IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 61, NO.

2, JUNE 2018 133

Research Article

Establishing a Territory in the Introductions of Engineering

Research Articles Using a Problem-Solution Patterns
Approach
LI LIAN KHAW AND WEI WU TAN

Abstract—Background: Swales’s Create a Research Space (CaRS) is a popular model for writing research article (RA)
introductions. CaRS prescribes three broad moves—establishing a territory, establishing a niche, and presenting the
present work. This study assesses the applicability of a problem-solution patterns (PSP) approach to facilitate Move 1 in
CaRS by analyzing RAs in materials science and engineering. Research questions: 1. Is structuring an RA introduction
using problem-solution patterns a common approach in published RAs in materials science and engineering? 2. How
does PSP facilitate the setting of boundaries between territory and niche in these RAs? Literature review: Variants of
CaRS have been widely applied to study RA introductions. Even though the 2004 version of CaRS has been deemed
effective in describing the structure of RA introductions in a number of disciplines, its prescription of Move 1 may not be
easily operationalized in teaching engineering research writing. For problem- or application-based RAs, the territory can
be established with PSP while preserving other CaRS moves. Methodology: This exploratory study employs a text
analysis approach to assess 30 RA introductions from three materials science and engineering journals. Results and
discussion: PSP is found in most RA introductions. By integrating PSP into CaRS, the proposed model can capture
problem-solution cyclicity as a build-up move for territory and niche establishment. Conclusion: Because
problem-solving is central to engineering research, RA introductions can be structured using naturally-occurring
problem-solution patterns. PSP-CaRS may serve as an effective writing model for RA introductions in engineering-related
fields.

Index Terms—Create a Research Space (CaRS), engineering research, introductions, problem-solution patterns,
research articles, research writing.

Equipping researchers with good writing skills to

communicate their research outcomes has been a
perennial concern of professional communication.
The use of writing frameworks that guide
researchers in structuring research articles (RA)
greatly facilitates this task, making the teaching of
research writing more effective.
A standard model used by researchers to analyze
the writing of RA introductions is Create a Research
Space (CaRS) [1], [2]. Both the 1990 and 2004
versions of CaRS (hereafter, CaRS 1990 and CaRS
2004) prescribe three broad moves—establishing a
territory, establishing a niche, and presenting the
Manuscript received August 29, 2017; revised October 30, 2017;
accepted October 30, 2017. Date of publication January 3,
2018; date of current version May 22, 2018. (Corresponding
author: Li Lian Khaw.)
L. L. Khaw is with the Faculty of Engineering, Monash
University, Clayton, Vic 3800, Australia (email: lilian.khaw@
monash.edu).
W. W. Tan is with the Department of Social Work, University of
Melbourne, Carlton, Vic 3053, Australia (email: ww.tan@
unimelb.edu.au).
IEEE 10.1109/TPC.2017.2779661
present work—as the structure of an RA
introduction. In CaRS 2004, Move 1, establishing a
territory, is realized with a step called “topic
generalization of increasing specificity” [2].
When using CaRS 2004 in guiding engineering
graduate students to write the introductions of
their RA, one of us found that it was difficult for
students to grasp the concept of “topic
generalization of increasing specificity.” As a result,
many students struggled to apply it as a
prescription to establish their research territory
when writing an RA introduction. One may argue
that while the prescription is encompassing in
principle, it is abstract and thus difficult for some
students to apply.
An approach that is less abstract and thus easier
to apply is to describe one’s research in terms of a
problem and a solution. In fact, much engineering
research can be viewed as a problem-solving
exercise [3]. Since problem-solution dyads are
natural and inherent in much engineering
application-based research, it is natural for
engineering students to think from a problem-
solution perspective.

0361-1434  C 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.

See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

134 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 61, NO. 2, JUNE 2018

Practitioner Takeaway

• This study assesses the applicability of a Problem-Solution Patterns (PSP) approach to

facilitate Move 1 in Swales’s Create a Research Space (CaRS) genre analysis method by
analyzing the introductions of research articles in materials science and engineering.

• Analysis shows that PSP is an approach used by authors in a majority of the article
introductions, and by integrating PSP into CaRS, the proposed model is able to capture
problem-solution cyclicity as a build-up move for establishing territory and niche.

• PSP-CaRS may serve as an effective writing model for RA introductions in engineering-related

fields.

To verify whether a problem-solution approach is a and engineering, followed by a discussion of these

