By using genre analysis, this study investigates the way writers use interpersonal metadiscourse to partly reveal their identity and examines their selected mode of interaction in two major academic fields: the social sciences (SS) and natural sciences (NS). A total of 55 academic research articles from the SS and NS were selected as the corpus of this study. A comparison of the two disciplines was made, based on the use of interpersonal metadiscourse through `hedges', `emphatics' and `attitude markers'. The analysis showed that the SS writers employed interpersonal metadiscourse more frequently than the NS writers. One-to-one comparison further showed that they varied significantly in their use of hedges and attitude markers but there was little difference in their use of emphatics. However, the use of hedges and emphatics was significantly different within each discipline. A qualitative in-depth analysis revealed that the choice of validity markers was closely related to the type of article being studied.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundCommunity assessment is a core function of public health. In such assessments, a commitment to community participation and empowerment is at the heart of the WHO European Healthy Cities Network, reflecting its origins in health for all and the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. This study employs a participation and empowerment plan in order to conduct community assessment.MethodsThe method of participatory action research (PAR) was used. The study was carried out in an area of high socio-economic deprivation in Ardabil, a city in the northwest of Iran, which is currently served by a branch of the Social Development Center (SDC). The steering committee of the project was formed by some university faculty members, health officials and delegates form Farhikhteh non-governmental organization and representatives from twelve blocks or districts of the community. Then, the representatives were trained and then conducted focus groups in their block. The focus group findings informed the development of the questionnaire. About six hundred households were surveyed and study questionnaires were completed either during face-to-face interviews by the research team (in case of illiteracy) or via self-completion. The primary question for the residents was: 'what is the most important health problem in your community? Each health problem identified by the community was weighted based on the frequency it was selected on the survey, and steering committee perception of the problem's seriousness, urgency, solvability, and financial load.ResultsThe main problems of the area appeared to be the asphalt problem, lack of easy access to medical centers, addiction among relatives and unemployment of youth. High participation rates of community members in the steering committee and survey suggest that the PAR approach was greatly appreciated by the community and that problems identified through this research truly reflect community opinion.ConclusionsParticipatory action research is an effective method for community assessments. However, researchers must rigorously embrace principles of mutual cooperation, respect for public ideas, and a robust belief in community empowerment in order to pave the way for responsible and active citizen participation in the various stages of research.