English for Specific Purposes 21 (2002) 1±17

www.elsevier.com/locate/esp

Introductions in research articles:

variations across disciplines
B. Samraj *
Department of Linguistics and Oriental Languages, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive,
San Diego, CA 92182-7727, USA

Abstract
This paper reports on an analysis of research article introductions from two related ®elds,
Wildlife Behavior and Conservation Biology, using Swales' [Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis.
English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press] Create-A-
Research-Space (CARS) model. The results of the analysis reveal disciplinary variation in the
structure of this genre, which has important pedagogical implications. The Conservation
Biology introductions ful®ll a greater promotional function than the Wildlife Behavior intro-
ductions through the use of steps such as centrality claims. These introductions also tend to
justify the research being reported in terms of real world matters rather than the epistemic
world of research, in contrast to the Wildlife Behavior introductions. The results also indicate
that a greater degree of embedding is needed in the CARS model to account for the structures
found in the introductions analyzed. A modi®ed version of the CARS model based on the
results is presented in the concluding section. # 2001 The American University. Published by
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Reasearch articles; Introductions; Genre; Environmental science

1. Introduction

Over the last 20 years, a large number of studies on academic writing have been
devoted to the research article, in particular, its structure, social construction and
historical evolution. A number of these studies have concerned themselves with the
overall organization of various parts of the research article, such as the introduction
(e.g. Swales, 1981, 1990; Swales & Najjar, 1987), the results sections (Brett, 1994;
Thompson, 1993), discussions (Hopkins & Dudley-Evans, 1988) and even the
abstracts that accompany the research articles (Melander, Swales & Fredrickson,

* Tel.: +1-619-594-5882; fax: +1-619-594-4877.

E-mail address: bsamraj@mail.sdsu.edu

0889-4906/01/$20.00 # 2001 The American University. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0889-4906(00)00023-5
2 B. Samraj / English for Speci®c Purposes 21 (2002) 1±17

1998; Salager-Meyer, 1990, 1992). Various lexico-grammatical features of the

research article (RA) have also been explored, ranging from tense choice to citation
practices. Beyond the textual structure of this genre, research has also focused on the
historical development of the research article (Bazerman, 1988; Atkinson, 1993;
Salager-Meyer, 1999; Vande Kopple, 1998) and the social construction of this genre
(Myers, 1990).
One aspect of the RA that has perhaps been most studied is the introduction.
Since Swales' (1981, 1990) seminal work on the move structure of RA introductions,
there has been considerable interest in applying the proposed model to other sets of
texts. Crookes (1986), for example, through further analysis, has pointed to the
cyclical nature of introductions. Jacoby (1987) has investigated in greater detail the
use of references in introductions. Scholars have also used Swales' model to examine
texts written in di€erent languages (such as Malay and Swedish) and cultures and
have concluded that RA introductions are in¯uenced by linguistic and cultural dif-
ferences (Fredrickson & Swales, 1994; Ahmad, 1997). There has been less research,
however, on the variations in RA introductions across disciplines despite the grow-
ing interest in disciplinary di€erences in academic writing. Some recent studies have
focused on disciplinary variation in RAs as a whole. Posteguillo's (1999) study of
RAs in computer science and Nwogu's (1997) study of medical science nicely illus-
trate variations in the whole genre across disciplines and underscores the need for
further research on disciplinary variation. However, there have been only a few
studies which have focused primarily on the introduction. Swales and Najjar (1987)
examined RAs from educational psychology and physics focusing on the presence of
principal ®ndings in Move 3 of introductions. A much more recent study by
Anthony (1999) of RA introductions from engineering reveals that Swales' Create-
A-Research-Space (CARS) model does not account for some important features of
the introduction, such as the presence of de®nitions of terms, exempli®cations of
dicult concepts, and evaluation of the research presented.
In this paper, I report on an analysis of article introductions from two related
®elds, Wildlife Behavior and Conservation Biology, both components of environ-
mental science. Wildlife Behavior, a part of ecology, has a much longer history than
Conservation Biology, a newly developed area within the larger interdisciplinary
®eld of environmental science. Wildlife Behavior is a subdiscipline concerned with
the life histories and behaviors of di€erent species while Conservation Biology is a
subdiscipline which draws on various ®elds, such as resource economics and policy,
ecology and environmental ethics, in order to arrive at solutions for conservation
problems. Comparing research article introductions from these two ®elds will enable
us to explore the applicability of the CARS model (Swales, 1990) across di€erent
disciplines. English for Academic Purposes (EAP) instruction and materials devel-
opment have to a large extent, been a€ected by the results of analyses of both oral
and written discourses that students need to learn to produce and comprehend, and
our understanding of textual norms in di€erent disciplines enables us to provide
instruction that better prepares students for the disciplinary communities in which
they are seeking membership. The results of this study can, therefore, have implica-
tions for the teaching of academic writing to non-native speakers of English.
 B. Samraj / English for Speci®c Purposes 21 (2002) 1±17 3

In addition to pedagogical implications, this study can also contribute to our

understanding of genre structure. By comparing texts that belong to the same genre
but di€erent disciplines, we can better distinguish textual characteristics that are due
to disciplinary norms from those that are features of the genre to which the text
belongs. The results of my analysis reveal di€erences in terms of both the moves and
the steps used to realize the moves in the two disciplines. Conservation Biology
introductions resort to centrality claims to a greater degree than Wildlife Behavior
introductions to establish the importance of the general topic of the article. The
study has also identi®ed the presence of a background move detailing features about
the species studied in Wildlife Behavior introductions. More importantly, it shows
that the constituent structure of the moves in the CARS model may not adequately
account for the structure of all RA introductions. My results indicate the need for a
model with a greater degree of ¯exibility in embedding. In particular, my study
shows that the step literature review need not just appear in the ®rst move but can
also be embedded within other steps, such as indicating a gap. As such, literature
reviews perform functions other than that of merely reporting previous research.
The results of the study have been used to arrive at a modi®cation of the CARS
model provided in the Conclusions section (Section 4).

