Paradigmatic variation in hedging and boosting: A comparative study of discussions in narrative inquiry and grounded theory research

Abstract

This paper explores whether hedges and boosters are used differently in discussion sections of research articles adopting one of the two qualitative approaches: narrative inquiry and grounded theory. Based on 30 SSCI-indexed journal articles in the field of education, both similarities and variations between the two paradigms were identified regarding the ways propositions are modified. Generally, narrative inquiry researchers relied more on boosters than grounded theorists in their statements, while researchers following grounded approach were more tentative in building a theory or concept. Furthermore, while narrative and grounded-theory studies both used hedging and boosting, certain nuanced variations were observed, e.g., the former being more likely to boost their contributions to their research communities. Such similarities and differences can be rooted in and explained by the respective philosophical assumptions behind each paradigm, suggesting a paradigmatic influence on hedging and boosting in academic writing. This study contributes to the current understanding of metadiscourse by documenting paradigmatic variation and proposing four continua sensitive to hedge–booster interactions and to aspects of knowledge representation, thereby providing pedagogical implications for teaching and learning of metadiscourse in papers using one of the two qualitative approaches in particular and different qualitative approaches in general.