common strategy used to structure the
introductions of RAs in engineering, Khaw [4]
analyzed 33 articles in the field of electrical
engineering by using CaRS 2004, but with Move 1
realized by problem-solution patterns (PSP), a
concept delineated by Hoey [5] and later also used
by Swales and Feak [6] to illustrate problem-
solution texts in academic writing. In Khaw’s
study, PSP was used to operationalize Move 1 in
CaRS 2004 [4]; that study showed that PSP was
commonly present in the articles analyzed.
The teaching experience described above and
Khaw’s initial findings prompted us to further
explore the use and applicability of the PSP
approach in other subdisciplines of engineering,
with the following research questions to be
answered:
RQ1. Is structuring an RA introduction using
PSP a common approach in published RAs in
materials science and engineering?
RQ2. How does PSP facilitate the setting of
boundaries between territory and niche in these
RAs?
The answers to these research questions will
provide insights into the applicability and
practicality of integrating PSP and CaRS as writing
guidelines for introductions in engineering RA. To
our knowledge, other than the conference
proceeding paper by Khaw [4], there has been no
other study that formally proposed an integrated
model of PSP and CaRS to guide the writing of RA
introductions or to analyze the structures of RA
introductions.
In the following sections, we first present a review
of existing research on CaRS and a
problem-focused approach in RA writing, followed
by a description of the PSP approach. We then
describe our methodology, including the corpus
chosen for this study. Finally, we present the
results of our analysis on RAs in materials science
findings.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In teaching academic writing, CaRS is one of the
most popular frameworks for analyzing the writing
of RA introductions, to the extent that it has been
referred to as a “standard model” [7]. Since it was
first proposed by Swales [1], CaRS has undergone
some revisions. However, the three-move
structure—establishing a territory, establishing a
niche, and presenting the present work—is
retained in all variants of CaRS [1], [2].
Many studies have analyzed the rhetorical
structures of RA introductions in different
languages and disciplines using either CaRS 1990
or CaRS 2004 [7]–[21]. CaRS 1990 has been
criticized for not being able to account for the
variations found in some disciplines. For example,
Anthony’s study [7] analyzed 12 software
engineering papers that received “Best Paper”
awards. His findings showed that definitions and
examples to explain difficult concepts were
prevalently found in the papers, but CaRS 1990 did
not include “steps” to account for those
descriptions. Anthony also observed that authors
of software engineering papers provided an
evaluation of their research that was not accounted
for by the model. According to Anthony, “a separate
‘evaluation of research’ is not only obligatory, but a
crucial element in achieving the aims of the
introduction” [7, p. 45]. Nevertheless, Anthony
concluded that CaRS was successful in describing
the overall framework.
Samraj [10] found some variations in the structure
of RA introductions in journals of two related dis-
ciplines, wildlife behavior and conservation biology,
with the latter being a problem-focused field. She
found that introductions in papers from wildlife
behavior tended to provide background information
of specific types of animals studied, but such
information was not found in papers in conservation
KHAW AND TAN: ESTABLISHING A TERRITORY IN THE INTRODUCTIONS OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH ARTICLES
Fig. 1. Schematic of CaRS 2004 [2, pp. 230—232].
biology. Her study also revealed that the literature
review was not just limited to Move 1 but “it can
play a prominent role in Move 2, when it is used
to support gaps in previous research” [10, p.15].
Acknowledging the limitations highlighted by
Anthony and Samraj, Swales [2] revised the model
to account for the variations found in earlier
studies. In CaRS 1990, Move 1, establishing a
territory, consists of three steps: “claiming
centrality” (Step 1), “making topic generalizations”
(Step 2), and “literature review” (Step 3). In CaRS
2004, shown in Fig. 1, the number of steps in Move
1 was reduced to one because of difficulty in
distinguishing the boundaries of “claiming
centrality” and “making topic generalizations” [2,
p. 227]. Swales also stressed that “literature
review” is now not restricted to Move 1 but may
“occur throughout the introduction and indeed
throughout the article as a whole” [2, p. 227].
Despite the variations in different disciplines, most
studies confirm the descriptive values of the
three-move structure of the CaRS models.
135
Another model for the writing of article
introductions in application-based disciplines such
as law or engineering is the problem-focused
approach introduced by Feak and Swales [22]. This
model consists of five moves: “establishing the
background,” “highlighting a problem that has
emerged,” “outlining how the problem will be
examined,” “delineating proposed solution to the
problem” (optional, but likely), and “outlining the
paper” (optional) [22, p. 90]. While this model does
include establishing a background, unlike CaRS,
establishing a niche is not highlighted as a major
focus of the structure. As such, it is not
encompassing enough for the writing of RA
introductions, where review of previous work is
necessary to justify the current research by
pointing to a gap in previous work.
In fact, Feak and Swales highlighted the differences
between problem-focused and gap-focused
introductions by explaining that “problems involve
difficulties that the author believes should be
solved (but have not been despite research or
136 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 61, NO. 2, JUNE 2018
interest), while gaps highlight the absence of
research” [22, p. 88].
However, even if one uses a problem-focused
approach in writing RA introductions, gap
indication should not be overlooked because
problems in engineering are generally not easy to
solve in a single study. Progress and proposed
solutions are often incremental. Therefore, a
problem to be solved—for example, creating a new
nanomaterial to overcome corrosion or achieving
wireless power transfer—often evolves into an
active research space or area. In this sense,
descriptions of the general problem area,
previously attempted solutions, and more specific
problems developed from previous attempts
comprise a “build-up” move to establish a territory
before a niche for the present work is established.
This observation is consistent with Lin’s findings in
her analysis of 30 civil engineering RA
introductions with a separate literature review
section [20]. Lin identified 10 orientation
introductions, 15 research-oriented traditional
CaRS (RT CaRS) introductions, and five
practical-problem solving (PS) introductions based
on Feak and Swales’s model of problem-focused
introductions [22]. As Lin stated, the PS and
orientation types are not concerned with
establishing a niche in existing research, while the
salient function of RT CaRS “is to justify and create
the essential space for the study” [20, p. 421].
However, for the PS type of RAs identified in her
study, only two of five followed the move structures
of the problem-focused introduction proposed by
Feak and Swales. The other three were more
complexly structured and covered comparison
moves between conventional and new approaches,
or a research gap-indication element.
The findings of previous studies indicate that there
is a type of research-oriented writing that cannot
be classified strictly into the problem-focused or
the gap-focused type. This conclusion is consistent
with an editor’s note in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
PARALLEL AND DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS [3], where the
author advises that researchers structure their RAs
with descriptions of the problem, existing
solutions, and proposed solution, among other
elements. In fact, insofar as engineering research
can be viewed as a problem-solving exercise and
that the proposed solution has to be justified in
comparison to existing solutions [3], engineering
RA introductions should be both problem-focused
and gap-focused.
To describe and illustrate RA introductions that are
both problem-focused and gap-focused, Khaw [4]
proposed an integration of Hoey’s PSP [3] with
CaRS. In Hoey’s original formulation, PSP consists
of describing a situation, describing a problem,
describing a response, and evaluating the
response, with a possible repetition of the last three
steps in the case of a negative evaluation, leading
to what Hoey called “multilayering” [3]. This
concept can be particularly useful in structuring
introductions involving cyclical evaluations of
problems and existing solutions, where earlier
solutions are problematized and later solutions
address the limitations or inadequacies described,
in several cycles.
The integrated model, called PSP-CaRS, retains the
three-move structure of CaRS but uses PSP to
realize Move 1—establishing a territory. It starts
with the description of a situation, usually a
context of an engineering application. This is
followed by the description of a general problem
area in the context given, and description and
evaluation of previously attempted solutions. In
accordance with the concept of “multilayering,” the
evaluation may contain a number of cycles if
necessary, with previous solutions problematized
and followed-up solutions described. Such
“multilayering” or cyclicity characterized by the
problematization of previous solutions has also
been observed by Samraj in her analysis of student
research papers in conservation biology, which is
also a problem-focused discipline [23]. Eventually,
such build-up moves establish the territory,
leading to the niche—and justifying the need to
conduct this study.
To examine the applicability and practicality of the
proposed model, Khaw analyzed the introductions
of 33 RAs in the field of electrical and electronics
engineering [4]. She found that PSP was an
approach commonly found in the introductions
analyzed. In particular, she found that a number of
RA introductions contained the cyclical evaluation
of PSP and attributed such cyclicity to the
incremental nature of engineering research [4].
However, Khaw’s study did not provide an in-depth
analysis of the articles and the ways that the
boundaries between moves were set. There was
also no detailed analysis of cyclical PSP in the RAs
that she examined.
To further verify the practicality and applicability of
the model proposed by Khaw [4], more research is
needed to study the RAs in other subdisciplines of
KHAW AND TAN: ESTABLISHING A TERRITORY IN THE INTRODUCTIONS OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH ARTICLES
Fig. 2. Move structure of PSP-CaRS model.
engineering, with detailed analysis of cyclical PSP.
This study analyzes RAs in the field of materials
science and engineering, as part of the main
research project to verify the application of
PSP-CaRS in the introductions of published
RAs.
METHODOLOGY
Building on the work of Khaw on electrical and
electronics engineering RAs [4], we conducted an
exploratory study by analyzing a corpus of 30 RAs
in materials science and engineering with
PSP-CaRS to investigate the use of PSP to establish
territory and niche in published RAs. If such an
approach is commonly used in published RAs, the
value of PSP-CaRS as a pedagogical tool to guide
researchers in writing RA introductions will be
further strengthened.
137
PSP-CaRS Model The proposed model [4], shown
in Fig. 2, is a variant of CaRS 2004 [2] with the
inclusion of PSP adapted from Hoey’s original
concept [3]. The main feature is the inclusion of
three submoves to facilitate or realize Move 1 of
CaRS 2004. Submove 1.1, description of a
situation, refers to providing background
information about the research—for example, the
