Authors
- Khoutyz Irina Pavlovna D. Sc. (Philology), Professor Russian Federation Krasnodar
Annotation
The article highlights how Russian- and English-language linguists describe their research methodology. The relevance of this study is justified by the great role that the methodology section plays in making the reader trust the results presented in the academic article. Thus, the aim of this research is to identify and systematize cultural differences in how discourse about research methodology is constructed in academic articles in Linguistics by Russian- and English-language authors in international journals indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus (Q1) databases. The empirical corpus comprises 30 academic articles (15 in Russian and 15 in English), which were published in high-profile journals in Linguistics during the last 4 years. Discourse analysis, methods of pragmatic and contrastive analysis as well as systematization, interpretation, and calculation of the obtained results have been used to investigate the methodology section discourse. The study revealed that the methodology section can be represented by the commutative strategy «Research reliability and validity». It is represented by three tactics «Collecting the research corpus: credibility», «Analysis procedure: description», «Specification of research efficiently». The contrastive analysis identified that the English-language authors used all the three tactics
in their methodology discourse, while the Russian-language linguists predominantly relied on the first two tactics some aspects of which were expressed implicatively.
How to link insert
Khoutyz, I. P. (2026). RESEARCH METHODOLOGY DISCOURSE IN AN ACADEMIC ARTICLE: CONTRASTIVE ASPECT Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", 2 (62), 136. https://doi.org/10.24412/2076-913X-2026-262-136-151
References
1.
1. Arsyad, S. (2024). Arguments in the methods section of journal articles in English language education published in high-impact journals. Discourse and Interaction, 17(1), 8–29. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2024-1-8
2.
2. Azevedo, L. F., Canário-Almeida, F., Fonseca, J. A., Costa-Pereira, A., Winck, J. C., & Hespanhol, V. (2011). How to write a scientific paper — Writing the methods section. Revista portuguesa de pneumologia, 17(5), 232–238.
3.
3. Peacock, M. (2011). The structure of the methods section in research articles across eight disciplines. Asian ESP Journal, 7(2), 98–124.
4.
4. Chen, T. Y., & Kuo, S. P. (2012). A genre-based analysis of master’s thesis in Applied Linguistics. The Asian ESP Journal, 8(1), 24–52.
5.
5. Tulud, D., & Algouti, H. J. M. M. (2021). Methodology section of graduate school thesis manuscripts: a genre analysis probe of rhetorical structure. Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 3(9), 36–52. https://doi.org/10.32996/jeltal.2021.3.9.4
6.
6. Joseph, R., Lim, J. M. H., & Nor, N. A. M. (2014). Communicative moves in forestry research introductions: Implications for the design of learning materials. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 134, 53–69.
7.
7. Es`hag, R. (2023). Contrastive analysis of social regulatives in Russian and Persian languages. Sovremennoe pedagogicheskoe obrazovanie, (5), 235–240. (In Russ.).
8.
8. Leontovich, О. А. (2011). Methods of research in communication. Gnozis. (In Russ.).
9.
9. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse. Routlege.
10.
10. Fox, B. H., & Jennings, W. G. (2014). How to write a methodology and results section for empirical research. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25(2), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2014.888089
11.
11. Boillos, M. M., & Idoiaga, N. (2025). Student perspectives on the use of AIbased language tools in academic writing. Journal of Writing Research, 17(1), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2025.17.01.06
12.
12. Lazebnik, T., & Rosenfeld, A. (2025). A computational model for individual scholars’ writing style dynamics. Journal of Writing Research, 17(1), 87–114. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2025.17.01.04
13.
13. Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: a new typology. Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 text (p. 131–152). Addison-Wesley.
14.
14. Khoutyz, I. P. (2023). Addressee factor in written academic discourse. Communication Studies (Russia), 10(1), 146–162. https://doi.org/10.24147/2413-6182.2023.10(1).146-162 (In Russ.).
15.
15. Dimitrieva, O. A. (2025). Cultural code in scientific and journalistic dimensions. Nauchny`j dialog, 14(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2025-14-1-9-30 (In Russ.).
16.
16. Willis, L. D. (2023). How to write the Methods Section of a research manuscript. Respiratory Care, 68(12), 1763–1770. https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.11437
17.
17. Granvik, A. (2022). Topic metaphors in European languages. Moderna Språk, 116(2), 222–255. https://doi.org/10.58221/mosp.v116i2.12283
18.
18. Casoli-Uvsløkk, J., & Thue Vold, E. (2024). Comparing intercultural competence in lower secondary English and French classrooms in Norway: an overview study. Moderna Språk, 118(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.58221/mosp.v118i1.15016
19.
19. Silva, C., Peixoto, F., & Salvador, L. (2024). «With a little help from my friends»: Effects of a self-reflection tool and social interaction on orthographic performance. Journal of Writing Research, 16(2), 323–351. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6238-2663
20.
20. Liu, J., Yang, N., & Liu, H. (2024). Distribution of sentence length of English complex. sentences. Moderna Språk, 118(3), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.58221/mosp.v118i3.15574
21.
21. Sokolova, E. N. (2025). Comparative Constructions in Ray Bradbury’s «The Martian Chronicles». Nauchnyi dialog, 14(5), 162–181. https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2025-14-5-162-181 (In Russ.).
22.
22. Babenko, L. G., & Romanova, M. A. (2025). Metaphorical space of emotions in Russian: structure and cognitive strategies of modeling. Nauchny`j dialog, 14(6), 9–30.
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2025-14-6-9-30 (In Russ.).
23.
23. Yetkin, R., & Alagözlü, N. (2025). EFL student teacher anxiety in online and in-person practicums: A Turkish perspective. Moderna Språk, 119(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.58221/mosp.v119i3.48808
24.
24. Akinlotan, M. (2023). A multivariate analysis of the structural variability of existential noun phrases. Moderna Språk, 117(3), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.58221/mosp.v117i3.13033
25.
25. Zykova I. V. (2025). Parameters of pragmatic analysis of phraseology in multimodal discourse (the case study of feature films). Terra Linguistica, 16(3), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.18721/JHSS.16304 (In Russ.).
26.
26. Beklemesheva, N. N., & Malygina, E. V. (2025). English attributive compounds as a means of structural compression in academic discourse from a translation perspective. Terra Linguistica, 16(4), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.18721/JHSS.16401 (In Russ.).
27.
27. Kolomiyets, E. A. (2024). Construction of expert image in genre of editorial: discursive practices. Nauchny`j dialog, 13(6), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-6-169-185 (In Russ.).
28.
28. Tivyaeva, I. V., & Nersesova, E. V. (2023). Advancement of the cognitive-discursive paradigm in studies by Russian linguists: insights from candidate and doctoral dissertations defended in the dissertation council D 850.007.08. MCU Journal of Philology. Theory of Linguistics. Linguistic Education, 4(52), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.25688/2076-913X.2023.52.4.11 (In Russ.).