2. Model and data

After conducting an analysis of texts from numerous disciplines, Swales (1990)

postulated a 3-move structure for RA introductions (given in Fig. 1). In essence,
according to this model, RA introductions often begin with a move that establishes
the general topic being discussed. Writers then create a niche for themselves within
this territory in a number of ways as indicated in Fig. 1. Finally, the authors
delineate the particular concerns of the study reported.
Twelve RAs from Conservation Biology and Wildlife Behavior, all published in
1995, were randomly selected from journals deemed by specialists to be central in

Fig. 1. Swales' Create-A-Research-Space (CARS) model. RA=research article.

4 B. Samraj / English for Speci®c Purposes 21 (2002) 1±17

these ®elds. The Conservation Biology RAs come from the the journal Conservation
Biology, which is the journal published by the Society of Conservation Biology. The
Wildlife Behavior RAs are from the journal Animal Behaviour, a key journal in the
®eld. The ®rst 12 RAs published that year in each journal were analyzed using
Swales' model.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Move 1

Research articles most often begin by establishing the importance of the general
topic within which the research being reported is situated. Three steps may be
employed to accomplish this move according to the Swales (1990) model. Centrality
claims may be made, generalizations key to the area of interest may be stated or a
literature review may be provided.
According to Swales (1990, p. 144), centrality claims are ``appeals to the discourse
community whereby members are asked to accept that the research about to be
reported is part of a lively, signi®cant or well-established research area''. Centrality
claims seem to be made in two ways: either by assertions about the importance of
the topic being discussed or by assertions concerning active research activity in the
area concerned. Six Wildlife Behavior introductions include centrality claims and
half of these assert the centrality of the topic by maintaining the topic's importance
for animal behavior (see example 1) and the other half by referring to research
activity in the area (see example 2). (See Table 1 for summary of results of the ana-
lysis.)

1. Chemical signals are crucially important in social behaviour of many mammalian

species, mediating sexual, aggressive, parental and spacing behaviour, as well as
in¯uencing an animal's internal hormonal milieu (Bronson, 1979; Vandenbergh,
1988; Johnston, 1990). (WB 4:1)1
2. Since the results of Burley (1981, 1985, 1986) and Burley et al. (1982) on the
e€ects of colour bands on mate choice, reproductive success, and survival in
zebra ®nches, Taeniopygia guttata, there have been a number of studies on birds
both in captivity and the wild attempting to evaluate the impact of colour bands.
Results have varied, some showing no e€ects of colour bands (e.g. Watt 1982;
Ratcli€ & Boag, 1987; Beletsky & Orians, 1989) and others demonstrating e€ects
(Brodsky, 1988; Hagan & Reed, 1988; Metz & Weatherhead, 1991). (WB 7: 1±2)

Mostly, these centrality claims are found at the beginning of Move 1, which
mainly comes at the start of the introductions. The frequency with which centrality

1
Parenthesis includes information on discipline RA belongs to, article number and sentence numbers
of excerpt
 B. Samraj / English for Speci®c Purposes 21 (2002) 1±17 5

claims are found in the Wildlife Behavior introductions is comparable to the results
that Swales (1990) found in his studies.
More explicit rhetorical work is performed in the beginning of Conservation
Biology introductions. Almost all these introductions include at least one instance of
the step centrality claim. Ten out of the 11 introductions with centrality claims assert
the worthwhileness of the broad research area in terms of the importance of the
topic in relation to the real world. Six introductions establish the centrality of the
research being reported by referring to current research in the area. However, only
one of these establishes centrality of the topic solely in terms of research in the ®eld.
All ®ve others that do refer to research activity in the area also connect the study to
be reported to important environmental concerns. This is mainly carried out by
pointing to problematic aspects of the environment, current conservation practices,
and models and methods being used in conservation management. Centrality claims
can also specify what is important for conservationists to be concerned about given
the negative condition of the environment:

3. Tropical-forest nature reserves are experiencing mounting human encroachment,

raising concerns over their future viability even in remote areas. Long-term
maintenance of nature reserves in economically marginal areas of the tropics is
particularly problematical because protection is based on severely restricted
funding from politically and administratively weak governments. Many tropical
forest reserves consequently operate on skeletal budgets, are chronically
understa€ed, lack the most basic infrastructure, and cannot count on e€ective
institutional support to enforce conservation legislation. Such frailties render
reserves susceptible to a wide range of illegal activities Ð hunting, ®shing,
logging, mining, land clearing Ð carried out by both individuals and
corporations. Worse, the frequent inability of guards, who are often unarmed
and lacking authority to make arrests, to prosecute violators leads to a general
disregard of reserve boundaries and regulations. (CB 1: 1±5).

