contexts.

Although impact evaluation is a new practice, a body of literature has been produced on the topic. This includes policy documents on the first edition of REF in 2014 (HEFCE, 2015 ; Stern, 2016 ) and related reports, be it commissioned (King’s College London and Digital Science, 2015 ; Manville et al., 2014 , 2015 ) or conducted independently (National co-ordinating center for public engagement, 2014 ). There also exists a scholarly literature which reflects on the theoretical underpinnings of impact evaluations (Gunn and Mintrom, 2016 , 2018 ; Watermeyer, 2012 , 2016 ) and the observable consequences of the exercise for academic practice (Chubb and Watermeyer, 2017 ; Chubb et al., 2016 ; Watermeyer, 2014 ). While these reports and studies mainly draw on the methods of philosophy, sociology and management, many of them also allude to changes related to language .

Several publications on impact drew attention to the process of meaning-making around the notion of ‘impact’ in the early stages of its existence. Manville et al. flagged up the necessity for the policy-maker to facilitate the development of common vocabulary to enable a broader ‘cultural shift’ (2015, pp. 16, 26. 37–38, 69). Power wrote of an emerging ‘performance discourse of impact’ (2015, p. 44) while Derrick ( 2018 ) looked at the collective process of defining and delimiting “the ambiguous object” of impact at the stage of panel proceedings. The present paper picks up these observations bringing them together in a unique discursive perspective.

Drawing from linguistic pragmatics and Foucauldian discourse analysis, the paper presents shifts related to the introduction of ‘impact’ as element of evaluation in four stages. These are, in chronological order: (1) the ‘problematisation’ of the notion of ‘impact’ in policy and its appropriation on a local level, (2) the creation of an impact infrastructure to orchestrate practices around impact, (3) the consolidation of a new genre of writing—impact case study, (4) academics’ uptake of the notion of impact and its progressive inclusion in their professional positioning.

Each of these stages is described using theoretical concepts grounded in empirical data. The first stage has to do with the process of ‘problematization’ of a previously non-regulated area, i.e., the process of casting research impact as a ‘problem’ to be addressed and regulated by a set of policy measures. The second stage took place when in rapid response to government policy, new procedures and practices were created within universities, giving rise to an impact ‘infrastructure’ (or ‘apparatus’ in the Foucauldian sense). The third stage is the emergence of a crucial element of the infrastructure—a new genre of academic writing—impact case study. I argue that engaging with the new genre and learning to write impact case studies was key in incorporating ‘impact’ into scholars’ narratives of ‘academic identity’. Hence, the paper presents new practices of ‘subjectivation’ as the fourth stage of incorporation of ‘impact’ into academic discourse. The four stages of the introduction of ‘impact’ into academic discourse are mutually interlinked—each step paves the way for the next.

Of the described four stages, only stage three focuses a classical linguistic task: the description of a new genre of text. The remaining three take a broader view informed by sociology and philosophy, focusing on discursive practices i.e., language used in social context. Other descriptions of the emergence of impact are possible—note for instance Power’s four-fold structure (Power, 2015 ), at points analogous to this study.

Theoretical framework and data

This study builds on a constructivist approach to social phenomena in assuming that language plays a crucial role in establishing and maintaining social practice. In this approach ‘discourse’ is understood as the production of social meaning—or the negotiation of social, political or cultural order—through the means of text and talk (Fairclough, 1989 , 1992 ; Fairclough et al., 1997 ; Gee, 2015 ).

Linguistic pragmatics and Foucauldian approaches to discourse are used to account for the changes related to the rise of ‘impact’ as element of evaluation and discourse on the macro and micro scale. In looking at the micro scale of every-day linguistic practices the analysis makes use of linguistic pragmatics, in particular concepts of positioning (Davies and Harré, 1990 ), stage (Goffman, 1969 ; Robinson, 2013 ), metaphor (Cameron, et al., 2009 ; Musolff, 2004 , 2012 ), as well as genre analysis (Swales, 1990 , 2011 ). Analyzing the macro scale, i.e., the establishment of the concept of ‘impact’ in policy and the creation of an impact infrastructure, it draws on selected concepts of Fouculadian governmentality theory (crucially ‘problematisation’, ‘apparatus’, ‘subjectivation’) (Foucault, 1980 , 1988 , 1990 ; Rose, 1999 , pp. ix–xiii).

While the toolbox of linguistic pragmatics is particularly useful in analyzing linguistic aspects of the datasets, Foucault’s governmental framework helps bring together findings from the two datasets in a broader analysis, allowing more general conclusions on the practices of governing (academic) subjects within evaluation frameworks. Both pragmatic and Foucauldian traditions of discourse analysis have been productively applied in the study of higher education contexts (e.g., Fairclough, 1993 , Gilbert and Mulkey, 1984 , Hyland, 2009 , Myers, 1985 , 1989 ; for an overview see Wróblewska and Angermuller, 2017 ).

The analysis builds on an admittedly heterogenous set of concepts, hailing from different traditions and disciplines. This approach allows for a suitably nuanced description of a broad phenomenon—the discourse of impact—studied here on the basis of two different datasets. To facilitate following the argument, individual theoretical and methodological concepts are defined where they are applied in the analysis.

The studied corpus consists of two datasets: a written and oral one. The written corpus includes 78 impact case studies (CSs) submitted to REF2014 in the discipline of linguistics Footnote 1 . Linguistics was selected as a discipline straddling the social sciences and humanities (SSH). SSH are arguably most challenged by the practice of impact evaluation as they have traditionally resisted subjection to economization and social accountability (Benneworth et al., 2016 ; Bulaitis, 2017 ).

The CSs were downloaded in pdf form from REF’s website: https://www.ref.ac.uk/2014/ . The documents have an identical structure, featuring basic information: name of institution, unit of assessment, title of CS and core content divided into five sections: (1) summary of impact, (2) underpinning research, (3) references to the research, (4) details of impact (5) sources to corroborate impact. Each CS is about 4 pages long (~2400 words). The written dataset (with a word-count of 173,474) was analyzed qualitatively using MAX QDA software with a focus on the generic aspect of the documents.

The oral dataset is composed of semi-structured interviews with authors of the studied CSs ( n  = 20) and other actors involved in the evaluation, including two policy-makers and three academic administrators Footnote 2 . In total, the 25 interviews, each around 60 min long, add up to around 25 h of recordings. The interviews were analyzed in two ways. Firstly, they were coded for themes and topics related to the evaluation process—this was useful for the description of impact infrastructure presented in step 2 of analysis. Secondly, they were considered as a linguistic performance and coded for discursive devices (irony, distancing, metaphor etc.)—this was the basis for findings related to the presentation of one’s ‘academic self’ which are the object of fourth step of analysis. The written corpus allows for an analysis of the functioning of the notion of ‘impact’ in the official, administrative discourse of academia, looking at the emergence of an impact infrastructure and the genre created for the description of impact. The oral dataset in turn sheds light on how academics relate to the notion of impact in informal settings, by focusing on metaphors and pragmatic markers of stage.

The discourse of impact

Problematization of impact.

The introduction of ‘impact’, a new element of evaluation accounting for 20% of the final result, was seen as a surprise and as a significant change in respect to the previous model of evaluation—the Research Assessment Exercise (Warner, 2015 ). The outline of an approach to impact evaluation in REF was developed on the government’s recommendation after a review of international practice in impact assessment (Grant et al., 2009 ). The adopted approach was inspired by the previously-created (but never implemented) Australian RQF framework (Donovan, 2008 ). A pilot evaluation exercise run in 2010 confirmed the viability of the case-study approach to impact evaluation. In July 2011 the Higher Education Council for England (HEFCE) published guidelines regulating the new assessment (HEFCE, 2011 ). The deadline for submissions was set for November 2013.

In the period between July 2011 and November 2013 HEFCE engaged in broad communication and training activities across universities, with the aim of explaining the concept of ‘impact’ and the rules which would govern its evaluation (Power, 2015 , pp. 43–48). Knowledge on the new element of evaluation was articulated and passed down to particular departments, academic administrative staff and individual researchers in a trickle-down process, as explained by a HEFCE policymaker in an account of the run-up to REF2014:

There was no master blue print! There were some ideas, which indeed largely came to pass. But in order to understand where we [HEFCE] might be doing things that were unhelpful and might have adverse outcomes, we had to listen. I was in way over one hundred meetings and talked to thousands of people! (…) [The Impact Agenda] is something that we are doing to universities. Actually, what we wanted to say is: ‘we are doing it with you, you’ve Footnote 3 got to own it’.

Int20, policymaker, example 1 Footnote 4

Due to the importance attributed to the exercise by managers of academic units and the relatively short time for preparing submissions, institutions were responsive to the policy developments. In fact, they actively contributed to the establishment and refinement of concepts related to impact. Institutional learning occurred to a large degree contemporarily to the consolidation of the policy and the refinement of the concepts and definitions related to impact. The initially open, undefined nature of ‘impact’ (“there was no master blue-print”) is described also in accounts of academics who participated in the many rounds of meetings and consultations. See example 2 below:

At that time, they [HEFCE] had not yet come up with this definition [of impact], not yet pinned it down, but they were trying to give an idea of what it was, to get feedback, to get a grip on it. (…) And we realised (…) they didn’t have any more of an idea of this than we did! It was almost like a fishing expedition. (…) I got a sense very early on of, you know, groping.

Int1, academic, example 2

The “pinning down” of an initially fuzzy concept and defining the rules which would come to govern its evaluation was just one aim of the process. The other one was to engage academics and affirm their active role in the policy-making. From an idea which came from outside of the British academic community (from the the government, the research councils) and originally from outside the UK (the Australian RQF exercise), a concept which was imposed on academics (“it is something that we are doing to universities”) the Impact Agenda was to become an accepted, embedded element of the academic life (“you’ve got to own it”). In this sense, the laboriousness of the process, both for the policy-makers and the academics involved, was a necessary price to be paid for the feeling of “ownership” among the academic community. Attitudes of academics, initially quite negative (Chubb et al., 2016 , Watermeyer, 2016 ), changed progressively, as the concept of impact became familiarized and adapted to the pre-existing realities of academic life, as recounted by many of the interviewees, e.g.,:

I think the resentment died down relatively quickly. There was still some resistance. And that was partly academics recognising that they had to [take part in the exercise], they couldn’t ignore it. Partly, the government and the research council has been willing to tweak, amend and qualify the initial very hard-edged guidelines and adapt them for the humanities. So, it was two-way process, a dialogue.

Int16, academic, example 3

The announcement of the final REF regulations (HEFCE, 2011 ) was the climax of the long process of making ‘impact’ into a thinkable and manageable entity. The last iteration of the regulations constituted a co-creation of various actors (initial Australian policymakers of the RQF, HEFCE employees, academics, impact professionals, universities, professional organizations) who had contributed to it at different stages (in many rounds of consultations, workshops, talks and sessions across the country). ‘Impact’ as a notion was ‘talked into being’ in a polyphonic process (Angermuller, 2014a , 2014b ) of debate, critique, consultation (“listening”, “getting feedback”) and adaptation (“tweaking”, “changing”, “amending hard-edged guidelines”) also in view of the pre-existing conditions of academia such as the friction between the ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ sciences (as mentioned in example 3). In effect, impact was constituted as an object of thought, and an area of academic activity begun to emerge around it.

The period of defining ‘impact’ as a new, important notion in academic discourse in the UK, roughly between July 2011 and November 2013, can be conceptualized in terms of the Foucauldian notion of ‘problematization’. This concept describes how spaces, areas of activity, persons, behaviors or practices become targeted by government, separated from others, and cast as ‘problems’ to be addressed with a set of techniques and regulations. ‘Problematisation’ is the moment when a notion “enters into the play of true and false, (…) is constituted as an object of thought (whether in the form of moral reflection, scientific knowledge, political analysis, etc.)” (Foucault, 1988 , p. 257), when it “enters into the field of meaning” (Foucault, 1984 , pp. 84–86). The problematization of an area triggers not only the establishment of new notions and objects but also of new practices and institutions. In consequence, the areas in question become subjugated to a new (political, administrative, financial) domination. This eventually shapes the way in which social subjects conceive of their world and of themselves. But a ‘problematisation’, however influential, cannot persist on its own. It requires an overarching structure in the form of an ‘apparatus’ which will consolidate and perpetuate it.

