**Table 3.**

*Results on non-native writers.*

#### *Interpreting Analysis on Rhetorical Strategies Modeling in Computer Science Research Articles DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85679*

is not available in the previous CARS model [5], which is used by Shehzad [24]; so, it is not possible to compare the practice with the global writers. Move 2 Step 2 "Presenting positive justifications" is also not reported by Shehzad [24] and only occurred in 62% of the corpus. In short, comparing the percentages of the three steps for Move 2 "Establishing a niche", it can be concluded that most of the nonnative writers prefer to add "to what is known" compared to "Indicating a gap" and "presenting positive justifications."

In correspond to the findings on Move 1 and 2, it is suggested that more emphasis and caution on utilizing Move 2 Step 1A "Indicating a gap" is to be given in the teaching of writing using CARS model [6] to computer science writers in Malaysia.

Move 3 is occurs in 91% of the articles. While the overall percentage for Move 3 is high, the percentages of the steps indicated that some of the steps are underutilized. Step 1 for Move 3 "Announcing present research descriptively and/or purposively" has been underutilized at only 86% compared to 98% in Shehzad [24]. Move 3 Step 2 has also been utilized in a smaller percentage compared to the study by Shehzad [24]. Only 1% of the corpus opts for this strategy compared to 32% in Shehzad [24]. Move 3 Step 3 "Definitional clarifications" and Move 3 Step 4 "Summarizing methods" are realized at 17 and 53%, respectively. However, percentages from the previous studies on computer science articles are not available for comparison because these steps are newly added in CARS 2004 model [6], whereas most of the studies used CARS 1990 model [5].

The steps in Move 3 are less fixed in orders and may appear before one or another. Swales [6] suggested that Steps 5–7 are possible in some field but may also be unlikely in others. In this study, Move 3 Step 5 "Announcing principle outcomes" is realized in only 15% of the corpus. The percentage of 15% is alarmingly low as the utilization of this step in studies on computer science research articles suggested that this step is realized at higher percentage of 73% in [24], 70% in [14], and 75% in Anthony [33]. Furthermore, Shehzad [24] suggested that this step is an obligatory strategy for computer science articles. Move 3 Step 6 "Stating the value of the present research" is also underutilized at 35% compared to 55% by Shehzad [24]. This step is recommended as an obligatory step in computer science research article; however, the non-native writers in this study prefer to skip this strategy. In addition to the low percentages in Steps 5 and 6, Move 3 Step 7 "Outlining the structure of the paper" is also realized at a low percentage of 34% compared to the other studies with 86% [24], 70% [14], and 83.3% [33]). Following the low utilization when compared to the other computer science corpus, Move 3 Steps 5–7 must be emphasized in the writing classroom for computer science non-native writers in Malaysia.

In this section, the findings on the use of citation in Move 1 are presented. First, the percentage on the citation used for move 1 was given, and then, the excerpts that showed the severity of not utilizing this step in Move 1 is explained. After that, the percentages of occurrence for Move 1 according to the university group and journal type are given.

Another phenomenon discovered in this study is the use of citation for Move 1. CARS model [6] posits that Move 1 is to be accompanied by citations. However, it was discovered that even though the research articles fulfilled the strategy on establishing the research territory by making topic generalization and increasing the specificity of the topic, many of the research articles did not have the required citation. Twenty-five research articles or 16.7% of the research articles have delayed the citation up to the fifth sentence and as late as the 17th sentence. The details on the citation in the Introduction section are summarized in the table below.

*Computer Architecture in Industrial, Biomechanical and Biomedical Engineering*

articles in the Pertanika Journal utilized this move.

gies in Swales model among the global writers.

ers would utilize this strategy more frequently.

Topic generalizations of increasing specificity

Step 1 (obligatory): announcing present research

Step 1A: indicating a gap 73%—optional

Step 5 (PISF): announcing principle outcomes 15%—optional

Step 6 (PISF): stating the value of the present research 35%—optional

Step 7 (PISF): outlining the structure of the paper 34%—optional

Step IB: adding to what is known 99%—obligatory NA Step 2: presenting positive justifications (optional) 62%—optional NA

Step 3 (optional): definitional clarifications 17%—optional NA Step 4 (optional): summarizing methods 53%—optional NA

Step 2 (optional): presenting RQ or hypothesis 1%—optional 32%—optional

Establishing a niche (citations possible)

**4.3 Results on non-native writers**

and tailor their writing to the style of the targeted journal.

Journal of Computer Science employed this step, whereas only 8% of the research

All in all, the findings indicate that the utilization of the strategies differs from journal to journal; therefore, writers must understand the preference of the journal

In this analysis, the findings of the study that is focused on non-native writers are compared to the findings in the study by Shehzad [24] who analyzed the strate-

**Table 3** shows that 94% of the article introduction sections in the study utilized Move 1 at an obligatory level, which is close to the 95% occurrences in the study by Shehzad [24]. Similarly, the strategy of establishing the research niche has also been fulfilled by all writers in this study. However, the strategy of indicating a gap has been underutilized by only 73% of the writers as compared to 95% accomplishment in the study by Shehzad [24] and 91.7% in a similar study by Anthony [33]. The strategy of Move 2 Step 1A which is "Indicating a gap" is underutilized. Studies on global writers [24, 33] have reported that this step is used at an obligatory level by the computer science writers; therefore, the awareness on the potential of this strategy among the non-native writers must be asserted so that the non-native writ-