The importance of the topic, to redesign Amazonian nature reserves, is established

in this introduction to a large degree by drawing the reader's attention to the many
problems associated with tropical-forest nature reserves in general, re¯ected by the
heavy use of negative lexical items. In contrast to the Wildlife Behavior introduc-
tions, the step claiming centrality is usually well-developed and occupies an impor-
tant position in Conservation Biology introductions.
As far as centrality claims are concerned, Conservation Biology tends to assert the
importance of the research being reported more in terms of the phenomenal world than
the epistemic world. One reason for this could be its emerging status. Since Conserva-
tion Biology is a newly emerging ®eld, it does not have a substantial body of established
research to draw on as new work is conducted and established. In this ®eld, it is not
previous research with its inadequacies and gaps that is propelling new research.
Rather, it is a need in the real world that is in¯uencing the choice of area of research.
Conservation Biology has been described as a crisis discipline (Soule, 1985) and
di€erent crises are the bases for di€erent studies.
6 B. Samraj / English for Speci®c Purposes 21 (2002) 1±17

Table 1
Number of Wildlife Behavior and Conservation Biology introductions which contain the three moves and
their constituent steps

Wildlife Behavior Conservation Biology

Move 1 12 12
Centrality claims 6 11
Ðimportance in real world 3 10
Ðimportance in research 3 6a
Topic generalizations 12 12
Move 2 11 12
Gap in research 10 6
Problems in environment 0 9
Positive justi®cationb 5 0
Move 3 12 12
Goal 12 12
ÐBackground on species or site 8 1
Findings 3 6
Predictions 4 1
Paper organization 2 2
a
An introduction can contain more than one centrality claim. Therefore, some of the 11 Conservation
Biology introductions with centrality claims contain claims regarding the importance of the topic in the
real world as well as in the research world.
b
Only appears together with gap.

In my analysis, it was dicult to distinguish steps 2 and 3 of Move 1. Previous

studies of article introductions have not alluded to this problem. However, there
appears to be no clear basis for distinguishing topic generalizations from reviews of
previous research. Should topic generalizations be distinguished from literature
reviews through level of speci®city in the discussion? If so, what level of speci®city
should distinguish the two steps? Or, should the presence of citations be used as a
determining factor? This is not a satisfactory criterion since what appears to be a topic
generalization may or may not be followed by citations, as in the examples below:
4. The uneven distributions of resources such as oxygen, water, food, heat and
mates force many animals to travel between di€erent patches to obtain them
and to use some resources in the process. Travel is often cyclical between two
sites, and there are several examples of animals that use this general class of
shuttling behaviour. Diving animals return to the surface to replenish oxygen
used to forage under water (Kramer, 1988; Houston & Carbone, 1992).
(WB 11: 1±3)
5. Cooperative behaviour can evolve by one of three major routes: kin selection
(Hamilton, 1964), reciprocity (Trivers, 1971; Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981) and
mutualism (Maynard Smith, 1983; Lima, 1989). In a Prisoner's Dilemma, both
individuals would bene®t from mutual cooperation, but each individual would
bene®t more from defecting when its companion cooperated. (WB 10: 1±2)
In both excerpts, as the discussion proceeds, the level of speci®city increases.
Analyzing the ®rst sentence of one introduction as a topic generalization and not the
 B. Samraj / English for Speci®c Purposes 21 (2002) 1±17 7

other, because of the presence of a citation, seems an arbitrary decision. Since topic
generalizations and reviews of previous research seem to have comparable functions
and their main di€erence seems to lie in their levels of speci®city, no attempt was
made to distinguish these two steps in my analysis. Moreover, topic generalizations
without a citation were quite uncommon in both the Conservation Biology and
Wildlife Behavior introductions. Topic generalizations and literature reviews form
the crux of the ®rst move and were found in all 24 RAs analyzed.
References to previous research, however, perform more rhetorical work than just
providing information on the territory within which the topic of the paper is situ-
ated. Bhatia (1993) alludes to the possibility of literature reviews having more than
one discoursal value in his discussion of RA introductions. Clearly, the literature
review has been crafted to portray the importance of the study being reported.
Analysis of the Conservation Biology and Wildlife Behavior introductions has indi-
cated that discussion of previous research is often undertaken for a particular pur-
pose, such as to provide support for the topic generalization or centrality claim
being made or to justify the gap created. Moreover, the review of literature is not
just limited to Move 1 and, in fact, can be found in all three moves, serving very
di€erent rhetorical functions in each. Earlier studies on research article introduc-
tions (such as Crookes, 1986, and Hopkins & Dudley-Evans, 1988) have pointed to
a cyclical pattern in introductions with instances of literature reviews followed by
Move 2s. Though this cyclical pattern was found in some of the Conservation Biol-
ogy and Wildlife Behavior introductions, a number of introductions contain a hier-
archical structure where the discussion of previous research is embedded within one
of the steps in Move 2. This discussion appears after one of the steps belonging to
Move 2, such as specifying a gap and it provides support for the claim of a gap or
even gives a partial answer to a question raised:

