AUTHORS’ STRATEGIES FOR JUSTIFYING RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN RESEARCH ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN PRESTIGIOUS JOURNALS

Risnawati Risnawati; Safnil Arsyad; Dian Eka Chadra Wardhana

doi:10.24071/llt.v28i1.10034

AUTHORS’ STRATEGIES FOR JUSTIFYING RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN RESEARCH ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN PRESTIGIOUS JOURNALS

Risnawati Risnawati⁽¹⁾, Safnil Arsyad^(2*), Dian Eka Chadra Wardhana⁽³⁾,

(1) Universitas Islam Negeri Fatmawati Sukarno Bengkulu, Indonesia
(2) Universitas Bengkulu, Indonesia
(3) Bengkulu University, Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

The dependability and validity of research outcomes depend on the quality of the arguments presented in scientific articles' methods sections, which also affects reproducibility. Previous discourse analysis studies have paid little attention to evaluating the importance of methods sections. This research examines how authors in applied linguistics and English education rationalize their methodological selections, concentrating on three main facets: research design, sampling methods, and data analysis. The study analyzed 100 scholarly articles from respected international journals included in Scopus and distributed across four separate regions. Authors typically supported their research design and data analysis by citing methodological literature but used implicit justification when selecting sampling methods. Several articles did not provide clear explanations for their methodological choices, particularly regarding sampling methods. The results reveal a significant gap between the anticipated standards for transparent methodological reporting and the currently observed scholarly practices. Research design and data analysis received frequent justifications, but sampling methods remained poorly explained, thus compromising both transparency and replicability. Researchers need to provide stronger direct justifications for all methodological aspects, according to this study. Novice authors and postgraduate students must carefully adhere to journal guidelines and provide complete and detailed reporting within the methods section.

Keywords

argument, applied linguistics, English education, methods section, prestigious journal

Full Text:

PDF

References

Arsyad, S. (2024). Arguments in the methods section of journal articles in English language education published in high-impact journals. Discourse and Interaction, 17(1), 8-29. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2024-1-8

Arsyad, S., Purwo, B. K., & Adnan, Z. (2020). The argument style in research article discussions to support research findings in language studies. Studies in English Language and Education, 7(2), 290-307. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v7i2.16626

Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.004

Bensman, S. J., & Harzing, A. (2010). The publish or perish book: Your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis. Scientometrics, 88, 339–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0388-8

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.

Cotos, E., Huffman, S., & Link, S. (2017). A move/step model for methods sections: Demonstrating rigour and credibility. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 27, 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.04.003

Day, R. A. (2017). How to write and publish a scientific paper (8th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Drisko, J. W., & Maschi, T. (2016). Content analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Flowerdew, J. (2015). Some thoughts on English for research publication purposes (ERPP) and related issues. Language Teaching, 48(2), 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000523

González-Pereira, B., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2009). The SJR indicator: A new indicator of journals’ scientific prestige. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220484878

Hassan, A., Batool, Z., & Islam, M. (2023). A move analysis of the methodology sections of Pakistani researchers’ articles in the field of English linguistics and literature. Critical Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(2), 1-16.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/978020300660

Kafes, H. (2016). Generic structure of the methods section of research article and MA thesis by Turkish academic writers. International Journal of Language Academy, 4(3), 132-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.18033/ijla.429

Kallet, R. H. (2004). How to write the methods section of a research paper. Respiratory Care, 49(10), 1229–1232.

Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.08.003

Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. London: Routledge.

Lim, J. M. H. (2006). Method sections of management research articles: A pedagogically motivated qualitative study. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 282–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.07.001

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2021). Second language research: Methodology and design (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003188414

Martinez, I. A. (2017). Rhetorical structure of the methods sections of empirical research articles. International Journal of English Studies, 17(2), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2017/2/268611

Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Journals, 16(2), 119-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)85388-4

Paltridge, B., & Phakiti, A. (2015). Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2012). The handbook of English for specific purposes. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.

Peacock, M. (2011). The structure of the methods section in research articles across eight disciplines. Asian ESP Journal, 7(2), 99–123.

Pramoolsook, I., Johnston, A., & Chatraporn, S. (2015). Research article methods section in applied linguistics: Rhetorical variations between a high-ranked and a low-ranked journal. English Language Teaching, 8(10), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n10p96

Reuters, T. (2016). Journal citation reports: Impact factor and ranking data. Clarivate Analytics.

Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of master’s theses across disciplines: The case of introductions in biology and philosophy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.005

Silverman, D. (2015). Interpreting qualitative data (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Smagorinsky, P. (2008). The methods section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25(3), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308317815

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827

Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (2nd Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Warrens, M. J. (2014). New interpretations of Cohen’s Kappa. Journal of Mathematics, 1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/203907

Zhang, Y., & Wannaruk, A. (2016). Genre analysis of methods sections in applied linguistics research articles. 3L: Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 22(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2016-2201-01

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v28i1.10034