real-world applications of a material, technique, or
system. Submove 1.2, description of a problem
area, refers to describing a problem related to the
situation described in Submove 1.1, which has
become an active area of research. Submove 1.3,
description & evaluation of solutions from previous
studies, refers to describing previous attempts at
finding solutions in the problem area, providing a
context of why the present work is important. This
submove leads to the identification of the specific
problem dealt with in the present work or a
138 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 61, NO. 2, JUNE 2018
research gap, serving as a lead-in to Move 2,
establishing a niche.
Note that a niche may involve a research gap, an
extension of previous studies, or solutions to
problems not resolved in previous studies. This
understanding was also noted by Swales in his
reasoning for simplifying Move 2 in CaRS [2]. In
particular, he quoted Kwan (misquoted as Chu)
[24], who said that Swales
also maintained that words such as suffer, is
limited to, time consuming, expensive and not
sufficiently accurate are indications of gaps of
some kinds. However, these lexical terms can
also be interpreted as inherent problems of the
previous methods rather than gaps to fill, and
thus can be seen as counter-claims of various
sorts [2, p. 230].
To make the potential content of the niche explicit,
the original Step 1 of Move 2 in CaRS 2004 (see Fig.
1) was also modified and became Submove 2.1,
“indicating gaps or adding to what is known or
stating problem(s) yet to be solved.” Whichever of
the three aspects the gap refers to, the
distinguishing feature of this submove is the use of
clear lexical signals to justify the present work.
Without clear lexical signals, the connection
between evaluations of previous works and this
study is not apparent, making it hard for readers to
grasp the significance of the research niche.
Move 3 is intended to present the present work.
The submoves include Submove 3.1, announcing
present study descriptively and/or purposively;
Submove 3.2, presenting RQs or hypothesis
(optional); Submove 3.3, definitional clarifications;
Submove 3.4, summarizing methods or procedural
justification; Submove 3.5, announcing principal
outcomes; Submove 3.6, stating the values of the
present research; Submove 3.7, related works;
Submove 3.8, outlining the structure of the paper;
and Submove 3.9, notation. As Khaw explained,
this move is largely the same as that in CaRS 2004
except for some minor modifications in
submoves [4].
Corpus The corpus used in this study includes 30
RAs (see Appendix A) randomly selected from 2016
issues of 3 established Quartile 1 journals in the
field of materials science and engineering: ACS
Applied Materials & Interfaces (abbreviated AM&I,
published by ACS Publications), Materials & Design
(abbreviated M&D, published by Elsevier), and NPG
Asia Materials (abbreviated NPG, published by
Nature Publishing Group).
This study is exploratory in nature, and no
statistical significance analysis was done because
of the small sample size. Nevertheless, the findings
provide insights into the characteristic patterns of
a type of introduction in problem- or application-
based RAs, validating the proposed model to be
used in the normative sense and thus its
pedagogical purposes.
Establishing the Procedure of Analysis Prior to
analyzing the RA introductions in the corpus, the
authors (who hold Ph.D.s and have language and
engineering/science backgrounds, respectively)
first read and analyzed a trial set of 10 RAs to
establish the analysis procedure and resolve
methodological ambiguity. The analyses of the trial
set and later of the corpus were carried out
according to the move structure of PSP-CaRS
delineated in Fig. 2.
In examining the trial RAs, the main interrater
issue was ambiguity regarding Move 2, establishing
a niche, especially for cases with cyclicity. The
ambiguity lies in cases where the niche is an
“unresolved problem of previous work” in which no
explicit gap indicating elements is used. While the
niche is presumably the last problem mentioned by
the RA author, that is not always the case, and
readers must carefully verify this assumption
against the subsequent text. After a moderation
process, we came to the consensus that there
should be a specific gap statement to indicate the
niche delineated in Move 2, leading to the
announced purpose of the study in Move 3. An
interrater agreement was reached on all trial
papers. This training process allowed the authors
to sharpen their skills based on a common strategy.
Once the procedure for analysis had been
established, the introductions of all RAs in the
corpus were analyzed using the proposed model,
and an analysis of the macrostructure of the RAs
was also conducted. When analyzing the actual
corpus, the authors were able to reach an
interrater agreement of 93% on Move 2. The
interrater agreement on Move 1 was 90%.
Disagreements were resolved through discussion.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A simple analysis of the macrostructure of the RAs
found that they are basically variants of the
Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion
KHAW AND TAN: ESTABLISHING A TERRITORY IN THE INTRODUCTIONS OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH ARTICLES
TABLE I
SUMMARY
OF THE
(IMRaD) structure commonly used in scholarly
writing in the STEM fields [1]. Only one RA is of the
pure IMRaD form, while the other 29 are of
variants such as Introduction, Methods, Results
and Discussion, and Conclusion (25 RAs);
Introduction, Results, Discussion, and Methods
(2 RAs); and Introduction, Methods, Results,
Discussion, and Conclusion (2 RAs). None of these
articles had a separate literature review section.
The average length of the RA introductions is 662
words per text for AM&I, 578 for M&D, and 529 for
NPG. Note that this average length is much shorter
than the average length of more than 1000 words
in software engineering RAs analyzed by Anthony
[7]. The average that we found is comparable to
that of PS (649) and RT CaRS (658) introductions
in Lin’s study [20]; however, all of the RAs in Lin’s
study had a separate literature review section.
We first provide a summary of our findings in
terms of the number of RA introductions that can
be described with PSP, the number of RAs with PSP
cyclicity, and the number of RAs with explicit gap
statements. Because the novel feature of the
proposed model of this study is the use of PSP to
elaborate Move 1 in CaRS 2004, it is important to
show how the three submoves structure Move 1,
leading to Move 2. Transitional points between
Move 1 and Move 2 are highlighted, where a
specific problem or research gap located at the
beginning of Move 2 is identified after Submove
1.3, description and evaluation of solutions. This is
done by using two sample RA introductions. As a
basis of comparison, we also provide an analysis of
an RA introduction not containing PSP.
Summary of Findings Table I summarizes the
findings of the corpus analysis. The number and
percentage of RAs with a PSP structure, with PSP
cyclicity, and with explicit gap statements are
139
CORPUS ANALYSIS
shown in separate columns. The rows show the
results for each journal, as well as for the whole
corpus. Note that for cyclicity, both the percentage
of the total number of RAs and that of the number
of RAs with PSP are shown, with the latter in
parentheses.
Most RA introductions (67%) follow the PSP
pattern. Of these PSP RAs, 65% (43% of all RAs in
the corpus) contain a cyclical structure with more
than one problem-solution cycle. Likewise, most
RAs contain explicit gap statements. However, only
30% of the RAs from AM&I contain explicit gap
statements. These results affirm that PSP is indeed
used by a majority of authors to establish the
territory in the RA introductions randomly chosen
from these journals.
Interestingly, some of the RAs with no explicit
niche-establishing elements describe previous
studies or solutions in a rather lengthy and
exhaustive manner, indicating that the authors
considered such a review important and that their
own studies should be viewed in the context of
previous research. In other words, their
niche-establishing intention seems clear even
without the use of explicit niche-establishing
lexical signals.
We illustrate the PSP and the submoves using
three RAs from the corpus. The structures of these
RA introductions vary in their use of PSP and the
level of cyclical complexity. Only the simpler
example is described in the following section, with
the other two examples provided in Appendix B.
Sample Analysis In this section, we analyze the
article “An Extraordinary Enhancement of Wear
Resistance in a Multi-Modal-Laminated Alloy”
(M&D 1), with the basic structure presented in
140 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 61, NO. 2, JUNE 2018
TABLE II
STRUCTURAL PATTERNS
Table II. The first column shows the content of the
introduction, with each sentence labeled
numerically. The second column shows the move
structure in accordance with PSP-CaRS in Fig. 2. A
full description of the flow and structure follows.
1. Sentence 1 describes the situation (Submove
1.1), which is the expectation that
nanostructured (NS) high-strength metals and
alloys should exhibit high wear resistance.
Sentence 2 points out that, in reality, that
expectation is not met because the wear
properties of such materials do not improve even
with increased strength and hardness. This is
the problem area (Submove 1.2) of the study:
improving wear resistance of NS materials.
2. Sentences 3 and 4 describe one way of
addressing the problem, which is to enhance
OF M&D 1
ductility of the material. Sentence 5
problematizes this solution, pointing out that
enhancing ductility will reduce the strength of
the material. Sentences 6 to 9 describe a new
solution—producing highly wear-resistant NS
materials via forming a multimodal structure.
Then, sentence 10 indicates the research gap:
Although many MMS metals and alloys with
both high strength and high ductility have
been produced [13]–[16], the wear properties
of MMS materials are rarely investigated.
This establishes the niche. Sentences 11 to 13
present the present work, including announcing
this study, describing the method, and
describing principal outcomes. The complete
sequence from Move 1 to Move 2 facilitated by
KHAW AND TAN: ESTABLISHING A TERRITORY IN THE INTRODUCTIONS OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH ARTICLES
PSP is thus situation-problem-solution-
problem-solution-gap.
Note that in Submove 1.1, one may start out by
describing the importance of the subject matter in
real-world applications, as most of the RA
introductions in this corpus do. The authors did
not do this and instead opened the introduction
with a statement regarding the expectation of
nanostructured high strength metals and alloys to
exhibit high wear resistance. In the normative
sense, we would recommend a description stating
real-world applications. However, both the existing
statement and the proposed description of
real-world applications can be legitimately
construed as “describing a situation.”
Two other sample analyses are provided in Appendix
B. The first is an introduction written with PSP and
is cyclical but without an explicit gap statement. As
in the analysis above, we provide the original con-
tent and breakdown of the moves in point form, as
well as a verbal description of the flow and structure.
The second example is not written with PSP and
does not have an explicit gap statement. As a
result, it is not possible to provide the breakdown
of the moves according to the PSP-CaRS structure.
Instead, we provide an exposition of the flow of the
article and describe how the PSP approach could
be used to write the introduction. It is important to
note that PSP is not necessarily superior to other
approaches but is an option that may be used.
Since the objective of this study is to analyze the
use of PSP to facilitate Move 1, we do not elaborate
on Move 3. However, for the sake of completeness,