6.With the exception of Baldellou and Henzi's (1992) study of vervet monkeys,
the object of male vigilance has seldom been addressed in a ®eld situation,
although the need to consider non-predatory interpretations of vigilance and
confounding variables has been stressed (Elgar, 1989; Lima, 1990). For animals
with complex social relations, vigilance also serves a social function (Underwood,
1982; Knight & Knight, 1986; Cain & Marra, 1988; Roberts, 1988). Individual levels
of vigilance can be a€ected by confounding factors such as dominance rank
(Dimond & Lazarus, 1974; Keverne et al., 1978; Waite, 1987), intensity of
competition (Caraco, 1979), visibility (Cords, 1990; Goldsmith, 1990), distance from
cover (Barnard, 1980; Holmes, 1984; Lima, 1987), and distance from other group
members (Robinson, 1981; Lipetz & Beko€, 1982; Alados, 1985).
Here we report on vigilance in white-faced capuchins. . .(WB 7:10±13)

Literature reviews can be said to be part of the step indicating a gap even when
they appear before the gap when their sole purpose is that of establishing the niche.
In such cases, this step appears to belong rhetorically to the move of establishing a
niche and not the ®rst move of establishing a territory. Positing a cyclical structure
of literature review and a step in Move 2, such as indicating a gap, implies equal
8 B. Samraj / English for Speci®c Purposes 21 (2002) 1±17

value for both steps. However, in the cases discussed above the function of the lit-
erature review is subordinated to the goal of a step from Move 2. In the excerpt
above, the literature review elaborates on the gap in research it follows by specifying
what has been studied and is already known in the area.
In fact, in the Wildlife Behavior introductions there are a signi®cant number of
instances (nine out of 12) where a review of literature follows a statement that
establishes a niche for the author(s) to ®ll. It seems then that the literature review or
discussion of previous research can function as the realization of a number of steps,
such as topic generalization and gap indication. As will be discussed later, literature
reviews also play a signi®cant role in the third move, especially in the Wildlife
Behavior introductions. Referring to previous research then does not have the sole
function of a plain review of literature. This is a step that functions not just as a
realization of Move 1, ``establishing territory'', but can also be subordinated and be
a realization of one of the constituent steps in another move.

3.2. Move 2

Move 2s have received a considerable amount of attention in previous studies on

article introductions, especially on articles written in languages other than English.
This attention has stemmed from the notable absence of this move in article intro-
ductions and a variety of reasons has been postulated to explain this ®nding in
contrastive rhetoric. Fredrickson and Swales (1994) explain the low presence of
Move 2s in Swedish linguistics RAs by suggesting that the writers of these articles,
Swedish language scholars, do not need to compete for research space because of
the size of the discourse community. Ahmad (1997) in her recent study of RAs in
Malay has also noted that Move 2s are quite uncommon in her corpus. She also
points out that the lack of ®erce competition for a research space (because these
researchers are often pioneers in the areas of research, which also have immense
local relevance) results in a rhetorical structure that may be seen as evasive and
dident when compared to the rhetorical styles seen in more typical Anglophone
RA.
Move 2s are clearly present in the Wildlife Behavior introductions. In fact, only
one introduction lacks a clearly demarcated Move 2. Ten of the introductions create
a niche for the research being reported by pointing out a gap in earlier research. This
gap in research can also be established by the author(s) highlighting the contradictions
among the ®ndings from earlier studies:

7. However, data available for birds suggest that the relationship between
ornamental plumage traits of males and mate choice by females may be more
variable and complex than predicted by current theories. For example, while
some studies of birds have demonstrated preference by females for males with
the most elaborately ornamented plumage, such as the brightest or longest tailed
individuals (e.g. refs), others have not detected a correlation either between
plumage or other anatomical characters and female mate choice (e.g. refs).
(WB 12: 7±8)
 B. Samraj / English for Speci®c Purposes 21 (2002) 1±17 9

In addition to indicating a gap in earlier research in terms of untested assump-

tions, or lack of knowledge about a certain wildlife behavior, writers of Wildlife
Behavior RAs also maintain the need for their research through what I call positive
justi®cation. Swales' CARS model does not include any positive step as a means of
realizing the move, creating a niche. However, in the texts analyzed there indeed are
occasions where writers explicitly provide positive reasons for conducting the study
reported. In two of the Wildlife Behavior introductions, the writers directly state the
value of the project reported on. In another three introductions, the authors assert the
merits of their choice of species for studying a particular animal behavior. I provide
an excerpt from an introduction where the authors provide two positive reasons for
conducting their research after establishing the presence of a gap in previous research:

8. At least within the area of chemical communication, however, investigators

have often just examined the signi®cance of one or a small number of cues that
provide information about one particular variable, such as sexual identity or
reproduction state (refs.). There have been relatively few investigations whose
purpose has been to identify all possible sources of signals that a species uses
(e.g. refs.). This is surprising because it is clear that chemical signals are
provided by a variety of excretory products, glandular secretions, body ¯uids
and skin glands (refs.).
One reason to take such an approach is that the information provided by
di€erent signals may not be redundant. . .
Another reason for determining the complete repertoire of chemical signals used
for any particular communicative function is that such information can provide
evidence about the evolutionary specialization of the signals involved (refs.). . .
In the present experiments we investigated. . . (WB 4: 5±19)