Impact infrastructure

Soon after the publication of the evaluation guidelines for REF2014, and still during the phase of ‘problematisation’ of impact, universities started collecting data on ‘impactful’ research conducted in their departments and recruiting authors of potential CSs which could be submitted for evaluation. The winding and iterative nature of the process of problematization of ‘impact’ made it difficult for research managers and researchers to keep track of the emerging knowledge around impact (official HEFCE documentation, results of the pilot evaluation, FAQs, workshops and sessions organized around the country, writings published in paper and online). At the stage of collecting drafts of CSs it was still unclear what would ‘count’ as impact and what evidence would be required. Hence, there emerged a need for specific procedures and specialized staff who would prepare the REF submissions.

At most institutions, specific posts were created for employees preparing impact submissions for REF2014. These were both secondment positions such as ‘impact lead’, ‘impact champion’ and full-time ones such as impact officer, impact manager. These professionals soon started organizing between themselves at meetings and workshops. Administrative units focused on impact (such as centers for impact and engagement, offices for impact and innovation) were created at many institutions. A body of knowledge on impact evaluation was soon consolidated, along with a specific vocabulary (‘a REF-able piece of research’, ‘pathways to impact’, ‘REF-readiness’ etc.) and sets of resources. Impact evaluation gave raise to the creation of a new type of specialized university employee, who in turn contributed to turning the ‘generation of impact’, as well as the collection and presentation of related data into a veritable field of professional expertize.

In order to ensure timely delivery of CSs to REF2014, institutions established fixed procedures related to the new practice of impact evaluation (periodic monitoring of impact, reporting on impact-related activities), frames (schedules, document templates), forms of knowledge transfer (workshops on impact generation or on writing in the CS genre), data systems and repositories for logging and storing impact-related data, and finally awards and grants for those with achievements (or potential) related to impact. Consultancy companies started offering commercial services focused on research impact, catering to universities and university departments but also to governments and research councils outside the UK looking at solutions for impact evaluation. There is even an online portal with a specific focus on showcasing researchers’ impact (Impact Story).

In consequence, impact became institutionalized as yet another “box to be ticked” on the list of academic achievements, another component of “academic excellence”. Alongside burdens connected to reporting on impact and following regulations in the area, there came also rewards. The rise of impact as a new (or newly-problematised) area of academic life opened up uncharted areas to be explored and opportunities for those who wished to prove themselves. These included jobs for those who had acquired (or could claim) expertize in the area of impact (Donovan, 2017 , p. 3) and research avenues for those studying higher education and evaluation (after all, entirely new evaluation practices rarely emerge, as stressed by Power, 2015 , p. 43). While much writing on the Impact Agenda highlights negative attitudes towards the exercise (Chubb et al., 2016 ; Sayer, 2015 ), equally worth noting are the opportunities that the establishment of a new element of the exercise opened. It is the energy of all those who engage with the concept (even in a critical way) that contributes to making it visible, real and robust.

The establishment of a specialized vocabulary, of formalized requirements and procedures, the creation of dedicated impact-related positions and departments, etc. contribute to the establishment of what can be described as an ‘impact infrastructure’ (comp. Power, 2015 , p. 50) or in terms of Foucauldian governmentality theory as an ‘apparatus’ Footnote 5 . In Foucault’s terminology, ‘apparatus’ refers to a formation which encompasses the entirety of organizing practices (rituals, mechanisms, technologies) but also assumptions, expectations and values. It is the system of relations established between discursive and non-discursive elements as diverse as “institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions” (Foucault, 1980 , p. 194). An apparatus servers a specific strategic function—responding to an urgent need which arises in a concrete time in history—for instance, regulating the behavior of a population.

There is a crucial discursive element to all the elements of the ‘impact apparatus’. While the creation of organizational units and jobs, the establishment of procedures and regulations, participation in meetings and workshops are no doubt ‘hard facts’ of academic life, they are nevertheless brought about and made real in discursive acts of naming, defining, delimiting and evaluating. The aim of the apparatus was to support the newly-established problematization of impact. It did so by operating on many levels: first of all, and most visibly, newly-established procedures enabled a timely and organized submission to the upcoming REF. Secondly, the apparatus guided the behavior of social actors. It did so not only through directive methods (enforcing impact-related requirements) but also through nurturing attitudes and dispositions which are necessary for the notion of impact to take root in academia (for instance via impact training delivered to early-career scholars).

Interviewed actors involved in implementing the policy in institutions recognized their role in orchestrating collective learning. An interviewed impact officer stated:

My feeling is that ultimately my post should not exist. In ten or fifteen years’ time, impact officers should have embedded the message [about impact] firmly enough that they [researchers] don’t need us anymore.

Int7, impact officer, example 4

A similar vision was evoked by a HEFCE policymaker who was asked if the notion of impact had become embedded in academic institutions:

I hope [after the next edition of REF] we will be able to say that it has become embedded. I think the question then will be “have we done enough in terms of case studies? Do we need something very much lighter-touch?” “Do we need anything at all?”—that’s a question. (…) If [impact] is embedded you don’t need to talk about it.

Int20, policy-maker, example 5

Rather than being an aim in itself, the Impact Agenda is a means of altering academic culture so that institutions and individual researchers become more mindful of the societal impacts of their research. The instillment of a “new impact culture” (see Manville et al., 2014 , pp. 24–29) would ensure that academic subjects consider the question of ‘impact’ even outside of the framework of REF. The “culture shift” is to occur not just within institutions but ultimately within the subjects—it is in them that the notion of ‘impact’ has to become embedded. Hence, the final purpose of the apparatus would be to obscure the origins of the notion of ‘impact’ and the related practices, neutralizing the notion itself, and giving a guise of necessity to an evaluative reality which in fact is new and contingent.

The genre of impact case study as element of infrastructure

In this section two questions are addressed: (1) what are the features of the genre (or what is it like?) and (2) what are the functions of the genre (or what does it do? what vision of research does it instil?). In addressing the first question, I look at narrative patterns, as well as lexical and grammatical features of the genre. This part of the study draws on classical genre analysis (Bhatia, 1993 ; Swales, 1998 ) Footnote 6 . The second question builds on the recognition, present in discourse studies since the 1970s’, that genres are not merely classes of texts with similar properties, but also veritable ‘dispositives of communication’. A genre is a means of articulation of legitimate speech; it does not just represent facts or reflect ideologies, it also acts on and alters the context in which it operates (Maingueneau, 2010 , pp. 6–7). This awareness has engendered broader sociological approaches to genre which include their pragmatic functioning in institutional realities (Swales, 1998 ).

The genre of CS differs from other academic genres in that it did not emerge organically, but was established with a set of guidelines and a document template at a precise moment in time. The genre is partly reproductive, as it recycles existing patterns of academic texts, such as journal article, grant application, annual review, as well as case study templates applied elsewhere. The studied corpus is strikingly uniform, testifying to an established command of the genre amongst submitting authors. Identical expressions are used to describe impact across the corpus. Only very rarely is non-standard vocabulary used (e.g., “horizontal” and “vertical” impact rather then “reach” and “significance” of impact). This coherence can be contrasted with a much more diversified corpus of impact CSs submitted in Norway to an analogous exercise (Wróblewska, 2019 ). The rapid consolidation of the genre in British academia can be attributed to the perceived importance of impact evaluation exercise, which lead to the establishment of an impact infrastructure, with dedicated employees tasked with instilling the ‘culture of impact’.

In its nature, the CS is a performative, persuasive genre—its purpose is to convince the ‘ideal readers’ (the evaluators) of the quality of the underpinning research and the ‘breadth and significance’ of the described impact. The main characteristics of the genre stem directly from its persuasive aim. These are discussed below in terms of narrative patterns, and grammatical and lexical features.

Narrative patterns

On the level of narrative, there is an observable reliance on a generic pattern of story-telling frequent in fiction genres, such as myths or legends, namely the Situation-Problem–Response–Evaluation (SPRE) structure (also known as the Problem-Solution pattern, see Hoey, 1994 , 2001 pp. 123–124). This is a well-known narrative which follows the SPRE pattern: a mountain ruled by a dragon (situation) which threats the neighboring town (problem) is sieged by a group of heroes (response), to lead to a happy ending or a new adventure (evaluation). Compare this to an example of the SPRE pattern in a sample impact narrative from the studied corpus:

Mosetén is an endangered language spoken by approximately 800 indigenous people (…) (SITUATION). Many Mosetén children only learn the majority language, Spanish (PROBLEM). Research at [University] has resulted in the development of language materials for the Mosetenes. (…) (RESPONSE). It has therefore had a direct influence in avoiding linguistic and cultural loss. (EVALUATION).

CS40828 Footnote 7

The SPRE pattern is complemented by patterns of Further Impact and Further Corroboration. The first one allows elaborating the narrative, e.g., by showing additional (positive) outcomes, so that the impact is not presented as an isolated event, but rather as the beginning of a series of collaborations, e.g.,:

The research was published in [outlet] (…). This led to an invitation from the United Nations Environment Programme for [researcher](FURTHER IMPACT).

Patterns of ‘further impact’ are often built around linking words, such as: “X led to” ( n  = 78) Footnote 8 , “as a result” ( n in the corpus =31), “leading to” ( n  = 24), “resulting in” ( n  = 13), “followed” (“X followed Y”– n  = 14). Figure 1 below shows a ‘word tree’ for a frequent linking structure “led to”. The size of the terms in the diagram represents frequencies of terms in the corpus. Reading the word tree from left to right enables following typical sentence structures built around the ‘led to’ phrase: research led to an impact (fundamental change/development/establishment/production of…); impact “led to” further impact.

Word tree with string ‘led to'. This word tree with string ‘led to’ was prepared with MaxQDA software. It visualises a frequent sentence structure where research led to impact (fundamental change/ development/ establishment/ production of…) or otherwise how impact “led to” further impact.

The ‘Further Corroboration’ pattern provides additional information which strengthens the previously provided corroborative material:

(T)he book has been used on the (…) course rated outstanding by Ofsted, at the University [Name](FURTHER CORROBORATION).

Grammatical and lexical features

Both on a grammatical and lexical level, there is a visible focus on numbers and size. In making the point on the breadth and significance of impact, CS authors frequently showcase (high) numbers related to the research audience (numbers of copies sold, audience sizes, downloads but also, increasingly, tweets, likes, Facebook friends and followers). Adjectives used in the CSs appear frequently in the superlative or with modifiers which intensify them: “Professor [name] undertook a major Footnote 9 ESRC funded project”; “[the database] now hosts one of the world’s largest and richest collections (…) of corpora”; “work which meets the highest standards of international lexicographical practice”; “this experience (…) is extremely empowering for local communities”, “Reach: Worldwide and huge ”.

Use of ‘positive words’ constitutes part of the same phenomenon. These appear often in the main narrative on research and impact, and even more frequently in quoted testimonials. Research is described in the CSs as being new, unique and important with the use of words such as “innovative” ( n  = 29), “influential” ( n  = 16), “outstanding” ( n  = 12), “novel” ( n  = 10), “excellent” ( n  = 8), “ground-breaking” ( n  = 7), “tremendous” ( n  = 4), “path-breaking” ( n  = 2), etc. The same qualities are also rendered descriptively, with the use of words that can be qualified as boosters e.g., “[the research] has enabled a complete rethink of the relationship between [areas]”; “ vitally important [research]”.

