Developing a Conceptual Framework for Rhetorical Structures in Arab Postgraduate Computer Engineering Theses

The literature review occupies a strategic rhetorical position in a doctoral thesis. It enables researchers to situate their studies within established scholarship, recognize underexplored areas, and establish the rationale for their contributions. For Arab postgraduate researchers working in technical areas such as Computer Engineering, however, developing literature reviews that progress from summary to sustained critical discussion can be challenging. This paper therefore develops a conceptual framework for examining rhetorical organization in Arab doctoral theses by bringing together genre-based move analysis, research on reporting verbs, disciplinary expectations, and cultural influences. The framework treats structural, lexical, and contextual factors as interconnected dimensions of literature review construction. It indicates that Arab postgraduate writers may be relatively successful in establishing a research territory while experiencing greater difficulty when identifying gaps and claiming a research niche, particularly when their use of evaluative reporting verbs is limited. Framing these issues within academic writing research, the study offers a basis for supervisory practice and for subsequent empirical investigation, while also providing a broader perspective on rhetorical effectiveness in technical doctoral writing.

Academic writing, literature review, rhetorical structures, reporting verbs, Arab postgraduates, Computer Engineering

1. Ab Rahim, I. S., Abd Aziz, N. H., Yaacob, A., Abd Rashid, S., & Desa, H. (2013). Rhetorical structures in academic research writing by non-native writers. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(1), 19-38. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Al Mahmud, A., & Rahman, M. (2023). Discourse organization issues in Arab graduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 77–92. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Al Mahri, M. S. (2025). Writing the Literature Review: Analyzing Texts and Exploring the Context. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages & Literatures, 17(2), 405-427. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Amnuai, W. (2019). Cultural influences on academic writing: Arab postgraduate perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bastola, M. N., & Ho, V. (2023). Rhetorical structure of literature review chapters in Nepalese PhD dissertations: Students’ engagement with previous scholarship. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101271 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Open University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Carrera-Rivera, A., Ochoa, W., Larrinaga, F., & Lasa, G. (2022). How-to conduct a systematic literature review: A quick guide for computer science research. MethodsX, 9, 101895. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Charles, M. (2006). Phraseology in academic writing: Reporting verbs and authorial stance. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 19–35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Feak, C., & Swales, J. (2009). Telling a research story: Writing a literature review. University of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hita, J. A., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2024). Systemic functional linguistics: Accessibility and visibility across languages, academic profiles and disciplines. EPOS: Revista de Filología, 40(1), 9–34. Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and stance in research articles. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341–367. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hyland, K. (2002). Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 115–139. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 693–722. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Jomaa, N. (2019). Multiple approaches to analysing academic discourses: similarities and differences. Eurasian Journal of English Language and Literature, 1(1), 1-14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Jomaa, N., & Bidin, S. (2019). Citation practices among Arab postgraduate students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 39, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Kessler, M., & Casal, J. E. (2024). English writing instructors’ use of theories, genres, and activities: A survey of teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 101384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101384 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kwan, B. S. C. (2006). The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 30–55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Lin, (. (2020). Genre Structure and Citation. In: Perspectives on the Introductory Phase of Empirical Research Articles. Corpora and Intercultural Studies, vol 5. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9204-8_2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Mansourizadeh, K., & Ahmad, U. K. (2011). Citation practices among non-native academic writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 152–161. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Manzoor, S., Ali, R., & Khan, M. (2020). Corpus-based approaches to genre analysis. Linguistics and Education, 58, 100–112. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Nguyen, T. (2014). Doctoral writing challenges for non-native students. Higher Education Studies, 4(3), 20–29. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Pickard, V. (1993). Reporting verbs in scientific writing. English for Specific Purposes, 12(3), 171–179. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Rabie, M., & Boraie, D. (2021). Arab postgraduate students’ academic writing challenges. Journal of Academic Writing, 11(1), 55–70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Soler-Monreal, C. (2015). Announcing one's work in PhD theses in computer science: A comparison of Move 3 in literature reviews written in English L1, English L2 and Spanish L1. English for Specific Purposes, 40, 27-41. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Wang, Y., Li, H., & Chen, Z. (2023). Academic writing conventions and scholarly communication. Journal of Higher Education Studies, 12(1), 88–102. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• What the Desert Fathers Teach Data Scientists: Ancient Ascetic Principles for Ethical Machine-Learning Practice
• Comparative Analysis of Some Machine Learning Algorithms for the Classification of Ransomware
• Comparative Performance Analysis of Some Priority Queue Variants in Dijkstra’s Algorithm
• Transfer Learning in Detecting E-Assessment Malpractice from a Proctored Video Recordings.
• Dual-Modal Detection of Parkinson’s Disease: A Clinical Framework and Deep Learning Approach Using NeuroParkNet