Writing Research Articles in English: Insights from Iranian University Teachers’ of TEFL

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 ( 2013 ) 901 – 914

1877-0428 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.Selection and peer-review under responsibility of ALSC 2012doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.137

Akdeniz Language Studies Conference 2012

Writing research articles in English: Insights from Iranian university t

Amin Karimnia* Department of English Language, Fasa Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran

Abstract

This study attempts to examine how some writers are more successful than others in writing scientific papers in English, in non-English speaking societies. To do so, interviews were conducted with 10 Iranian university teachers` of TEFL: 5 junior, 2 middle-ranking and 3 senior researchers. The analysis is concerned not only with their difficulties, but also with their strategies to cope with them. Findings show that identification of their audience may distinguish senior researchers from others. Another important characteristic seems to be their learning strategies, and these strategies are divided into two categories. The first one focuses on reading academic papers in their field to learn typical writing patterns. This strategy was followed by all. The second involves giving direct attention to

these researchers seem to prefer simply to cope with their English. Efforts to adopt the second type, however, would appear to be successful in the long run.

2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of ALSC 2012 Keywords: Writing; learning strategies; research articles; Iranian researchers, TEFL

1. Introduction The report of scientific papers in English is important for scientists because almost all over the world,

most journals are written in English. To succeed in their field, the researchers have to cope with new developments and must master the skills of writing English. Non-English-speaking scientists face enormous difficulties, if they want to be successful in the discourse community through writing research articles (Paltridge, 1993). To understand the problems of writing research dissertations or articles, studies

* Amin Karimnia. Tel: +989177079914 E-mail address: [email protected]

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

© 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.Selection and peer-review under responsibility of ALSC 2012

902 Amin Karimnia / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 ( 2013 ) 901 – 914

using interviews and questionnaires have been carried out with both experienced (professional researchers) and novice researchers (postgraduate students) working in both English-speaking and non-English-speaking environments (St. John, 1987; Parkhurst, 1990; Dong, 1998; Shaw, 1991; Gosden, 1996; Flowerdew, 1999a,b). These studies illustrate the difficulties shared among non-English speaking writers, as well as the learning and writing strategies used to overcome their difficulties (St. John, 1987; Parkhurst, 1990; Shaw, 1991; Dong, 1998; Flowerdew, 1999b).

In some studies, the weak points of being in a non-English-speaking environment has been linked to being on the periphery (Casanave, 1998; Flowerdew, 2000; Hyland and Hamp-Lyons, 2002). To shed some light on the plight of non- English-speaking academics working on the periphery, Li (2002) administered a questionnaire to 154 Ph.D. students in mainland China, while Flowerdew used a large scale questionnaire and conducted interviews (1999b) with a large number of Chinese researchers in Hong Kong. Similarly in Japan, interviews were conducted with 17 Ph.D. students (Gosden, 1996) and 2 US educated research associates (Casanave, 1998). A questionnaire given to 52 British and 61 Japanese researchers about their attention to readers and cited researchers (Okamura, 1995) again shows the

studies intended to find the common problems for non- English-speaking writers in a given context, they focused on shared difficulties; in particular among relatively junior researchers (Gosden, 1996; Casanave, 1998; Flowerdew, 1999a, b; Li, 2002).

in a non-English-speaking environment (St. John, 1987; Shaw, 1991; Gosden, 1996; Flowerdew, 1999a,

of 16) in Japan reported that they needed to write their entire paper in Japanese and then translate it into

into English. This researcher stated that translation was the only way he could produce a research article within his contextual and linguistic constraints. However, instead of translating word by word from Spanish to English he had developed a form of Spanish consisting of very concise, short expressions which were easier to translate into English (1987). It seems necessary to balance what is best for writers in a linguistically disadvantageous context.

The present study tries to examine how some teachers of TEFL succeed in mastering scientific writing in English, in a non-English speaking environment like Iran.

2. Statement of the Problem Most academic communities, however, contain individuals who are successful in publishing in English,

and have overcome these difficulties. We need to focus on the possi -native

advantageous environment, such as Iran where English is taught as a foreign language from junior high school. Interviewing junior, middle- ranking researchers and senior researchers of TEFL in Iran may show how they survive and succeed when writing research articles, despite their linguistic difficulties.

3. Objectives of the Study To examine differences and similarities in relation to their academic experience, this study aims to

them to overcome these difficulties in writing research papers. 4. Research Questions


The present study attempts to answer the following questions: (1) What kinds of difficulties are non-English-speaking researchers of TEFL aware of, when writing

research articles? (2) What learning/writing strategies do they employ to deal with these difficulties?