Novelty of research is also frequently highlighted with the adjective “first” appearing in the corpus 70 times Footnote 10 . While in itself “first” is not positive or negative, it carries a big charge in the academic world where primacy of discovery is key. Authors often boast about having for the first time produced a type of research—“this was the first handbook of discourse studies written”…, studied a particular area—“This is the first text-oriented discourse analytic study”…, compiled a type of data—“[We] provid[ed] for the first time reliable nationwide data”; “[the] project created the first on-line database of…”, or proven a thesis: “this research was the first to show that”…

Another striking lexical characteristic of the CSs is the presence of fixed expressions in the narrative on research impact. I refer to these as ‘impact speak’. There are several collocations with ‘impact’, the most frequent being “impact on” ( n  = 103) followed by the ‘type’ of impact achieved (impact on knowledge), area/topic (impact on curricula) or audience (Impact on Professional Interpreters). This collocation often includes qualifiers of impact such as “significant”, “wide”, “primary”,“secondary”, “broader”, “key”, and boosters: great, positive, wide, notable, substantial, worldwide, major, fundamental, immense etc. Impact featured in the corpus also as a transitive verb ( n  = 22) in the forms “impacted” and “impacting”—e.g., “[research] has (…) impacted on public values and discourse”. This is interesting, as use of ‘impact’ as a verb is still often considered colloquial. Verb collocations with ‘impact’ are connected to achieving influence (“lead to..”, “maximize…”, “deliver impact”) and proving the existence and quality of impact (“to claim”, “to corroborate” impact, “to vouch for” impact, “to confirm” impact, to “give evidence” for impact). Another salient collocation is “pathways to impact” ( n  = 14), an expression describing channels of interacting with the public, in the corpus occasionally shortened to just “pathways” e.g., “The pathways have been primarily via consultancy”. This phrase has most likely made its way to the genre of CS from the Research Councils UK ‘Pathways to Impact’ format introduced as part of grant applications in 2009 (discontinued in early 2020).

On a syntactic level, CSs are rich in parallel constructions of enumeration, for instance: “ (t)ranslators, lawyers, schools, colleges and the wider public of Welsh speakers are among (…) users [of research]”; “the research has benefited a broad, international user base including endangered language speakers and community members, language activists, poets and others ”; [the users of the research come] “from various countries including India, Turkey, China, South Korea, Venezuela, Uzbekistan, and Japan ”. Listing, alongside providing figures, is one of the standard ways of signaling the breadth and significance of impact. Both lists and superlatives support the persuasive function of the genre. In terms of verbal forms, passive verbs are clearly favored and personal pronouns (“I, we”) are avoided: “research was conducted”, “advice was provided”, “contracts were undertaken”.

Vision of research promoted by the genre of CS

Impact CS is a new, influential genre which affects its academic context by celebrating and inviting a particular vision of successful research and impact. It sets a standard for capturing and describing a newly-problematized academic object. This standard will be a point of reference for future authors of CSs. Hence, it is worth taking a look at the vision on research it instills.

The SPRE pattern used in the studied CSs favors a vision of research that is linear: work proceeds from research question to results without interference. The Situation and Problem elements are underplayed in favor of elaborate descriptions of the researchers’ ‘Reactions’ (research and outreach/impact activities) and flattering ‘Evaluations’ (descriptions of effects of the research and data supporting these claims). Most narratives are devoid of challenges (the ‘Problem’ element is underplayed, possible drawbacks and failures in the research process are mentioned sporadically). Furthermore, narratives are clearly goal-oriented: impact is shown as included in the research design from the beginning (e.g., impact is frequently mentioned already in section 2 ‘Underpinning research’, rather than the latter one ‘Details of the impact’). Elements of chance, luck, serendipity in the research process are erased—this is reinforced by the presence of patterns of ‘further proof’ and ‘further corroboration’. As such, the bulk of studied CSs channel a vision of what is referred to in Science Studies as ‘normal’ (deterministic, linear) science (Kuhn, 1970 , pp. 10–42). From a purely literary perspective this makes for rather dull narratives: “fairy-tales of researcher-heroes… but with no dragons to be slain” (Selby, 2016 ).

The few CSs which do discuss obstacles in the research process or in securing impact stand out as strikingly diverse from the rest of the corpus. Paradoxically, while apparently ‘weakening’ the argumentation, they render it more engaging and convincing. This effect has been observed also in in an analogous corpus of Norwegian CSs which tend to problematize the pathway from research to impact to a much higher degree (Wróblewska, 2019 , pp. 34–35).

The lexical and grammatical features of the CSs—the proliferation of ‘positive words’, including superlatives, and the adjective “first”— contribute to an idealization of the research process. The documents channel a vision of academia where there is no place for simply ‘good’ research—all CSs seem based on ‘excellent’ and ‘ground-breaking’ projects. The quality of research underpinning impact is recognized in CSs in a straightforward, simplistic way (quotation numbers, peer reviewed papers, publications in top journals, submission to REF), which contributes to normalizing the view of research quality as easily measurable. Similarly, testimonials related to impact are not all equal. Sources of corroboration cited in CSs were carefully selected to appear prestigious and trustworthy. Testimonials and statements from high-ranking officials (but also ‘celebrities’ such as famous intellectuals or political leaders) were particularly sought-after. The end effect reinforces a solidified vision of a hierarchy of worth and trustworthiness in academia.

The prevalence of impersonal verbal forms suggests an de-personalized vision of the research process (“work was conducted”, “papers were published”, “evidence was given…”), where individual factors such as personal aspirations, constraints or ambitions are effaced. The importance given to numbers contributes to a strengthening of a ‘quantifiable’ idea of impact. This is in line with a trend observed in academic writing in general – the inflation of ‘positive words’ (boosters and superlatives) (Vinkers et al., 2015 ). This tendency is amplified in the genre of CS, particularly in its British iteration. In a Norwegian corpus claims to excellence of research and breadth and significance of impact were significantly more modest (Wróblewska, 2019 , pp. 28–30).

The genre of impact CS is a core binding component of the impact infrastructure: all the remaining elements of this formation are mutually connected by a common aim – the generation of CSs. While the CS genre, together with the encompassing impact infrastructure, is vested with a seductive/coercive force, the subjects whose work it represents and who produce it take different positions in its face.

Academics’ positioning towards the Impact Agenda

Academics position themselves towards the concept of impact in many explicit and implicit ways. ‘Positioning’ is understood here as performance-based claims to identity and subjectivity (Davies and Harré, 1990 , Harré and Van Langenhove, 1998 ). Rejecting the idea of stable “inherent” identities, positioning theorists stress how different roles are invoked and enacted in a continuous game of positioning (oneself) and being positioned (by others). Positioning in academic contexts may take the form of indexing identities such as “professor”, “linguist”, “research manager”, “SSH scholar”, “intellectual”, “maverick” etc. (Angermuller, 2013 ; Baert, 2012 , Hamann, 2016 , Hah, 2019 , 2020 ). Also many daily interactions which do not include explicit identity claims involve subject positioning, as they carry value judgments, thereby also evoking counter-statements and colliding social contexts (Tirado and Galvaz, 2008 , pp. 32–45).

My analysis draws attention to the process of incorporating impact into academic subjectivities. I look firstly at the mechanics of academics’ positioning towards impact: the game of opposite discursive acts of distancing and endorsement. Academics reject the notion of ‘impact’ by ironizing, stage management and use of metaphors. Conversely, they may actively incorporate impact into their presentation of academic ‘self’. This discursive engagement with the notion of impact can be described as ‘subjectivation’, i.e., the process whereby subjects re(establish) themselves in relation to the grid of power/knowledge in which they function (in this case the emergent ‘impact infrastructure’).

The relatively high response rate of this study (~50%) and the visible eagerness of respondents to discuss the question of impact suggest an emotional response of academics to the topic of impact evaluation. Yet, respondents visibly struggled with the notion of ‘impact’, often distancing themselves from it through discursive devices, the most salient being ironizing, use of metaphors and stage management.

Ironizing the notion of impact

In many cases, before proceeding to explain their attitude to impact, interviewed academics elaborated on the notion of impact, explaining how the notion applied to their discipline or field and what it meant for them personally. This often meant rejecting the official definition of impact or redefining the concept. In excerpt 6, the interviewee picks up the notion:

Impact… I don’t even like the word! (…) It sounds [like] a very aggressive word, you know, impact, impact ! I don’t want to imp act ! What you want, and what has happened with [my research] really is… more of a dialogue.

Int21, academic, example 6

Another respondent brought up the notion of impact when discussing ethical challenges arising from public dissemination of research.

When you manage to go through that and navigate successfully, and keep producing research, to be honest, that’s impact for me.

Int9, academic, example 7

An analogous distinction was made by a third respondent who discussed the effect of his work on an area of professional activity. While, as he explained, this application of his research has been a source of personal satisfaction, he refused to describe his work in terms of ‘impact’. He stressed that the type of influence he aims for does not lend itself to producing a CS (is not ‘REF-able’):

That’s not impact in the way this government wants it! Cause I have no evidence. I just changed someone’s view. Is that impact? Yes, for me it is. But it is not impact as understood by the bloody REF.

Int3, academic, example 8

These are but three examples of many in the studied corpus where speakers take up the notion of impact to redefine or nuance it, often juxtaposing it with adjacent notions of public engagement, dissemination, outreach, social responsibility, activism etc. A previous section highlighted how the definition of impact was collectively constructed by a community in a process of problematization. The above-cited examples illustrate the reverse of this phenomenon—namely, how individual social actors actively relate to an existing notion in a process of denying, re-defining, and delimiting.

These opposite tendencies of narrowing down and again widening a definition are in line with the theory of the double role of descriptions in discourse. Definitions are both constructions and constructive —while they are effects of discourse, they can also become ‘building blocks’ for ideas, identities and attitudes (Potter, 1996 , p. 99). By participating in impact-related workshops academics ‘reify’ the existing, official definition by enacting it within the impact infrastructure. Fragments cited above exemplify the opposite strategy of undermining the adequacy of the description or ‘ironizing’ the notion (Ibid, p.107). The tension between reifying and ironizing points to the winding, conflictual nature of the process of accepting and endorsing the new ‘culture of impact’. A recognition of the multiple meanings given to the notion of ‘impact’ by policy-makers, academic managers and scholars may caution us in relation to studies on attitudes towards impact which take the notion at face value.

Respondents nuanced the notion of impact also through the use of metaphors. In discourse analysis metaphors are seen in not just as stylistic devices but as vehicles for attitudes and values (Mussolf, 2004 , 2012 ). Many of the respondents make remarks on the ‘realness’ or ‘seriousness’ of the exercise, emphasizing its conventional, artificial nature. Interviewees admitted that claims made in the CSs tend to be exaggerated. At the same time, they stressed that this was in line with the convention of the genre, the nature of which was clear for authors and panelists alike. The practice of impact evaluation was frequently represented metaphorically as a game. See excerpt 9 below:

To be perfectly honest, I view the REF and all of this sort of regulatory mechanisms as something of a game that everybody has to play. The motivation [to submit to REF] was really: if they are going to make us jump through that hoop, we are clever enough to jump through any hoops that any politician can set.

Int14, academic, example 9

Regarding the relation of the narratives in the CSs to truth see example 10:

[A CS] is creative stuff. Given that this is anonymous, I can say that it’s just creative fiction. I wouldn’t say we [authors of CSs] lie, because we don’t, but we kind of… spin. We try to show a reality which, by some stretch of imagination is there. (It’s) a truth. I’m not lying. Can it be shown in different ways? Yes, it can, and then it would be possibly less. But I choose, for obvious reasons, to say that my external funding is X million, which is a truth.

