English for Specific Purposes 68 (2022) 14–30

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

English for Specific Purposes

journal homepage: [Link]

Constructing arguments in engineering student case studies

Jean Parkinson a, *, Craig Watterson b, Lauren Whitty a
a
School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
b
Faculty of Engineering, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Student case studies in engineering have received little attention from English from Spe-
Available online 15 June 2022 cific purposes researchers, in contrast to case studies in business, law and medicine. This
article addresses this gap in an analysis of the rhetorical moves of student case studies in
Keywords: engineering. Drawing on Swales’s (1990) move analysis framework, the study found three
Genre analysis obligatory sections: Introduction, Analysis and Recommendations. A total of eight moves
Student case studies
within these sections are proposed, which writers use in building arguments concerning
Engineering
the recommendations they make. Drawing on background information, identifying prob-
Argument
Move analysis
lems and questions regarding the case, and employing conceptual frameworks, students
analyse the cases from a variety of perspectives in order to make recommendations about
the problems in the case. All eight of the proposed moves are found in multiple sections
rather than being confined to a single section, a finding unusual in academic genres. A key
contribution of this study is the fine-grained analysis of rhetorical moves and strategies
within all case study sections. We anticipate that this analysis will benefit writing in-
structors teaching engineering students, as well as engineering instructors.
Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Studies of engineering student writing (e.g. Conrad, 2017; Strauss & Grant, 2018) have indicated that effective commu-
nication is difficult for engineering students. In Strauss and Grant’s (2018) study at a New Zealand university, both engi-
neering lecturers and students expressed concerns about students’ writing ability, suggesting that a focus on engineering
student writing is likely to be useful for both engineering students and lecturers.
To address this need, this article focuses on case studies, a written genre commonly assigned to engineering students.
Gardner (2016) found case studies to be one of four frequently assigned types of writing across all years of engineering degree
courses, and the most frequently assigned by students’ fourth year. Case studies prepare students for professional practice
(Nesi & Gardner, 2012), developing students’ insights into problems in their profession. In contrast to student case studies in
the fields of business, law and medicine, engineering student case studies have received little attention from English for
Specific Purposes (ESP) researchers. However, the large engineering education literature on case studies (e.g., Davis & Yadav,
2014; Garg & Varma, 2007; Haws, 2001; Hilburn, Towhidnejad, Nangia, & Shen, 2006) suggests they are an important genre
for engineering students. In Engineering fields worldwide, case studies are a standard tool used to teach students research
and analysis skills, and ethics (Stacey, Trivett, Rathlin, & Choi, 2015). Davis and Yadav (2014) point to three key elements of
engineering case studies: they are based on real-life events; they present contextual and technical information; and they
function to engage students in real problems by presenting no clear-cut solution.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [Link]@[Link] (J. Parkinson).

[Link]
0889-4906/Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. Parkinson et al. / English for Specific Purposes 68 (2022) 14–30 15

As Nesi and Gardner (2012) note, in order to gain accreditation from professional engineering bodies, engineering pro-
grammes need to ensure the relevance of their academic courses to real world problems; case study assignments support this
aim. Reflecting this, the student case study genre has rhetorical and organisational similarities to industry reports (Gardner,
2016). For example, Yeung’s (2007) study focusing on reports by business professionals shows them to have rhetorical and
organisational similarities with the student business case studies investigated by Nathan (2013). Gardner and Nesi (2013),
describing case studies as an apprenticeship genre, note a continuum from pedagogically-oriented to professionally-oriented
case studies. Similarly, Pessoa, Gómez-Laich, and Mitchell (2020) found a continuum from more pedagogical to more pro-
fessional in their examination of Information Systems case studies across four years of study. In addition, in business case
studies, Nathan (2013) distinguishes the more pedagogical “case critique”, which has a “primary focus on the use of theory for
analysis and evaluation of strategies employed by individuals or organisation” from the more professional “case report” in
which the rubric specifies writer adoption of a business role with the report written with a business audience in mind.
The combination of pedagogical and professional audience, particularly in the more professionally-oriented case studies,
results in student case study writers needing to orient to both the real audience (instructor) and to the audience that the
assignment asks them to address (client) (Gardner, 2012). Given the demands of academic study, Freedman, Adam, and Smart
(1994) found that students oriented to the instructor as audience rather than to a client as audience. In fact, Nathan (2013)
stresses the function of the case study as showing the course instructor the student’s understanding and application of
conceptual knowledge and ability to make recommendations based on this knowledge.
In general, pedagogically-oriented case studies are viewed as involving “the analysis of a single exemplar” (Nesi & Gardner,
2012, p. 41), meaning a single event or activity. However, Gardner (2012 p.22) reports that “the ‘single-issue’ report does not
necessarily look at one particular organisation but at an overarching theme which affects an industry”; this suggests that case
studies are not entirely limited to a single exemplar. In engineering education, too, case study definitions appear to be slightly
broader than a ‘single exemplar’, with Garg and Varma (2007, p. 310), for example, defining them as an account of an “activity,
event or problem”, and Hilburn et al. (2006, p. 1) referring to “a real-world activity, event, or situation”. Davis and Yadav (2014,
p. 162) distinguish between “micro-cases” based on “dilemmas that individual engineers face in their daily lives” and “macro-
cases” involving “societal issues that have the potential to impact the larger community”. Although a “situation”, or “societal
issue impacting on the community” appears broader than a single exemplar, the examples quoted in the engineering liter-
ature are generally confined to single events. For example, Haws (2001) notes “popular” cases, such as the Challenger disaster,
Bhopal, Chernobyl, the Exxon Valdez, Apollo 13, Three-mile Island, and Dow-Corning breast implants. This suggests that a
focus on a problem in a single organisation or event is usual. In this article, therefore, we base our account of engineering case
studies on cases reflecting a single exemplar. (See Appendix 1 for a case study assignment in this study).

1.1. Genre analysis

This study describes the genre features of a small corpus of engineering case studies. A genre is a set of texts that aim to
achieve a similar purpose, and employ similar organisational and lexicogrammatical features. Purpose in genre studies has
been referred to by some authors as social purpose (Martin, 1984; Miller, 1984), and by other authors as communicative
purpose (Swales, 1990). For a student, one purpose of academic assignments in general might be fulfilling course re-
quirements and achieving good grades, while the purpose of a case study in particular is to communicate background in-
formation about the case, identify and analyse problems, and make recommendations to solve these problems.
In addition to writer purpose, audience also has an important influence on a genre. Writers are sensitive to audience
expectations, and this influences writer response at both organisational and lexicogrammatical levels (Bhatia, 2004). As
discussed above, researchers of business case studies have found that students orient to an academic audience, even if asked
to play a consultancy role (Freedman et al., 1994; Nathan, 2013). Another important influence on genre is culture. As Martin
(1984) notes, genres are specific to culture, as similar purposes may be achieved differently in various cultures, whether
national, ethnic or disciplinary. This reference to disciplinary culture leads us to expect differences between business and
engineering case studies, which we see reflected in the slightly broader definition of an engineering case discussed above.
In discussing purpose and audience of a genre, Swales (1990) used the concept of discourse community. A discourse
community is a group sharing common goals and one or more genres which further these common goals. Discourse com-
munities have mechanisms to communicate among and provide information and feedback between members. In the case of
engineering writing, the tertiary educational community in the field of engineering can be seen as a discourse community,
with more and less expert members being academic staff and students.
An important pedagogical tool in teaching genre is move analysis (Swales, 1990). Moves are “discoursal or rhetorical units”
(Swales, 2004, p.228), each with its own rhetorical/persuasive purpose, together combining to fulfil the overall purpose of the
genre (Biber, Connor, & Upton, 2007). Moves vary in length, ranging from a clause to a paragraph (Moreno & Swales, 2018).
More frequent moves are described as obligatory, whereas less frequent moves are described as optional (Swales, 1990).
Analysts identify moves by focusing on rhetorical purpose, by relying on the “intuitive notion of topic” (Henry & Roseberry,
2001, p.158) and by relying on linguistic markers. Moves can be accomplished in more than one way; in this article we follow
Bhatia (2004) and refer to the alternative ways of achieving moves as ‘strategies’, which are called “steps” by Swales (1990). A
writer can use one or more of these strategies when formulating a move.
Identifying the linguistic resources that are characteristic of a genre and of particular moves within a genre is useful in
supporting students. The lexicogrammatical features of case studies and how to teach them, is the subject of a study of
16 J. Parkinson et al. / English for Specific Purposes 68 (2022) 14–30

