Context

Two major types of context are relevant here: 1) context of the research; and 2) context of the research presentation.

Context of the research includes:

where the research is done
who the subjects are
how and why they are chosen
what are the conditions under which the research is conducted

Context of the presentation includes:

where the research is presented
whether it is written or verbal
what is the final format of the presentation

These questions are relevant to the rhetoric of the research because they affect both how research is conducted and how it is presented. The relationship between how research is conducted and how it is presented is such that they are virtually inseparable.

Decisions about context, including participants, locations, methodologies, are rhetorical decisions. When researchers formulate questions that have the population to be studied embedded in them (e.g., Do most male freshman at a given state university drink alcohol?), they are also making rhetorical decisions. They believe there is something representative, telling, or worthwhile in investigating these questions. Context, then, becomes a critical aspect of the presentation of research.

According to Swales and Najjar (1987), researchers will often present the context for the studies in the introductions, as a way of appealing to a specific audience (p. 260). Swales (1990) goes on to present a model for introductions based on "creat[ing] a research space" (p. 140). In this context-creating model, the first rhetorical move is to show that the research is significant. The second move is a summary or review of relevant literature. The researcher makes an argument that the literature, while crucial, is not yet complete. Researchers complete the context by positioning themselves and promising to add something new that will make the community's literature more complete. Other steps towards defining the research context can be taken in methods' sections where researchers discuss the selection of participants, their own role in the study, and appropriate descriptions of the methodologies used.

Ethnographic research methods in English have expanded notions of acceptable research contexts, particularly with regard to researchers' positions relative to context. It is now acceptable for a researcher to investigate, for example, her own students. A study of this sort would have been seen as insufficiently objective until ethnographic methods became once again accepted by the English community.

In the design section of her paper, "How Characteristics of Student Essays Influence Teachers' Evaluations," (from Hayes, et al., 1992, p. 317) Sarah Warshauer Freedman gives great attention to a description of criteria used to choose the subjects of her study and how she organized them into groups for the purposes of the study. In the article, it is clear that Freedman believes she must not only describe but justify her choice of subjects if her presentation is going to be convincing. This becomes clearer when Freedman presents the same findings in another article (link to Appendix A).

The Freedman article was taken from the collection of articles, Reading Empirical Research Studies: The Rhetoric of Research by Hayes et al., and is one of two articles by Freedman about the same research re-published in the book. In both articles, Freedman clearly identifies and justifies her choice of population. Rhetorically, this implies that regardless of where a given piece of research is published (the two journals Freedman wrote for - CCC and Journal of Educational Psychology - differ widely in their focus, purpose, and rhetorical constraints), defending the appropriateness of the context of the research is a critical piece of the presentation in both of the contexts Freedman chooses.

Writing Guides

Understanding the Rhetoric of Research

Context