Int3, academic, example 10

The metaphors of “playing a game”, “jumping through hoops” suggest a competition which one does not enter voluntarily (“everybody has to play it”) while those of “creative fiction”, “spinning”, presenting “ a truth” point to an element of power struggle over defining the rules of the game. Doing well in the exercise can mean outsmarting those who establish the framework (politicians) by “performing” particularly well. This can be achieved by eagerly fulfilling the requirements of the genre of CS, and at the same time maintaining a disengaged position from the “regulatory mechanism” of the impact infrastructure.

Stage management

Academics’ positioning towards impact plays out also through management of ‘stage’ of discursive performance, often taking the form of frontstage and backstage markers (in the sense of Goffman’s dramaturgy–1969, pp. 92–122). For instance, references to the confidential nature of the interview (see example 10 above) or the expression “to be perfectly honest” (example 9), are backstage markers. Most of the study’s participants have authored narratives about their work in the strict, formalized genre of CS, thereby performing on the Goffmanian ‘front stage’ for an audience composed of senior management, REF panelists and, ultimately, perhaps “politicians”, “the government”. However, when speaking on the ‘back stage’ context of an anonymous interview, many researchers actively reject the accuracy of the submitted CSs as representations of their work. Many express a nuanced, often critical, view on impact.

Respondents frequently differentiate between the way they perceive ‘impact’ on different ‘levels’, or from the viewpoint of their different ‘roles’ (scholar, research manager, citizen…). One academic can hold different (even contradictory) views on the assessment of impact. Someone who strongly criticizes the Impact Agenda as an administrative practice might be supportive of ‘impact’ on a personal level or vice versa. See the answer of a linguist asked whether ‘impact’ enters into play when he assesses the work of other academics:

When I look at other people’s work work as a linguist, I don’t worry about that stuff. (…) As an administrator, I think that linguistics, like many sciences, has neglected the public. (…) At some point, when we would be talking about promotion (…) I would want to take a look at the impact of their work. (…) And that would come into my thinking in different times.

Int13, academic, example 11

Interestingly, in the studied corpus there isn’t a simple correlation between conducting research which easily ‘lends itself to impact’ and a positive overall attitude to impact evaluation.

Subjectivation

The most interesting data excerpts in this study are perhaps the ones where respondents wittingly or unwittingly expose their hesitations, uncertainties and struggles in positioning themselves towards the concept of impact. In theoretical terms, these can be interpreted as symptoms of an ongoing process of ‘subjectivation’.

‘Subjectivation’ is another concept rooted in Foucauldian governmentality theory. According to Foucault, individuals come to the ‘truth’ about their subjectivity by actively relating to a pre-existent set of codes, patterns, rules and rituals suggested by their culture or social group (Castellani, 1999 , pp. 257–258; Foucault, 1988 , p. 11). The term ‘subjectivation’ refers to the process in which an individual establishes oneself in relation to the grid of power/knowledge in which they function. This includes actions subjects take on their performance, competences, attitudes, self-esteem, desires etc. in order to improve, regulate or reform themselves (Dean, 1999 , p. 20; Lemke, 2002 ; Rose, 1999 , p. xii).

Academics often distance themselves from the assessment exercise, as shown in previous sections. And yet, the data hints that having taken part in the evaluation and engaged with the impact infrastructure was not without influence on the way they present their research, also in nonofficial, non-evaluative contexts, such as the research interview. This effect is visible in vocabulary choices—interviewees routinely spoke about ‘pathways to impact’, ‘impact generation’, ‘REF-ability’ etc. ‘Impact speak’ has made its way into every-day, casual academic conversations. Beyond changes to vocabulary, there is a more deep-running process—the discursive work of reframing one’s research in view of the evaluation exercise and in its terms. Many respondents seemed to adjust the presentation of their research, its focus and aims, when the topic of REF surfaced in the exchange. Interestingly, such shifts occurred even in the case of respondents who did not submit to the exercise, for instance because they were already retired, or because they refused to take part in it. For those who have submitted CSs to REF, the effect of having re-framed the narrative of their research in this new genre often had a tremendous effect.

Below presented is the example of a scholar who did not initially volunteer to submit a CS, and was reluctant to take part when she was encouraged by a supervisor. During the interview the respondent distanced herself from the exercise and the concept of impact through the discursive devices of ironizing, metaphors, stage management, and humor. The respondent was consistently critical towards impact in course of the interview. Therefore the researcher expected a firm negative answer to the final question: “did the exercise affect your perception of your work?”. See excerpt 13 below for her the respondent’s somewhat surprising answer.

Do you know what? It did, it did, it did. Almost a kind of a massive influence it had. Maybe this is the answer that you didn’t see coming ((laughing)). (…) It did [have an influence] but maybe from a different route as for people who were signed up for [the REF submission] from the outset. (…) When I saw this [CS narrative] being shaped up and people [who gave testimonies] I kind of thought: goodness me! And there were other moving things.

Int21, academic, example 13

Through the preparation of the CS and particularly through familiarizing herself with the underpinning testimonials, the respondent gained greater awareness of an area of practice which was influenced by her research. The interviewee’s attitude changed not only in the course of the evaluation exercise, but also—as if mirroring this process—during the interview. In both cases, elements which were up to that moment implicit (the response of end-users of the work, the researcher’s own emotional response to the exercise and to the written-up narrative of her impact) were made explicit. It is the process of recounting one’s story in a different framework, according to other norms and values (and in a different genre) that triggers the process of subjectivation. This example of a change of attitude in an initially reluctant subject demonstrates the difficulty in opposing the overwhelming force of the impact infrastructure, particularly in view of the (sometimes unexpected) rewards that it offers.

Many respondents found taking part in the REF submission—including the discursive work on the narrative of their research—an exhausting experience. In some cases however, the process of reshaping one’s academic identity triggered by the Agenda was a welcome development. Several interviewees claimed that the exercise valorized their extra-academic involvement which previously went unnoticed at their department. These scholars embraced the genre of CS as an opportunity to present their impact-related activities as an inherent part of their academic work. One academic stated:

At last, I can take my academic identity and my activist identity and roll them up into one.

Int11, academic, example 14

Existing studies have focused on situating academics’ attitudes towards the Impact Agenda on a positive-negative scale (e.g., Chubb et al., 2016 ), and studied divergences depending on career stage or disciplinary affiliation etc. (Chikoore, 2016 ; Chikoore and Probets, 2016 ; Weinstein et al., 2019 ). My data shows that there are many dimensions to each academic’s view of impact. Scholars have complex (sometimes even contradictory) views on ‘impact’ and the discursive work in incorporating impact into a coherent academic ‘self’ is ongoing. While an often overwhelming ‘impact infrastructure’ looms over professional discursive positioning practices, academic subjects are by no means passive recipients of governmental new-managerial policies. On the contrary, they are agents actively involved in accepting, rejecting and negotiating them on a local level—both in front-stage and back-stage contexts.

Looking at the front stage, most CSs seem compliant in their eagerness to demonstrate impact in all its breadth and significance. The documents showcase large numbers and data once considered trivial in the academic context (Facebook likes, Twitter followers, endorsement of celebrities…) and faithfully follow the policy documents in adopting ‘impact speak’. Interviews with academics paint a different picture: the respondents may be playing according to the rules of the evaluation “game”, but they are playing consciously , often in an emotionally detached, distanced manner. Other scholars adjust to the regulations, but not in the name of compliance, but in view of an alignment between the goals of the Agenda and their personal ones. Finally, some academics perceive the evaluation of impact as an opportunity to re-position themselves professionally or re-claim areas of activity which were long considered non-essential for an academic career, like public engagement, outreach and activism.

Concluding remarks

The initial, dynamic phases of the introduction of impact to British academia represent, in terms of Foucauldian theory, the phase of ‘emergence’. This notion draws attention to the moment when discursive concepts (‘impact’, ‘impact case study’…) surface and consolidate. It is in these terms that the previously non-regulated area of academic activity will be thereon described, assessed, evaluated. New notions, definitions, procedures related to impact and the genre of CS will continue to circulate, emerging in other evaluation exercises, at other institutions, in other countries.

The stage of emergence is characterized by a struggle of forces, an often violent conflict between opposing ideas—“it is their eruption, the leap from the wings to centre stage” (Foucault, 1984 , p. 84). The shape that an emergent idea will eventually take is the effect of clashes of these forces and it does not fully depend on any of them. Importantly, emergence is merely “the entry of forces” (p. 84), and “not the final term of historical development” (p. 83). For Foucault, a concept, in its inception, is essentially an empty word, which addresses the needs of a field that is being problematized and satisfies the powers which target it. A problematization (of an object, practice, area of activity) is a response to particular desires or problems—these constitute an instigation, but do not determine the shape of the problematization. As Foucault urges “to one single set of difficulties, several responses can be made” (2003, p. 24).

With the emergence of the Impact Agenda, an area of activity which has always existed (the collaboration of academics with the non-academic world) was targeted, delimited and described with new notions in a process of problematization. The notion of ‘impact’ together with the genre created for capturing it became the core of an administrative machinery—the impact infrastructure. This was a new reality that academics had to quickly come to terms with, positioning themselves towards it in a process of subjectification.

The run-up to REF2014 was a crucial and defining phase, but it was only the first stage of a longer process—the emergence of the concept of ‘impact’, the establishment of basic rules which would govern its generation, documentation, evaluation. Let’s recall Foucault’s argument that “rules are empty in themselves, violent and unfinalized; they are impersonal and can be bent to any purpose. The successes of history belong to those who are capable of seizing these rules”… (pp. 85–86). The rules embodied in the REF guidelines, the new genre of CS, the principals of ‘impact speak’ were in the first instance still “empty and unfinalized”. It was up to those subject to the rules to fill them with meaning.

The data analyzed in this study shows that despite dealing with a new powerful problematization and functioning in the framework of a complex infrastructure, academics continue to be active and highly reflective subjects, who discursively negotiate key concepts of the impact infrastructure and their own position within it. It will be fascinating to study the emergence of analogous evaluation systems in other countries and institutions. ‘Impact infrastructure’ and ‘genre’ are two excellent starting points for an analysis of ensuing changes to academic realities and subjectivities.

Data availability

The interview data analyzed in this paper is not publicly available, due to the confidential nature of the interview data. It can be made available by the corresponding author in anonymised form on reasonable request. The cited case studies were sourced from the REF database ( https://www.ref.ac.uk/2014/ ) and may be consulted online. The coded dataset is considered part of the analysis (and hence protected by copyright), but may be made available on reasonable request.

Most of the studied documents—71 CSs—have been submitted to the Unit of Assessment (UoA) 28—Linguistics and Modern Languages, the remaining seven have been submitted to five different UoAs but fall under the field of linguistics.

Some interviewees were involved in REF in more than just one role. ‘Authors’ of CSs authored the documents to a different degree, some (no = 5) were also engaged in the evaluation process in managerial roles.

Words underlined in interview excerpts were stressed by the speaker.

When citing interview data I give numbers attributed to individual interviews in the corpus, type of interviewee, and number of cited example.

‘Apparatus’ is one of the existing translations of the French ‘dispositif’, another one is ‘historical construct’ (Sembou, 2015 , p. 38) or ‘grid of intelligibility’ (Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1983 , p. 121). The French original is also sometimes used in English texts. In this paper, I use ‘apparatus’ and ‘infrastructure’, as the notion of ‘infrastructure’ has already become current in referring to resources dedicated to impact generation at universities, both in scholarly literature (Power, 2015 ) and in managerial ‘impact speak’.

A full version of the analysis may be found in Wróblewska, 2018 .

CS numbers are those found in the REF impact case study base: https://impact.ref.ac.uk/casestudies/ . I only provide CS numbers for cited fragments of one sentence or longer; exact sources for cited phrases may be given on request or easily identified in the CS database.

The figures given for appearances of certain elements of the genre in the studied corpus are drawn from the computer-assisted qualitative analysis conducted with MaxQDA software. They serve as an illustration of the relative frequency of particular elements for the reader, but since they are not the result of a rigorous corpus analytical study of a larger body of CSs, the researcher does can not claim statistical relevance.