student writing in a business course in Organisation Behavior (Pessoa et al., 2021). Pessoa et al. (2021) report on teaching
materials that support students in constructing convincing arguments in their case studies. They found that some students
focused on recounting the case, or on displaying disciplinary knowledge. To be successful in making their arguments
convincing, however, they need to identify problems in the case, and use disciplinary knowledge to analyse the case. Pessoa
et al. (2021) alerted students to the function of logical connectors (e.g. In contrast; For example) in order to guide students to
structure their texts, and show links between evidence from the literature, their disciplinary knowledge and the claims they
made about the case.
In contrast with engineering case studies in the literature, the business case genre has received a good deal of attention
(e.g., Nathan, 2013, 2016; Zhu, 2004). Nathan (2013), who based his study on 69 pedagogical business case reports, found
them to have a predictable structure. He identifies eight moves, of which three, orientation, analytical and advisory, are
obligatory. These are shown in Table 1 where the obligatory sections/moves are bolded.
Nathan’s ‘moves’ could, in fact, be viewed as comprising more than one rhetorical purpose. For example, ‘executive
summary’, ‘introduction’, and ‘objectives’, all part of Nathan’s “orientation” move, could be argued to serve somewhat
different rhetorical functions. Indeed, Nathan (2013, p.57) refers to the moves he identified as “broad” rhetorical moves.
Perhaps in recognition of this, in his 2016 study, Nathan distinguishes five moves in what was previously identified in Nathan
(2013) as a single broad “options and alternatives” move. This article attempts in the same way as in Nathan (2016) to identify
distinct rhetorical moves beyond the obligatory Introduction (part of Orientation in Nathan (2013), Analysis (Analytical) and
Recommendation (Advisory).
As Table 1 shows, in addition to these three obligatory moves/sections, Nathan (2013) identifies several optional moves:
methodology, options and alternatives and summary and consolidation, supplementary supporting information and reflection
(Nathan, 2013). His optional move, the supplementary supporting information (appendices, references, bibliography) reflects
academic values and concerns, with students being asked to write the reflection section for the purpose of reflecting on their
learning.

Table 1
Moves in business case studies (Nathan, 2013).

Orientation [e.g., executive summary, introduction, objectives]

Methodology
Analytical [e.g., SWOT, stakeholder analysis, Porter’s five forces, problem definition]
Options and alternatives
Advisory [e.g., recommendations, 4Ps, Marketing mix]
Summary and consolidation [conclusions]
Supplementary supporting information [appendices, references, bibliography]
Reflection [e.g. lessons learned]

Similarly, in her analysis of business assignment handouts and course syllabi at a US university, Zhu (2004, p.120)
reported that case studies commonly required five components: (a) analysis of the current situation, (b) identification/
summary of key issues or problems, (c) analysis and evaluation of alternative approaches to solving the problems, (d)
discussion of specific recommendations for solving the problems; and (e) justification/support for proposed solutions.)
These have similarities with Nathan’s moves, including Analytical (a, b and c), Options and alternatives (c), and
Advisory (d).
Other literature relevant to rhetorical meaning in case studies includes Yeung (2007), who discusses the professional
business report genre. As the professional form for which student case studies prepare students, this genre has simi-
larities with student case studies, but also some clear differences consequent on their different audience and purpose.
Yeung (2007) identifies seven moves (referred to as ‘sections’ in Yeung), with introduction, topical sections and recom-
mendations being obligatory (2007, p.165). Rhetorically, Yeung’s introduction is similar to Nathan’s obligatory Orientation
move; her topical sections are similar to Nathan’s obligatory Analytical move in that each of her topical sections uses a
different topic or perspective as the focus for analysis (Yeung, 2007, p.164); finally, Yeung’s recommendations section is
similar to Nathan’s Advisory move. Yeung identifies four further moves (executive summary, list of recommendations,
methods and conclusion). These differences from Nathan (2013) reflect the nature of the corpora on which each relies. In
Yeung’s case, this was 22 private or public sector business reports. These were written for clients, either outside the
organisation (consultancy reports) or within the organisation. This accounts for Yeung’s two initial optional sections,
executive summary and initial list of recommendations, which are important for the intended corporate readers of the
business reports.
Influenced by studies of business case studies, this article explores how arguments are constructed in student case studies
in engineering. Following Nathan’s (2016) identification of distinct rhetorical moves within his “Options and alternatives”
move which he first reported in Nathan (2013), in this article, we provide a fine-grained analysis of rhetorical moves in a small
corpus of engineering case studies. As part of our investigation of student case studies in engineering, we consider the role of
the lexicogrammar of the rhetorical moves of case studies in the student writer’s analysis.
 J. Parkinson et al. / English for Specific Purposes 68 (2022) 14–30 17

2. Method

2.1. Consultation with engineering faculty

To get a sense of lecturer expectations for the case studies, three engineering lecturers1 who use case studies in their
courses were consulted by email. They were asked about the purpose of case studies, the nature of the analysis required in
writing case studies, how they go about teaching the genre, and the difficulties that students experience (see Appendix 2).

2.2. Case studies analysed

The engineering case studies in our study were, as in Nathan’s (2013) corpus, student case studies written for an academic
audience. The analysis was based on a set of 29 highly-graded case studies in the discipline of engineering:

 Four case studies were from the BAWE2 corpus (Nesi & Gardner, 2012), a set of student assignments from British
universities, all awarded a merit or distinction grade. Three writers were third year undergraduates, and one was a
second-year undergraduate; specific fields of engineering were not recorded.
 Five case studies were drawn from the MICUSP corpus (2009), a set of A-graded assignments from the University of
Michigan. Writers were studying Industrial and Operational engineering; four were final year undergraduates and one a
graduate student.
 Twenty case studies were A-graded assignments from a New Zealand university (NZ case studies). Writers were in their
final year of a four-year degree in either electronic or software engineering.

Because the New Zealand case studies were drawn from only two engineering sub-fields at a single university, it was decided
to include the BAWE and MICUSP texts, which are from different countries and different engineering sub-fields, in order to
broaden the generalisability of the study. Although it would have been better to have had a comparable number of texts from
each source, this was not possible as the numbers of case studies written by engineering students in the MICUSP and BAWE
corpora were limited. Overall, as Table 2 shows, the case studies in our data comprised 71,407 words (average 2,462 words).

Table 2
Case studies in the data.

BAWE MICUSP NZ case studies Total

Number of case studies 4 5 20 29
Number of words 7,564 9,470 54,373 71,407
Average length 1,891 1,894 2,719 2,462

Esteban and Cañado (2004) contrast open cases, in which students gather information for themselves about a case, with
closed cases, where case descriptions and data about the case are supplied to students. The New Zealand case studies in this
article were of the open type (see Appendix 1 for a prompt from the NZ corpus). As we do not have the prompts for the BAWE
and MICUSP cases, it is not clear whether they were open or closed. At least two of the BAWE cases and one of the MICUSP
cases appear to have been open, as the writers explicitly describe how they collected the data.

2.3. Context: How the engineering case studies were taught

It is not known how the students with case studies included in the BAWE and MICUSP corpora were taught; however, we
report here on how the students were taught in the New Zealand context. The New Zealand texts were collected from a final
year honours course, which, according to course documentation aims to:
prepare student’s expectations for many of the events and situations they are likely to meet in the professional working
world. This includes codes of conduct [.] ethical behaviour, as found in the workplace and dictated by company
practices, and critical thinking.
The assignments involved students researching an ethical situation related to their professional field. These included
dilemmas related to Public Safety and Welfare (e.g., WikiLeaks), informed consent (e.g., End user license agreements) or fair
treatment of employees (e.g., Amazon). The case studies needed to demonstrate an understanding of a specific real-world
issue and provide an in-depth analysis of that issue with recommendations.
The writing of case studies was taught in workshop-style classes in which students discuss the analysis of the situation in a
case with fellow students. Attention was given to audience and purpose of the case study, the way the case study is organised,
how the sources are used, and how the analysis was conducted. Students were guided in critiquing existing exemplars of case
study reports, and in suggesting possible improvements to exemplars.

1
Of necessity, these were limited to New Zealand lecturers.
2
British Academic Writing in English.
18 J. Parkinson et al. / English for Specific Purposes 68 (2022) 14–30

2.4. Method of analysis

To analyse the data, the procedure suggested by Biber et al. (2007) for developing a move structure was followed. Firstly,
possible rhetorical purpose(s) of each sentence were determined by the first author. In some cases, more than one rhetorical
purpose was found in a sentence, and in others, two or more consecutive sentences contributed to the same rhetorical
purpose, and formed a single move. Through this process the move structure was developed. Functionally related rhetorical
purposes which realised the same move were grouped together, becoming strategies for achieving each move. For example,
the rhetorical purposes of ‘delimiting topic’, providing a ‘map to reader’ and ‘stating purpose’ were grouped together as
components of the broad rhetorical purpose of ‘Organising text’; they thus became strategies in the ‘Organising text’ move. A
coding protocol with descriptions of each move was developed (Table 3). The first and third authors then independently used
this move structure to code all cases studies. Differences were discussed until consensus was reached, and adjustments were
made to the move structure. Moves that appeared in 80% or more of the texts were regarded as obligatory; those in fewer than
80% were viewed as optional.3 Close collaboration between coders in identifying moves resulted in inter-rater agreement
levels of 98%4 being established.

3. Moves and strategies in engineering case studies

In what follows we outline the moves and strategies identified in our analysis (Table 3) and provide examples of each move
and strategy. We also indicate the obligatory or optional nature of each move and strategy.

