Book Chapters in academia – Authorship in Methods (re-)Presentation and Conditional Reasoning

Constellation and colony are among the most quoted metaphors to describe the sets of existing academic genres (Swales 2004); Book Chapters (BCs) are included in this hierarchy, but their typology has not been analysed so extensively as the Research Article or Abstract moves. Yet, when Evaluation in text types is the focus of interest, BCs are a rich and significant territory of study. In the present research, we investigated how in BCs relevant notions such as agency, saliency, authorial disclosure and, also, the authorship/power relationship (Halliday/Martin 1993) are construed and conveyed through discursive practices and strategies (Bhatia 2004, 2008, Bhatia/ Gotti 2006). In particular, the present paper focuses on the ways authors choose to (re)present, support and argue for their research methods among alternative/competing models; such argumentations are not confined to the Method Sections (Swales 2011) but pervade the whole texts. The presentation/justification of methods is the arena where the argumentative skills of researchers are displayed, and where disciplinary differences are apparent. In this perspective, we investigated the occurrence of Conditional Reasoning (CR) in a corpus of 60 BCs (30 Medical and 30 CogSci BCs). CR is conveyed through hypothetical thinking patterns, (Evans 2007, Edgington 2008, Cavender/ Kahane 2010, Oaksford / Chater 2010), self-referencing colligations, and pronouns. Significant differences emerged between the two disciplinary domains (Hyland/Bondi 2006, Hyland 2005, 2010) especially as far as argumentative modes are concerned. Our findings showed a higher frequency of Conditional Words in CogSci BCs as compared to Med BCs. Med Sciences authors appear to be less self-referential and to rely less on ‘if- argumentation’, CogSci authors use both more self-referential/inclusive pronouns and more Conditional words. Both Med and CogSci authors effectively engage their readers as participants in a ‘situated’ discursive interaction, but with scaling values of individuality (CogSci) / commonality (Med) ratio. BCs Med authors are present in their texts mainly as researchers, i.e. in a somewhat modest, less directly argumentative way, whereas CogScientists are more present as arguers. Constellation and colony are among the most quoted metaphors to describe the sets of existing academic genres (Swales 2004); Book Chapters (BCs) are included in this hierarchy, but their typology has not been analysed so extensively as the Research Article or Abstract moves. Yet, when Evaluation in text types is the focus of interest, BCs are a rich and significant territory of study. In the present research, we investigated how in BCs relevant notions such as agency, saliency, authorial disclosure and, also, the authorship/power relationship (Halliday/Martin 1993) are construed and conveyed through discursive practices and strategies (Bhatia 2004, 2008, Bhatia/ Gotti 2006). In particular, the present paper focuses on the ways authors choose to (re)present, support and argue for their research methods among alternative/competing models; such argumentations are not confined to the Method Sections (Swales 2011) but pervade the whole texts. The presentation/justification of methods is the arena where the argumentative skills of researchers are displayed, and where disciplinary differences are apparent. In this perspective, we investigated the occurrence of Conditional Reasoning (CR) in a corpus of 60 BCs (30 Medical and 30 CogSci BCs). CR is conveyed through hypothetical thinking patterns, (Evans 2007, Edgington 2008, Cavender/ Kahane 2010, Oaksford / Chater 2010), self-referencing colligations, and pronouns. Significant differences emerged between the two disciplinary domains (Hyland/Bondi 2006, Hyland 2005, 2010) especially as far as argumentative modes are concerned. Our findings showed a higher frequency of Conditional Words in CogSci BCs as compared to Med BCs. Med Sciences authors appear to be less self-referential and to rely less on ‘if- argumentation’, CogSci authors use both more self-referential/inclusive pronouns and more Conditional words. Both Med and CogSci authors effectively engage their readers as participants in a ‘situated’ discursive interaction, but with scaling values of individuality (CogSci) / commonality (Med) ratio. BCs Med authors are present in their texts mainly as researchers, i.e. in a somewhat modest, less directly argumentative way, whereas CogScientists are more present as arguers.