5. Method

5.1. Participants

Ten Iranian researchers (5 lecturers, 2 assistant professors, 2 associate professors, and 1 professor) in English departments in 3 universities agreed to an interview (see Table 1). These researchers were chosen to reflect their different academic experience and publication records. The common feature was that all had experience of publishing in Iranian and foreign journals.

5.2. Semi-Structured Interview

The researchers were first contacted by phone to arrange an interview. Five were at Islamic Azad University of Fasa, 2 were at Shiraz State University and 3 were at Islamic Azad University of Khorasgan. One associate professor and one professor were in their late 60s, while the lecturers, assistant professors and one associate professor were in their 30s to 40s.

Only 3 interviewees (1 professor and 2 associate professors) had completed their own PhD outside Iran in an English speaking country like England and USA. Four of the researchers (one assistant professor, 2 associate professors and one professor) had served on the editorial boards of some journals, and had been reviewers of articles.

Regarding work experience outside Iran and their standing in the discourse community, only one (one professor) could be differentiated from the others. Thus, these interviewees can be categorized into three groups: 5 junior researchers A, B, C, D, and G (4 lecturers and 1 assistant professor), 2 mid-ranking researchers E, and F (1lecturer and 1 assistant professor) and 3 senior researchers, H, I and J (2 associate professors and 1 professor) (see Table 1).

Table 1

Interviewees Academic Position Number of Published Paper Experience as Reviewer

A Lecturer 2 No

B Lecturer 4 No

C Lecturer 1 No

D Lecturer 1 No


E Lecturer 6 No

F Assistant Professor 9 Yes

G Assistant Professor 4 No

H Associate Professor 16 Yes

I Associate Professor 13 Yes

J Professor 38 Yes

The researchers were also asked to provide the interviewer with at least a copy of their published work. The papers were referred to when they talked about their experience in writing and publication. Based on the research questions, interview questions were formulated to enable semi-structured interviews (see Appendix A). The interviews lasted almost an hour each, and were conducted in Persian. They were recorded and transcribed.

To create a friendly atmosphere, certain factors were of great help and encouraged the informants to be frank about their experiences when writing. First was the shared culture and mother tongue between the interviewer and respondents. Use of their native language was helpful when the interviewees spoke about their difficulties with English. Second, because the interviewer was not an English speaker, both parties could feel some sense of unity as English learners, creating a less threatening atmosphere in which to talk about difficulties when writing in that language. Ththe researchers to talk about their research activities.

5.3. Data Analysis

Data analysis is not a simple description of the data collected but a process by which the researcher can bring interpretation to the data (Powney & Watts, 1987). The themes and coding categories in this study emerged from an examination of the data rather than being determined beforehand and imposed on the data (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). In the process of data analysis, the researcher adopted analytic induction (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984; Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). By reading through the completed interview transcripts over and over again, the researcher examined how some Iranian teachers of TEFL succeed in writing scientific articles in English, in a non-English speaking environment.


6. Findings and Results

6.1. Difficulties

The language difficulty that all junior researchers mentioned was their lack of appropriate vocabulary. They have problems in accurately describing their results and effectively supporting a claim. This problem has also been described by non-English-speaking graduate students in the US (Dong, 1998) and Chinese researchers in Hong Kong (Flowerdew, 1999b). The junior researchers asserted that the difficulties associated with this lack of appropriate vocabulary may be related to the discipline. TEFL needs more language skills than other fields, such as physics or chemistry where authors may use mathematical formulae rather than language to present some of their findings. This is in line with the

-English speaking writers are better fitted to writing quantitative papers rather than qualitative papers.

Vocabulary presented obvious disadvantages which the junior interviewees could easily see, but some less tangible difficulties such as the use of linguistic forms to accommodate readers, were perceived differently depending on experience. Two junior researchers (A and G) said they were so preoccupied with grammatical accuracy that they did not consider their readers while writing. This is similar to the

first research article in English.

However, when asked about the role of the readership in choosing an outlet for their research findings, all researchers agreed that they had to consider the readers in some way or other if they were to be accepted by their target journal. One junior researcher (B) pointed out that consideration of the readership was crucial for the acceptance of his papers:

Junior researcher (B):

When I submit my work, I would like it to be accepted. So I always think whether my work is interesting enough for the readers of a journal. I think about readers most when I decide upon the outlet for my research.

However, the junior and middle-ranking researchers stated they did not have specific readers in mind, and added that they were unable to think of subtle linguistic forms that would persuade readers in the field. For example:

Interviewer: When you were writing this paper, did you think about who your readers would be?

