A Critical Genre Analysis of the Clinical Pharmacy Master’s Dissertation Discussion Chapter and its Application to English for Specific Academic Purposes Pedagogy

The master’s dissertation is typically a key final assessment task on degree courses in the UK. Therefore, given its high stakes nature home and international students need to develop an understanding of its key rhetorical structures and metadiscourse features if they are to be successful in writing this key genre. Although research in the domain of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) has identified variation in the key features of academic genres across disciplines, there has been a lack of discipline specific research of assessment texts, such as, the master’s dissertation. As an English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP) lecturer I noticed a lack of pedagogically useful discipline specific, genre knowledge of the Clinical Pharmacy master’s dissertation Discussion Chapter (DC). This part-genre of the dissertation is significant due to its critical synthesis of the dissertation’s findings, previous research and discipline knowledge to demonstrate a student’s competence in approaching subject knowledge according to the conventions of their discipline. In addition, this study analysed the Discussion Section of the research article (RA) key part-genre, as it is the paradigm for the academic writing conventions of the discipline. This study explored the key rhetorical structural (moves and steps) and metadiscourse features of the dissertation Discussion Chapter part-genre in comparison with those of the RA Discussion Section in the discipline of Clinical Pharmacy. Knowing the former is important in understanding the features the student uses, whilst the latter offers a clue as to what students need to develop further particularly in terms of criticality. Thus, the study aims to appropriate such a sociolinguistic analysis as part of promoting a socio-constructivist English for Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP) pedagogy relevant to academia. The hope is that this work might provide pedagogically useful insights that teachers could use to empower students in terms of mastering certain kinds of texts in order for them to reach their full potential in the dissertation assessment task. In addition, it could equip ESAP lecturers with a sociolinguistic metalanguage for describing HE assessment texts, which might support their engagement with genre analysis as a research approach and means of collaboration with discipline lecturers. Engaging with genre analysis might also become part of students’ study skills as it affords learner autonomy. Following Bhatia’s Critical Genre Analysis (2017) approach, two data sets were created to explore this study’s context and texts respectively. Data set 1 consisted of: transcripts of semi-structured interviews of the local discourse community’s members (n-11); Clinical Pharmacy programme documentation; and English for Specific Academic Purposes resources. Data set 2 consisted of two corpora: a corpus of students’ Discussion Chapters (n-11), and a corpus of RA Discussion Sections (n-17). A Genre Analysis (Swales,1990) utilising Moreno and Swales’ (2018) systematic, hierarchical coded model was conducted in both corpora. This provided empirical evidence (normed frequency) identifying the key rhetorical structural features of each corpus. In addition, Hyland and Tse’s (2004) metadiscourse model enabled an analysis of the frequency of metadiscourse markers of criticality (stance) in both corpora. Application of Aristotle’s Rhetoric (2007) as adapted by Gross and Chelsey (2012) enabled a discussion of the findings within a social activity of the Clinical Pharmacy discipline. There was a marked difference in the word counts and presentation of the two corpora. The master’s dissertation Discussion Chapter corpus’ critical steps had a frequency of 38% of all steps, whilst in the RA corpus’ normed frequency was higher at 45%. This 7% differential aligned with the programme lecturers’ emphasis on the importance of developing criticality in dissertation writing. On the other hand, the master’s dissertation Discussion Chapter corpus had a high frequency (62%) of neutral steps compared to that of the RA Discussion Section corpus’ frequency of 55%. However, the rhetorical micro-structure had a similar total number of neutral and critical step types, with the ‘Research reported neutrally’ and the ‘Evaluation’ steps similar in normed frequency across both corpora. In contrast, other neutral and critical step types demonstrated variation across the corpora albeit sometimes nuanced. The Findings report move was found in all texts (conventional) in each corpus and at the same normed frequency (22%), which aligned with previous research studies’ findings. Therefore, both corpora have a core of neutral moves. All other moves were found in all (conventional) of the master’s dissertation Discussion Chapter texts, whereas they were found in most of the RA texts. Similarity in the frequency of steps and moves across the corpora indicates a shared academic convention for a neutral presentation of a writer’s new findings, and an explicit critical stance of own and others’ studies, and institutional guidelines. However, difference in the frequency of steps and moves across the corpora indicates areas where master’s students would benefit from guidance on the development of criticality. These findings not only contribute to ESAP and discipline lecturers’ pedagogy by emphasising the importance of understanding key rhetorical features and the use of appropriate metadiscourse, but also contribute to curriculum and assessment design across the HE sector with the use of Genre Analysis metalanguage. Critical Genre Analysis studies need to be repeated in other Clinical Pharmacy discourse communities, and those of other disciplines across HE in order to contribute to a more discipline specific genre knowledge of the master’s dissertation and in particular its part-genre: the Discussion Chapter. This would also widen engagement with Genre Analysis in research and pedagogy.