On the other hand, 99% of the non-native writers in this study are more fond of using Move 2 Step 1B which is "Adding to what is known." However, this step

**This study Shehzad [24]**

obligatory

obligatory

95% obligatory

98% obligatory

73% obligatory

55% obligatory

86% obligatory

94%—obligatory 95%—

100%—obligatory 93%—

91%—obligatory NA

(underutilized)

86%—optional (underutilized)

(underutilized)

(underutilized)

(underutilized)

**66**

**Table 3.**

*Results on non-native writers.*

Move 1

Move 2

Move 3

Establishing a territory

Presenting the present work

descriptively and/or purposively

#### *Computer Architecture in Industrial, Biomechanical and Biomedical Engineering*


About 14.7% of Move 1 made in the research articles did not have any citation at all; instead, the citation only appeared in Move 2 where the discussion has developed to the research niche level. More surprisingly, 4.7% or seven of the research articles did not include any citation at all in the entire Introduction section. Only 64% of the research articles in the corpus used citation as suggested in CARS model [6].


The need for citations even during the initial part of the introduction is necessary, even when the topic is being written on the general level. When the writers establish the research territory by writing on the general topics, the writers are addressing a bigger readership compared to writing directly on the research niche. By addressing on the general domain first, bigger readership can be expected [32] and then by writing with increasing specificity to the niche, this group of readership can be drawn to the niche of the study. If the writer dives straight to writing on the niche, some readers who are not familiar with the terms of the niche may be put off, not realizing the possible link and extension that the particular niche has with the readers' research interest [35]. As such by missing citations in Move 1, the research article may miss out a number of potential readers and future citations. Given that Move 1 provides the link and extension with the bigger research domain and readership, it is understood why CARS model (2004) explicitly posits that citation as an obligatory strategy. Citation must be used especially when citing the previous work at this point to establish the association and connection to what Shehzad ([24] p. 22) described as the "research cult." The following example is used to illustrate the importance of citation, even when at the initial level of establishing the research territory.

In this excerpt, the citation has been delayed to the sixth sentence which is in line 12. The Introduction begins with Move 1 by giving description on the general research topic which is DEM. And then, the research article offers a definition for DEM, and this definition is considered as Move 1, not Move 3 Step3 which is "definitional clarifications." The reason is because the niche of the research article based on the title is "decision-making units" and "fuzzy concept", so the term being defined is still at topic generalization level and not yet at the specific niche level. Notice that

**69**

provided the original work is properly cited.

Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Perlis, Malaysia

must be taught and reminded by the instructors.

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

Ina Suryani\*, Mohd Mustafa Al Bakri Abdullah and Hazry Desa

\*Address all correspondence to: inasuryani@unimap.edu.my

*Interpreting Analysis on Rhetorical Strategies Modeling in Computer Science Research Articles*

the citation only comes in after a few sentences later. No citation was made for the definition, description, or comments on the general topic. The citation is considered delayed because citations on the definition, description, and comments could have linked the writing to the existing literature and body of research. Having the citation delayed caused the connection and association to be established at a later reading sequence and appeared less connected to the existing body of research. In short, delay or omission of citation in Move 1 is a deficiency and may appear

The findings on the use of citation suggest that the utilization of Move 1 for this group of non-native writers needs to be improved. Even though Move 1 has been utilized by the writers, there is room for improvement on the use of citation for this move because the citation has been delayed and omitted in some of the research articles.

In short, the patterns of the findings indicate the common moves and steps that are being utilized by the Malaysian writers. The underutilized steps have also been identified and thus suggested the need for more emphasis and caution in the application of CARS model in teaching writing for the particular group. While the findings indicated the applicability of CARS model [6], the description on how the moves and steps are utilized in target publication is still needed; particularly when many English teachers are not content experts in computer science discipline. The model for research article provided a common guideline for authors to follow. While journal type plays an important factor in the selection of strategies, the highly cited research articles showed that the strategies recommended in the model is still prevalent. Given that the findings of the studies shows that non-native writer underutilized some of the important strategies, writing instructors and non-native writers must be cautioned and reminded on using these strategies. The underutilized strategies must be explained, particularly on what the strategies are and how the strategies can be realized. The assertiveness on accomplishing the strategies

like a lack of involvement and ambiguous ownership of ideas.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85679*

**5. Conclusion**

**Author details**

*Interpreting Analysis on Rhetorical Strategies Modeling in Computer Science Research Articles DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85679*

the citation only comes in after a few sentences later. No citation was made for the definition, description, or comments on the general topic. The citation is considered delayed because citations on the definition, description, and comments could have linked the writing to the existing literature and body of research. Having the citation delayed caused the connection and association to be established at a later reading sequence and appeared less connected to the existing body of research.

In short, delay or omission of citation in Move 1 is a deficiency and may appear like a lack of involvement and ambiguous ownership of ideas.

The findings on the use of citation suggest that the utilization of Move 1 for this group of non-native writers needs to be improved. Even though Move 1 has been utilized by the writers, there is room for improvement on the use of citation for this move because the citation has been delayed and omitted in some of the research articles.