we provide an analysis of Move 3 in Appendix B.
Discussions of PSP, Problem-Solution Cyclicity,
and Gap Statement In this section, we discuss
the findings regarding the three important features
in Move 1 and Move 2, namely PSP, problem-
solution cyclicity, and the gap statement, in
relation to their importance in facilitating clear
writing which the readers can easily grasp.
PSP: Of the 30 RAs analyzed in this study,
20 clearly contain PSP, with 5 from AM&I, 6 from
M&D, and 8 from NPG. A question may be asked
about the differences between these RAs from the
other 10 that do not contain clear PSP. Examining
the subject matter of the RAs, we found that
introductions written with PSP mainly deal with
methods or fabrications of materials; those not
written with PSP mainly deal with characterizing
properties of materials. Table III shows the relation
141
TABLE III
PSP AND RA FOCUS
of the use of PSP in terms of the foci of the
RAs—method/fabrication-focused,
characterization-focused, and dual-focused (both
method/fabrication and characterization). Of the
20 method/fabrication-focused RAs, only 2 do not
reflect PSP in their structuring of the introductions.
Of the 6 characterization-focused RAs, none
reflects PSP. Of the 4 dual-focused RAs, 2 reflect
PSP.
This finding makes sense as most of the time,
existing solutions must have some limitations or
shortcomings for a new method to be proposed. As
with studies the purposes of which are to better
understand or characterize the properties of a
certain material or process, PSP may not be
necessary. However, for characterization-focused
RAs, PSP may in some cases be adopted if the
author structures a critical review of past studies
by pointing out their shortcomings, if there are any.
Problem-Solution Cyclicity: Of the 20 RAs that can
be described as containing PSP, 13 use more than
1 cycle of PSP. This cyclicity mostly involves the
descriptions and evaluations of existing solutions
in a progressive or chronological manner.
As previously explained, problem-solution cyclicity
stems from the problematization of previous
solutions that was indicated in Samraj’s findings
[23]. Note that while previous studies [7], [20]
revealed move configurations with varying numbers
of repetitions of Move 1 and Move 2, these
repetitive patterns may or may not be cyclical in
the sense of problematizing an existing solution
and then providing a solution to the derived
problem. These studies examined their corpora of
RAs using CaRS 2004, which did not prescribe PSP
to structure Move 1.
This fact accentuates the difference in the
description of cyclical patterns in PSP-CaRS and
CaRS 2004. In CaRS 2004, cyclical patterns involve
repeated movements between Move 1 and Move 2,
that is, between territory and niche. In PSP-CaRS,
142 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 61, NO. 2, JUNE 2018
cyclicity exists only within Move 1, in the cyclical
problematization of existing solutions. Once the
research gap that leads to this study is identified
from the evaluations of previous work, the niche is
established. There is no repeated movement
between territory and niche.
Gap Statement: Of the 30 articles analyzed, 18
contain explicit gap statements. While the majority
of the RAs in M&D and NPG contain explicit gap
statements, only two RAs in AM&I contain explicit
gap statements. In our analysis, Move 2 is
recognized only when explicit statements provide
clear lexical signals in bridging evaluations of
previous works to this study. In most RAs that are
counted as not containing a research gap, the
authors’ intention in establishing the gap is clear.
However, an explicit bridging statement is missing.
We attribute this absence of a bridging statement to
author oversight. We believe that such an explicit
statement is important in providing readers with an
easy grasp of the logical flow of the narrative.
An example of an RA that does not contain a
research gap is the paper shown in Appendix B.
After the authors problematize existing solutions in
the last cycle of PSP, an explicit statement—“these
issues have not been addressed so far”—will
provide the link. In the existing presentation,
readers have to guess the authors’ intention.
In past studies, niche establishment in both CaRS
1990 and CaRS 2004 has been an area of significant
focus. Whether the niche should be established
with a critical review of previous studies or
by citing the need to solve real-world problems has
been a topic of significant academic interest. For
example, Lin [20] argued that due to an emphasis
on using critical review of previous studies
to establish a niche, both CaRS 1990 and CaRS
2004 are more suitable for RAs in more established
research-oriented disciplines than for those in
emerging application-oriented disciplines. Lin notes
that in the latter disciplines, instead of establishing
the niche through critical review of previous
literature, authors often do so by citing practical
needs or real-world problems that need solutions.
We argue that in certain engineering disciplines
such as materials science and engineering,
application-oriented PS and niche-established
research are not mutually exclusive. In fact, much
of the research has objectives firmly set in resolving
or finding solutions to problems that are ultimately
application-oriented. As we have pointed out,
progress in solving problems in engineering
research is often incremental. Therefore, solving an
existing problem—whether addressing weaknesses
in existing materials, fabricating a new material,
improving methods of fabrication, or applying the
latest development of nanotechnology for medical
applications—involves extensive research. In such
situations, the integration of PS and research is
natural.
Moreover, in applying for research funding,
researchers often need to justify their proposed
studies in relation to existing works, making niche
establishment through a critical review of previous
studies a necessity. In such a situation, critical
reviews of previous studies can be structured using
PSP.
Examples of how this can be done are
demonstrated by the detailed analysis of two
sample RAs. In both of these RAs, the authors start
out by outlining a situation related to a material
that is the subject of the study—one is the
expectation that it will exhibit a certain property,
while the other is its increasing number of
applications. The authors then proceed to describe
a problem by quoting previous research, thus
highlighting the problem area, and initiating the
territory-establishing move. The authors then
describe and evaluate solutions to the problem,
citing previous research. These solutions are then
problematized by pointing out their inadequacies,
quoting previous research. The length and depth of
the descriptions and evaluations vary. Following
problematization of previous solutions, the RAs
may offer an explicit gap statement, thus
completing the niche-establishing move. However,
such narration of PSP may go on for more than one
cycle if necessary. The explicit gap statement is
given after the last cycle of PSP.
Finally, it should be pointed out that the proposed
PSP-CaRS model may be more in line with RAs
deemed to follow the PS type in Lin’s study [20] but
that could not be completely accounted for by the
move structures of the problem-focused
introduction proposed by Feak and Swales [20]
because of a complexly structured “comparison”
move and gap-indicating elements. A quick check
of an RA introduction provided in Lin’s paper (CE7)
[20, pp. 431–432] showed that it fit the PSP-CaRS
pattern well. Thus, the PSP-CaRS model may be
useful for other subdisciplines too. However, this
assumption needs to be verified by studies of RAs
in various subdisciplines in engineering.
CONCLUSION
We have shown that PSP is reflected in most of the
RAs analyzed in this study, providing an affirmative
KHAW AND TAN: ESTABLISHING A TERRITORY IN THE INTRODUCTIONS OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH ARTICLES
answer to our first research question: Is
structuring an RA introduction using PSP a
common approach in published RAs in materials
science and engineering? Thus, PSP can indeed be
used to facilitate Move 1—establishing a
territory—in CaRS. The use of PSP bridges the two
approaches of citing an application-related problem
(problem-focused) and providing a critical review of
previous studies (gap-focused).
We have also summarized how PSP is used to
facilitate the movement from Move 1 to Move 2 with
descriptions and evaluations of previous research
organized in one or more cycles of PSP, leading
logically to an explicit gap statement, and fully
establishing the niche. This provides a clear answer
to the second research question: How does PSP
facilitate the setting of boundaries between
territory and niche in these RAs?
While the PSP-CaRS model should be seen as a
variant of the CaRS models, there are significant
differences between it and both CaRS 1990 and
CaRS 2004. First is the central role of practical-
problem solving—depiction of the research of
concern in terms of problems and solutions. While
this is less general than both CaRS 1990 and CaRS
2004, it is more direct and natural for
engineering-related fields.
Second, in CaRS 2004, cyclical patterns have to be
construed as repeated movements between Move 1
and Move 2—that is, between territory and niche.
These repeated moves can be seen as a weakness if
niche refers to the niche occupied by the present
APPENDIX A
Tables IV–VI list the corpus of RAs.
APPENDIX B
ADDITIONAL ANALYSES
Sample Analysis—Paper With PSP but Without
Explicit Gap Statement In this section, we
analyze the RA titled “Silver Nanowires
Binding with Sputtered ZnO to Fabricate Highly
Conductive and Thermally Stable Transparent
Electrode for Solar Cell Applications” (AM&I 10),
with the basic structure presented in Table VII
and the following description of the flow and
structure.
143
work. In the PSP-CaRS model, cyclicity is fully
captured within Move 1, in cyclical
problematization of existing solutions. Research
gaps relevant to previous research are treated as
problematizations of previous solutions. There is no
repeated movement between niche and territory.
With these advantages, the model is particularly
useful to guide novice researchers in writing RA
introductions, in line with the experience of one of
the authors. The logical three-move structure of
CaRS and the concrete prescription of PSP help
students to more easily contextualize and, thus,
strengthen the presentations of their research. This
model has significant pedagogical value.
For future work, more RA introductions in other
fields such as chemical and mechanical
engineering will be analyzed to further establish
the applicability of PSP-CaRS. Action research to
gather pedagogical evidence using a focus-group
study has been planned. A related issue is the use
of CaRS for normative purpose, as a writing
guideline. While CaRS is highly regarded in
academic writing circles, to the authors’
knowledge, there has been no study of its use in
teaching graduate engineering writing. It may be
worthwhile to conduct a survey of how research
writing classes are structured in graduate research
programs in engineering and whether variants of
the CaRS framework are used to guide students in
academic writing classes in English-speaking
universities worldwide. A survey on the
applicability of PSP as a writing guideline can also
be conducted in the future.
1. Sentences 1 and 2 describe the situation
(Submove 1.1), the widespread applications of
transparent conductive electrode (TCE)
materials, as well as indium tin oxide (ITO)
being commercialized for most of the
applications of TCE. Sentences 3 to 7 describe
the problems with ITO and the efforts to develop
alternative TCE materials. This is Submove 1.2,
describing the problem area. Sentences 8 to 12
describe and evaluate existing alternative TCE
materials, accentuating the advantages of a
random metal nanowire network, especially
144 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 61, NO. 2, JUNE 2018