Words underlined in CS excerpts are emphasized by the author of the analysis.

Number of occurrences of string ‘the first’ in the context of quality of research, excluding phrases like “the first workshop took place…” etc.

Angermuller J (2013) How to become an academic philosopher: academic discourse as a multileveled positioning practice. Sociol Hist 2:263–289

Google Scholar  

Angermuller J (2014a) Poststructuralist discourse analysis. subjectivity in enunciative pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills/Basingstoke

Angermuller J (2014b) Subject positions in polyphonic discourse. In:Angermuller J, Maingueneau D, Wodak R (eds) The Discourse Studies Reader. Main currents in theory and analysis. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, p 176–186

Baert P (2012) Positioning theory and intellectual interventions. J Theory Soc Behav 42(3):304–324

Article   Google Scholar  

Benneworth P, Gulbrandsen M, Hazelkorn E (2016) The impact and future of arts and humanities research. Palgrave Macmillan, London

Book   Google Scholar  

Bhatia VK (1993) Analysing genre: language use in professional settings. Longman, London

Bulaitis Z (2017) Measuring impact in the humanities: Learning from accountability and economics in a contemporary history of cultural value. Pal Commun 3(7). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0002-7

Cameron L, Maslen R, Todd Z, Maule J, Stratton P, Stanley N (2009) The discourse dynamics approach to metaphor and metaphor-led discourse analysis. Metaphor Symbol 24(2):63–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480902830821

Castellani B (1999) Michel Foucault and symbolic interactionism: the making of a new theory of interaction. Stud Symbolic Interact 22:247–272

Chikoore L (2016) Perceptions, motivations and behaviours towards ‘research impact’: a cross-disciplinary perspective. Loughborough University. Loughborough University Institutional Repository. https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/22942 . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Chikoore L, Probets S (2016) How are UK academics engaging the public with their research? a cross-disciplinary perspective. High Educ Q 70(2):145–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12088

Chubb J, Watermeyer R, Wakeling P (2016) Fear and loathing in the Academy? The role of emotion in response to an impact agenda in the UK and Australia. High Educ Res Dev 36(3):555–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1288709

Chubb J, Watermeyer R (2017) Artifice or integrity in the marketization of research impact? Investigating the moral economy of (pathways to) impact statements within research funding proposals in the UK and Australia. Stud High Educ 42(12):2360–2372

Davies B, Harré R (1990) Positioning: the discursive production of selves. J Theory Soc Behav 20(1):43–63

Dean MM (1999) Governmentality: power and rule in modern society. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California

Derrick G (2018) The evaluators’ eye: Impact assessment and academic peer review. Palgrave Macmillan, London

Donovan C (2008) The Australian Research Quality Framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research. New Dir for Eval 118:47–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.260

Donovan C (2011) State of the art in assessing research impact: introduction to a special issue. Res. Eval. 20(3):175–179. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X13118583635918

Donovan C (2017) For ethical ‘impactology’. J Responsible Innov 6(1):78–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1300756

Dreyfus HL, Rabinow P (1983) Michel Foucault: beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

European Science Foundation (2012) The Challenges of Impact Assessment. Working Group 2: Impact Assessment. ESF Archives. http://archives.esf.org/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&g=0&t=1609373495&hash=08da8bb115e95209bcea2af78de6e84c0052f3c8&file=/fileadmin/be_user/CEO_Unit/MO_FORA/MOFORUM_Eval_PFR__II_/Publications/WG2_new.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Fairclough N (1989) Language and power. Longman, London/New York

Fairclough N (1992) Discourse and social change. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK/Cambridge

Fairclough N (1993) Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The Universities. Discourse Soc 4(2):133–168

Fairclough N, Mulderrig J, Wodak R (1997) Critical discourse analysis. In: Van Dijk TA (ed) Discourse studies: a multidisciplinary introduction. SAGE Publications Ltd, New York, pp. 258–284

Foucault M (1980) The confession of the flesh. In: Gordon C (ed) Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. Vintage Books, New York

Foucault M (1984) Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In: Rabinow P (ed) The Foucault Reader. Pantheon Books, New York

Foucault M (1988) Politics, philosophy, culture: Interviews and other writings, 1977–1984. Routledge, New York

Foucault M (1990) The use of pleasure. The history of sexuality, vol. 2. Vintage Books, New York

Gee J (2015) Social linguistics and literacies ideology in discourses. Taylor and Francis, Florence

Gilbert GN, Mulkay M (1984) Opening Pandora’s Box: a sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Goffman E (1969) The presentation of self in everyday life. Allen Lane The Pinguin Press, London

Grant J, Brutscher, PB, Kirk S, Butler L, Wooding S (2009) Capturing Research Impacts. A review of international practice. Rand Corporation. RAND Europe. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/documented_briefings/2010/RAND_DB578.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Gunn A, Mintrom M (2016) Higher education policy change in Europe: academic research funding and the impact agenda. Eur Educ 48(4):241–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10564934.2016.1237703

Gunn A, Mintrom M (2018) Measuring research impact in Australia. Aust Universit Rev 60(1):9–15

Hah S (2019) Disciplinary positioning struggles: perspectives from early career academics. J Appl Linguist Prof Pract 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1558/jalpp.32820

Hah S (2020) Valuation discourses and disciplinary positioning struggles of academic researchers–a case study of ‘maverick’ academics. Pal Commun 6(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0427-2

Hamann J (2016) “Let us salute one of our kind.” How academic obituaries consecrate research biographies. Poetics 56:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.02.005

Harré R, Van Langenhove L (1998) Positioning theory: moral contexts of international action. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester

HEFCE (2015) Research Excellence Framework 2014: Manager’s report. HEFCE. https://www.ref.ac.uk/2014/media/ref/content/pub/REF_managers_report.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

HEFCE (2011) Assessment framework and guidance on submissions. HEFCE: https://www.ref.ac.uk/2014/media/ref/content/pub/assessmentframeworkandguidanceonsubmissions/GOS%20including%20addendum.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Hoey M (1994) Signalling in discourse: A functional analysis of a common discourse pattern in written and spoken English. In: Coulthard M (ed) Advances in written text analysis. Routledge, London

Hoey M (2001) Textual interaction: an introduction to written discourse analysis. Routledge, London

Hong Kong University Grants Committee (2018) Research Assessment Exercise 2020. Draft General Panel Guidelines. UGC. https://www.ugc.edu.hk/doc/eng/ugc/rae/2020/draft_gpg_feb18.pdf Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Hyland K (2009) Academic discourse English in a global context. Continuum, London

King’s College London and Digital Science (2015) The nature, scale and beneficiaries of research impact: an initial analysis of Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 impact case studies. Dera: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/22540/1/Analysis_of_REF_impact.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Lemke T (2002) Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Rethink Marx 14(3):49–64

Maingueneau D (2010) Le discours politique et son « environnement ». Mots. Les langages du politique 94. https://doi.org/10.4000/mots.19868

Manville C, Jones MM, Frearson M, Castle-Clarke S, Henham ML, Gunashekar S, Grant J (2014) Preparing impact submissions for REF 2014: An evaluation. Findings and observations. RAND Corporation: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR726.html . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Manville C, Guthrie S, Henham ML, Garrod B, Sousa S, Kirtley A, Castle-Clarke S, Ling T (2015) Assessing impact submissions for REF 2014: an evaluation. Rand Corporation. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1000/RR1032/RAND_RR1032.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Myers G (1985) Texts as knowledge claims: the social construction of two biology articles. Soc Stud Sci 15(4):593–630

Myers G (1989) The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Appl Linguist 10(1):1–35

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Musolff A (2004) Metaphor and political discourse. Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

Musolff A (2012) The study of metaphor as part of critical discourse analysis. Crit. Discourse Stud. 9(3):301–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2012.688300

National Co-ordinating Centre For Public Engagement (2014) After the REF-Taking Stock: summary of feedback. NCCFPE. https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publication/nccpe_after_the_ref_write_up_final.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Potter J (1996) Representing reality: discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Sage, London

Power M (2015) How accounting begins: object formation and the accretion of infrastructure. Account Org Soc 47:43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2015.10.005

Research Council of Norway (2017) Evaluation of the Humanities in Norway. Report from the Principal Evaluation Committee. The Research Council of Norway. Evaluation Division for Science. RCN. https://www.forskningsradet.no/siteassets/publikasjoner/1254027749230.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Research Council of Norway (2018) Evaluation of the Social Sciences in Norway. Report from the Principal Evaluation Committee. The Research Council of Norway.Division for Science and the Research System RCN. https://www.forskningsradet.no/siteassets/publikasjoner/1254035773885.pdf Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Robinson D (2013) Introducing performative pragmatics. Routledge, London/New York

Rose N (1999) Governing the soul: the shaping of the private self. Free Association Books, Sidmouth

Sayer D (2015) Rank hypocrisies: the insult of the REF. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Selby J (2016) Critical IR and the Impact Agenda, Paper presented at Pais Impact Conference. Warwick University, Coventry, pp. 22–23 November 2016

Sembou E (2015) Hegel’s Phenomenology and Foucault’s Genealogy. Routledge, New York

Stern N (2016) Building on Success and Learning from Experience. an Independent Review of the Research Excellence Framework. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Assets Publishing Service. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/541338/ind-16-9-ref-stern-review.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Swales JM (1998) Other floors, other voices: a textography of a small university building. Routledge, London/New York

Swales JM (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Swales JM (2011) Aspects of Article Introductions. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

Tirado F, Gálvez A (2008) Positioning theory and discourse analysis: some tools for social interaction analysis. Historical Social Res 8(2):224–251

Vinkers CH, Tijdink JK, Otte WM (2015) Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis. BMJ 351:h6467. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h6467

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

VSNU–Association of Universities in the Netherlands (2016) Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP). Protocol for Research Assessments in the Netherlands. VSNU. https://vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Domeinen/Onderzoek/SEP2015-2021.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Watermeyer R (2012) From engagement to impact? Articulating the public value of academic research. Tertiary Educ Manag 18(2):115–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2011.641578

Watermeyer R (2014) Issues in the articulation of ‘impact’: the responses of UK academics to ‘impact’ as a new measure of research assessment. Stud High Educ 39(2):359–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.709490

Watermeyer R (2016) Impact in the REF: issues and obstacles. Stud High Educ 41(2):199–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.915303

Warner M (2015) Learning my lesson. London Rev Books 37(6):8–14

Weinstein N, Wilsdon J, Chubb J, Haddock G (2019) The Real-time REF review: a pilot study to examine the feasibility of a longitudinal evaluation of perceptions and attitudes towards REF 2021. SocArXiv: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/78aqu/ . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Wróblewska MN, Angermuller J (2017) Dyskurs akademicki jako praktyka społeczna. Zwrot dyskursywny i społeczne badania szkolnictwa wyższego. Kultura–Społeczeństwo–Edukacja 12(2):105–128. https://doi.org/10.14746/kse.2017.12.510.14746/kse.2017.12.5

Wróblewska MN (2017) Ewaluacja wpływu społecznego nauki. Przykład REF 2014 a kontekst polski. NaukaiSzkolnicwo Wyższe 49(1):79–104. https://doi.org/10.14746/nisw.2017.1.5

Wróblewska MN (2018) The making of the Impact Agenda. A study in discourse and governmnetality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Warwick University

Wróblewska MN (2019) Impact evaluation in Norway and in the UK: A comparative study, based on REF 2014 and Humeval 2015-2017. ENRESSH working paper series 1. University of Twente Research Information. https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/102033214/ENRESSH_01_2019.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Download references

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Prof. Johannes Angermuller, the supervisor of the doctoral dissertation in which many of the ideas discussed in this paper were first presented. Prof. Angermuller’s guidance and support were essential for the development of my understanding of the importance of discourse in evaluative contexts. I also thank the reviewers of the aforementioned thesis, Prof. Jo Angouri and Prof. Srikant Sarangi for their feedback which helped me develop and clarify the concepts which I use in my analysis, as well as its presentation. Any errors or omissions are of course my own. The research presented in this paper received funding from the European Research Council (DISCONEX project 313,172). The underpinning research was also facilitated by the author’s membership in EU Cost Action “European Network for Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and the Humanities”(ENRESSH CA15137-E). Particularly advice and encouragement recieved from the late prof. Paul Benneworth was invaluable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

Marta Natalia Wróblewska

National Centre for Research and Development–NCBR, Warsaw, Poland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marta Natalia Wróblewska .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wróblewska, M.N. Research impact evaluation and academic discourse. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8 , 58 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00727-8

Download citation

Received : 12 May 2020

Accepted : 11 January 2021

Published : 02 March 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00727-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, 3 strong argumentative essay examples, analyzed.

