Comparative analysis of epistemic stance in abstracts of published biomedical research and associated National Institutes of Health funding applications (1985–2020)

IF 3.6 1区 文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS
Neil Millar, Bojan Batalo
{"title":"Comparative analysis of epistemic stance in abstracts of published biomedical research and associated National Institutes of Health funding applications (1985–2020)","authors":"Neil Millar, Bojan Batalo","doi":"10.1093/applin/amae072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) exerts considerable influence over the trajectory of biomedical science and healthcare policy and practice. Here, we extend previous research by assessing the relationship between the expression of epistemic stance (i.e. confidence in propositions) in successful NIH funding applications and the subsequent research publications. Analysis of 140 stance features (modal verbs, hedges, and boosters) in all PubMed abstracts describing NIH-funded research during the period 1985–2020 identified trends that broadly mirrored those previously reported for abstracts of the associated funding applications. We argue that trends, in part, indicate that investigators adopted a stance that became less cautious and less tentative (e.g. consistent declines for appear, seem, and probably), and increasingly confident, assertive, and empirical (e.g. consistent increases for highlight, likely, and typically). Discussing our results in relation to changes in the biomedical research system, including growth in promotional writing strategies, we suggest that increasing salesmanship in the NIH research system is in part a downstream effect of funding mechanisms. We also infer methodological and pedagogic implications for analysis of metadiscourse.","PeriodicalId":48234,"journal":{"name":"Applied Linguistics","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amae072","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) exerts considerable influence over the trajectory of biomedical science and healthcare policy and practice. Here, we extend previous research by assessing the relationship between the expression of epistemic stance (i.e. confidence in propositions) in successful NIH funding applications and the subsequent research publications. Analysis of 140 stance features (modal verbs, hedges, and boosters) in all PubMed abstracts describing NIH-funded research during the period 1985–2020 identified trends that broadly mirrored those previously reported for abstracts of the associated funding applications. We argue that trends, in part, indicate that investigators adopted a stance that became less cautious and less tentative (e.g. consistent declines for appear, seem, and probably), and increasingly confident, assertive, and empirical (e.g. consistent increases for highlight, likely, and typically). Discussing our results in relation to changes in the biomedical research system, including growth in promotional writing strategies, we suggest that increasing salesmanship in the NIH research system is in part a downstream effect of funding mechanisms. We also infer methodological and pedagogic implications for analysis of metadiscourse.
对已发表的生物医学研究摘要和相关的美国国立卫生研究院资助申请中的认识论立场进行比较分析(1985-2020 年)
美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)资助的研究对生物医学科学和医疗保健政策与实践的发展轨迹产生了相当大的影响。在此,我们对之前的研究进行了扩展,评估了在成功申请美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)资助时的认识论立场(即对命题的信心)表达与随后发表的研究论文之间的关系。我们分析了 1985-2020 年间所有描述美国国立卫生研究院资助研究的 PubMed 摘要中的 140 个立场特征(情态动词、对冲和助推),发现这些趋势与之前报道的相关资助申请摘要的趋势大致相同。我们认为,这种趋势在一定程度上表明,研究者所采取的立场不再那么谨慎,也不再那么试探性(例如,"出现"、"似乎 "和 "可能 "的比例持续下降),而是越来越自信、坚定和实事求是(例如,"突出"、"可能 "和 "典型 "的比例持续上升)。在结合生物医学研究系统的变化(包括宣传性写作策略的增长)讨论我们的结果时,我们认为,美国国立卫生研究院研究系统中销售技巧的增加在一定程度上是资助机制的下游效应。我们还推断了元话语分析的方法论和教学意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Linguistics
Applied Linguistics LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Applied Linguistics publishes research into language with relevance to real-world problems. The journal is keen to help make connections between fields, theories, research methods, and scholarly discourses, and welcomes contributions which critically reflect on current practices in applied linguistic research. It promotes scholarly and scientific discussion of issues that unite or divide scholars in applied linguistics. It is less interested in the ad hoc solution of particular problems and more interested in the handling of problems in a principled way by reference to theoretical studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信