Abstract:
Following insights from disciplinary variation studies on writer’s
positioning and stance, there has been an interest in analyzing how academics
engage in an academic interaction with their putative readers, by either fending
off alternative views from their readers or allowing for the inclusion of their
views. Using the engagement system of the appraisal theory propounded by
Martin and White (2005) in analyzing 45 purposively sampled M.Phil theses
submitted to the departments of Linguistics, Geography and Resource
Development and Nutrition and Food Science of the University of Ghana, the
study examined the various engagement resources used by M.Phil.students to
limit the dialogic space, on one hand, and to allow for the inclusion of the views
of their readers, on the other hand, while reviewing the works of other scholars in
the literature review section of their masters’ theses. The study also probed further
to examine the epistemological norms and conventions that inform the use of
these resources in the theses submitted to the three selected departments.The
analysis and discussion of the data revealed that M.Phil. students in the sciences
are more dialogically contractive and dialogically expansive when constructing
the literature review sections (henceforth, LR) of their theses. The analysis again
revealed that unlike the humanities and social sciences, knowledge in the natural
sciences is relatively more of an impersonal, inductive enterprise and this
influences the engagement resources postgraduate students use while reviewing
existing literature in their theses. The study contributes to postgraduate pedagogy,
the appraisal theory and serves as a fertile ground for further research.