General Education

Need to defend your opinion on an issue? Argumentative essays are one of the most popular types of essays you’ll write in school. They combine persuasive arguments with fact-based research, and, when done well, can be powerful tools for making someone agree with your point of view. If you’re struggling to write an argumentative essay or just want to learn more about them, seeing examples can be a big help.

After giving an overview of this type of essay, we provide three argumentative essay examples. After each essay, we explain in-depth how the essay was structured, what worked, and where the essay could be improved. We end with tips for making your own argumentative essay as strong as possible.

What Is an Argumentative Essay?

An argumentative essay is an essay that uses evidence and facts to support the claim it’s making. Its purpose is to persuade the reader to agree with the argument being made.

A good argumentative essay will use facts and evidence to support the argument, rather than just the author’s thoughts and opinions. For example, say you wanted to write an argumentative essay stating that Charleston, SC is a great destination for families. You couldn’t just say that it’s a great place because you took your family there and enjoyed it. For it to be an argumentative essay, you need to have facts and data to support your argument, such as the number of child-friendly attractions in Charleston, special deals you can get with kids, and surveys of people who visited Charleston as a family and enjoyed it. The first argument is based entirely on feelings, whereas the second is based on evidence that can be proven.

The standard five paragraph format is common, but not required, for argumentative essays. These essays typically follow one of two formats: the Toulmin model or the Rogerian model.

• The Toulmin model is the most common. It begins with an introduction, follows with a thesis/claim, and gives data and evidence to support that claim. This style of essay also includes rebuttals of counterarguments.
• The Rogerian model analyzes two sides of an argument and reaches a conclusion after weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each.

3 Good Argumentative Essay Examples + Analysis

Below are three examples of argumentative essays, written by yours truly in my school days, as well as analysis of what each did well and where it could be improved.

Argumentative Essay Example 1

Proponents of this idea state that it will save local cities and towns money because libraries are expensive to maintain. They also believe it will encourage more people to read because they won’t have to travel to a library to get a book; they can simply click on what they want to read and read it from wherever they are. They could also access more materials because libraries won’t have to buy physical copies of books; they can simply rent out as many digital copies as they need.

However, it would be a serious mistake to replace libraries with tablets. First, digital books and resources are associated with less learning and more problems than print resources. A study done on tablet vs book reading found that people read 20-30% slower on tablets, retain 20% less information, and understand 10% less of what they read compared to people who read the same information in print. Additionally, staring too long at a screen has been shown to cause numerous health problems, including blurred vision, dizziness, dry eyes, headaches, and eye strain, at much higher instances than reading print does. People who use tablets and mobile devices excessively also have a higher incidence of more serious health issues such as fibromyalgia, shoulder and back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and muscle strain. I know that whenever I read from my e-reader for too long, my eyes begin to feel tired and my neck hurts. We should not add to these problems by giving people, especially young people, more reasons to look at screens.

Second, it is incredibly narrow-minded to assume that the only service libraries offer is book lending. Libraries have a multitude of benefits, and many are only available if the library has a physical location. Some of these benefits include acting as a quiet study space, giving people a way to converse with their neighbors, holding classes on a variety of topics, providing jobs, answering patron questions, and keeping the community connected. One neighborhood found that, after a local library instituted community events such as play times for toddlers and parents, job fairs for teenagers, and meeting spaces for senior citizens, over a third of residents reported feeling more connected to their community. Similarly, a Pew survey conducted in 2015 found that nearly two-thirds of American adults feel that closing their local library would have a major impact on their community. People see libraries as a way to connect with others and get their questions answered, benefits tablets can’t offer nearly as well or as easily.

While replacing libraries with tablets may seem like a simple solution, it would encourage people to spend even more time looking at digital screens, despite the myriad issues surrounding them. It would also end access to many of the benefits of libraries that people have come to rely on. In many areas, libraries are such an important part of the community network that they could never be replaced by a simple object.

The author begins by giving an overview of the counter-argument, then the thesis appears as the first sentence in the third paragraph. The essay then spends the rest of the paper dismantling the counter argument and showing why readers should believe the other side.

What this essay does well:

• Although it’s a bit unusual to have the thesis appear fairly far into the essay, it works because, once the thesis is stated, the rest of the essay focuses on supporting it since the counter-argument has already been discussed earlier in the paper.
• This essay includes numerous facts and cites studies to support its case. By having specific data to rely on, the author’s argument is stronger and readers will be more inclined to agree with it.
• For every argument the other side makes, the author makes sure to refute it and follow up with why her opinion is the stronger one. In order to make a strong argument, it’s important to dismantle the other side, which this essay does this by making the author's view appear stronger.
• This is a shorter paper, and if it needed to be expanded to meet length requirements, it could include more examples and go more into depth with them, such as by explaining specific cases where people benefited from local libraries.
• Additionally, while the paper uses lots of data, the author also mentions their own experience with using tablets. This should be removed since argumentative essays focus on facts and data to support an argument, not the author’s own opinion or experiences. Replacing that with more data on health issues associated with screen time would strengthen the essay.
• Some of the points made aren't completely accurate , particularly the one about digital books being cheaper. It actually often costs a library more money to rent out numerous digital copies of a book compared to buying a single physical copy. Make sure in your own essay you thoroughly research each of the points and rebuttals you make, otherwise you'll look like you don't know the issue that well.

Argumentative Essay Example 2

There are multiple drugs available to treat malaria, and many of them work well and save lives, but malaria eradication programs that focus too much on them and not enough on prevention haven’t seen long-term success in Sub-Saharan Africa. A major program to combat malaria was WHO’s Global Malaria Eradication Programme. Started in 1955, it had a goal of eliminating malaria in Africa within the next ten years. Based upon previously successful programs in Brazil and the United States, the program focused mainly on vector control. This included widely distributing chloroquine and spraying large amounts of DDT. More than one billion dollars was spent trying to abolish malaria. However, the program suffered from many problems and in 1969, WHO was forced to admit that the program had not succeeded in eradicating malaria. The number of people in Sub-Saharan Africa who contracted malaria as well as the number of malaria deaths had actually increased over 10% during the time the program was active.

One of the major reasons for the failure of the project was that it set uniform strategies and policies. By failing to consider variations between governments, geography, and infrastructure, the program was not nearly as successful as it could have been. Sub-Saharan Africa has neither the money nor the infrastructure to support such an elaborate program, and it couldn’t be run the way it was meant to. Most African countries don't have the resources to send all their people to doctors and get shots, nor can they afford to clear wetlands or other malaria prone areas. The continent’s spending per person for eradicating malaria was just a quarter of what Brazil spent. Sub-Saharan Africa simply can’t rely on a plan that requires more money, infrastructure, and expertise than they have to spare.

Additionally, the widespread use of chloroquine has created drug resistant parasites which are now plaguing Sub-Saharan Africa. Because chloroquine was used widely but inconsistently, mosquitoes developed resistance, and chloroquine is now nearly completely ineffective in Sub-Saharan Africa, with over 95% of mosquitoes resistant to it. As a result, newer, more expensive drugs need to be used to prevent and treat malaria, which further drives up the cost of malaria treatment for a region that can ill afford it.

Instead of developing plans to treat malaria after the infection has incurred, programs should focus on preventing infection from occurring in the first place. Not only is this plan cheaper and more effective, reducing the number of people who contract malaria also reduces loss of work/school days which can further bring down the productivity of the region.

One of the cheapest and most effective ways of preventing malaria is to implement insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs).  These nets provide a protective barrier around the person or people using them. While untreated bed nets are still helpful, those treated with insecticides are much more useful because they stop mosquitoes from biting people through the nets, and they help reduce mosquito populations in a community, thus helping people who don’t even own bed nets.  Bed nets are also very effective because most mosquito bites occur while the person is sleeping, so bed nets would be able to drastically reduce the number of transmissions during the night. In fact, transmission of malaria can be reduced by as much as 90% in areas where the use of ITNs is widespread. Because money is so scarce in Sub-Saharan Africa, the low cost is a great benefit and a major reason why the program is so successful. Bed nets cost roughly 2 USD to make, last several years, and can protect two adults. Studies have shown that, for every 100-1000 more nets are being used, one less child dies of malaria. With an estimated 300 million people in Africa not being protected by mosquito nets, there’s the potential to save three million lives by spending just a few dollars per person.

Reducing the number of people who contract malaria would also reduce poverty levels in Africa significantly, thus improving other aspects of society like education levels and the economy. Vector control is more effective than treatment strategies because it means fewer people are getting sick. When fewer people get sick, the working population is stronger as a whole because people are not put out of work from malaria, nor are they caring for sick relatives. Malaria-afflicted families can typically only harvest 40% of the crops that healthy families can harvest. Additionally, a family with members who have malaria spends roughly a quarter of its income treatment, not including the loss of work they also must deal with due to the illness. It’s estimated that malaria costs Africa 12 billion USD in lost income every year. A strong working population creates a stronger economy, which Sub-Saharan Africa is in desperate need of.  

This essay begins with an introduction, which ends with the thesis (that malaria eradication plans in Sub-Saharan Africa should focus on prevention rather than treatment). The first part of the essay lays out why the counter argument (treatment rather than prevention) is not as effective, and the second part of the essay focuses on why prevention of malaria is the better path to take.

• The thesis appears early, is stated clearly, and is supported throughout the rest of the essay. This makes the argument clear for readers to understand and follow throughout the essay.
• There’s lots of solid research in this essay, including specific programs that were conducted and how successful they were, as well as specific data mentioned throughout. This evidence helps strengthen the author’s argument.
• The author makes a case for using expanding bed net use over waiting until malaria occurs and beginning treatment, but not much of a plan is given for how the bed nets would be distributed or how to ensure they’re being used properly. By going more into detail of what she believes should be done, the author would be making a stronger argument.
• The introduction of the essay does a good job of laying out the seriousness of the problem, but the conclusion is short and abrupt. Expanding it into its own paragraph would give the author a final way to convince readers of her side of the argument.

Argumentative Essay Example 3

There are many ways payments could work. They could be in the form of a free-market approach, where athletes are able to earn whatever the market is willing to pay them, it could be a set amount of money per athlete, or student athletes could earn income from endorsements, autographs, and control of their likeness, similar to the way top Olympians earn money.

Proponents of the idea believe that, because college athletes are the ones who are training, participating in games, and bringing in audiences, they should receive some sort of compensation for their work. If there were no college athletes, the NCAA wouldn’t exist, college coaches wouldn’t receive there (sometimes very high) salaries, and brands like Nike couldn’t profit from college sports. In fact, the NCAA brings in roughly $1 billion in revenue a year, but college athletes don’t receive any of that money in the form of a paycheck. Additionally, people who believe college athletes should be paid state that paying college athletes will actually encourage them to remain in college longer and not turn pro as quickly, either by giving them a way to begin earning money in college or requiring them to sign a contract stating they’ll stay at the university for a certain number of years while making an agreed-upon salary.  

