Understanding the Rhetoric of Research

Related Resources
Print-Friendly Page
Authors & Contributors

Most research accepted by professional journals has some common rhetorical features. Hansen emphasizes S. E. Toulmin's (1984) argument that "any wholly explicit argument" puts forth a:

• claim, or an assertion the arguer wishes his audience to accept;
• the grounds, or "the particular facts in the situation that make good the claim" (experimental observation, statistical data, personal testimony, etc.);
• warrants or "the previously agreed upon facts, rules, laws, principles, that authorize or license the movement from grounds to claim"; and
• backing, or a common body of knowledge relied on "to establish soundness and relevance of the warrants" (p. 205).

Making a claim is a matter of taking a position in an unexplored niche that a researcher perceives in the conversation. According to Swales (1990), "the higher the level of the claim, the more likely that it will involve contradicting large bodies of the relevant literature . . . [T]he lowest level claims may contradict nothing, but may also add very little" to the conversation (p. 117). Warrants, in all cases, are produced by members of individual disciplines and perpetuated by journal editors who decide what will be of interest to their readers and how such information should be presented.

Researchers in English position themselves in a conversation by reviewing the relevant literature and bringing that literature to bear on the research in question. Researchers draw on prior knowledge about their topic at the same time that they acknowledge members of the discourse community. This is one way researchers establish credibility in a community where previously published research has demonstrated its value because it has been read and accepted by many members of the community. Similarly, an extensive and detailed explanation of methodology is common, as researchers in English may use a variety of methods. In other disciplines, such as "hard sciences," an extensive methodology is not always necessary, as all researchers may use the same one.

Discourse community members must be constantly aware of what is currently considered valid research methods and presentation formats. How researchers choose a rhetorical style depends on their knowledge of rhetoric patterns that mirror the type of research they have conducted. "Rhetoric," Hunter (1990) says, "is the systematic study of the acts of communication by which people convince others of the reality of the truth of their assertions" (p. 4). To produce convincing rhetoric, English researchers must negotiate the conventions of the research genre with other members of their disciplines. Berkenkotter and Hukin (1995) explain that "genres are the intellectual scaffolds on which community-based knowledge is constructed. To be fully effective in this role, genre must be flexible and dynamic, capable of modification according to the rhetorical exigencies of the situation" (p. 24). Even though a researcher can identify useful patterns that may help with the presentation of research, the dynamism of the genre makes it impossible to prescribe specific methods of research presentation.