Previous studies have several limitations …: Indonesian Doctoral Students’, Indonesian Academics’, and International Authors’ Research Gap Strategies in ELT Research Article Abstracts and Introductions

Abstract

Presenting research gap(s) in a research article (RA), particularly in the abstract and introduction, should be considered by authors, since it functions to show the novelty of the research. As there have been limited studies on the possible variations in authors' research gap strategies and the problems in identifying research gaps, this mixed-method study aimed to fill the gaps. Using genre analysis, this study compared the use of research gap strategies in English Language Teaching (ELT) RA abstracts and introductions by three groups of authors, namely, Indonesian doctoral students, Indonesian academics, and international authors. The results of the quantitative analysis in this study indicated that the three groups share similarities and differences in using the types of research gap strategy in their ELT RA abstracts and introductions. Then, the qualitative analysis using semi-structured interviews with ten doctoral students revealed some problems encountered by them in identifying research gaps during research activities. Finally, this study demonstrates the extent to which our findings have theoretical and practical implications concerning the use of strategies in presenting research gaps in RAs.

Research gap strategies in article introductions of different rank applied linguistics journals

“…Among limited studies on writers' strategy in establishing an RG in their article introduction are those conducted by Lim (2012), Suryani et al (2015), Müeller-Bloch and Kranz (2015), Chen and Li (2019) and Arianto et al (2021). Lim (2012) found that compared to writers in Educational Psychology, Second Language Writing, and Biochemistry, more writers in the field of Management indicated their RGs in their article introductions.…”

“…A more recent study on RG strategy in the field of English language education of AL is by Arianto et al (2021). In their study, Arianto et al (2021) compared three groups of writers in AL (i.e., Indonesian doctoral students, Indonesian faculty members, and international journal writers) in the ways they support their research in the article abstracts and introductions.…”

“…According to Lim (2012), writers need to convince readers that their research results will have an important contribution to the available body of knowledge, and therefore, readers should read their articles. Similarly, Arianto et al (2021) claim that the novelty or newness of a piece of research is usually addressed in an article introduction; that is, when writers state the research gaps (RGs). However, writers publishing in international journals of different rankings may use different rhetorical strategies and linguistic realizations in addressing their RGs, and the different strategies and linguistic features may affect the quality of articles published in international journals.…”

“…Although RAs, especially those published in reputable international journals in English written by native or non-native writers in various fields, have been frequently investigated, studies on how writers address their RGs in their article introductions are rarely found in the literature (Arianto et al, 2021). Studies on RGs are important because the quality of an article may depend on how writers justify their research; that is, to fix the shortcomings or add new information to the previous research results, and therefore readers should read their article comprehensively (Lim, 2012).…”

“…The content analysis method under the umbrella of the qualitative approach was applied in the data collection and analysis. Six RG strategies, as suggested by Arianto et al (2021), were used as a model for analysis and then the linguistic features used by the writers in realizing the RGs. The results show that among the six different RG strategies, the most frequently used by international writers are Strategy 2 (inadequate research) and Strategy 4 (contradictive/conflicting evidence).…”