Interpersonal Strategies in Academic Writing: The Significance of Acknowledging Research Limitations and Recommendations for Future Studies in Scientific Discourse

Introduction: Describing the limitations of current research and recommendations for further studies in original and review papers is a mandatory step, demonstrating critical self-assessment and the author's level of expertise. To affirm their contribution to existing knowledge in a subject area, scholars must demonstrate methodological rigor and critical understanding of the nature of knowledge in their field. Linguistic embodiment becomes fundamentally important in implementing this step.

Purpose: To explore the role of interpersonal strategies in academic writing in the context of acknowledging research limitations and formulating recommendations for future studies.

Materials and Methods: The study is based on the analysis of articles in the field of agricultural sciences, published over the last three years, using genre and corpus analysis methods.

Results: The strategies authors of scientific papers use to discuss their research are described, demonstrating critical reflection and a commitment to transparency in presenting results. Particular attention in the article is given to various interpersonal linguistic strategies, such as the use of evaluative phrases, negation, and modal verbs, in the context of discussing research limitations and recommendations for future studies. The authors emphasize the importance of such strategies for establishing trustful relationships with readers and demonstrating scientific rigor. The article also discusses metadiscursive and textual references, which help authors present limitations and recommendations as an integral part of the academic research process.

Conclusions: The study underscores the interconnection between the sections on research limitations and recommendations for future studies in academic writing, showing that the quality of one section directly influences the quality of the other. This interaction fosters the development of scientific dialogue and constructive discussion within the academic community. The article makes a significant contribution to understanding how improving one of these sections can enhance the effectiveness and significance of the other, providing valuable recommendations for researchers, especially those who use English as a second language, in their quest to improve their writing and publishing skills.

1. Evans, D., Gruba, P., & Zobel, J. (2014). The Discussion or Interpretation. In How to write a better thesis. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04286-2_9

2. Flowerdew, L. (2015). Using corpus-based research and online academic corpora to inform writing of the discussion section of a thesis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.06.001

3. Joseph, R., & Lim, J. M. H. (2019). Directions for the future: A genre-based investigation into recommendations for further research and practical applications in Forestry. ESP Today: Journal of English for Specific Purposes at Tertiary Level, 7(2), 124–147.

4. Greener, S. (2018). Research limitations: The need for honesty and common sense. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(5), 567–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1 486785

5. Kanoksilapatham, B. (2015). Distinguishing textual features characterizing structural variation in research articles across three engineering sub-discipline corpora. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.008

6. Kwan, B. S. C. (2021). Formulating the direction of a study: Variations across three epistemological traditions in Information Systems. Iberica, 42, 191–218. Loghmani, Z., Ghonsooly, B., & Ghazanfari, M. (2020), Engagement in doctoral dissertation discussion sections written by English native speakers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 45, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100851

7. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan. Montgomery, D. P. (2023). “This study is not without its limitations”: Acknowledging limitations and recommending future research in applied linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 65,101291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101291

8. Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2020). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language (2nd ed.). Routledge. Raitskaya, L., & Tikhonova, E. (2022). An In-Depth Glimpse into Research on Academic Writing. Journal of Language and Education, 8(2), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.17323/ jle.2022.14586

9. Sun, S. A., & Crosthwaite, P. (2022). “The findings might not be generalizable”: Investigating negation in the limitations sections of PhD theses across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 59, 101155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101155

10. Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). University of Michigan Press. Tikhonova, E., & Raitskaya, L. (2022). Academic Development in Research Focus. Journal of Language and Education, 8(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.14122

11. Wallwork, A. (2016). English for writing research papers (2nd ed.). Springer.