Document Type : Research article


1 MA Student, Languages and Linguistics Center, Sharif University of Technology

2 Associate Professor, Languages and Linguistics Center, Sharif University of Technology


The current study aimed at investigating the authorial identity of Iranian academic writers, who came from three different fields of English, Biology, and Engineering, plus examining the influence of disciplinary conventions on their stance taking in research articles. The main objectives of this study were achieved by going through two main phases, viz. survey administration and corpus study. First, the authorial identity questionnaire was administered to 150 academic writers, 50 from each of the selected fields. Following that, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run to locate the difference between authorial identities of academic writers among these groups. Second, as a complementary phase to survey administration, NVivo was utilized to conduct the corpus study phase. In so doing, Hyland’s (2005) model of interaction in academic discourse was applied to analyze academic writers’ stance taking in a corpus comprising 90 articles from the three selected fields. Triangulating the findings, we concluded that academic writers in the field of English rely more on authority, self-representation, and personal projection, while those in the fields of biology and engineering try to take less stance markers and portray their findings more impersonally.


Ballantine, J., & McCourt Larres, P. (2012). Perceptions of authorial identity in academic writing among undergraduate accounting students: Implications for unintentional plagiarism. Accounting Education21(3), 289-306.‏
Bartholomae, D. (1986). Inventing the university. Journal of Basic Writing, 5(1), 4-23.‏
Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. Sage Publications. ‏
Bazerman, Ch. (2001). Distanced and refined selves: Educational tensions in writing with the power of knowledge. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context: Implications and applications (pp. 23-29). University of Birmingham Press.
Bowden, D. (1995). The rise of a metaphor: “Voice”; in composition pedagogy. Rhetoric Review, 14(1), 173-188.
Cheung, K. Y. F., Stupple, E. J., & Elander, J. (2015). Development and validation of the student attitudes and beliefs about authorship Scale: A psychometrically robust measure of authorial identity. Studies in Higher Education, 42(1), 97-114.
Clark, R., & Ivanič, R. (1997). The politics of writing. Routledge.
Clavero, M. (2010). ‘Awkward wording. Rephrase’: Linguistic injustice in ecological journals. Trends in Ecology Evolution, 25, 552–553.
Dörnyei, Z. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Routledge.
Elbow, P. (1994). What do we mean when we talk about voice in texts? In K. B. Yancey (Ed.), Voices on voice: Perspectives, definitions, inquiry (pp. 1-35). National Council of Teachers of English.
Habibie, P., & Hyland, K. (2018). The risks and rewards of scholarly publishing. In P. Habibie & K. Hyland (Eds.), Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers (pp. 1-10)‏. Palgrave Macmillan.
Harwood, N. (2005). ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted… in this article I aim to do just that’: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics37(8), 1207-1231.‏
Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse18(3), 349-382.‏
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes20(3), 207-226.‏
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies7(2), 173-192.‏
Hyland, K. (2012). Undergraduate understandings: Stance and voice in final year reports. In K. Hyland & C. G. Sancho (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 134-150). Palgrave Macmillan.
Hyland, K. (2015). Teaching and researching writing. Routledge.‏
Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing31, 58-69.
Hyland, K. (2018). The essential Hyland. Bloomsbury.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2017). ‘We Believe That…’: Changes in an academic stance marker. Australian Journal of Linguistics38(2), 139-161.‏
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Evaluative that constructions: Signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language12(1), 39-63.
Ivanič, R. (1994). I is for interpersonal: Discoursal construction of writer identities and the teaching of writing. Linguistics and Education6(1), 3-15.‏
Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Benjamin.
Ivanič, R., & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1), 3-33.
Jamshidi, S. (2018). Development and validation of the students’ authorial voice and identity questionnaire (SAVIQ): A multiphase study of authorial identity in the Iranian context (Unpublished master thesis). Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2015). ‘The fact that’: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies17(5), 529-550.‏
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Routledge.
Maguire, M., Reynolds, A. E., & Delahunt, B. (2013). Self-efficacy in academic reading and writing, authorial identity and learning strategies in first-year students. AISHE-J: The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education5(1), 1111-1127.‏
Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1-2), 35-53.
Olmos Lopez, P. (2015). A framework for analysis of authorial identity: Heterogeneity among the undergraduate dissertation chapters (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Pittam, G., Elander, J., Lusher, J., Fox, P., & Payne, N. (2009). Student beliefs and attitudes about authorial identity in academic writing. Studies in Higher Education, 34(2), 153-170.
Riazi, A. M. (2016). The Routledge encyclopedia of research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research. Routledge.
Shaw, P., & Liu, E. (1998). What develops in the development of second-language writing? Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 225-54.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. University of Michigan Press.
Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes18, 23-39.‏
Watts, J. H. (2012). Preparing doctoral candidates for the viva: Issues for students and supervisors. Journal of Further and Higher Education36(3), 371-381.