Though these positive justi®cations are not very common in these introductions
and do not appear without the more common gap indication, they appear to represent
an additional way of establishing a niche in the research arena. Interestingly, this non-
face threatening way of justifying a piece of research has been found in RA intro-
ductions produced in Malay in a non-Anglophone culture (Ahmad, 1997). This step,
positive justi®cation, appears similar to the step, evaluation of research, postulated by
Anthony (1999) to account for the structure of RA introductions in software engi-
neering. Of note is the fact that evaluation of research in engineering occurs in Move
3 while it mainly occurs in Move 2 in both sets of texts analyzed in this study.
Out of the four steps in the Swales' (1990) model for creating a niche, ``indicating
a gap,'' is also used most often in the Conservation Biology introductions. Half the
introductions indicate a gap in existing research in order to justify the research being
reported:

9. Data to assess the feasibility of extractive reserves and to guide their design are
limited. Few studies of rainforest extraction have presented a quantitative
ecological framework within which to compare forest resources and extraction
in the di€erent forest types available to a given group of people or in di€erent
10 B. Samraj / English for Speci®c Purposes 21 (2002) 1±17

rainforest regions across the tropics. Using data from a case study in West
Kalimantan, Indonesia, we established such a framework and used it to
examine the constraints on stabilizing land use in the rainforest through the
development of extractive resources. (CB 4: 2±4)

A number of other introductions, however, justify the author's research by stres-

sing the nature of environmental problems in the real world. Authors may also use
what is needed to alleviate an environmental problem as a way of justifying the
research to be reported. In nine out of the 12 introductions, the research is justi®ed
in terms of problematic environmental situations and what needs to be done in
terms of management. It can be said that these introductions justify the research by
creating a gap in real world conservation practices and thus are quite di€erent from
the Wildlife Behavior introductions which create the niche in terms of gaps in
research. Several introductions (four) include justi®cations for the studies both in
terms of the real world and the research world. In fact, only two introductions jus-
tify the current research solely through a gap in previous research. Below is an
introduction that employs a number of strategies:

10. The ability to predict extinctions reliably on the basis of ecological attributes
should be a powerful tool for conservation biologists because it provides a
basis for preventive (proactive) management. A major shortcoming of most
existing species conservation programs is that they are not activated until
after a species has declined seriously Ð they are reactive Ð by which time it is
usually dicult to avert extinction (ref.). The need for proactive conservation
measures is obvious, but few programs (such as gap analysis; ref.) have been
developed to prevent species endangerment and extirpation. Given the currently
accelerating rates of endangerment, however, proactive strategies may o€er
the only e€ective means of curbing biodiversity loss.
Except for studies of island birds, associations between ecoogical attributes
and susceptibility to extinction rarely have been tested rigorously. In
particular, little is known regarding (1) the variability of extinction patterns
and processes among taxa and habitats, and (2) the similarity between
natural and human-induced extinction patterns. (CB 11: 12±17)

First, the author asserts that reliable predictions of extinctions are needed in con-
servation management. Second, he points out a problem in the world of conserva-
tion management: the lack of proactive programs. The niche is not created just in
terms of what is lacking and therefore needed in the real world of conservation
management. Rather, the need for the research being reported is further established
through an explanation of what is missing in previous relevant research.

3.3. Move 3

Step 1, outlining purposes or announcing present research, is present in all the

Wildlife Behavior introductions and is generally elaborated. In announcing the
 B. Samraj / English for Speci®c Purposes 21 (2002) 1±17 11

research being reported, Wildlife Behavior authors on numerous occasions (in four
introductions) include the predictions their studies intend to test, such as in the fol-
lowing introduction:

11. In this paper I present analyses of associations between paternity (as

measured through DNA ®ngerprinting) and male provisioning rates. The
potential e€ects of paternity will be assessed in light of several variables that
have been found to correlate with paternal behaviour in other studies (e.g.
male and female age, brood size, nest order and presence of fertilizable
females). The following predictions were tested.
(1) If males can assess paternity, then provisioning rates ought to be a€ected
by paternity. A corollory of this prediction is that paternity might have a
threshold e€ect on parental behaviour (i.e. small reductions in paternity will
have little or no e€ect, but very large reductions should a€ect parental
behaviour).
(2) Regardless of the ability of males to assess paternity, consistent patterns of
paternity across years and among broods should be correlated with patterns of
paternal care. For example, if primary broods consistently have low paternity,
then primary broods should receive less paternal assistance. (WB 3: 36±42)

This realization of Step 1 is clearly discipline-dependent since Wildlife Behavior

is concerned with hypothesis testing and observed animal behavior is interpreted
in terms of previously postulated hypotheses or is the basis for modi®cations of
older hypotheses. In addition, Step 1 of Move 3 may also include speci®c ques-
tions being addressed by the studies or even the goal of each experiment con-
ducted.
Not all the steps that belong to this third move are commonly found in the Wild-
life Behavior introductions. Report of principal ®ndings is only found in three of the
12 introductions. The results from Wildlife Behavior (25%) are not as low as those
noted by Swales and Najjar (1987) for statements of principal ®ndings in articles
from The Journal of Educational Psychology (7%). Interestingly, predictions being
tested by the study reported (mentioned above) are only found in introductions
where results are absent. The centrality of hypothesis testing in this discipline and
the resulting textual manifestation of its importance in RA introductions can per-
haps be o€ered as a preliminary explanation for the general absence of the third step
of Move 3. However, it should also be noted that in ®ve of the introductions both
predictions and results are missing.
Though steps 2 and 3 are not prominent in Wildlife Behavior introductions,
the third move is well-developed in ways not accounted for by Swales' model.
The Wildlife Behavior introductions include a feature that has not been noted in
earlier studies on this genre. In eight of the 12 introductions, there is an extended
discussion of the species that is the focus of the study. I provide an example
from a paper that aims to explore male mating choice in two related species of
butter¯ies:
12 B. Samraj / English for Speci®c Purposes 21 (2002) 1±17