3.1. The eight rhetorical moves in case studies

Below we discuss each of the eight rhetorical moves identified in this study, including the lexicogrammatical features of
each move.5

3.1.1. Move 1: Organising text

Three strategies within Move 1, Organising text, were identified, including delimiting topic (Example 1), stating purpose
(Example 2) and map to reader (Example 3). These strategies are similar to moves in other student genres, like essays, and are
also found in other academic genres like research articles. Organising text moves tell readers how a written text is organised
and are persuasive in the sense that they make the text easier to read and understand.
The delimiting topic strategy states the restrictions on the area/s covered by the text; it commonly relied on the auxiliary
“will” combined with the verbs “focus”, “examine”, “use”, “look” and “consider” (found in 8 out of the 16 instances of use of
this strategy).

Example 1: Delimiting topic strategy

As Amazon is an international company, I will be looking only at laws from the United States (US), as the US holds most Amazon employees. [NZ9.1]

The stating purpose strategy concerns the writer’s purpose, and the purpose of the writer’s analysis; the words “focus on”
(found in 8 out of the 224 instances of use of this strategy), “examine” (7), “aim” (6), and “goal” (4) were frequent in the
strategy. This strategy was also listed as a “sample structural component” of Nathan’s (2013) “Orientation” move, equivalent
to the INTRODUCTION section in the present study.

Example 2: Stating purpose strategy

The aim of the investigation was to determine whether the area is suitable for such activities in terms of the stability of the quarry faces. [BAWE
0363a]

The map to reader strategy is important in organising the text and thus in making it easy for the readers to navigate the
text; it was most frequently realised through numbered sub-headings, but also included references to figures, tables, and
sections, or a mapping out of the text as in Example 3.

Example 3: Map to reader strategy

This section briefly describes the CEO’s impact, confrontational culture and related aspects of culture at Amazon. Later, the following sections
analyse the worker impact from these cultural characteristics, and how they relate to the tech industry. [NZ5.2]

3
Obligatory and optional moves are distinguished differently in different studies: Kanoksilapatham (2005) regards moves present in 60% of texts as
obligatory, while in Van Mulken and van der Meer (2005) those present in 75% of texts are regarded as obligatory.
4
Agreement between raters was calculated as the percentage of instances where the two coders agreed in their coding of moves.
5
The following formatting has been applied for clarity: move names are in bold, strategies are in italics and later, SECTION TITLES are in small caps.
 J. Parkinson et al. / English for Specific Purposes 68 (2022) 14–30 19

Table 3
Moves in engineering case studies.

Moves Strategies Description Typical lexis and grammar

Move 1: Organising text Delimiting topic States what is included and excluded This study/essay will focus/
from the field of interest of the case examine/use/only consider
study
Stating purpose States the writer’s purpose in the case This case study will focus on/
study or section examine; aim; goal
Map to reader Outlines how the text or section is Table x, Figure x
organised; includes section headings
and titles of tables/figures
Move 2: Introducing case study Establishing importance Claims/explains that the case, or key Important; vital
or relevance issues in the case, are an important area
of focus
Providing background Reports the context or history of the Past tense
case study
Providing source Refers reader to source of information [2, 5]; the British Geological
survey
Move 3: Orienting to client Orienting to client Reports instructions from or other
interaction with client
Move 4: Setting out frameworks Defining terms Terms are defined x is/involves y; is/can be defined
and methods as/called/described; the term
Outlining framework Explains the framework for analysis Framework/theory/principle
Showing relevance of Links theoretical frameworks or course
framework theory to the case study
Detailing procedure Methods of data collection are outlined Passive voice; investigated/
conducted/carried out/
analysed/evaluated/measured;
assumed
Move 5: Raising questions and Asking a question Poses/presents a question about the Why; question
problems general area/detail of the case study
Identifying a problem Writer identifies a problem in the field, Issue; problem; dilemma;
organisation or situation difficult; hard; not; lack
Countering problem Notes ameliorating factors that mitigate
the problem or would mitigate the
problem if x was done
Move 6: Reporting results Reporting results Providing outcomes of writer’s empirical
study/measurements/observations/analysis
Move 7: Proposing and Proposing options Providing possible options or alternative solutions
discussing options Discussing option Discusses benefits and weaknesses in option
Move 8: Making Making recommendation Recommending action/recommending solution to It is recommended/essential/
recommendations the case study issue or problem discussed advisable; I believe that; x would
be wise to; ensure/make sure
Reason for Justifying the recommendation
recommendation

3.1.2. Move 2: Introducing case study

Three strategies were identified in Move 2, Introducing case study: establishing importance or relevance, providing
background, and providing source of this background information. As the name of the move indicates, these strategies were
important in the INTRODUCTION section. These strategies are exemplified in Example 4. As Example 4 shows, providing back-
ground describes the actions of Takata (in this case, supported by a citation). In Example 4, the establishing importance strategy
builds upon the description in the providing background strategy, and is persuasive to the extent that the writer uses affective
language to share their assessment of Takata’s actions as “infamous”, noting a causal relationship between their “knowing”
manufacture of faulty airbags prone to “exploding violently” and the “largest vehicle recall in history”.

Example 4: Establishing importance, providing background and providing source strategies [NZ1.1]
Strategy
A recent example of a moral conflict involving whistleblowing was the Takata airbag crisis. Takata Corporation was a company Providing
which supplied automotive manufacturers with safety products for their vehicles. background
[2]6 Providing source
They are now infamous for knowingly manufacturing millions of airbags which were prone to exploding violently. This caused Establishing
the largest international vehicle recall in history. importance

Providing background was particularly important in the case studies as a whole, contributing 41.2% of the words in the data
(see Table 4). This strategy is key in providing “enough supporting information”, which was mentioned by the engineering
lecturers we consulted as essential.

6
Student writers used IEEE referencing, so throughout this article, numbers in square brackets refer to the students’ own citations.
20 J. Parkinson et al. / English for Specific Purposes 68 (2022) 14–30

Although establishing importance was a less frequent strategy, on which far fewer words were expended, the rhetorical
work it does is nonetheless substantial; as Example 4 shows, it functions to persuade the reader that this is a case worth
analysing. The providing source strategy was also very frequent and was largely limited to citations of literature. Instances can
be seen in the number in square brackets in Example 4. Very frequent citation of literature indicates the alignment of these
case studies with academic and research values. Citations serve to convince an academic reader, the instructor, of the reli-
ability of the background information provided. This frequency is not unexpected given the explicit requirement for citations
in the Assignment rubric (Appendix 1) and the importance placed on literature by the lecturers we consulted. This reflects the
strong pedagogical orientation of the case studies in the New Zealand case studies.

3.1.3. Move 3: Orienting to client

Only three case studies in the data (all from MICUSP) contained Move 3, Orienting to client, in which the writers reported
that a client had contracted the writers to undertake the case study. This places these three case studies towards the pro-
fessional end of the case study continuum noted by Gardner and Nesi (2013), Nathan (2013) and Pessoa et al. (2020). In
Example 5, the writer sets up a scenario in which the writer and colleagues (“Consultant Experts Inc.”) have been contracted
by the client, “E-Dining”, to provide recommendations about reconfiguring the layout of the client’s premises.

Example 5: Orienting to client move

E-Dining contracted Consultant Experts Inc. to determine how to best lay out their larger offices while improving the packaging and shipping
operations and opening a new store front. [Edining, MICUSP]

A further three case studies (all from BAWE) implied the potential value of their evaluation to an organisation, but did not
specifically orient to a client as reader. In general, though, the case studies in the data were more pedagogical than profes-
sional, and this was particularly marked in the New Zealand texts.

