From Research Findings to Contribution: Novelty Types and Strategies in Discussion Sections of International Journal Articles

Authors

  • Safnil Arsyad Doctoral Program of Applied Linguistics of FKIP of Bengkulu University, Bengkulu, 38371 Indonesia
  • Dian Eka Chandra Wardhana Doctoral Program of Applied Linguistics of FKIP of Bengkulu University, Bengkulu, 38371 Indonesia
  • Sarwit Sarwono Doctoral Program of Applied Linguistics of FKIP of Bengkulu University, Bengkulu, 38371 Indonesia
  • Arono Doctoral Program of Applied Linguistics of FKIP of Bengkulu University, Bengkulu, 38371 Indonesia
  • Didi Yulistio Doctoral Program of Applied Linguistics of FKIP of Bengkulu University, Bengkulu, 38371 Indonesia
  • Wisma Yunita Doctoral Program of Applied Linguistics of FKIP of Bengkulu University, Bengkulu, 38371 Indonesia
  • Mei Hardiah Doctoral Program of Applied Linguistics of FKIP of Bengkulu University, Bengkulu, 38371 Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18326/jopr.v8i3.1099-1126

Keywords:

discussion section, research novelty, research article, international journals

Abstract

Journal readers always look at research novelty when reading a research article; this information is addressed in the discussion section of the article. If they cannot find the novelty, they may not be interested in using or citing the research findings for their own writing. However, it is very challenging for novice authors and students to construct the novelty of their research argumentatively in their articles; thus, understanding how expert authors commonly construct new knowledge in their research articles is essential. Accordingly, this research aimed at analyzing author’s strategy of constructing novelty and justifying or legitimizing the novelty of the research in the discussion section of research articles published in International reputable journals. Following Drischo and Machi (2016), this research was designed as qualitative research with a content analysis approach. The corpus consists of the discussion sections of 50 research articles from five reputable international journals. The results revealed that three strategies of constructing novelty are found in the datasets, namely invention, development, and refutation. The authors of research articles tend to present the novelty of the research by proposing the development of the previous study, in terms of theory, context, and method. Regarding the strategy to justify the novelty, most of the data showed that presenting the previous research to support the novelty is commonly found, followed by quoting the experts. It is implied that supporting the justification of the novelty by referring to previous research or quoting the experts in the discussion sections of research articles is essential to the authors' efforts to convince the readers and support the claim that their research results contribute new knowledge in a certain academic discourse community. Quoting and citing previous studies do not merely diminish the novelty construction; rather, they provide a point of reference against which authors can articulate how their findings extend, refine, contextualize, or challenge existing knowledge. It is supposed that this result will donate an insight to academic writing discourse especially on the strategy of presenting the novelty of the research.

Author Biographies

Dian Eka Chandra Wardhana, Doctoral Program of Applied Linguistics of FKIP of Bengkulu University, Bengkulu, 38371 Indonesia

Dian Eka Chandra Wardhana is a professor in Indonesian language teaching at the doctoral program of applied linguistics of FKIP of Bengkulu University

Sarwit Sarwono, Doctoral Program of Applied Linguistics of FKIP of Bengkulu University, Bengkulu, 38371 Indonesia

Sarwit Sarwono is a professor in the Applied Linguistics of Doctoral program of Applied Linguistics of FKIP of Bengkulu University

Arono, Doctoral Program of Applied Linguistics of FKIP of Bengkulu University, Bengkulu, 38371 Indonesia

Arono is a professor of Applied Linguistics at Doctoral program of applied linguistics of FKIP of Bengkulu University

Didi Yulistio, Doctoral Program of Applied Linguistics of FKIP of Bengkulu University, Bengkulu, 38371 Indonesia

Didi Yulistio is a senior lecturer at the Doctoral program of applied linguistics of FKIP of Bengkulu University

Wisma Yunita, Doctoral Program of Applied Linguistics of FKIP of Bengkulu University, Bengkulu, 38371 Indonesia