12. I shall show that males of both species discriminate among conspeci®c females
on the basis of wing melanization, and that males . . . I shall discuss these
results in the context of female mate choice in these species.
Pieris occidentalis Reakirt is common throughout western North America at
altitudes of 1400±4300 m. It is often sympatric with its close relative, the
ecologically similar P. protodice Boisduval & LeConte, at elevations of
1400±2100 m (refs.) . . . Females of P. protodice do not appear to use melanin
as a mate choice cue in either intra- or interspeci®c contexts (ref.).
To determine whether the dorsal melanin pattern of female P. occidentalis
and P. protodice mediates their attractiveness to males, I asked (1) is the
typical conspeci®c female phenotype preferred to that of highly melanized
females and (2) are conspeci®c females preferred to heterospeci®c females?
(WB 5: 25±43)

What is interesting is that most of these extended discussions of the species, 15

sentences in the above extract, are found in the third move. Move 3 begins with a
general statement of the aims of the study and may even include some results, such
as in the extract above. However, after the discussion of the species, a more detailed
speci®cation of the aims of the study is presented. In the above introduction, two
speci®c questions are raised after the in-depth discussion of the behavior of these
two species of butter¯ies. Move 3s in a number of Wildlife Behavior introductions
have a general to speci®c development with the sub-move on the background of a
species facilitating this development.
A question raised by the identi®cation of this species background description is its
place in Move 3. Is this an additional optional step found in Move 3 in Wildlife Beha-
vior introductions? However, this description of a species does not directly achieve the
rhetorical function of ``Occupying the niche'' ascribed to Move 3. Instead, this back-
ground description appears to be embedded within Step 1 (outlining purpose/announ-
cing present research) since it enables a realization of this step in more speci®c terms.
A further complicating feature about species descriptions is that they do not
always appear within Move 3. In three of the eight introductions the background
description appears elsewhere. In two cases, it appears before Move 2 and could be
considered part of the literature review in Move 1, and in one case it appears
between Move 2 and Move 3. It appears that this statement of background infor-
mation does not really have a prominent function in any of the moves. Perhaps, this
background description could be analyzed as a separate move but one which could
also be subordinated within Step 1 of Move 3. Background moves have been noted
in other studies of RA introductions. Ahmad (1997) postulates the move,
``Describing Characteristics of Research Object'', within the stage ``Preparing the
readers'', which appears similar to the move found in the Wildlife Behavior intro-
ductions. Dressen and Swales (2000) analyze a subsection called Geological Setting
that intervenes introductions and methodology/results sections and provides back-
ground information in geology articles. It can perhaps be concluded that RAs from
some ®eld-based disciplines such as Wildlife Behavior and Geology have an addi-
tional introductory move. In some disciplines, such as Geology, the move's function
 B. Samraj / English for Speci®c Purposes 21 (2002) 1±17 13

may be more easily de®ned and it has a speci®c textual space in RAs. In others, the
move's role in the RA may be less clearly articulated.
This description of the species that is used in experiments or is the object of
observational studies draws on previous research as can be seen by the citations in
the excerpt above. This is further evidence that the literature reviewed is not just
limited to Move 1. Here the review of literature in Wildlife Behavior introductions
has the rhetorical function of providing background information, which then
enables a further speci®cation of the aims of the research being reported.
Move 3 of Conservation Biology introductions is characterized mostly by the
presence of the ®rst step where the purpose of the study or report is given. In con-
trast to the Wildlife Behavior introductions, there is a general absence of a list of
hypotheses to be veri®ed in the introduction. Only one Conservation Biology intro-
duction includes such a statement of a hypothesis:

13. Given the typically close relationship between bill morphology, diet, and
®tness in birds (refs.), we hypothesize that a shift away from a diet that relied
heavily on the long corolla lobelioid ¯owers to one primarily of open ohia
¯owers, which lack corollas, would have resulted in directional selection for
shorter bills. Here we evaluate evidence for an evolutionary change in bill
length in association with the dietary shift by comparing morphological
characters of old and recent specimens of i'iwi. (CB 7: 20±21)

Interestingly enough, this same introduction is the only one in the corpus that also
establishes centrality of the territory by pointing to the activity in the research arena.
Both textual strategies cause this Conservation Biology introduction to appear to be
more like a Wildlife Behavior introduction.
A number of the Conservation Biology RAs do not report on empirical studies.
Though some sort of results are reported in six introductions, two of these are not
empirical because of the nature of the papers. The excerpt below provides a good
example of an introduction that provides results that are not empirical. This paper
on ``Values associated with management of yellowstone cutthroat trout in Yellow-
stone National Park'' analyzes information from various sources such as the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to reach a number of conclusions regarding di€erent uses
and values of this ®sh in Yellowstone:

14. This paper examines the management of Yellowstone cutthroat trout

(Oncorhychus clarki bouvieri) in Yellowstone National Park and discusses
human values associated with this management approach. Although angler
harvest has been reduced or prohibited, the recreational value of Yellowstone
cutthroat trout (estimated by angling factors such as landing rate or ®sh
size) ranks above all that of other sport species in the Park. Concomitantly,
non consumptive use of Yellowstone cutthroat trout, such as ®sh-watching,
has increased. Harvest reduction has provided a means to sustain a quality
recreational ®shery while enhancing values associated with the protection of
natural systems. (CB 12: 20±23)
14 B. Samraj / English for Speci®c Purposes 21 (2002) 1±17

Each of the results mentioned in the introduction sums up the discussion from each
main section in the paper. Given the non-empirical nature of some of the studies
reported, it is not surprising that results are only found in half the introductions.
The background move found in Wildlife Behavior introductions is generally absent
in the Conservation Biology introductions. Only one Conservation Biology intro-
duction includes a description of a site that is the focus of the study conducted. This
background description is found, as in the Wildlife Behavior introductions, in Move 3
and enables a more speci®c statement of the purpose and nature of the study.

4. Conclusion

This analysis of introductions in RAs from Wildlife Behavior and Conservation

Biology has two sets of outcomes. One set of outcomes concerns disciplinary varia-
tion in the construction of this sub-genre and the impact of this variation on peda-
gogy. The second set of outcomes concerns the CARS model developed to account
for RA introductions.
Introductions in Wildlife Behavior RAs appear for the most part to contain the
moves given in the CARS model. The most notable di€erence is the presence of a
background move that details the features of the species that is the object of obser-
vation or experimentation. RA introductions from this ®eld can be seen to exhibit
some of the taciturnity noted in academic writing from biology (Melander et al.,
1998). Centrality claims are not frequent and the current research is mainly justi®ed
in terms of gaps in previous research, though in a few introductions positive justi®-
cation for the research undertaken is also present, adding to the promotional ele-
ment in the introduction. It is unclear at this point if the use of this rhetorical
strategy is a recent development in the evolution of RAs in Wildlife Behavior.
The elements of persuasion and promotion are more strongly present in the Con-
servation Biology RAs. Centrality claims are common and well-developed and often
concern the real world. The research to be presented is frequently promoted in
negative terms, namely, in terms of loss of biodiversity and species extirpation.
Environmental crises are highlighted to assert the importance of the research area.
Similar strategies are deployed in establishing a niche. More so than gaps in the
research world, gaps in the world of conservation management are employed to
justify the research being reported.
These di€erences in organizational structure could be ascribed to a number of
features about the two ®elds. Conservation Biology is an applied ®eld, whereas
Wildlife Behavior is a theoretical ®eld, the former is interdisciplinary, while the latter
is disciplinary, and, ®nally, the former is a relatively young ®eld while the latter is a
®eld with historical depth. All three dimensions could be contributory factors to the
di€erences in rhetorical organization manifested in the two sets of texts. No matter
what the explanations for the textual characteristics of the RA from each ®eld are, an
important pedagogical implication of these di€erences remains. Di€erences in these
RA introductions are signi®cant enough that students need to be made aware of
them. Crookes (1986) in a much earlier study warned about the dangers of teaching
 B. Samraj / English for Speci®c Purposes 21 (2002) 1±17 15

NNS students rhetorical organizations of genres that may not be accurate for the
disciplinary communities they are entering. The results of this comparative study
further underscore this danger and provide support for the view that instructors
need to point to possible variations in text structure across disciplinary boundaries.
I will review here some of the dimensions along which introductions may vary,
which instructors could include in their discussions. In the ®rst move, centrality
claims can be present to di€erent degrees and these claims could concern either the
research world or the real world. Similarly, in the second move the niche can be
established by a gap in the research world or in the real world. Furthermore, in some
disciplines the research conducted may be justi®ed in positive terms as well. Intro-
ductions may also vary in how the present research is announced in the ®nal move.
Instead of results being given, predictions about these results may be made. Finally,
the concluding move could also give a background description of the topic of study
in order to further specify the goal of the study.
The second set of outcomes of this study concerns the CARS model itself. I will
review some of the discourse features noted in the RA introductions from Con-
servation Biology and Wildlife Behavior and suggest how the CARS model can be
modi®ed to account for these features. Fig. 2 presents a revised CARS model
re¯ecting these modi®cations. The study has revealed that reference to previous lit-
erature is not an element that is just found in Move 1. It can play a prominent role
in Move 2, when it is used to support gaps in previous research. Instead of a cyclical
pattern of literature review followed by a gap, the literature review can be subsumed
under the rhetorical function of gap indication because previous research is drawn
on by authors to justify the gap being created. In addition, a discussion of previous

Fig. 2. The revised Create-A-Research-Space (CARS) model. 1Never occurs by itself in this move.
RA=research article.
16 B. Samraj / English for Speci®c Purposes 21 (2002) 1±17

research can be subordinated to the function of providing a topic generalization.