3.1.4. Move 4: Setting out frameworks and methods

Four strategies realise the Setting out frameworks and methods move: defining terms, outlining framework, showing
relevance of framework and detailing procedure. The first of these, defining terms (Example 6) is found in many student genres.
Writers use it to identify and define key concepts. Frequent lexicogrammar in the defining terms strategy includes “x is/in-
volves y”; “is/can be defined as/called/described”; “the term”.
In the outlining framework strategy (Example 6), the writer describes an analytical framework, usually taken from their
coursework, which will be applied to the case. It should be noted that Nathan (2013) lists identifying various frameworks as a key
part of his “Analytical” move. The use of such frameworks by student case study writers is a clear orientation to the instructor as
reader. As noted by Forman and Rymer (1999), Miller and Pessoa (2016), and Nathan (2013), this reflects students’ need to
demonstrate the ability to apply the analytical procedures that they have learnt in their degree programmes. Nesi and Gardner
(2012) make the point that in the workplace, reference is unlikely to be made to conceptual models. The outlining framework
strategy typically contained words like principle (16 times in the 205 instances of use of the move), framework (42), and theory (8).
While the outlining frameworks strategy enables the writer to describe and discuss the framework, in the showing relevance
of the framework strategy, the writer links the framework to the case study under consideration. In Example 6, the writer links
the case (about Takata airbags) to the ethical framework of utilitarianism. This strategy shows the writer’s analytical skill and
demonstrates to the instructor as reader that the writer can link the pedagogical to the professional in that the writer not only
understands the framework but can see its applicability to real instances in industry.
When we look at the argument being constructed in Example 6, we see that the writer defines “teleological approaches” in
the defining terms strategy drawing in descriptive terms on accepted knowledge. The outlining framework strategy embeds
more description of utilitarianism (first three sentences) into an analysis of why utilitarianism “can be argued” to be ethical
(last two sentences). This analysis is signalled in the logical relations of concession (“whilst”) and consequence (“therefore”)
(Pessoa et al., 2021) as well as the hedge “can be argued”. The showing relevance of framework strategy in Example 6 uses the
transition phrase “with this in mind” to signal that it is building on the description and analysis in the previous two strategies.
This integration of description into analysis and persuasion texts is described by Humphrey and Economou (2015), who view
description as a more ‘elemental’ discourse pattern than analysis or persuasion (Humphrey & Economou, 2015, p. 39).
Descriptive texts focus on specific entities, or on recounting procedures and events. Description may be accepted or cited
knowledge, experiences, or accepted taxonomies in the field (as in line 2 of Example 6). The showing relevance of framework
strategy uses affective lexis (e.g. “indictment”; unsafe practices”; “immeasurable”; “extreme”; “suffering”) to evaluate
Takata’s actions. This use of description and analysis to build up to persuasion aligns with the desire expressed by a lecturer
we consulted that students’ case studies will “convince the reader”. Thus overall, these strategies work together to define
terms, outline frameworks and then show the application of the framework to the case.
 J. Parkinson et al. / English for Specific Purposes 68 (2022) 14–30 21

Example 6: Defining terms, outlining framework, and showing relevance of framework strategies [NZ6.1]
line Strategy
1 Teleological approaches to ethics focus on the characteristics of the end or outcome of an action, to determine whether Defining terms
or not that action was ethical.
2 Whilst focussing on the outcome, it disregards all reasoning concerned with the motivation for the action or the method Outlining framework
of achieving the outcome (the action itself). A common teleological ethical framework is known as utilitarianism [.] [8].
The principle behind this framework is that an action is ethical when it maximises happiness and minimises suffering.
Support for this ethical framework can be argued that as human beings a desire to be happy is the underlying driver
behind everything that we do. It can therefore be argued that an action which maximises happiness is the ethical thing
to do.
3 With this in mind, Lillie’s indictment of unsafe practices at Takata Corporation has [.] the potential to save lives. The Showing relevance of
loss of a human life constitutes an immeasurable amount of unhappiness from a variety of sources including the victim’s framework
family [.]. Given this extreme potential for unhappiness and suffering, it therefore seems logical that any action
undertaken by Lillie which resulted in fewer deaths attributed to the defective airbags was ethical.

Six of the 29 student case studies (three from BAWE and three from MICUSP) involved students either collecting their own
data or possibly working with data that had been supplied; they reported on this process using the detailing procedure
strategy (see Example 7). In addition, 15 of the 29 writers used this strategy to report on their analytical procedures (e.g.
solving the minisum problem in Example 8). Typical lexis included “was measured (used 8 times out of the 72 instances of use
of the strategy); carried out (3); examined (6); conducted (4); analysed (3); evaluated (3); modelled (5); investigated (3)”. As
is typical in methodological recounts, the passive voice is used in both Example 7 and Example 8, making these statements
impersonal. This could be viewed as aligning with academic (pedagogical) values, given Conrad’s (2018) finding that engi-
neering workplace writing uses significantly fewer passive constructions than academic writing does:

Example 7: Detailing procedure for data collection

Three chalk scan lines, each of 2 metres in length, were drawn in an orthogonal arrangement. Any discontinuities that crossed these lines
were measured. [BAWE 0363a]

Example 8: Detailing writer’s analytical procedure

The minisum problem presented below was solved to find the best location, assuming that the new plant will serve the entire US market.
[MICUSP, Honda]

3.1.5. Move 5: Raising questions and problems

The ability to problematise was one that was prized by the engineering lecturers consulted about the purpose of the case
study as an assignment type. One lecturer noted that because students have no experience in industry, case studies function
to introduce them to technical or social problems. Two strategies that were useful in problematising were asking a question,
and identifying a problem. About half the writers in the study (14 in total) used the rhetorical strategy of asking a question,
while identifying a problem was more common (24 writers); the countering problem strategy was less frequent (5 writers).
These strategies were used largely in the ANALYSIS section. They allow writers to problematise aspects of the case study to which
they then provide a solution. This can be seen in Example 9, where a question is raised (line 2) which is partly answered by the
reporting results strategy (line 3), and partly by the providing background strategy that follows it (line 4). This is an important
part of constructing an argument about a problem and its cause, before making recommendations to solve the problem. As
might be expected, the asking a question strategy is typically realised by an interrogative.

Example 9: Asking a question, identifying a problem and reporting results strategies [NZ6.1]
line Strategy
1 The common factor in claims of mistreatment or harsh working environments in the fulfilment centres is that they are being identifying a
pushed too hard and for too long – not enough breaks are being provided and staff are expected to be working much faster than problem
someone should [16] [15]
2 What is the greater good: the wellbeing of another human being, or 48-hour delivery for the customer, leading to satisfied asking a question
customers continuing to shop with Amazon, paying the corporate employees’ salaries?
3 This way of operating does not minimize suffering as utilitarianism says an action should – it is maximizing happiness for the reporting results
customer, while disregarding the suffering of their warehouse employees.
4 It is Amazon’s duty as an employer to provide a safe working environment to their employees [21] [1], and likewise, it is their providing
employees’ right to have a safe working environment [21] [1] background
5 Having more than twice the national average of serious injuries sustained by full-time workers [17], reports of employees’ identifying a
backs being damaged by the repetitive nature of the work combined with the speed at which they are expected to work, and problem
deaths on the warehouse floors going unnoticed for as long as 20 minutes [20], does not paint the picture of a safe work
environment.

In Example 9 (line 4), a providing background strategy describes “Amazon’s duty as an employer”, juxtaposing this
description of employer duty with an analysis of the serious health problems of the workers in a identifying a problem strategy.
This strongly worded list of problems, using affective lexis (e.g. “having twice the national average. death on the warehouse
22 J. Parkinson et al. / English for Specific Purposes 68 (2022) 14–30

floor”), is persuasive and allows the writer to advance a convincing argument in claiming that Amazon failed in their duty to
provide a safe work environment. Typical lexis in the identifying a problem strategy includes: “problem” (15 out of the 121
times the move was used); “issue” (7); “dilemma” (7); “difficult” (7); hard” (6); “not” (35); and “lack” (4). The countering
problem strategy can be seen in Example 10, where, using the logical relation of comparison (“but”), an argument is advanced
in amelioration of the problem.

Example 10: Countering problem strategy [NZ1.2]

Strategy
I believe that no single licence can guarantee a successful open-source project; identifying a problem
but when implemented correctly, it can ensure that the software remains a resource for the public. countering problem

3.1.6. Move 6: Reporting results

Most of the case studies in the sample (25 out of 29) used the Reporting results move. These results included firstly the
result of empirical work in which measurements were made, and data was collected and analysed (see Example 11).

Example 11: Reporting results based on writer’s empirical measurements

From survey results of the valley, it is estimated the pipe is 365 metres long, with a static head of 39.02 metres. [BAWE 0023c]

Secondly, Example 9 above shows how this move was also used in reporting in the result of the writer’s observations,
argumentation and analysis. This observation, argumentation and analysis is a key rhetorical function in case analysis,
building the writer’s ability to reach recommendations. The reporting results strategy consisted of description, analysis and
persuasion. This can be seen in Example 9, where the reporting results strategy (line 3 of Example 9) builds on the description
of mistreatment in the identifying a problem strategy (line 1). The reporting results strategy analyses the Amazon working
conditions using the logical relation of contrast. It juxtaposes what Amazon’s “way of operating” does not do (“minimise
suffering”), with what it actually does (disregard employee suffering). This juxtaposition is emphasised in the comparison of
“minimize suffering .maximizing happiness”, and of “happiness for the customer” with “suffering of employees”. This use of
contrast and of affective lexis (“happiness”, “suffering”) is persuasive, and works together with the description in line 1 and
the analysis in line 3, ultimately supporting the writer’s ability to reach recommendations later in the text.

3.1.7. Move 7: Proposing and discussing options

The proposing options and discussing options strategies (see Example 12) allow writers to weigh up possible solutions to the
problems raised in the case; ultimately, they help the writer to arrive at recommendations. Despite their usefulness, only a
third of writers (10) used them. Interestingly, Nathan (2016) found proposing options to be a far more significant and frequent
move. In the business case studies in his study, which had been written as part of continuous assessment as had all texts in our
study, Nathan identified an ‘options’ move in 79% of the cases. This difference may be because proposing options was not
explicitly required in the assessment guidelines in the New Zealand texts (see Appendix 1). Example 12 shows the use of
modality (“could reduce”) to advance the two proposed options, with a counterargument being advanced in the discussing
option strategy “the downside to these options”.