Middle-ranking researcher (F): Well, while I was writing, I thought about researchers in general, in our field.

Interviewer: How do you pay attention to readers?

In contrast, 3 senior researchers (H, I and J) were able to talk about their target readers, and described strategies to draw their attention. Researcher J (professor) stated that giving reference to some


s one such strategy, as people would read an article more carefully if their work was cited as an important contribution. Identification of the readership seems to be one element that distinguishes junior and middle-ranking researchers from senior researchers. The following two excerpts show this difference.

Excerpt from an interview with a junior researcher:

Interviewer: When you wrote this paper, did you think about the people who would read it?

Junior researcher (C): well, I thought of the researchers in researchers when I write.

Interviewer: Researchers in general?

Researcher E: Yes, I think about those who share the same background knowledge. I am not writing a story for the general public.

Excerpt from an interview with a senior researcher:

Interviewer: I understand that you have to consider many things when submitting to a journal like this, which is a prestigious journal in the field. . .what did you pay attention to?

Senior researcher (J): I chose this journal because it is well known in our major and has a huge number of readers.

The senior researchers seem to be well aware of great scholars in the field, and to have a specific audience in mind when writing research articles. Their purpose is not only to publish, but to be read by their target audience. To show the close links among researchers, another senior researcher (H) stated that he was

Interviewer: Do you know the most recent published papers in your area of interest?

Senior researcher (I): that depends, but in general, yes.

6.2. How they overcome difficulties and disadvantages?

6.2.1. Learning strategies

The learning strategies described can be divided into two types, according to the intended purpose. The first one is subject knowledge-oriented strategies, because their aim is to acquire the basic writing

as many re

The second type is language-oriented strategies, because unlike the first, the aim of this type is to achieve


native-like fluency in writing; for example asking English speakers questions about language use in writing, which will eventually improve the use of English when writing research articles.

All adopted the first type at an early stage in their career. Reading research articles extensively seems crucial to obtaining not only background knowledge, and finding a niche in the field, but also to help in constructing a strong argument. In the interview, when talking about the difficulties in writing the discussion section, a junior researcher (researcher D) pointed out the link between the amount of reading, and the writing of the discussion section. This was also described by Flowerdew (1999b).

Interviewer: What makes it difficult for Iranian to write a discussion section?

Junior researcher (G): I think the fact that native speakers can write such a long and persuasive discussion section is related to the amount of reading. The researchers spend a lot of time reading articles.

After having employed subject knowledge-oriented strategies, researchers seem to internalize set phrases to use when writing a research article. They realize that the language in a research article is heavily codified. Codified language means the language is arranged into a system in which the writer employs a limited number of linguistic forms to realize his/her intention. This was explained by one middle ranking researcher (F). He described writing as the effective use of lexicalized chunks (Nattinger

I follow the pattern. You remember it after reading many papers. I write these expressions I have come across many ti

The researchers pointed out the relationship between writing skills and the quality of their research data; of 10 researchers, 6 (2 middle- ranking and 4 junior researchers) mentioned that with less impressive data, they would need good written English to persuade their readers.

What they also expressed, however, was that in a highly competitive environment, they needed to complete their work within a limited timescale and thus could not spend extra time polishing up their English. Thus, researchers seem to choose either to accept their limited writing skills in English, or to make an extra effort to improve their English writing skills to emulate English speakers.

Two of 10 (2 junior researchers) showed no interest in going beyond mastery of the codified language. One middle- at some stage, for this reason and they now use only those phrases which they feel will fit; they are happy to work within their limited codified language.

Only 7 of 10 (3 junior, 1 middle ranking and 3 senior researchers) employed the second strategy. These researchers were keen to improve their writing skills; they tried to read English texts written by notable writers in and outside their field, and contacted English speakers (English teachers and/or English speaking researchers) about the use of English in writing research articles. A comment from researcher I showed his interest and sensitivity to language use, which seemed to come from his long experience and


I tried to improve my writing by reading papers in my field but when you are used to reading scientific articles in English, you see that being a native speaker does not guarantee being able to write good English.

This researcher also stated that he asked his English speaking colleagues about subtle uses of the English language. As shraise awareness of language use, and builds confidence in writing English.

6.2.2. Writing strategies

As with learning strategies to cope with perceived difficulties, writing strategies, or the language

experienced non-English speakers have in the past been reported to use a mixture of English and mother tongue, even in a non-English-speaking environment (St. John, 1987). However, the interviews showed that it is necessary to distinguish whether one uses a mixed approach for thinking or for writing, or for both. In this study, 6 of 10 (5 junior and 1 middle-ranking researchers) reported that they mix Persian and English in their thinking processes, but they write only in English.