Supporters of this idea point to Zion Williamson, the Duke basketball superstar, who, during his freshman year, sustained a serious knee injury. Many argued that, even if he enjoyed playing for Duke, it wasn’t worth risking another injury and ending his professional career before it even began for a program that wasn’t paying him. Williamson seems to have agreed with them and declared his eligibility for the NCAA draft later that year. If he was being paid, he may have stayed at Duke longer. In fact, roughly a third of student athletes surveyed stated that receiving a salary while in college would make them “strongly consider” remaining collegiate athletes longer before turning pro.

Paying athletes could also stop the recruitment scandals that have plagued the NCAA. In 2018, the NCAA stripped the University of Louisville's men's basketball team of its 2013 national championship title because it was discovered coaches were using sex workers to entice recruits to join the team. There have been dozens of other recruitment scandals where college athletes and recruits have been bribed with anything from having their grades changed, to getting free cars, to being straight out bribed. By paying college athletes and putting their salaries out in the open, the NCAA could end the illegal and underhanded ways some schools and coaches try to entice athletes to join.

People who argue against the idea of paying college athletes believe the practice could be disastrous for college sports. By paying athletes, they argue, they’d turn college sports into a bidding war, where only the richest schools could afford top athletes, and the majority of schools would be shut out from developing a talented team (though some argue this already happens because the best players often go to the most established college sports programs, who typically pay their coaches millions of dollars per year). It could also ruin the tight camaraderie of many college teams if players become jealous that certain teammates are making more money than they are.

They also argue that paying college athletes actually means only a small fraction would make significant money. Out of the 350 Division I athletic departments, fewer than a dozen earn any money. Nearly all the money the NCAA makes comes from men’s football and basketball, so paying college athletes would make a small group of men--who likely will be signed to pro teams and begin making millions immediately out of college--rich at the expense of other players.

Those against paying college athletes also believe that the athletes are receiving enough benefits already. The top athletes already receive scholarships that are worth tens of thousands per year, they receive free food/housing/textbooks, have access to top medical care if they are injured, receive top coaching, get travel perks and free gear, and can use their time in college as a way to capture the attention of professional recruiters. No other college students receive anywhere near as much from their schools.

People on this side also point out that, while the NCAA brings in a massive amount of money each year, it is still a non-profit organization. How? Because over 95% of those profits are redistributed to its members’ institutions in the form of scholarships, grants, conferences, support for Division II and Division III teams, and educational programs. Taking away a significant part of that revenue would hurt smaller programs that rely on that money to keep running.

While both sides have good points, it’s clear that the negatives of paying college athletes far outweigh the positives. College athletes spend a significant amount of time and energy playing for their school, but they are compensated for it by the scholarships and perks they receive. Adding a salary to that would result in a college athletic system where only a small handful of athletes (those likely to become millionaires in the professional leagues) are paid by a handful of schools who enter bidding wars to recruit them, while the majority of student athletics and college athletic programs suffer or even shut down for lack of money. Continuing to offer the current level of benefits to student athletes makes it possible for as many people to benefit from and enjoy college sports as possible.

This argumentative essay follows the Rogerian model. It discusses each side, first laying out multiple reasons people believe student athletes should be paid, then discussing reasons why the athletes shouldn’t be paid. It ends by stating that college athletes shouldn’t be paid by arguing that paying them would destroy college athletics programs and cause them to have many of the issues professional sports leagues have.

• Both sides of the argument are well developed, with multiple reasons why people agree with each side. It allows readers to get a full view of the argument and its nuances.
• Certain statements on both sides are directly rebuffed in order to show where the strengths and weaknesses of each side lie and give a more complete and sophisticated look at the argument.
• Using the Rogerian model can be tricky because oftentimes you don’t explicitly state your argument until the end of the paper. Here, the thesis doesn’t appear until the first sentence of the final paragraph. That doesn’t give readers a lot of time to be convinced that your argument is the right one, compared to a paper where the thesis is stated in the beginning and then supported throughout the paper. This paper could be strengthened if the final paragraph was expanded to more fully explain why the author supports the view, or if the paper had made it clearer that paying athletes was the weaker argument throughout.

3 Tips for Writing a Good Argumentative Essay

Now that you’ve seen examples of what good argumentative essay samples look like, follow these three tips when crafting your own essay.

#1: Make Your Thesis Crystal Clear

The thesis is the key to your argumentative essay; if it isn’t clear or readers can’t find it easily, your entire essay will be weak as a result. Always make sure that your thesis statement is easy to find. The typical spot for it is the final sentence of the introduction paragraph, but if it doesn’t fit in that spot for your essay, try to at least put it as the first or last sentence of a different paragraph so it stands out more.

Also make sure that your thesis makes clear what side of the argument you’re on. After you’ve written it, it’s a great idea to show your thesis to a couple different people--classmates are great for this. Just by reading your thesis they should be able to understand what point you’ll be trying to make with the rest of your essay.

#2: Show Why the Other Side Is Weak

When writing your essay, you may be tempted to ignore the other side of the argument and just focus on your side, but don’t do this. The best argumentative essays really tear apart the other side to show why readers shouldn’t believe it. Before you begin writing your essay, research what the other side believes, and what their strongest points are. Then, in your essay, be sure to mention each of these and use evidence to explain why they’re incorrect/weak arguments. That’ll make your essay much more effective than if you only focused on your side of the argument.

#3: Use Evidence to Support Your Side

Remember, an essay can’t be an argumentative essay if it doesn’t support its argument with evidence. For every point you make, make sure you have facts to back it up. Some examples are previous studies done on the topic, surveys of large groups of people, data points, etc. There should be lots of numbers in your argumentative essay that support your side of the argument. This will make your essay much stronger compared to only relying on your own opinions to support your argument.

Summary: Argumentative Essay Sample

Argumentative essays are persuasive essays that use facts and evidence to support their side of the argument. Most argumentative essays follow either the Toulmin model or the Rogerian model. By reading good argumentative essay examples, you can learn how to develop your essay and provide enough support to make readers agree with your opinion. When writing your essay, remember to always make your thesis clear, show where the other side is weak, and back up your opinion with data and evidence.

What's Next?

Do you need to write an argumentative essay as well? Check out our guide on the best argumentative essay topics for ideas!

You'll probably also need to write research papers for school. We've got you covered with 113 potential topics for research papers.

Your college admissions essay may end up being one of the most important essays you write. Follow our step-by-step guide on writing a personal statement to have an essay that'll impress colleges.

Christine graduated from Michigan State University with degrees in Environmental Biology and Geography and received her Master's from Duke University. In high school she scored in the 99th percentile on the SAT and was named a National Merit Finalist. She has taught English and biology in several countries.

Student and Parent Forum

Our new student and parent forum, at ExpertHub.PrepScholar.com , allow you to interact with your peers and the PrepScholar staff. See how other students and parents are navigating high school, college, and the college admissions process. Ask questions; get answers.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

Discourse Community: Examples and Definition

A discourse community is a community of people who share basic goals or interests and ways of communicating about them.

These are groups that have common goals, purposes, or interests and use the same set of discourses to achieve and communicate about them (Borg, 2003).

Examples of discourse communities include academic communities, business groups, fitness groups, and activist organizations.

Discourse Community Definition

A discourse community is a community of people who have shared goals, purposes, or interests and use the same set of discourses to achieve them (Borg, 2003; Johns, 1997).

James Porter (1992) defined a discourse community as:

“a local and temporary constraining system, defined by a body of texts (or more generally, practices) that are unified by a common focus. A discourse community is a textual system with stated and unstated conventions, a vital history, mechanisms for wielding power, institutional hierarchies, vested interests, and so on.”

The concept is generally used in the context of academic writing, business settings (Killingsworth & Gilbertson, 2019; Olsen, 1993; Orlikowski & Yates, 1994), learner needs (Offord-Gray & Aldred, 1998), accounting, and so on.

There are, however, several issues with the definition of the concept that need to be resolved:

“how large (or small) a discourse community might be; whether speech is needed to maintain a discourse community; whether purpose is the defining characteristic of a discourse community, and how stable a discourse community, and therefore its genres, are” (Borg, 2003, p. 399).

There is also the question of whether shared goals are a necessary element of every discourse community.

The concept of a discourse community developed from the concepts of a speech community and an interpretive community. So, if we want to deeply understand what a discourse community is, we must also define speech and interpretive communities .

We can distinguish discourse communities from speech communities because membership in a discourse community is a matter of choice, while membership in a speech community is not.

Discourse communities differ from interpretive communities because of their focus on pursuing goals.

Interpretive communities don’t necessarily have shared goals, while discourse communities always have either shared goals or interests (Johns, 1997; Porter, 1986). In addition, analyses of discourse communities generally focus on written communication.

Defining Characteristics of Discourse Communities

Swales (1990) distinguished between regular discourse communities (united by written communication alone) and place discourse communities that are united by both written and spoken communication.

There are, according to Swales, six defining characteristics of discourse communities:

• A broadly agreed upon set of common public goals.
• Mechanisms of communication among the members.
• The use of participatory mechanisms for providing information and feedback.
• The use of one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims.
• Acquired specific lexis.
• A threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise.

The production of texts within a discourse community takes place in the context of the interpretive conventions of said community. For any text to be produced within a discourse community, it must fit the standards to which that community is appealing. If one wants membership in a discourse community, one must understand the goals, standards, and interests of that community (Bizzell, 1992).

Discourse communities are intangible and vague. This is why scholars often use the term ‘forum’ to describe concrete, local manifestations of the operations of discourse communities (Porter, 1992).

Examples of Discourse Communities

• Fitness community: A community of people united by an interest in achieving physical fitness is a discourse community. It has common goals (strength, vitality, hypertrophy, longevity, etc.), common values (discipline, safety, progress, etc.), and a specialized vocabulary (concentric, eccentric, aerobic, microcycle, mesocycle, cardio, HIIT, reps, sets, etc.).
• Academic community: Academic communities often share interests, goals, genres, and specialized vocabularies. For example, the academic community of architects shares an interest in the built environment, the goal of creating more sustainable architecture, and the specialized vocabulary of architecture (masterplan, brief, tensile structure, stylobate, order, architrave, firmitas, utilitas, venustas, etc.).
• Activist organizations: Activist organizations like Amnesty International, the Global Fund for Women, the Farm Animal Rights Movement, and so on often exemplify all the common characteristics of discourse communities: they have common goals, purposes, interests, and specialized vocabularies.
• Alumni associations: An alumni association of some university is an example of a discourse community that may or may not have shared goals, but is united by shared interests. Such associations may also be interpretive communities or speech communities, but that does not change the fact that they are discourse communities.
• Professional communities: Any community of professionals whose research area is the same is a discourse community. Porter (1986) offers the example of the community of engineers whose research area is fluid mechanics. Not only is this group united by a shared interest, but also a shared purpose.
• Stamp collectors: John Swales (1990) offers the following example of a discourse community: a society of stamp collectors scattered around the world but united by a shared interest in the stamps of Hong Kong. The important part here is the fact that this discourse community is united by goals and purposes instead of the language they use (speech community) or the way they read texts (interpretive community). “The collectors never gather together physically; instead a newsletter that has a particular form of text organization, making it a genre, which they use to pursue their goals, unites them” (Borg, 2003).
• Military personnel: Military personnel share goals, purposes, ways of communicating, and interests. Communication between military personnel is especially distinctive. Not only do military members have specialized words (band-aid, bird for helicopter, dust-off, hawk for cold weather, and many more), but they also have specialized phrases, codes, and channels for communicating.
• Online political communities: Online political communities often exemplify the characteristics of discourse communities because of their shared interests, goals, and ways of communicating. It is common to see specific phrases or words used by niche online political communities alone, which makes such groups good examples of discourse communities.
• Religious communities: Religious communities may also sometimes have the characteristics of discourse communities. They may be united by shared goals, interests, and sometimes specialized vocabularies.
• Research groups: Similarly to academic communities, groups of researchers or writers who contribute to a particular academic journal are members of a discourse community. They often share a specialized vocabulary as well as goals, interests, and ways of communicating about them.

