Dissension across academic genres

Abstract

This cross-generic research addresses the issue of dissension in medical editorials (ED), review articles (RV), research papers (RP) and case reports (CR). Critical speech acts were recorded in 40 medical articles (10 in each genre) written in English, and the cross-generic results were analyzed by means of Chi-square tests. Our results allowed us to divide the 4 genres into 2 groups: the “epicritical” one formed by ED and RV, and the experimental/descriptive group formed by RP and CR. In the former, dissension is overtly and personally conveyed, sometimes even with a sarcastic and ironic tone, and the conclusions and methodological flaws of previous research constitute the most frequent targets of criticism. By contrast, in the experimental/descriptive group, dissension is much less frequent (p= .0001), less personal and more covert, and authors mainly voice their criticisms at previous research findings and conceptual gaps in the literature. Our results are accounted for by the essentially argumentative and evaluative nature of ED and RV and by the much more factual and narrative nature of RP and CR. The role assumed by the encoders of each genre, from the critical expert, knowledge-holder and decision orientator of editorialists to the low-key observer and reporter assumed by case reports writers is another key factor which explains the cross-generic differences observed.