The researchers did not translate from Persian to English when writing (see Table 2). Some middle-ranking researchers asserted that they might write an outline in Persian. When attempting to find the right word in English, all the researchers stated that they would use a similar English word to check later, or look up the word in a dictionary on the spot.

The 3 senior researchers (H, I, G), however, reported that they used only English when thinking and writing. Researcher H explained that he knew this was the case, because while thinking about an article he would respond to the Iranian colleagues around him in English. These were the same researchers who reported using language-based learning strategies. However, adoption of language-based learning strategies does not seem to guarantee the use of English for thinking and writing; junior researchers who reported this type of learning strategy, stated that they mixed both Persian and English in the writing process.

7. Discussion

This study has identified some of the difficulties that Iranian TEFL researchers experience, and has described the coping strategies they use when writing scientific papers in English. Difficulties previously pointed out, such as lack of vocabulary (Gosden, 1996; Flowerdew, 1999b), were also apparent among the

example with less tangible matters such as the attention paid to their readership. Senior researchers are more likely to consider their written work to be interaction with their readers, while junior and middle-ranking researchers view writing less as a social activity. Senior researchers think about the impact they wish to make, and this makes them more careful over the choice of wording.

The concern of senior researchers is not simply to be published, but also to be read by their target


audience. In contrast, although junior or middle-ranking researchers are fully aware that they have to convince their fellow researchers that their findings are worth publishing, they consider readers as researchers in general, and those who share the same background knowledge in the field.

Table 2

Use of Persian and English in the Thinking and the Writing Processes

Use of language for thinking and writing Number of researchers in each category

Think in Persian and English, but write in English

6 (1 middle ranking and 5 junior researchers)

Think in English and write in English 4(1 middle ranking and 3 senior researchers)

These differences in experience seem to affect the learning and writing strategies used to overcome their difficulties. These learning strategies can be divided into two types. The first is adopted by all researchers in the initial stages of their career, when they are acquiring the basic writing skills needed to write research articles in English (subject knowledge oriented). These are the strategies the Japanese

The other strategy seems to follow the first; it is to learn the language used by English speakers,

knowledge-orientation when writing research papers, such as reading and working closely with published research articles (St. John, 1987; Shaw, 1991; Gosden, 1996). It seems beneficial to employ subject knowledge-orientation, as this enables the demonstration that linguistic forms in scientific texts are highly codified. Mastery of fixed expressions relieves Iranian researchers from some of the burden when writing


in English, and enables them to move on from simply translating their work from Persian into English.

Only 4 of 10 had adopted the second type, to work on acquiring a native-like sensitivity to the English language. Three of these were senior researchers, and were the ones who said that they used English when thinking and writing. The remaining 1 middle ranking researcher, who also employed language-oriented strategies, was not able to use English in thinking and writing in the way that these

due to the academic network outside Iran. Frequent contact with other researchers in English by email seems to help the switch to using English when thinking and writing, even in a Persian-speaking environment. Furthermore, this network had enabled these 3 senior researchers to overcome the difficulties often suffered by researchers on the periphery.

At this stage it is difficult to conclude that success is related to English skills, but the interviews suggest that adopting language-oriented strategies seems necessary if people are to succeed in their own field.

8. Conclusion and implications

This study has explored through interviews, how some Iranian researchers of TEFL in Iranian universities overcome their language difficulties when writing scientific research articles.

Their experience in the discourse community seems to play a part in identifying language problems, and adopting strategies to cope with them. The two kinds of strategy they employ indicate how they survive and succeed in the discourse community.

The interviews also present implications for English teaching. Teachers need to consider their

personnel. At an early stage in their career, junior researchers need to be shown that scientific texts can be written with their limited writing skills, using the set phrases and sentence patterns employed in academic texts. However, at some stage in their career they need to be shown the implications for human interaction in impersonal language.

ntentions that lie behind impersonal phrases. Selective reading

As shown by Bloch (2003), the use of evaluative language in scientific discourse may be one way to show the human interaction in seemingly impersonal exchange. Junior researchers could also be encouraged to have contact in English with other researchers, for example through the use of email. It seems crucial to increase their interest in language and communication, if researchers are to succeed in the discourse community.

