Page 187 - English for Writing Research Papers

171

This chapter is designed to help you to:

• learn to anticipate (i.e. predict) possible objections to your claims. This means

being able to make claims about your findings in a way that the referee, and

subsequently the community, is more likely to accept them
• criticize the work of other authors in a constructive manner by building upon
their findings rather than underlining their inadequacy

Both these skills entail the cultural concept of ‘face saving’. Face saving means not
putting yourself or another person in a position where others could perceive you or
them as having failed.

10.2 Why and when to hedge

Hedges are central to academic argument and are abundant in research articles.
Because they withhold complete commitment to a proposition they imply that a claim
is based on plausible reasoning rather than certain knowledge. This protects the writer
against being proved wrong while recognizing alternative ideas on the subject.

Professor Ken Hyland, Director, Centre for Applied English Studies and Chair of
Applied Linguistics, University of Hong Kong

Hedging entails anticipating possible opposition by your referees and readers by not
saying things too assertively or directly. A hedge was originally a fence or boundary
delimiting an area of land – it was thus a form of protection from outsiders. Today,
hedge has a metaphorical meaning – you protect yourself against some risk.

In your case, the risk is criticism by referees and other researchers. The idea is that
you express yourself with honesty, precision and caution, and you are diplomatic in
any criticisms you make of other authors.

If you learn how to hedge, it may help you to gain acceptance in your field. On the
other hand, if you seem to be too sure of yourself, you might alienate the referee and
potential readers.

Hedging does not mean that you should be vague. In fact, you must be as precise as
possible. It is simply that you express this precision in an open-minded way that
encourages other authors either to agree with your hypotheses or to postulate their own.

Here are two examples of what some referees (particularly British) might consider
to be rather arrogant.