Wisma Yunita is a professor at the doctoral program of Applied Linguistics of FKIP of Bengkulu University

Mei Hardiah, Doctoral Program of Applied Linguistics of FKIP of Bengkulu University, Bengkulu, 38371 Indonesia

Mei Hardiah is a student in the doctoral program in applied linguistics at FKIP of Bengkulu University 

References

Abdollahzadeh, E. (2019). A cross-cultural study of hedging in discussion sections by junior and senior academic writers. Revista Ibérica, 38, 177–202. Retrieved in September 2025 from https://revistaiberica.org/index.php/iberica/article/view/97

Adnan, Z. (2009). Some potential problems for research articles written by Indonesian academics when submitted to international English language journals. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 11(1), 107–125. Retrieved in December 2026 from https://researchers.une.edu.au/en/publications/some-potential-problems-for-research-articles-written-by-indonesi-5/

Amnuai, W., & Wannaruk, A. (2013). Investigating move structure of English applied linguistics research article discussions published in international and Thai journals. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n2p1

Arianto, M. A., Haq, M., & Jufrizal, J. (2023). Research article introductions in applied linguistics: A comparative study on the use of appeals. Journal of Language and Education, 9(2), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.16163

Arsyad, S. (2013). A genre-based analysis of Indonesian research articles in the social sciences and humanities written by Indonesian speakers. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 8(3), 234–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2013.849711

Arsyad, S. (2023). Marketization strategy in research article introductions by Indonesian authors in English language education journals. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 13(9), 2207–2215. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1309.06

Arsyad, S., & Adila, D. (2017). Using local style when writing in English: The citing behaviour of Indonesian writers in English research article introductions. Asian Englishes, 20(2), 170–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2017.1327835

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. University of Wisconsin Press.

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (2nd ed.). Open University Press.

Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034701

Blakeslee, A. M. (1994). The rhetorical construction of novelty: Presenting claims in a letters forum. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 19(1), 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399401900106

Boonyuen, M. T. (2017). Analysis of textual organization of research article discussion sections in the second language writing discipline [Doctoral dissertation, Thammasat University].

Cheng, X., & Unsworth, L. (2016). Stance-taking as negotiating academic conflict in applied linguistics research article discussion sections. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.001

Drisko, J. W., & Maschi, T. (2016). Content analysis. Oxford University Press.

Esmaeeli, F. (2024). A note on versions: Negotiating academic conflict in discussion sections of doctoral dissertations. http://hdl.handle.net/10871/135412

Ewijk, A. van. (2018). Persistence and acuteness of research gaps in entrepreneurship education: A systematic content analysis of previous reviews. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 22(2), 1–18. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326175588_Persistence_and_Acuteness_of_Research_Gaps_in_Entrepreneurship_Education_a_Systematic_Content_Analysis_of_Previous_Reviews_1987-2017

Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. (2002). Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195134544.001.0001

Hardiah, M., Arsyad, S., & Yunita, W. (2026). Rhetorical moves in research article discussions: Does the quartile value of a journal matter? Jurnal Arbitrer, 13(2), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.13.2.229-242.2026

Hidayat, A., Safnil, S., & Arono, A. (2023). Hard and soft sciences: How both fields differ in presenting research gaps. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 9(Special Issue), 88–94. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9iSpecialIssue.6214

Hyland, K. (2004a). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.6719

Hyland, K. (2004b). Genre and second language writing. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.23927

Irawati, L. (2022). Potential factors influencing the rhetorical patterns of research article discussion sections. Studies in English Language and Education, 9(1), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v9i1.21267

Jin, B. (2021). A multi-dimensional analysis of research article discussion sections in an engineering discipline: Corpus explorations and scientists' perceptions. SAGE Open, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211050401

Julieta et.al (2023). Disputes between children from different social groups: Argumentative complexity, evaluative and evidential resources. Alpha, 57. https://doi.org/10.32735/s0718-22012023000573287

Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.; original work published 1962). University of Chicago Press.

