Article: 'Robot Kung fu': Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews

File Download Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
Title'Robot Kung fu': Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews
AuthorsTse, P1
Hyland, K2
KeywordsAcademic writing
Book reviews
Disciplinary discourses
Gender
Identity
Issue Date2008
PublisherElsevier BV. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma
CitationJournal Of Pragmatics, 2008, v. 40 n. 7, p. 1232-1248 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.002
AbstractIn academic writing the construction of an authorial identity is constrained by different social, biographical and academic factors as writers bring their diverse personal experiences to a text. One of these factors is that of gender, although this has been far less studied in published academic writing than in other forms of social interaction. In this paper, we explore the issue of gender in academic interactions by analyzing a corpus of academic book reviews and interviews with academics from Philosophy and Biology. Focusing on metadiscourse features, we examine the similarities and differences in the rhetorical practices of male and female academics in their construction of a disciplinarily appropriate identity. Our findings show while there is no one-to-one relation between gender and language, gender and discipline identities cross-cut each other in significant ways in the context of professional self-conception and personal preferences. © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
ISSN0378-2166
2011 Impact Factor: 0.757
2011 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.029
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.002
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
DC Field
Value
dc.contributor.authorTse, P
dc.contributor.authorHyland, K
dc.date.accessioned2010-12-23T08:47:30Z
dc.date.available2010-12-23T08:47:30Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.description.abstractIn academic writing the construction of an authorial identity is constrained by different social, biographical and academic factors as writers bring their diverse personal experiences to a text. One of these factors is that of gender, although this has been far less studied in published academic writing than in other forms of social interaction. In this paper, we explore the issue of gender in academic interactions by analyzing a corpus of academic book reviews and interviews with academics from Philosophy and Biology. Focusing on metadiscourse features, we examine the similarities and differences in the rhetorical practices of male and female academics in their construction of a disciplinarily appropriate identity. Our findings show while there is no one-to-one relation between gender and language, gender and discipline identities cross-cut each other in significant ways in the context of professional self-conception and personal preferences. © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext
dc.identifier.citationJournal Of Pragmatics, 2008, v. 40 n. 7, p. 1232-1248 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.002
dc.identifier.citeulike5445640
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.002
dc.identifier.epage1248
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000257042800005
dc.identifier.issn0378-2166
2011 Impact Factor: 0.757
2011 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.029
dc.identifier.issue7
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-43849100414
dc.identifier.spage1232
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/130135
dc.identifier.volume40
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherElsevier BV. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma
dc.publisher.placeNetherlands
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Pragmatics
dc.relation.referencesReferences in Scopus
dc.subjectAcademic writing
dc.subjectBook reviews
dc.subjectDisciplinary discourses
dc.subjectGender
dc.subjectIdentity
dc.title'Robot Kung fu': Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews
dc.typeArticle
Author Affiliations
  1. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
  2. University of London, Institute of Education