Example 12: Proposing options strategy and Discussing option strategy [NZ9.1]
Strategy
Two alternative methods to increasing wages exist. First, Amazon could reduce hours worked whilst retaining Proposing options
consistent pay for employees. Secondly, Amazon could reduce targets set for employees, allowing for a more
relaxed workplace.
The downside to these options is that Amazon is currently receiving high amounts of orders Discussing option

3.1.8. Move 8: Making recommendations

The main strategy in the Making recommendations move was the making recommendation strategy (Example 13). This
move was obligatory, appearing in 24 of the 29 case studies. Sometimes no reason was advanced for the recommendation, with
the persuasive strategy, reason for recommendation (Example 13) appearing in 16 cases. In Example 13, the two strategies are
linked by a logical relation of cause (“because”). Example 14 shows a second instance of these two strategies working together. In
both Example 13 and Example 14 the making recommendation strategy is rather short, and this was typical of use of the strategy
in the data. However, in both of these examples the reasoning on which the recommendations are based has already been
provided in greater detail in the writer’s ANALYSIS section, and in both Example 13 and Example 14 the writer explicitly refers to this
prior reasoning in the reason for recommendation strategy. For example, Example 13 contained two subsections in the ANALYSIS that
argued “from both a deontological and, indirectly, a teleological perspective” that Amazon’s working conditions were unethical.
 J. Parkinson et al. / English for Specific Purposes 68 (2022) 14–30 23

In Example 14 the recommendation is shown in a consequential relationship (“based on”) explicitly referring to several para-
graphs earlier in the text in the ANALYSIS section which discussed the benefit to Honda of the low unionisation of Indiana.

Example 13: Making recommendation and reason for recommendation [NZ1.1]

Strategy
In summary, this case study advises companies such as Amazon to refrain from creating poor working conditions for their Making recommendation
employees
because doing so is unethical from both a deontological and, indirectly, a teleological perspective. Reason for
recommendation

Example 14: Making recommendation and reason for recommendation [MICUSP Honda]
Strategy
Based on the analysis of total statewide union representation and local UAW presence, Reason for recommendation
it is clear that the Greensburg, Indiana site is best Making recommendation

As the New Zealand course had a strong emphasis on engineering ethics, the reasons were often framed by New Zealand
writers in ethical terms, as in Example 13. Other reasons given were practical ones such as the high rate of unionisation
mentioned in Example 14.

3.2. Obligatory and optional moves and strategies

Table 4 shows that six of the eight moves were obligatory (present in 80% or more of the texts). The moves that contributed
the most words in the data were Move 2, Introducing case study, and Move 4, Setting out frameworks and methods. The
rhetorical function of the sections and how the rhetorical function of moves aligns with the function of sections is discussed in
the next section.

Table 4
Obligatory and optional moves in engineering case studies.

Moves Number of texts (total 29) % of words contributed by each move

Move 1: Organising text 29 obligatory 5.4
delimiting topic 10 optional 0.5
stating purpose 29 obligatory 2.3
map to reader 26 obligatory 2.6
Move 2: Introducing case study 29 obligatory 41.9
establishing importance or relevance 20 optional 2.6
providing background 29 obligatory 36.8
providing source 26 obligatory 2.5
Move 3: Orienting to client 2 optional 0.1
Move 4: Setting out frameworks and methods 27 obligatory 25.2
defining terms 20 optional 3.2
outlining framework 20 optional 9.3
showing relevance of framework 16 optional 9.5
detailing procedure 14 optional 3.2
Move 5: Raising questions and problems 24 obligatory 7.8
asking a question 14 optional 1.0
identifying a problem 24 obligatory 6.6
countering problem 5 optional 0.2
Move 6: Reporting results 25 obligatory 8.5
Move 7: Proposing and discussing options 10 optional 4.7
proposing options 9 optional 1.4
discussing options 10 optional 3.3
Move 8: Making recommendations 24 obligatory 6.2
making recommendation 25 obligatory 3.5
reason for recommendation 16 optional 2.7

4. Sections in case studies and how moves and strategies are situated in sections

We now consider the presence of the moves and strategies within the sections of case studies. Three obligatory sections
(INTRODUCTION, ANALYSIS, RECOMMENDATIONS) were identified in the student case studies: INTRODUCTION (27 of the 29 case studies),
ANALYSIS (29) and RECOMMENDATIONS (29). These correspond to Yeung ‘s (2007) sections and to Nathan’s (2013) obligatory moves.
There were also four optional sections, ABSTRACT (5), BACKGROUND (19), METHOD (3), and, in the case of one writer, a CONCLUSION section
that was separate from the RECOMMENDATIONS.
24 J. Parkinson et al. / English for Specific Purposes 68 (2022) 14–30

The sections included are likely to be partially consequent on local expectations and the extent to which the case studies
are pedagogically-oriented or professionally-oriented. For example, two of the three case studies with a METHOD section came
from the MICUSP corpus and one from the BAWE corpus; it should be noted however that Nathan (2013) reports only two
METHOD sections in a corpus of 69 business case studies, supporting the optional nature of this section. Seventeen of the 20 New
Zealand case studies included a BACKGROUND section, with only one BACKGROUND section in BAWE and one in MICUSP. Writers
seemed to have some flexibility in naming the sections, with the BACKGROUND section variously called ‘scope’ or ‘dilemma’; the
ANALYSIS usually appeared as a series of variously titled topical sub-sections.
Many moves and strategies appear in more than one section. This can be seen in Table 5, which summarizes which moves
are characteristic within each section, and which are obligatory. We view as characteristic those moves/strategies that occur
in 50–79% of the case studies, while obligatory moves/strategies are those present in 80% or more of texts.

Table 5
Moves and strategies in case study sections.

Section Obligatory moves/strategies %a Characteristic moves/strategies %

(present in >80% of texts) (present in >50% of texts)
INTRODUCTION (27 texts) providing background 81 providing source 67
stating purpose 81 establishing importance 63
map to reader 81
BACKGROUND (19 texts) providing background 100
map to reader 95
providing source 89
ANALYSIS (29 texts) providing background 90 identifying a problem 72
map to reader 97 reporting results 69
providing source 83 outlining framework 62
showing relevance of framework 52
RECOMMENDATIONS (29 texts) making recommendation 83 reason for recommendation 52
map to reader 97 providing source 59
identifying a problem 52
reporting results 62
a
Percentages quoted in Table 5 are calculated based on the number of texts that contained each section.

As Table 5 shows, the providing background strategy appears in all four sections: INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND ANALYSIS and
RECOMMENDATIONS. As discussed above in Section 4, providing background is typically a descriptive rhetorical unit, which
writers draw upon and integrate into their analysis and argumentation (see discussion of Example 4, Example 6, and
Example 9). The providing source strategy is obligatory in all four sections, reflecting the explicit requirement for refer-
encing seen in Appendix 1 and reflecting the academic nature of these case studies. The map to reader strategy is found in
all sections because writers used section headings to organise their texts and these headings were coded as map to reader.
Although many of the strategies are found in more than one section, some strategies are characteristic of particular sec-
tions: outlining and showing relevance of framework reporting results and identifying a problem are characteristic of the
ANALYSIS section; and making recommendation and reason for recommendation are characteristic of the RECOMMENDATIONS sec-
tion. Thus, in comparison with moves, the sections fulfil broader rhetorical functions (most salient of these being intro-
duction of the case, analysis of the case and recommendations), with the moves working together within the sections to
fulfil these rhetorical functions.

4.1. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS and RECOMMENDATIONS sections in case studies

4.1.1. INTRODUCTION section

The INTRODUCTION section was present in 27 of the 29 case studies in the data. In the two where it was not present, this is
because some type of introduction was included under a subheading other than INTRODUCTION.7 Typically, the INTRODUCTION section
included the obligatory Organising text strategy, stating purpose. INTRODUCTIONS also typically include the Introducing case
study strategies of establishing importance and providing background. Example 15 starts in line 1 by establishing the importance
of the topic of the case study, company culture, calling it “the defining characteristic between success and failure” and as
indicative of “core values”. The writer then defines this term in line 2, before providing background (line 3) to describe and
compare company culture at Amazon and that more common at other “Big Tech” companies. Finally in line 4 the INTRODUCTION
states the purpose of the case study. Providing background, which contextualises the text, establishing the importance of the
topic, and stating the writer’s purpose are clearly important rhetorical functions in introducing most texts, particularly student
assignments, and it is not surprising that they are key functions in case study INTRODUCTIONS.