TABLE IV
RESEARCH ARTICLES FROM ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces

silver nanowires (AgNWs), as “the most befitting
candidate for TCE applications.” Among these
sentences, sentences 9 and 10 problematize
carbon-based TCE.
2. Sentence 13 describes the limitations of bare
AgNW films, thus problematizing existing
solutions (part of Submove 1.3) and initiating
another cycle of PSP. Then, sentences 14 to 19
describe attempts to resolve these issues,
continuing with the new cycle of describing and
evaluating the solutions. Note that sentence 15
problematizes one of these solutions. The
descriptions and evaluations end with sentence
20, stating that “the deliberate arrangements of
AgNW transparent composite films with low-
lying buffer/absorber layer for high efficiency
solar cell has not been thoroughly explored.”
This would be a gap statement if the authors
followed it up with a description of the present
work. However, the authors do not and continue
to describe previous studies in the following
paragraph. As such, it actually marks the
beginning of another PSP cycle.
3. Sentences 21 to 28 describe and evaluate a
number of research efforts in relation to the
previous statement. The solutions described
here are problematized. While it is clear that the
authors’ intention is to use this part as a
build-up move before the present work is
announced, they do not provide a “linking”
statement between these evaluations and their
present work, nor do they provide positive
KHAW AND TAN: ESTABLISHING A TERRITORY IN THE INTRODUCTIONS OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH ARTICLES 145

