Research output: Thesis › Doctoral Thesis
Research output: Thesis › Doctoral Thesis
}
TY - BOOK
T1 - The Linguistic Injustice Debate
T2 - A Comparative Study of Literature Review Writing Practices
AU - Abusalim, Anoud
PY - 2023/2/10
Y1 - 2023/2/10
N2 - Considering the growing role of the English language as the default academic research language, English for Research Publishing Purpose (ERPP) scholarship often debated the claims of linguistic injustice voiced by some English as an additional language (EAL) scholars. Yet, these claims remain unsubstantiated because of the lack of comparative studies examining the research writing practices of EAL and native English-speaking (NES) scholars. The present comparative study contributes to the expanding ERPP literature by focusing on the experiences of EAL and NES scholars, based outside the Anglophone sphere in the United Arab Emirates, in preparing and writing the literature review (LR) section in a research article (RA) across social sciences and humanities (SSH) and STEM disciplines. Employing qualitative inquiry, this study investigates the ERPP practices of EAL and NES scholars by examining their linguistic and disciplinary practices and challenges to offer a meaningful understanding of their research writing practices, which transcends the limitations of the linguistic binary. The study’s data consists of 22 interviews with 11 EAL and 11 NES scholars in SSH and STEM disciplines. The study’s findings reveal that EAL and NES scholars share similar ERPP practices and challenges, but these challenges are different across SSH and STEM disciplines. The study offers new perspectives, for ERPP practitioners, about addressing the global disparities in academic publishing by emphasising the necessity of understanding the impact of disciplinary practices on research writing rather than focusing on the simplistic linguistic binary.
AB - Considering the growing role of the English language as the default academic research language, English for Research Publishing Purpose (ERPP) scholarship often debated the claims of linguistic injustice voiced by some English as an additional language (EAL) scholars. Yet, these claims remain unsubstantiated because of the lack of comparative studies examining the research writing practices of EAL and native English-speaking (NES) scholars. The present comparative study contributes to the expanding ERPP literature by focusing on the experiences of EAL and NES scholars, based outside the Anglophone sphere in the United Arab Emirates, in preparing and writing the literature review (LR) section in a research article (RA) across social sciences and humanities (SSH) and STEM disciplines. Employing qualitative inquiry, this study investigates the ERPP practices of EAL and NES scholars by examining their linguistic and disciplinary practices and challenges to offer a meaningful understanding of their research writing practices, which transcends the limitations of the linguistic binary. The study’s data consists of 22 interviews with 11 EAL and 11 NES scholars in SSH and STEM disciplines. The study’s findings reveal that EAL and NES scholars share similar ERPP practices and challenges, but these challenges are different across SSH and STEM disciplines. The study offers new perspectives, for ERPP practitioners, about addressing the global disparities in academic publishing by emphasising the necessity of understanding the impact of disciplinary practices on research writing rather than focusing on the simplistic linguistic binary.
U2 - 10.17635/lancaster/thesis/1910
DO - 10.17635/lancaster/thesis/1910
M3 - Doctoral Thesis
PB - Lancaster University
ER -