在外围环境中寻求研究资金:赠款建议摘要的学习者语料库体裁研究

IF 3.1 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
{"title":"在外围环境中寻求研究资金:赠款建议摘要的学习者语料库体裁研究","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Although the grant proposal is a high-stakes genre for researchers, there are few analyses available for consultation by learners and most studies investigate only a limited number of successful proposals written by experienced academics. This study reports on a genre analysis of a learner corpus of grant proposal summaries (abstracts), written by researchers who operate at the periphery of academia. The proposals were written by exiled Syrian academics and submitted to the Council for At-Risk Academics (Cara) grant awarding body for research funding. A corpus of 102 proposal summaries was compiled consisting of 27 successful and 75 unsuccessful summaries, and a genre framework of three moves and ten steps was developed. Successful summaries were contrasted with unsuccessful summaries; this comparison reveals that unsuccessful summaries underuse the move <em>Indicating the value of the research</em>. Specifically, they tend to omit two steps: <em>Importance</em> (of the research) and <em>Research Outcomes</em>. All Cara summaries were also compared with Matzler's (2021) prototype; results show that both successful and unsuccessful summaries underuse the <em>Methods</em> step. These findings provide pointers to the genre functions likely to be most problematic for learners, and have immediate practical applications in pedagogic materials for proposal writing.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475158524000997/pdfft?md5=ba6ea28d548795289085b77deb9f8802&pid=1-s2.0-S1475158524000997-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Seeking research funding in a peripheral context: A learner corpus genre study of grant proposal summaries\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101431\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Although the grant proposal is a high-stakes genre for researchers, there are few analyses available for consultation by learners and most studies investigate only a limited number of successful proposals written by experienced academics. This study reports on a genre analysis of a learner corpus of grant proposal summaries (abstracts), written by researchers who operate at the periphery of academia. The proposals were written by exiled Syrian academics and submitted to the Council for At-Risk Academics (Cara) grant awarding body for research funding. A corpus of 102 proposal summaries was compiled consisting of 27 successful and 75 unsuccessful summaries, and a genre framework of three moves and ten steps was developed. Successful summaries were contrasted with unsuccessful summaries; this comparison reveals that unsuccessful summaries underuse the move <em>Indicating the value of the research</em>. Specifically, they tend to omit two steps: <em>Importance</em> (of the research) and <em>Research Outcomes</em>. All Cara summaries were also compared with Matzler's (2021) prototype; results show that both successful and unsuccessful summaries underuse the <em>Methods</em> step. These findings provide pointers to the genre functions likely to be most problematic for learners, and have immediate practical applications in pedagogic materials for proposal writing.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47717,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of English for Academic Purposes\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475158524000997/pdfft?md5=ba6ea28d548795289085b77deb9f8802&pid=1-s2.0-S1475158524000997-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of English for Academic Purposes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475158524000997\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475158524000997","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然对于研究人员来说,拨款建议是一种高风险体裁,但可供学习者参考的分析却很少,而且大多数研究只调查了由经验丰富的学者撰写的数量有限的成功建议。本研究报告了对学习者语料库中由学术界边缘研究人员撰写的赠款建议摘要(摘要)的体裁分析。这些提案由流亡的叙利亚学者撰写,并提交给 "高风险学者理事会"(Cara)研究经费拨款机构。我们编制了一个包含 102 份提案摘要的语料库,其中有 27 份成功的摘要和 75 份不成功的摘要,并制定了一个包含三个步骤和十个步骤的体裁框架。成功的摘要与不成功的摘要进行了对比;对比结果显示,不成功的摘要没有充分利用 "表明研究价值 "这一步骤。具体来说,它们往往省略了两个步骤:重要性(研究)和研究成果。我们还将所有 Cara 摘要与 Matzler(2021 年)的原型进行了比较;结果显示,成功和不成功的摘要都未充分利用方法步骤。这些发现为可能对学习者造成最大问题的体裁功能提供了指针,并可直接应用于建议书写作的教学材料中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Seeking research funding in a peripheral context: A learner corpus genre study of grant proposal summaries

Although the grant proposal is a high-stakes genre for researchers, there are few analyses available for consultation by learners and most studies investigate only a limited number of successful proposals written by experienced academics. This study reports on a genre analysis of a learner corpus of grant proposal summaries (abstracts), written by researchers who operate at the periphery of academia. The proposals were written by exiled Syrian academics and submitted to the Council for At-Risk Academics (Cara) grant awarding body for research funding. A corpus of 102 proposal summaries was compiled consisting of 27 successful and 75 unsuccessful summaries, and a genre framework of three moves and ten steps was developed. Successful summaries were contrasted with unsuccessful summaries; this comparison reveals that unsuccessful summaries underuse the move Indicating the value of the research. Specifically, they tend to omit two steps: Importance (of the research) and Research Outcomes. All Cara summaries were also compared with Matzler's (2021) prototype; results show that both successful and unsuccessful summaries underuse the Methods step. These findings provide pointers to the genre functions likely to be most problematic for learners, and have immediate practical applications in pedagogic materials for proposal writing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
81
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of English for Academic Purposes provides a forum for the dissemination of information and views which enables practitioners of and researchers in EAP to keep current with developments in their field and to contribute to its continued updating. JEAP publishes articles, book reviews, conference reports, and academic exchanges in the linguistic, sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic description of English as it occurs in the contexts of academic study and scholarly exchange itself.
×
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