7
The first of these case studies (from BAWE) started with a section headed ‘Background’, while the second (from MICUSP) started with a section headed
‘Define’. Both contained a short paragraph providing background, followed by a sentence which stated the purpose of the case study. Both of these are
rhetorical strategies typical of the Introduction section.
 J. Parkinson et al. / English for Specific Purposes 68 (2022) 14–30 25

Example 15: An INTRODUCTION section [NZ5.2]

line Strategy
1 A company’s culture can often be the defining characteristic between success and failure. It is a reflection of the business’ core Establishing
values – influencing potential customers and stakeholders, attracting top talent and shaping worker productivity. importance
2 Company culture refers to the ‘personality’ of the company, defining the environment in which employees work. Defining terms
3 Amazon boasts a ‘peculiar’ culture that differs from many other “Big Tech” firms such as Apple, Microsoft and Google [1]. Most Providing
Big Tech firms place a focus on creating a sense of community and cohesion, with a culture that favours collaboration over background
competition. Moreover, they attempt to improve morale through soft bonuses like free food, gyms and long paid-time-off.
With a focus on confrontational culture, extreme frugality and data-driven productivity metrics, Amazon attempts to change
this traditional workplace paradigm which is commonplace in the industry.
4 The ultimate goal of this case study is to highlight company culture in influential Big Tech firms such as Amazon, discussing Stating purpose
the impact on their workers and implications for the wider engineering community, and deciding whether Amazon’s style is
something that other businesses should model.

4.1.2. BACKGROUND section

As might be expected, the most important move in the BACKGROUND section is the obligatory providing background strategy
(found in all 19 case study texts that included a BACKGROUND section). This strategy was usually quite extended in the BACKGROUND
sections in the data. Also very important in this section is the text-organising strategy map to reader (found in 18 of the 19
BACKGROUND sections) and the providing source strategy (in 17 of the 19 BACKGROUND sections). In Example 16 this involves a
recount description of the early history of the online retail company, Amazon. It is supported by references to the providing
source strategy (all BACKGROUND sections). This strategy (indicated by a number in square brackets, and frequent in this section
and elsewhere) reflects the orientation of the writers to the purpose of the text as a graded assignment, to the explicit
requirement in the Assignment rubric (Appendix 1), and to the instructor as audience. In addition, Example 16 ends by posing
a question which the writer will consider in the Analysis sections that follow. Compared with the INTRODUCTION, which makes
more general statements about the topic, the descriptive BACKGROUND section provides background information on the case,
which the writer will then go on to analyse in the ANALYSIS section.

Example 16: A BACKGROUND section [NZ4.1]

Strategy
How we got here map to reader
In 1994, Amazon entered the fiercely competitive retail industry [4]. As far back as 1997, CEO and founder Jeff Bezos has providing background
talked of the challenges of “aggressive competitive entry” [5]. Bezos saw the potential of the internet to disrupt this
market, and the unique strength of Amazon as a new entrant into it to outmanoeuvre the incumbents. [.]. The guiding
strategy he chose wasn’t all that different from many other startups. He worked harder and ensured his employees
did the same. [.] He encouraged internal competition, trying to get employees to out-do each other [1]. [.] Where
some businesses would have stabilised, Amazon has continued to push for further growth.
This has had some negative consequences for certain employees, but is this necessarily unethical? asking a question

4.1.3. ANALYSIS section

Acquiring analytical skills was mentioned by the engineering lecturers we consulted as a key purpose of the case study,
making the ANALYSIS section an important one in the case study. One lecturer mentioned the need for students to develop “clear
understanding of core problems”, understanding of “existing solutions in the literature”, and the ability to synthesise these
into “a realistic solution that is supported by the evidence they have chosen” [lecturer’s emphasis]. Lecturers emphasised the
difficulties that students experienced with analysis. One noted students’ tendency to ask their lecturer “a series of clarifying
questions to attempt to divine what the correct answer is, even if there isn’t one because what I’ve asked for is an opinion or
what their understanding of something is” [lecturer’s emphasis]. This aligns with the intention mentioned by Davis and Yadav
(2014) to engage students in problems with no clear-cut solution.
Reflecting the importance of analysis, all texts in the data contained an ANALYSIS section, with this section being the longest
section in the data. ANALYSIS sections are divided into topical sub-sections, each analysing an aspect of the case. Example 17 is
one such topical sub-section, “Availability”, from a MICUSP case study, which is on the topic of whether Honda selected the
best place to site their new production plant. Typically, the ANALYSIS sections include the providing background strategy (see line
3); this was typically accompanied by the Providing source strategy in the form of citations. In addition, the identifying a
problem strategy (line 2) and the Reporting results strategy (lines 5 and 8) were present in more than two thirds of the ANALYSIS
sections. It is not surprising that the functions of providing background about an aspect of the case, identifying problems in the
case, and reporting the results of the writer’s observations or analysis are prominent in the analysis of a case (Example 17).
They serve to fulfil the writers’ rhetorical purpose of exploring, identifying and analysing key aspects of the case, which allows
the writer to propose recommendations at the end of the case study. In addition, Example 17 details the writer’s procedure for
analysis (line 6), and also, at the end of this topical section, uses a recommendation strategy (line 9).
26 J. Parkinson et al. / English for Specific Purposes 68 (2022) 14–30

Example 17: An ANALYSIS section [MICUSP Honda]

line Strategy
1 Availability map to reader
2 One large concern for Honda when determining the best location for their new facility was the availability of labor. identifying a
problem
3 Jay Baron, Chief Executive of the Center for Automotive Research (CAR) in Ann Arbor, Michigan explained to Asia Times [7] providing
that with General Motors Corp and Ford closing plants in the Midwest, there are plenty of skilled trades people looking for background
jobs. This was one of the major factors that led Honda to narrow their location search to the Midwest.
4 Unemployment rate data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics [12] for the nearby metropolitan areas are shown in Table 4. map to reader
[.]
5 The information above demonstrates that none of the potential sites has an extremely high rate of unemployment. Therefore, reporting results
it is important to consider the size of the potential employment pool.
6 Because each of the four candidate cities is very small, the combined populations of the three biggest cities within w60 miles detailing procedure
were used.
7 Table 5 below uses information from the US Census Bureau [13] to depict the population size of the surrounding metro areas map to reader
for each potential site.
8 Table 5 shows that both the Greensburg, Indiana and Octa, Ohio sites have a much larger employment base than their reporting results
competitors.
[.]
9 Based on all of the previous information, it is clear that from a labor perspective, the Greensburg, Indiana site is optimal for making
Honda. recommendation

4.1.4. RECOMMENDATION section

Recommendations are the culmination of the analysis that has taken place in the ANALYSIS section. Arriving at recommen-
dations has been viewed in the literature as “a defining feature of” case studies, Gardner and Nesi (2013, p. 35). In making the
recommendations, the writer fulfils an important rhetorical purpose of the case study genre. All texts in the data included a
RECOMMENDATION section. Typically, the RECOMMENDATION sections include the Making recommendations move. As might be ex-
pected, the making recommendations strategy was used in a high proportion of case studies, and half the writers also included
the reason for recommendation strategy. Reporting results was obligatory and identifying a problem was also found in more than
half the RECOMMENDATION sections. In Example 18, in a reporting results strategy, the writer draws together the results from the
ANALYSIS section in an assessment of the ethics of Amazon’s actions. Using a concede-counter argument (so while x, y) (Miller,
Mitchell, & Pessoa, 2014), the writer concludes that under one ethical framework, their actions are “not unethical”, while
under another framework they are unethical. This argument proceeds with the writer making a recommendation, pairing up the
explicit “it is recommended .” with an obligation modal indicating what Amazon “should” do. The reason for recommendation
strategy that follows again uses a concessive argument, (though x, y) paired with an obligation modal of what the reader “must
consider” concerning the possibility that the company’s reputation “may be marred”. This use of logical connectors and modality
is persuasive, as is the way that the writer draws on and builds on the analysis in the reporting results strategy.

Example 18: A RECOMMENDATION section [NZ3.1]

Strategy
4 Conclusions map to reader
Under certain frameworks, Amazon’s actions can be interpreted as ethical – or, at the very least, not unethical. In a company like reporting results
this that affects the lives of many people, actions should be considered under multiple frameworks. So while there is nothing
unethical about employees being forced to urinate in bottles to meet targets [5] when judged under an agent-based
consequentialist framework, it is unethical from a rights perspective.
It is recommended that companies in Amazon’s position or similar, should avoid the kind of brutal treatment of their workers making
Amazon displays [6] [7]. recommendation
Though it may benefit the company in the short term, one must consider that the reputation of a company may be marred by reason for
accusations of being unethical in a rights ethics framework. recommendation

It is notable that of the 29 case studies, four (all from the New Zealand corpus) contained no making recommendation
strategy, despite that fact that all four contained a section titled “Recommendations”. This suggests that the writers were
aware of lecturer expectations that they include the three obligatory sections (INTRODUCTION, ANALYSIS and RECOMMENDATION), even if
in fact they advanced no recommendation. These four case studies used this section to state the results of their analysis,
making the section more like a conclusion of an essay than a recommendation section. In contrast, a further five case studies
contained the making recommendation strategy, but included it in a section that was not titled “Recommendation”. Titles for
their final section selected by these five case studies included “Countermeasure” (two MICUSP texts and one BAWE text), and
“Conclusion” (one MICUSP text and one BAWE text). Thus, these five case studies included the making recommendations
strategy but did not include a section titled “Recommendations”.
 J. Parkinson et al. / English for Specific Purposes 68 (2022) 14–30 27