Discourse Community vs Community of Practice

The term discourse community is, however, becoming less and less popular among scholars. After the early 2000s, it has been gradually replaced by the term ‘community of practice’.

A community of practice is a group that shares “a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2015).

The term discourse community fell out of favor due to the various criticisms leveled against it. These include the idea that the term is not precise enough (Wardle & Downs, 2014), and the fact that shared goals seem to not be fundamental for discourse communities (the academic community as a whole, for example, does not have shared goals).

A discourse community is a group of individuals who have shared goals, purposes, or interests, communicate through approved channels, and use regulated discourse (Borg, 2003; Johns, 1997; Porter, 1986). Whether shared goals are an essential part of every discourse community is a matter of debate. Examples of discourse communities include alumni associations, academics, stamp collectors, research groups, groups of employees, members of a family, and so on.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ What is Educational Psychology?
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ What is IQ? (Intelligence Quotient)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

ACADEMIC DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAYS

Related Papers

Mirelle Dee

Shazna Abu Bakar , Aysha Sharif

Touria Drid

When producing an argumentative text, the writer adopts a definite position and advances arguments in support of it. The textual arrangement of these two cardinal components of argumentation varies across cultures, causing difficulties in learning to write persuasively in foreign languages. The present paper investigates the text organization of a sample of English argumentative essays written by a group of Arabic-speaking learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). The analysis aims at delineating the factors leading them to project texts non-conforming to English argumentative discourse conventions. The findings reveal that multiple factors underlie learners' textual preferences. En produisant un texte argumentatif, l'auteur adopte une position définie et avance des arguments à l'appui de celui-ci. L'arrangement textuel de ces deux composants cardinaux de l'argumentation varie selon les cultures, provoquant des difficultés dans l'apprentissage de l'écriture persuasive en langues étrangères. Le présent travail examine l'organisation de texte d'un échantillon d'essais argumentatifs anglais écrits par un groupe d'apprenants arabophones d'anglais langue étrangère. L'analyse vise à tracer les facteurs qui les amènent à projeter des textes non-conformes aux conventions de discours argumentatif anglaises. Les résultats révèlent que des facteurs multiples sont à la base des préférences textuelles des apprenants.

Aysha Sharif

Mustapha ibrahim garba

Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics , Ariyanti Ariyanti

Writing has become one of important skills in English language acquistion since a long time ago. Without leaving aside the importance of using active English to communicate, the passive one also plays important role to convey the message. Writing, as a way to explore our passive English is not merely intended to describe any topic without purposes. In this case, writing is a progressive activity. Oshima and Hogue (1997:2) explain the meaning of progressive in writing is when we want to start the first step to write about a certain topic, actually we have already known what we are going to write and how we explore it. After that, we read over our writing than we will do some corrections and also changes. In short, in order to have a better writing we should never stop only in one step. The more particular and specific urgency in writing is how to make our writing academic. This is what the most college students face in their writing tasks such as essays and final projects which become the requirement for them to finish their study in a university. In fact, academic writing is not as easy as the students think that they will just ask to write a passage freely. In this case, academic writing gives full description and complete guidance on how to make their writing sounds academic. So that is what the researcher tried to explained to the readers especially for students who need to shape their ability to in doing such academic writing.

สมศักดิ์ แก้วนุช

This paper examines the preferred patterns of argument development in argumentative essays written by a group of advanced Arabic-speaking learners of English as a foreign language. To this end, the text structure of 104 essays written by 52 Master students is analyzed building upon the model elaborated by Hatim (1990, 1991, 1997). The results show that the student writers, influenced by their native culture's writing conventions, follow predominantly the pattern of through-argumentation to construct their argument. On the other hand, some of their observed argumentative discourse deviant forms are not explicable in the light of transfer factors. The implication of the study is that multiple factors come into play when the discourse conventions of English argumentative writing are distorted in EFL learners' texts. We recommend that for the teaching of written argument to be efficient, lecturers adopt instruction in which exposure to the argumentative essay genre is highlighted while activating student writers' potentials of revision and self-editing.

Jim McKinley

For learners of Japanese, a conundrum arises at university level as they are expected to be able to shift between direct and indirect language in various writing tasks. The apparent indirectness in inductive language is required of regular writing tasks such as response essays and e-mails, while the directness of deductive academic writing, a quality traditionally attributed to academic writing in the West, is now a universally accepted quality of academic writing in any language. This shift can cause confusion for students, perhaps in part due to the widespread misunderstanding of it by linguistics researchers from the West in the past. This is not to suggest that English speakers, for example, do not make similar shifts in language use from non-academic to academic registers, but for learners of Japanese as a second language, the shift is less understood. In this article, I draw on some original data to support the posited theories. While instructors may make a clear distinction between the direct and indirect genres of writing, students do not always make the same distinction. Students may display a clear understanding of the Western criticisms of Japanese rhetorical approaches, but experience confusion when trying to meet the writing expectations of their instructors. University instructors of Japanese need to address the Western criticisms when clarifying the specific genres and uses of particular rhetorical approaches in written Japanese, and put more emphasis on the differences between written and spoken Japanese.

RELATED TOPICS

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

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

Ross Douthat

What i’d assign to today’s college students.

By Ross Douthat

Opinion Columnist

My weekend column used this season of campus protest as an opportunity to discuss the evolution of Columbia’s core curriculum, whose readings on contemporary politics, I argued, usefully distill the core of contemporary progressivism while leaving a great deal else by the wayside.

I included some examples of ideas and writers that the present Columbia syllabus leaves out, but I wanted to give a little more attention to the question of what a supplement to the progressive approach would look like. If you were trying to bring a great-books program all the way up to the present and you wanted to widen the ideological aperture beyond Columbia’s progressive focus, what would you have your students read?

One answer is that the very idea of being up-to-date is a mistake because readings oriented explicitly to the present are everywhere in education and the point of a core curriculum is to stand a little bit apart, to connect you to the riches of the past — riches that have been sifted in a way that just isn’t possible with the publications and arguments of the past few generations.

I have some sympathy with this idea: If I were designing a core humanities program for high school students (not that I’ve ever thought about this or anything), my strong impulse would be to just hit “stop” at World War II or 1965 and decline to make any judgment on what will be remembered as the great books of the recent past and present.

But Columbia’s core curriculum, while very much a great-books program in its execution, has also carried, since its inception in 1919, a mandate to address “ the insistent problems of the present .” So one can criticize the ideological narrowness of the contemporary readings while still recognizing that the syllabus is trying to fulfill its academic mandate, not betray it.

Here, then, are four attempts at fulfilling that mandate but with a wider lens. I’m presenting these as potential modules, packaged similarly to the way the current Columbia curriculum packages its modern readings under “anticolonialism,” “race, gender and sexuality” and “climate and futures.” Note that I’m imagining these as supplements to those existing modules; if I were drawing up a complete syllabus, it would include more socialist and feminist and anticolonial perspectives. And obviously if tomorrow Columbia decided to supplement its syllabus along these lines, it could choose (or excerpt from) only a few of the books and essays I’ve listed; I’m just trying to show the range that each module might include.

The Secular and the Sacred

Harvey Cox, “The Secular City”; Philip Rieff, “The Triumph of the Therapeutic”; Tom Wolfe, “The ‘Me’ Decade and the Third Great Awakening”; Christopher Lasch, “The Culture of Narcissism”; Richard John Neuhaus, “The Naked Public Square”; Charles Taylor, “A Secular Age.”

Technology and Its Discontents

C.S. Lewis, “The Abolition of Man”; C.P. Snow, “The Two Cultures”; Marshall McLuhan, “Understanding Media”; Neil Postman, “Amusing Ourselves to Death”; Jaron Lanier, “You Are Not a Gadget”; Sherry Turkle, “Alone Together.”

After the Cold War

Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History?”; Samuel Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?”

Community, Solidarity, Inequality

Robert Nisbet, “The Quest for Community”; Michael Young, “The Rise of the Meritocracy”; Robert Putnam, “Bowling Alone”; my colleague David Brooks, “Bobos in Paradise”; Lasch, “The Revolt of the Elites.”

You’ll notice that each of these modules includes conservative-leaning writers but none of them are titled “conservatism.” In my column, I mentioned the dearth of representation for the most important nonprogressive political ideologies, meaning especially modern conservatism and neoliberalism, and you could imagine explicitly building a module around that lacuna — with, say, Friedrich Hayek paired with James Burnham or Milton Friedman with Roger Scruton. But I think if you’re trying to grasp the world through a few key texts, it’s better to come at political ideas a bit more from the side, via figures who are less associated with a specific ideology or team. Fukuyama, for example, isn’t exactly an ideologist of neoliberalism, but if you read “The End of History?” (just the original essay , not necessarily the book), you’ll have a pretty good grasp of what the neoliberal era meant.

Finally, I am under no illusions that the Columbia core curriculum or any other attempt at a collegiate canon is actually the place where progressive orthodoxy is forged or soon-to-be protesters discover their ideological beliefs. The Columbia syllabus is interesting as a manifestation of a worldview, not as its origination; the point of origination is much more likely to be what future Ivy Leaguers are assigned in high school and what they’re given by the ambient culture, which could mean anything from social justice extracurriculars to TikTok discourse to young adult fiction.

So if you asked me what I would assign to readers in their late teenage years, generally, to challenge (or at least complicate) progressive groupthink, I might not even start with any of the texts listed above. Instead, I might try to assemble a list of narrative works, mostly novels and some nonfiction, not all of which would be aesthetically notable enough to fit into Columbia’s “literature humanities” syllabus but all of which would help broaden a too-narrow ideological picture of the world.

Here’s one such list, suitable for an enterprising high school senior or college freshman: Aldous Huxley, “Brave New World”; Lewis, “That Hideous Strength”; Joan Didion, “Slouching Towards Bethlehem” and “The White Album”; Ralph Ellison, “Invisible Man”; V.S. Naipaul, “A Bend in the River”; Wolfe, “Radical Chic” and “The Bonfire of the Vanities”; Philip Roth, “American Pastoral”; Michel Houellebecq, “The Elementary Particles”; P.D. James, “The Children of Men.”

That’s enough for now. Get back to me when your favorite students are caught up.

Dwight Garner reads an enfant terrible .

Dan Hitchens attends a disco at the cathedral .

Leah Libresco Sargeant contemplates Schrödinger’s persons.

Stanley Fish advises college administrators.

Ross Barkan and Freddie deBoer consider the uses of book publishing.

Jamie McGregor Smith cannot make me love brutalist church architecture.

This Week in Decadence

— Eric Goldman, “ Generative A.I. Is Doomed ” Santa Clara University (April 25)

It might be impossible to imagine today, but 1990s regulators often took a deferential and generally hands-off approach to the new technology. This stance was fueled by prevailing concerns that overly aggressive regulatory responses could distort or harm the emergence of this important innovation. As Congress said in 1996, its policy was “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by federal or state regulation.” It was a remarkable and exceptional phase of regulator humility. In the mid-1990s, regulators could not anticipate or predict all of the internet’s uses that have emerged over the last three decades — or how those developments have benefited society. Had regulators hard-coded their limited and myopic 1990s conceptions of the internet into law, the internet never could have achieved those outcomes, and I think the world would be poorer for it. But mid-1990s regulators frequently admitted their myopia and unusually chose regulatory forbearance. Generative A.I. will not get a similar reception from regulators. Regulators are intervening now, acting on their unenlightened 2020s conceptions of what generative A.I. does. Because we can’t anticipate what generative A.I. is capable of and how new innovative uses will emerge over time, the interventions taking place today will unavoidably restrict generative A.I.’s potential upside.

Ross Douthat has been an Opinion columnist for The Times since 2009. He is the author, most recently, of “The Deep Places: A Memoir of Illness and Discovery.” @ DouthatNYT • Facebook