Lei, L., & Liu, D. (2019). Research trends in applied linguistics from 2005 to 2016: A bibliometric analysis and its implications. Applied Linguistics, 40(3), 540–561. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy003

Lim, J. M.-H. (2012). How do writers establish research niches? A genre-based investigation into management researchers' rhetorical steps and linguistic mechanisms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(3), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.05.002

Lingard, L. (2015). Joining a conversation: The problem/gap/hook heuristic. Perspectives on Medical Education, 4, 252–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-015-0211-y

Lubis, A. H. (2020). The argumentation structure of research article 'findings and discussion' sections written by non-native English speaker novice writers: A case of Indonesian undergraduate students. Asian Englishes, 22(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2019.1669300

Malte, H. M., & Tulud, D. 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

Mei, S. W. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(3), 254–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.006

Mohd Said, F., & Pratiwi, E. (2026). Understanding research novelty and research gaps: A systematic conceptual review and technology-driven strategies for identification. Malaysian Journal of Medical Research, 10(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.31674/mjmr.2026.v010i03.01

Mohammad, S., Adel, R., & Moghadam, R. G. (2015). A comparison of moves in conclusion sections of research articles in psychology, Persian literature, and applied linguistics. Teaching English Language, 9(2). Retrieved in June 2025 from https://www.teljournal.org/article_53729_eb96d9ea39f87f19983f581f3d38ee8b.pdf

Morales, R. C. (2012). Conclusions in research articles: A Filipino-Japanese contrastive rhetoric study. Philippine ESL Journal, 8(1), 83–95. Retrieved in May 2025 from https://www.academia.edu/1887844/Conclusions_in_Research_Articles_A_Filipino_Japanese_Contrastive_Rhetoric_Study

Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. University of Wisconsin Press.

Okeke, R. C. (2025). Understanding research novelty and research gaps: Strategies for identifying unexplored areas and pioneering innovative contributions. Social Sciences and Education Research Review, 12(1), 126–130. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15804528

Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00050-7

Sadeghi, K., & Alinasab, M. (2020). Academic conflict in applied linguistics research article discussions: The case of native and non-native writers. English for Specific Purposes, 59, 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.03.001

Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2011). Ways of constructing research questions: Gap-spotting or problematization? Organization, 18(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508410372151

Sukardi. (2009). Masalah kebaruan dalam penelitian teknologi industri pertanian. Jurnal Teknik Industri Pertanian, 19(2), 115–121. Retrieved in July 2025 from file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/srimartini,+vol+19+no+2-+Sukardi-2.pdf

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.

Tahir, R., Ilma, A. F. N., Thamrin, S., Samsuddin, H., Hindarwati, E. N., Rusyani, E., Rizal, M., Siraj, M. L., Witara, K., Sa'dianoor, Rosnani, T., Jati, P., Kalis, M. C. I., Nursanti, T. D., Ratnawita, R., Firdaus, A., Leuwol, F. S., & Sulaeman, M. K. (2023). Metode penelitian sumber daya manusia. Sonpedia.

Zhou, S., & Sloan, W. D. (2009). Research methods in communication. Vision Press.

Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge University Press.

Downloads

Published

2026-10-20

How to Cite

Arsyad, S., Wardhana, D. E. C., Sarwono, S., Arono, A., Yulistio, D., Yunita, W., & Hardiah, M. (2026). From Research Findings to Contribution: Novelty Types and Strategies in Discussion Sections of International Journal Articles . Journal of Pragmatics Research, 8(3), 1099–1126. https://doi.org/10.18326/jopr.v8i3.1099-1126

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 3 (2026): Journal of Pragmatics Research

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Safnil Arsyad, Dian, Sarwit, Arono, Didi, Wisma, Mei

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

License and Copyright Agreement

In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:

  • They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  • The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
  • That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  • That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  • They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  • They agree to the following license and copyright agreement.

Copyright
Authors who publish with JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS RESEARCH agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.