TABLE V
MATERIALS AND DESIGN (http://www.journals.elsevier.com/materials-and-design)

justifications for the present approach. The lack
of an explicit gap statement means that there is
no clear Move 2.
4. Sentences 29 to 31 comprise Move 3, presenting
the present work. These include announcing
this study, and describing methods and
principal outcomes.
Sample Analysis—Paper Without PSP and
Explicit Gap Statement In this section, we
analyze the RA titled “Nanostructured
Carbon-based Membranes: Nitrogen Doping Effects
on Reverse Osmosis Performance” (NPG 3), with the
text and basic structure presented in Table VIII and
the following description of the flow and structure.
1. While the introduction is clearly written, it
cannot be described using the PSP model since
a problem area associated with the situation
(applications of a-C thin films) is not identified,
and it does not try to establish a territory and
then a niche through a problem-solution
description. Paragraph 1 describes the
applications of carbon thin films and a-C thin
films. Paragraph 2 describes a-C thin films and
various techniques of synthesis, highlighting the
method of high-power impulse magnetron
sputtering (HiPIMS). Paragraph 3 presents the
present work carried out using the method of
HiPIMS.
2. At the sentence level, sentence 1 states that
carbon thin films can be used for various
applications because of their attractive
mechanical properties, chemical inertness, and
optical transparency, and they can also be
produced at an industrial scale. Sentence 2
mentions the expansion of the applications by
146 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 61, NO. 2, JUNE 2018