As the researchers interviewed were limited to TEFL, it would be useful to hear other - speaking researchers and

non-English-speaking researchers apply the seemingly fixed use of tense, voice and verbs. A close examination of the use of linguistic forms, in papers written by English-speaking writers and Iranian


writers may reveal differences in relation to their impact on readers. These studies may help non-English speakers to overcome their pragmatic difficulties in academia.

Acknowledgment

I gratefully acknowledge the funding support received for this project from the Islamic Azad University, Fasa Branch, Iran

References

Anthony, L. (1999). Writing research article introductions in software engineering: How accurate is a standard model? IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42, 38-46.

Armengol-Castells, L. (2001). Text-generating strategies of three multilingual writers: A protocol-based study. Language Awareness, 10, 91-106.

Atkinson, D. (2004). Contrasting rhetorics / contrasting cultures: Why contrastive rhetoric needs a better conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 277-289.

Belcher, D. (1994). The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy: graduate students and their mentors. English for Specific Purposes, 13 (1), 23 34.

Blacklee, A. M. (1997). Activity, context, interaction, and authority: Learning to writescientific papers in situ. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11 (2), 125 169.

Casanave, C. P. (1998). Transitions: The balancing act of bilingual academics. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 175-203.

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language Writing. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 291-304.

Cotterall, S., & Cohen, R. (2003). Scaffolding for second language writers. ELT Journal, 57/2, 158-166.

Crookes, G. (1986). Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 57-70

Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825.

Dong, Y. R. (1998). Non- -reports by students and their advisors from two US institutions. English for Specific Purposes 17 (4), 369 390.


Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Research in English for scientific purposes. In R. Khoo (Ed.), LSP: Problems and Prospects (pp. 219-231). Singapore: RELC.

Flowerdew, J. (1999a). Writing for scholarly publication in English: the case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (2), 123 145.

Flowerdew, J. (1999b). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 243 264.

Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (1), 127 150.

Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world: Cultural issues in academic writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 5 (2), 109 128.

Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 17 29.

Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1 (1), 2 12.

Jarratt, S. C., Losh, E., & Puente, D. (2006). Transnational identifications: Biliterate writers in a first-year humanities course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1), 24 48.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen. S. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Allyn and Bacon, London.

Goetz, J. P. & LeCompte. M.D. (1984). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Education Research. Academic Press, New York.

Jemudd, B. H., & Baldauf, R. B. (1987). Planning science communication for human resource development. In B. K. Das (Ed.), Communicative language teaching (pp.144-189). Singapore: RELC.

Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16(1), 1-20.

Kaplan, R. B. & Grabe, W. (2002). A modern history of written discourse analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 191-223.

Li, Y.( 2002). Writing for international publication: The perceptions of Chinese doctoral researchers. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 12, 179 194.

Li, Y. (2006). A doctoral student of physics writing for publication: A socio-politically oriented case


study. English for Specific Purposes, 25(4), 456-478.

McDonough, J., & S. McDonough. (2001). Composing in a foreign language: An insider-ousider perspectives. Language Awareness 10, 4, 233-48.

Okamura, A. (1995)strategies. Proceedings of Conference on Japanese Information Technology at Newcastle.

Paltridge, B. (1993). Writing up research: A systemic functional perspective. System, 21 (2), 175 192.

Parkhurst, C. (1990). The composition process of science writers. English for Specific Purposes, 9 (2), 169 179.

Peterlin, A. P. (2005). Text organizing in research articles: An English-Slovene contrastive analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 307-319.

Powney, J. & Watts. M. (1987). Interview in Education Research. Routledge, London.

Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning 37, 3, 439-68.

189 206.

St John, M. J. (1987). Writing processes of Spanish scientists publishing in English. English for Specific Purposes 6, 113-l 20.

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

Swales, J. M. & Najjar, H. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication, 4, 175-192.

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Vieira, I. M. (2005). On academic writing in Latin America (The cases of Argentina, Mexico and Venezuela). Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 5, 251-263.

Vinyard, D. W. (2006). Voices in revision: Case studies of L1 and L2 students in college composition classes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(3), 923.

Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003) Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365-385.

Appendix A


Interview questions

A. What aspects of the use of lexicon/grammar/phraseology do you find difficult?

B. Do you pay attention to the readers when writing in English?

C. How do you use Persian and English when thinking and writing?

D. Did you receive your degree in Iran?

E. How many papers have you published?

F. Have you faced any particular problems in writing for scholarly journal in English?

G. Do you have the experience of teaching in an English speaking country?

H. Have you ever served on the editorial boards of any journal, and had been reviewers of articles?

Documents

Writing Research Articles in English: Insights from Iranian University Teachers’ of TEFL