| Author: | Xu, Shaoxiong |
| Title: | Retraction stigma communication via retraction notices : a corpus-based multifactorial investigation |
| Advisors: | Hu, Guangwei (ENGL) |
| Degree: | Ph.D. |
| Year: | 2023 |
| Subject: | Corpora (Linguistics) Discourse analysis Hong Kong Polytechnic University -- Dissertations |
| Department: | Department of English and Communication |
| Pages: | xx, 271 pages : color illustrations |
| Language: | English |
| Abstract: | Retraction is devised to remove from the scientific literature publications that have violated research and publication norms, and it operates mainly through publishing retraction notices. Consequently, retraction notices have become a high-stakes academic genre and are usually perceived to reflect negatively on authors of retracted publications. Such negative perceptions constitute retraction stigma, a discrediting evaluation of the professional competence and academic ethics of (individual and institutional) entities liable for retraction. However, there are increasing calls to forge a de-stigmatizing environment for more effective and efficient literature correction. Despite the widespread perceptions of retraction stigma and the calls for de-stigmatizing retraction in the scientific community, no empirical research has systematically investigated how retraction stigma is communicated via retraction notices. In response, drawing on a corpus of 3,296 retraction notices, this study examined how retraction stigma is communicated rhetorically and linguistically to (de-)stigmatize authors of retracted publications. Specifically, retraction stigma communication via retraction notices was explored in four dimensions, namely rhetorical strategies for constructing retraction stigma, rhetorical strategies for managing retraction stigma, grammatical assignment of responsibility for retraction, and explicit attitudinal evaluation of retraction. Given the context-specific nature of stigma as a social phenomenon, this study also investigated whether retraction stigma communication is influenced by four contextual factors, namely retraction period (i.e., before 2010 vs. 2010-2019), academic discipline (i.e., hard disciplines vs. soft disciplines), retraction notice authorship (i.e., authors of retracted publications vs. journal authorities), and retraction reason (i.e., blatant misconduct vs. inappropriate conduct vs. questionable conduct vs. honest error). Qualitative analyses of the corpus identified four categories of retraction stigma construction strategies (i.e., creating marks, making labels, assigning responsibility, and exposing peril), four categories of retraction stigma management strategies (i.e., concealing stigma visibility, refraining from labelling, manipulating responsibility assignment, and offering correction and remediation), three agent-identifying grammatical means (i.e., agent + active voice, passive voice + agent, and nominalization with an agent marker) and four agent-obscuring ones (i.e., passive agentless construction, active agentless ergative construction, active voice with an inanimate subject, and nominalization without an agent marker), and various evaluative resources inscribing different types of attitude (i.e., Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation) positively and negatively. These findings indicated a purposeful orchestration of various rhetorical strategies and linguistic resources in retraction notices to stigmatize or destigmatize authors of retracted publications to achieve intended communicative purposes. Quantitative analyses of the retraction notices revealed that all the four contextual factors influenced retraction stigma communication. The retraction notices published before 2010 were more likely than those published between 2010 and 2019 to construct retraction stigma by creating marks and making labels, to manage retraction stigma by concealing stigma visibility, to identify agents of retraction-engendering acts, and to assign agency/responsibility more explicitly. The retraction notices in hard disciplines were more likely than those in soft disciplines to construct retraction stigma by assigning responsibility, to manage retraction stigma by manipulating responsibility assignment, and to communicate positive Affect. Authors of retracted publications were more likely than journal authorities to construct retraction stigma by assigning responsibility and exposing peril, to manage retraction stigma by offering correction and remediation, to identify agents of retraction-engendering acts, and to assign agency/responsibility more rigorously. Compared with blatant misconduct, inappropriate conduct or questionable conduct, honest error significantly predicted retraction stigma management through assigning responsibility and offering correction and remediation, communication of positive Affect and negative Appreciation, and identification of agents of retraction-engendering acts. Taken together, the research findings of this study can advance our understanding of retraction as an ethical phenomenon and of retraction notices as a high-stakes academic genre. More importantly, they provide the scientific community with valuable implications for handling retraction properly and effectively. In particular, those who may need to issue retraction notices can be well-informed by the research findings in their production of retraction notices to better fulfil their prioritized communicative purposes. |
| Rights: | All rights reserved |
| Access: | open access |
Copyright Undertaking
As a bona fide Library user, I declare that:
- I will abide by the rules and legal ordinances governing copyright regarding the use of the Database.
- I will use the Database for the purpose of my research or private study only and not for circulation or further reproduction or any other purpose.
- I agree to indemnify and hold the University harmless from and against any loss, damage, cost, liability or expenses arising from copyright infringement or unauthorized usage.
By downloading any item(s) listed above, you acknowledge that you have read and understood the copyright undertaking as stated above, and agree to be bound by all of its terms.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://theses.lib.polyu.edu.hk/handle/200/12403