TABLE VI
NPG ASIA MATERIALS

altering some of their properties. Sentences 3
and 4 provide examples of how the properties of
carbon thin films have been enhanced by
previous studies. Sentence 5 mentions the basis
and key factors in carbon-based deposited films.
Sentence 6 points out several commonly used
techniques for a-C syntheses with different
characteristics. Sentence 7 concludes that
among all the methods mentioned, HiPIMS has
gained considerable interest. Sentences 8 to 12,
partially shown in Table VIII, outline the paper
and introduce the present work. There is neither
PSP nor an explicit gap statement in the
introduction.
3. To take the PSP approach, one would present
the situation as in paragraph 1, but would go on
to describe the problems associated with the
synthesis of a-C thin films. This would be the
problem area. One would than describe and
evaluate existing attempts or solutions. If these
solutions were problematized and further
solutions addressing these problems were
described, the result would be the use of cyclical
PSP.
It is important to note that PSP is not necessarily
superior to the original approach but is an option
that may be used.
KHAW AND TAN: ESTABLISHING A TERRITORY IN THE INTRODUCTIONS OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH ARTICLES 147

TABLE VII
STRUCTURAL PATTERNS OF Am&I 10
148 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 61, NO. 2, JUNE 2018

TABLE VIII
STRUCTURAL PATTERNS OF NPG 3

Analysis of Submoves in Move 3—Presenting
the Present Work While the focus of this study is
the use of PSP to facilitate Move 1, we provide an
analysis of Move 3 below, for the sake of
completeness. Table IX summarizes the results of
the analysis, where the rows list the occurrence of
the submoves and the columns contain the result
for RAs from each journal, as well as the overall
corpus.
1. The three most frequently identified submoves
in the introductions of the RAs analyzed are
Submoves 3.1, 3.4, and 3.5. All papers contain
Submove 3.1, announcing present study
descriptively and/or purposively (30/30, 100%),
which is marked as an obligatory move in CaRS
2004 [2]. This submove was also frequently
detected by previous studies in engineering-
related fields [7], [18], [20].
2. The second most frequently detected is
Submove 3.4, summarizing methods or
procedural justification (28/30, 93.3%), followed
by Submove 3.5, announcing principal
outcomes (21/30, 70%).
3. The use of other submoves in Move 3 varies
across the papers. Fourteen papers were
identified with Submove 3.6, stating the values
of the present research (14/30, 46.7%). The rest
of the submoves, namely Submove 3.2,
presenting RQ or hypothesis (2/30, 6.6%);
Submove 3.3, definitional clarifications (1/30,
KHAW AND TAN: ESTABLISHING A TERRITORY IN THE INTRODUCTIONS OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH ARTICLES 149