The review of literature in introductions is a step that can also be subordinated
within another step in a di€erent move, e.g., the speci®cation of the goal of the study
(Move 3, step 1). A greater degree of embedding is present in the rhetorical organi-
zation of the texts analyzed in this study than is captured by the CARS model. The
results of this study seem to suggest that discussion of previous research is an ele-
ment that does not just establish the territory (Move 1) but can also be employed to
realize steps that belong to other moves. Consequently, discussion of previous
research should not be a part of any particular move in the model. Instead, it should
be a freestanding sub-step that can be employed in the realization of any step in the
introduction. Postulating a free-standing sub-step, discussion of previous research,
accounts for the presence of reference to previous research throughout that intro-
duction as well as the variety of rhetorical functions that is accomplished by a dis-
cussion of previous research. This has implications for the constituent structure of
Move 1. I will argue that the ®rst move contains two steps Ð centrality claims and
background information on the topic (Fig. 2.) The second step tends to have a gen-
eral to speci®c structure and usually begins with statements that previously would
have been categorized as topic generalizations. RA introductions vary in the
importance of discussions of previous literature in step 2 of Move 1.
Further options in the realization of some steps can also be added to the CARS
model. The analysis has revealed that centrality claims and gap speci®cation can be
in terms of the research world or the real world in di€erent disciplines. My study has
also indicated a need for another step ``Positive Justi®cation'' in Move 2. This step
never appears by itself but always in conjunction with another step.
Finally, modifying the CARS model to account for the presence of the rhetorical
move ``background information on species or site'' is quite problematic. The results
of the analyses support the addition of a sub-step to the ®rst step of Move 3, pre-
senting goals of present research. It could also be a component of the step ``back-
ground information on topic'' in Move 1. This sub-step ``background information
on species or site'' can also occasionally re-present itself as an independent move
that appears between Moves 2 and 3. The variation in the hierarchical status (move
or sub-step) and linear position (Move 1, 2A or 3) of this rhetorical function even
within introductions from one discipline illustrates the diculty of postulating a
single organizational framework for a particular genre/sub-genre. The above pro-
blem indicates that some discoursal aspects of a genre may exhibit a greater degree
of ¯exibility in their position within the overall organization of that genre. Some
rhetorical functions may have rather stable roles in the overall organization while
others may be more unstable. The structure postulated for a genre hence has to
incorporate within it various degrees of ¯exibility.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to John M. Swales for useful comments on an earlier version of this

paper.
 B. Samraj / English for Speci®c Purposes 21 (2002) 1±17 17

References

Ahmad, U. K. (1997). Scienti®c research articles in Malay: a situated discourse analysis. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan.
Anthony, L. (1999). Writing research article introductions in software engineering: How accurate is a
standard model? IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42, 38±46.
Atkinson, D. (1993). A historical discourse analysis of scienti®c research writing from 1675 to 1975: the case
of the ``Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London''. Unpublished PhD thesis, The Uni-
versity of Southern California.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in
science. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Speci®c Purposes,
13, 47±59.
Crookes, G. (1986). Towards a validated analysis of scienti®c text structure. Applied Linguistics, 7, 57±70.
Dressen, D. F., & Swales, J. M. (2000). ``Geological setting/cadre geologique'' in English and French
petrology articles: muted indications of explored place. In A. H. Jucker, Analysing professional genres
(pp. 56±76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fredrickson, K. M., & Swales, J. M. (1994). Competition and discourse community: introductions from
Nysvenska Studier. In B. L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, & B. Nordberg, Text and talk in professional con-
texts (pp. 9±22). Sweden: ASLA.
Hopkins, A., & Dudley-Evans, A. (1988). A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles
and dissertations. English for Speci®c Purposes, 7, 113±122.
Jacoby, S. (1987). References to other researchers in literary research articles. In A. Dudley-Evans, Genre
analysis and ESP (pp. 33±77). University of Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Melander, B., Swales, J. M., & Fredrickson, K. M. (1988). Journal abstracts from three academic ®elds in
the United States and Sweden: National or disciplinary proclivities?. In A. Duszak, Intellectual styles
and cross-cultural communication (pp. 251±272). Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research papers: structure and functions. English for Speci®c Purposes,
16, 119±138.
Posteguillo, S. (1999). The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Speci®c
Purposes, 18, 139±160.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1990). Discoursal ¯aws in medical English abstracts: a genre analysis per research and
text type. Text, 10, 365±384.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1992). A text-type and move analysis study of verb tense and modality distribution in
medical English abstracts. English for Speci®c Purposes, 11, 93±113.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1999). Referential behavior in scienti®c writing: a diachronic study (1810±1995). Eng-
lish for Speci®c Purposes, 18, 279±305.
Soule, M. E. (1985). What is conservation biology? BioScience, 35, 727±734.
Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article introductions (Aston ESP reports No. 1). The Language Studies Unit:
The University of Aston in Birmingham.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Najjar, H. (1987). The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication,
4, 175±191.
Thompson, D. K. (1993). Arguing for experimental ``facts'' in science. Written Communication, 10, 106±
128.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1998). Relative clauses in spectroscopic articles in the Physical Review, Beginnings
and 1980. Written Communication, 15, 170±202.

Betty Sanraj is Assistant Professor of Linguistics at San Diego State University. Her research interests are
discourse analysis and writing in the disciplines.