5. Discussion and conclusion

This study contributes to the literature on teaching engineering writing in that it provides a detailed analysis of rhetorical
strategies used specifically in engineering case studies. Nathan (2016) too provided a detailed analysis of four strategies in his
“options and alternatives” move, previously identified as one “broad rhetorical move” in Nathan (2013). The present study has
built on this through an in-depth analysis of rhetorical moves including not only those in moves identified by Nathan (2013),
Yeung (2007), and Zhu (2004), such as introduction/orientation, options, and recommendations, but also moves related to
frameworks, question-raising, results, and text-organisation.
The argument structure of case studies is generated at both the macro level of section and the micro level of move and
strategy. At the macro level, the INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS and RECOMMENDATIONS sections facilitate and structure the
writer’s argument. The obligatory INTRODUCTION section introduces the topic, usually including some generalisations about the
topic as well as a statement of purpose and map to the reader. Writers can then build on this with a more specific statement of
a problem in the optional BACKGROUND section. Depending on their approach to the case, they can also include an optional METHOD
section, detailing their procedures. The obligatory ANALYSIS section takes the specific problem, which was outlined either in the
BACKGROUND or INTRODUCTION, and examines the problem from different perspectives in a series of topical sub-sections. Finally, the
obligatory RECOMMENDATION section draws together all solutions or findings from the ANALYSIS section and provides one or more
recommendation. These are ideally directed at a client, but more likely, in a student case study, at the instructor.
At the micro level, case study writers build their arguments using the structure of moves/strategies discussed above. Our
analysis above has shown that a case study employs strategies that are descriptive (such as the providing background and outlining
framework strategies) and draws on these in more analytical moves (such as the showing relevance of framework strategy and the
Reporting results and Proposing and discussing options moves). This argumentation culminates in the persuasive Making
recommendations move. Such argument shows the student writers’ recognition that, as a lecturer consulted in this study said,
there is not one correct solution, and the writer needs their argument to convince the reader of the solutions advanced. Thus, a case
study involves analysing problems relating to a particular case, basing this analysis in a description of the background of the case,
providing examples, or recounting events8; writers identify and describe a framework for analysis of the case. This analysis and
argument allow the writer to make recommendations, the ultimate purpose of a case study.
A second contribution of this study is that it describes the use of the same moves within more than one section. This is a phe-
nomenon present in other genres such as the research article, but not explicitly discussed in prior studies. Although each of the eight
rhetorical moves is characteristic of only one or two sections, all eight appear in more than one section of the case study. This is
particularly true of the providing background strategy, which is highly frequent in INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, and ANALYSIS. This reflects the
central role of real cases in the case studies. The writer draws on and recounts the background facts and narrative of the case in order to
analyse it. In cases where a move is found in a section where it is rare and unexpected (for example the single case study which had a
recommendation in the Introduction section), this could be a learning opportunity for students and instructors. However, a similar
finding was reported by Gardner (2012), who found that recommendations are found throughout the case study, not only in the
RECOMMENDATIONS section. Moves being found in more than one section is also characteristic in some degree of other genres: in research
articles, the reporting results and explaining results moves in the ‘Results’ and ‘Discussions’ sections (Kanoksilapatham, 2005) are very
similar. Similarly, the same repetition of reporting results and explaining results was found in the ‘Results’ and ‘Discussion’ sections of
student laboratory reports (Parkinson, 2017), with reviewing literature found in both the ‘Introduction’ and ‘Discussion’ sections in
student laboratory reports (Parkinson, 2017). In the engineering case studies in the present study, this wide placement of moves was
found in case studies from the three corpora used (MICUSP, BAWE and New Zealand), so is apparently not linked to disciplinary or
local requirements. A possible reason for the wide placement of rhetorical meanings across sections is that the case study, like many
student genres, may not have the same stringent pressures to conform to a widely recognised norm as research articles do for
example. This might account for the appearance of all eight moves in more than one section.
As discussed above, the sections identified in this study are similar to those identified by Yeung (2007) in business reports and
to the ‘broad rhetorical moves’ identified in Nathan (2013). Some of the strategies used in realising our eight rhetorical moves
(outlined in Table 3 and exemplified in Section 3) also have similarities with some of the “sample structural components” identified
by Nathan (2013) in the moves in his business case studies (see Table 1). This includes Nathan’s “objectives” component
(equivalent to our stating purpose strategy) and the multiple sample frameworks listed by Nathan (e.g., SWOT) which are com-
prehended in our Setting out frameworks and methods move. This suggests similarities between business and engineering case
studies. One difference from Nathan’s (2016) findings on business case studies was that he found the “options” move to be more
frequent (79% of texts) than we did (34%). This was despite the fact that both Nathan’s (2016) data and ours was continuous
assessment assignments. Forman and Rymer (1999) reported that “alternatives”, or options, were specified as a task requirement
by MBA instructors at the US university at which their study took place. This was not the case in the New Zealand rubrics in our
study. It would however be advisable to confirm this difference between business and engineering case studies with a larger
corpus.
The continuum between professionally-oriented and pedagogically-oriented case studies as described in the business case
study literature (Gardner & Nesi, 2013; Mitchell, Pessoa & Gómez-Laich, 2021; Pessoa et al., 2020) was also evident in our

8
Our thanks to an anonymous reviewer who pointed out that in the case of closed cases, where case descriptions and data about the case are supplied to
students, recounting of background and events is repetitive of supplied material and is often discouraged by instructors.
28 J. Parkinson et al. / English for Specific Purposes 68 (2022) 14–30

study. Gardner (2012) found three types of business case study on this pedagogical-professional continuum. In the “single
issue report”, students adopt a student role, address their instructors as audience and draw on general theory. In the
professionally-oriented company report, students adopt a professional role, address both academic and professional audi-
ences and are more case-specific. In Miller and Pessoa’s (2016, p.44) terms, professionally-oriented case studies suggest what
“decision makers should do moving forward”. In between these extremes were texts Gardner (2012) referred to as “orga-
nisation analyses”. As Miller and Pessoa (2016) note, “organisation analyses” analyse issues retrospectively (e.g., a MICUSP
case study that analyses whether Honda made the right decision in where they sited their new plant). These three case study
types are distinguished by writer role (student/consultant), audience (instructor/client), and whether cases were discussed
through general theory. Based on this distinction, three of the MICUSP cases specifically addressed a client as audience and
may be regarded as professionally-oriented. However, as mentioned in the literature (e.g. Gardner, 2012), writers of
professionally-oriented case studies nevertheless still orient to the student role, for example, by including citations and
employing models and frameworks they have learnt in their courses (see Example 19).

Example 19: Orienting to both professional and student roles

Consultant Experts Inc. has analyzed the current storing, packaging, and shipping operations to determine which factors are accountable for the
observed over-crowdedness and inefficiencies [professional consultant role]. To solve these problems we used a six-sigma DMAIC (a proven
problem solving process made up of Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control) approach [student role]. [e-Dining MICUSP]

A further two MICUSP cases, all four BAWE cases and eight New Zealand cases analysed a particular organisation but did
not specifically address a client as audience; they can thus be viewed as Gardner’s “organisation analyses”. Twelve of the of
the New Zealand cases placed emphasis on frameworks and theory and addressed themselves only to the instructor as
audience; they can be viewed as pedagogically-oriented. In the “organisation analyses” and the pedagogically-oriented case
studies the student role was more prominent (see Example 20). Thus, in our data we found a range from pedagogically-
oriented to organisation analyses to professionally-oriented case studies. The small size of our data set, particularly of
professionally-oriented cases, suggests the need for our findings to be tested with a larger balanced corpus in future research.