TABLE IX
ANALYSIS OF SUBMOVES IN MOVE 3

3.3%); and Submove 3.7, outlining the structure
of the paper (0%) are seldom or hardly detected.
However, in Anthony’s study on the analysis of
RA introductions in the field of software
engineering, about 83% of the RAs had a similar
step, indicating RA structure [7]. Likewise, half
of the RA introductions (50%) in the same field
analyzed by Kanosilapatham had a similar
move/step, outlining article structure [18].
Comparatively, the same move was not
frequently identified in the RAs of civil
engineering and biomedical engineering in
Kanosilapatham’s study [18]. However, in the
field of civil engineering, more than 60% of the
RT CaRS introductions analyzed by Lin [20]
contained this move.
4. Overall, it can be seen that Submoves 3.1, 3.4,
and 3.5 appear to be dominant, while Submoves
3.2, 3.3, and 3.7 may not be needed for RA
introductions in the field of materials science
and engineering. We thus assume that
variations in Move 3 may vary across
subdisciplines in engineering and even across
engineering journals. More research is needed to
verify that assumption.

REFERENCES
[1] J. M. Swales, Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.
Press, 1990.
[2] J. M. Swales, Research Genres: Exploration and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004.
[3] I. Stojmenovic, “Editor’s note: How to write research articles in computing and engineering disciplines,” IEEE
Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 145–147, Feb. 2010.
[4] L. L. Khaw, “A problem-solution based framework for writing the introductions of research articles in electronic
and communication engineering: Pedagogical implications,” in Proc. IEEE Global Eng. Educ. Conf., 2017,
pp. 119–124.
[5] M. Hoey, On the Surface of Discourse. London, UK: George Allen Unwin Ltd, 1983.
[6] J. M. Swales and C. B. Feak, Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. Ann Arbor, MI,
USA: Univ. Michigan Press, 1994.
[7] L. Anthony, “Writing research article introductions in software engineering: How accurate is a standard model?”
IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 38–46, Mar. 1999.
[8] K. N. Nwogu, “The medical research paper: Structure and functions,” Engl. Specific Purposes, vol. 16, no. 2,
pp. 119–138, 1997.
[9] S. Posteguillo, “The schematic structure of computer science research articles,” Engl. Specific Purposes, vol. 18,
no. 2, pp. 139–160, 1999.
[10] B. Samraj, “Introductions in research articles: Variations across disciplines,” Engl. Specific Purposes, vol. 21, no.
1, pp. 1–17, 2002.
[11] A. Fakhri, “Rhetorical propeties of Arabic research article introductions,” J. Pragmatics, vol. 36, pp. 1119–1138,
2004.
150 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 61, NO. 2, JUNE 2018

[12] B. Kanoksilapatham, “Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles,” Engl. Specific Purposes, vol. 24,
pp. 269–292, 2005.
[13] I. Ozturk, “The textual organisaton of research article introductions in applied linguisitcs: Variability within a
single discipline,” Engl. Specific Purposes, vol. 26, pp. 25–38, 2007.
[14] W. Shehzad, “Move two: Establishing a niche,” IBERICA, vol. 15, pp. 25–50, 2008.
[15] E. Hirano, “Research article introductions in English for specific purposes: A comparison between Brazilian
Portuguese and English,” Engl. Specific Purposes, vol. 28, pp. 240–250, 2009.
[16] C. K. Loi, “Research article introductions in Chinese and English: A comparative genre-based study,” J. Engl.
Acad. Purposes, vol. 9, pp. 267–279, 2010.
[17] E. Sheldon, “Rhetorical difference in RA introductions written by English L1 & L2 and Castilian Spanish
writers,” J. Engl. Acad. Purposes, vol. 10, pp. 238–251, 2011.
[18] B. Kanoksilapatham, “Structure of research article introductions in three engineering subdisciplines,” IEEE
Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 294–309, Dec. 2012.
[19] F. L. Stoller and Marin Robinson, “Chemistry journal articles: An interdisciplinary approach to move analysis
with pedagogical aims,” Engl. Specific Purposes, vol. 32, pp. 45–57, 2013.
[20] L. Lin, “Variability in the rhetorical structure of research article introductions,” Revista Espanola Linguistica
Aplicada, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 405–432, 2014.
[21] B. Kanoksilapatham, “Distinguishing textual features characterizing structural variation in research articles
across three engineering sub-discipline,” Engl. Specific Purposes, vol. 37, pp. 74–86, 2015.
[22] C. B. Feak and J. M. Swales, Creating Contexts: Writing Introductions Across Genres. Ann Arbor, MI, USA: Univ.
Michigan Press, 2011.
[23] B. Samraj, “Discourse features of the student-produced academic research paper:variations acoss disciplinary
courses,” J. Engl. Acad. Purposes, vol. 3, pp. 5–22, 2004.
[24] B. S. C. Kwan, “Intoduction in State-of-the-art, Argumentative, and Teaching Tips TESL Journal Articles: Three
Possible Sub-genres of Introduction?” Research Monograph No. 12, City Univ. Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China,
1996.

Li Lian Khaw received the Ph.D. degree in Education from the
University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic, Australia, in 2008.
She is a senior learning skills advisor providing academic
support to engineering graduate research students at Monash
University, Melbourne. She has taught in tertiary institutions in
Malaysia, Taiwan, and China. Her research interests include
new Englishes, second language learning, and engineering
research writing.
Wei Wu Tan received the B.S. degree in Engineering from the
University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA, in 1992, and
the Ph.D. degree in Physics from the State University of New
York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, USA, in 2000. He is
currently working toward the Ph.D. degree in social work, with
research focusing on dynamical modeling of the child protection
system. He has worked in the field of stratospheric data analysis
and modeling.