Example 20: Orienting to student role

Regardless of their eventual level of success, Tesla has made more progress than any other automotive industry new entrant in the past
half-century [15]. How they have achieved this is worthy of analysis. This case study will explore their sources of innovation and the
entrepreneurial techniques they have used to capitalise on their breakthroughs. The principles of innovation and entrepreneurship introduced
in Peter Drucker’s 1985 book Innovation and Entrepreneurship [16] will be used as a framework for this analysis. [NZ4.2]

5.1. Pedagogical applications

Because this article demonstrates how successful engineering students structure their arguments in case studies, we
anticipate that this study will be useful both to writing instructors teaching engineering students to write case studies and to
engineering instructors who assign case studies to their students. This article provides a fine-grained analysis of the moves and
strategies throughout the case study, which has not been provided in prior research on case studies. For example, although the
Analysis as a section or move was identified in multiple studies of business case studies, our study identifies and exemplifies the
different rhetorical meanings in this section; this includes providing background, asking a question, identifying a problem’ defining
terms, outlining and showing relevance of framework and reporting results of analysis. Similarly, our study exemplifies the stating
purpose strategy, mentioned in Nathan (2013) as a component of his “Orientation” move. In addition, our study exemplifies both
the making recommendation and reason for recommendation strategies in the Making recommendation move. These examples
of these moves and strategies could be used by teachers of case study writing to engineering students.
The lecturers we consulted noted that students found analysis difficult. We suggest that engineering writing instructors can
scaffold students’ writing of case studies through attention to how argument is constructed in case studies at three levels. These
are firstly the level of the obligatory sections; secondly, the level of moves and their strategies and how they contribute to fulfilling
the rhetorical purpose of each section and of the case study as a whole; and thirdly, the level of the lexicogrammar, of argu-
mentation, including logical connectors, modal verbs and other modal resources, and affective language (Pessoa et al., 2021).
The moves, strategies and sections can be exemplified for students in the way demonstrated in Sections 4 and 5 above. An
example is the Setting out frameworks and methods move, which was identified as key to students’ analysis in Nathan (2013).
This move contains the distinct rhetorical strategies of defining terms, outlining framework and significantly, explicitly showing the
relevance of the framework to the case being analysed. As shown in our discussion of Example 6 above, these three strategies work
together, to argue for how a framework can be applied to the case. This is a key element in the more pedagogically-oriented case
studies, and could be useful to instructors and students. Students could be shown models such as Example 6 to demonstrate
argumentation using the strategies and their lexicogrammatical features such as logical relations, affective language and modality.
 J. Parkinson et al. / English for Specific Purposes 68 (2022) 14–30 29

5.2. Limitations of the study and directions for future research

A limitation of this study is the small number of texts analysed. This is consequent not only on the manual nature of move
analysis (Moreno & Swales, 2018) but on our wish to select only high achieving case studies. However, by analysing only highly-
graded assignments, our study sheds no light on what lower-graded assignments might lack in terms of argumentation. We are
extending our work in this study to compare high-graded with low-graded assignments. Another limitation is that the number of
engineering case studies in the three sets of data was not the same; if equal numbers of assignments had been available from each
of the three sources, this would have provided a move balanced picture. In addition, most cases analysed were either Gardner’s
(2012) organisation analyses (14) or single-issue reports (12); only three cases (all from MICUSP) were of the professionally-
oriented type, in which students enact the consultant role, address themselves to a client, and are more likely to collect data on
the case being studied resulting in moves relating to procedure. Future studies of engineering case studies should explore the
extent to which professionally-oriented case studies are found in engineering pedagogy. Another limitation is that we were unable
to interview students about their rhetorical choices, because by the time the analysis was completed the students had graduated
from the institution.

Appendix

Appendix 1. Example of case study assignment

This assignment will be in the form of a case study of an Ethical dilemma. You will need to discuss the situation and the
ethical issues involved. This case study must refer to at least one Framework discussed in class and is expected to show a
developed understanding of the issues at stake. You must pick a relevant case study involving one of the example ethical
dilemmas that professional engineers can encounter at work from the list below:

 Public Safety and Welfare: Airbags or WikiLeaks

 Principle of Informed Consent: End User License Agreements
 Conflict of Interest: WikiLeaks
 Fair Treatment of Employees: Amazon or UBER

You are expected to appropriately support claims, and reference sources of information, with citations.

Appendix 2. Questions to investigate engineering lecturers’ expectations

1. What is the purpose of case studies?

2. What’s the nature of the analysis that students need to do in case studies?
3. What difficulties have you noticed the students have with this assignment type?
4. How do you go about teaching the students to write case studies?

References

Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. (2007). Discourse on the Move. Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Conrad, S. (2017). A comparison of practitioner and student writing in civil engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(2), 191-217. [Link]
1002/jee.20161.
Conrad, S. (2018). The use of passives and impersonal style in civil engineering writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 32(1), 38-76.
[Link]
Davis, C., & Yadav, A. (2014). Case studies in engineering. In A. Johri, & B. M. Olds (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of engineering education research (pp. 161-180).
Cambridge University Press.
Esteban, A. A., & Cañado, M. L. P. (2004). Making the case method work in teaching Business English: A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 23(2), 137-
161. [Link]
Forman, J., & Rymer, J. (1999). Defining the genre of the “case write-up”. Journal of Business Communication, 36, 103-133. [Link]
002194369903600201.
Freedman, A., Adam, C., & Smart, G. (1994). Wearing suits to class: Simulating genres and simulations as genre. Written Communication, 11, 193-226. https://
[Link]/10.1177/0741088394011002002.
Gardner, S. (2012). A pedagogic and professional Case study genre and register continuum in Business and in Medicine. Journal of Applied Linguistics and
Professional Practice, 9(1), 13-35. [Link]
Gardner, S. (2016). A genre-instantiation approach to teaching English for specific academic purposes: Student writing in business, economics and engi-
neering. Writing and Pedagogy, 8(1), 117-144. [Link]
Gardner, S., & Nesi, H. (2013). A classification of genre families in university student writing. Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 25-52. [Link]
ams024.
Garg, K., & Varma, V. (2007, July). A study of the effectiveness of case study approach in software engineering education. In 20th conference on software
engineering education & training (CSEET’07) (pp. 309-316). IEEE.
Haws, D. R. (2001). Ethics instruction in engineering education: A (mini) meta-analysis. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(2), 223-229. [Link]
1002/j.2168-9830.2001.tb00596.x.
Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (2001). A narrow-angled corpus analysis of moves and strategies of the genre: ‘Letter of Application’. English for Specific
Purposes, 20(2), 153-167. [Link]
30 J. Parkinson et al. / English for Specific Purposes 68 (2022) 14–30

Hilburn, T. B., Towhidnejad, M., Nangia, S., & Shen, L. (2006, October). A case study project for software engineering education. In Proceedings. Frontiers in
education. 36th annual conference (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
Humphrey, S. L., & Economou, D. (2015). Peeling the onion–A textual model of critical analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, 37-50. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2015.01.004.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269-292. [Link]
2004.08.003.
Martin, J. R. (1984). Language, register and genre. Children Writing: Reader, 1, 984.
Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers. (2009). Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.
Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151-167. [Link]
Miller, R. T., & Pessoa, S. (2016). Role and genre expectations in undergraduate case analysis in Information Systems. English for Specific Purposes, 44, 43-56.
[Link]
Miller, R. T., Mitchell, T. D., & Pessoa, S. (2014). Valued voices: Students’ use of Engagement in argumentative history writing. Linguistics and Education, 28,
107-112. [Link]
Mitchell, T. D., Pessoa, S., & Gómez-Laich, M. P. (2021). Know your roles: Alleviating the academic-professional tension in the case analysis genre. English for
Specific Purposes, 61, 117-131.
Moreno, A. L., & Swales, J. M. (2018). Strengthening move analysis methodology towards bridging the function-form gap. English for Specific Purposes, 50, 40-
63. [Link]
Nathan, P. (2013). Academic writing in the Business School: The genre of the business case report. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 57-68. https://
[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2012.11.003.
Nathan, P. (2016). Analysing options in pedagogical business case reports: Genre, process and language. English for Specific Purposes, 44, 1-15. [Link]
10.1016/[Link].2016.04.006.
Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parkinson, J. (2017). The student Laboratory Report genre: A genre analysis. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 45, 1-13. [Link]
2016.08.001.
Pessoa, S., Gomez-Laich, M. P., & Mitchell, T. D. (2020). Mapping the case analysis genre continuum in an Information Systems program. Journal of Writing
Research, 12(2), 291-320. [Link]
Pessoa, S., Mitchell, T. D., Gomez-Laich, M. P., Maune, M., & Le Roux, C. (2021). Scaffolding the case analysis in an organizational behavior course: Making
analytical language explicit. Journal of Management Education, 46(2), 226-251. [Link] 1052562921994892.
Stacey, L., Trivett, A., Rathlin, J., & Choi, K. W. (2015). Implementation of a case study in an engineering science course. In ASEE annual conference &
exposition, Seattle, Washington (p. 24239).
Strauss, P., & Grant, L. (2018). ’We mainly deal with maths’: New Zealand engineering lecturers’ and students’ perceptions of engineering writing. New
Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 1-11.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Mulken, M., & van der Meer, W. (2005). Are you being served?: A genre analysis of American and Dutch company replies to customer inquiries. English
for Specific Purposes, 24(1), 93-109. [Link]
Yeung, L. (2007). In search of commonalities: Some linguistic and rhetorical features of business reports as a genre. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 156-179.
[Link]
Zhu, W. (2004). Writing in business courses: An analysis of assignment types, their characteristics and required skills. English for Specific Purposes, 23(2),
111-135. [Link]

Jean Parkinson teaches in the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies at Victoria University of Wellington. She has published widely on science
and technology discourse and language use in vocational education.

Craig Watterson’s research field is engineering education with a focus on qualitative methods and approaches. Current research interests include academic
discourse and its relation to the teaching and learning environment, effective best practice in engineering teaching, developing electronic student support
tools, and maximising equitable outcomes for students.

Lauren Whitty has a PhD in Applied Linguistics from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Lauren’s research interests include corpus-based
research, grammar, pedagogy and learner input/output. Lauren has taught English for academic purposes in the United States and New Zealand for the
past eleven years and recognizes the importance of research extending to the classroom.