Turning Your Results Into a Research Paper
Advice for Using DocuScope and Interpreting Your Results
DocuScope research isn’t just about counting words—it’s about understanding rhetorical choices. You’re asking: How do writers use language strategically to achieve their goals? What patterns reveal about audience, purpose, and context?
Remember: Numbers are your starting point, not your endpoint. Your job is to explain what those patterns mean for how people communicate.
Your claim should be specific, data-driven, and rhetorically meaningful. Instead of saying “this category appears a lot,” ask what rhetorical work it’s doing.
Example: Aull on Student Writing
Aull shows that first-year writing often overuses Confidence High and Public Terms, not just to sound “academic,” but to project certainty and generalization when students are unsure how to argue within disciplinary constraints (Aull 2023).
Tip: Connect category use to audience expectations, genre conventions, or communicative goals.
Common Pitfall to Avoid:
❌ “Business emails use more Directive language than academic papers.” ✅ “Business emails use 40% more Directive language, suggesting writers prioritize efficiency and action over the hedged, exploratory stance valued in academic discourse.”
A figure or table isn’t decoration—it’s evidence. Show clear contrasts or trends from your corpus that directly support your claim.
Example: DeJeu on Grant Proposals
DeJeu uses visualizations (e.g., PCA plots) to show that nonprofit proposals emphasize Facilitate and Positive categories, whereas research proposals emphasize Cautious Epistemic features like Hedged Confidence (DeJeu 2024).
Practical Tip: Use simple bar charts or frequency tables. Label everything clearly and interpret the figure in your writing. Don’t just say “Figure 1 shows the results”—explain what the reader should notice and why it matters.
What Makes a Good Visualization:
- Clear labels and meaningful comparisons
- Statistical significance when relevant (not just raw counts)
- Direct connection to your rhetorical claim
Students often describe what they found but stop short of interpretation. Always ask: - What is this language doing? - Why might the writer have used it? - How does this serve their audience and purpose?
Example: Marcellino on Marine Corps Speech
Marcellino found co-occurring uses of Fear and Positive Relationship categories. He interpreted this not as contradiction but as a civil-military rhetorical blend: Marines must motivate while warning of dangers (Marcellino 2014).
The “So What?” Test:
After stating your finding, ask: “So what? Why should my reader care?” If you can’t answer this, dig deeper into the rhetorical implications.
Vague statements like “this field is more objective” or “this genre is more formal” won’t earn credit. Be specific about how and why linguistic patterns create meaning.
Better:
“The high use of Contingent and Uncertainty in Chemistry papers suggests writers must acknowledge conditions under which scientific claims hold true—highlighting rhetorical caution, not just objectivity.”
Example: O’Hanlon on Epistemic Voice
O’Hanlon compares how medical discourses construct risk. She finds that breast cancer texts are more personal and interactive, using FirstPerson and Metadiscourse features to frame stories as communal (O’Hanlon 2019).
Red Flags in Your Writing:
- “Obviously,” “clearly,” “naturally”—these suggest you’re not explaining your reasoning
- Circular explanations: “Academic writing uses academic language”
- Missing the human element: Remember, real people made these linguistic choices for real reasons
Introduce categories clearly and provide examples. Help your reader see not just what a category means, but how it functions in context.
Example: Ishizaki on Crowdfunding
Ishizaki shows that successful crowdfunding pitches use more Strategic and Values language. He connects this to rhetorical appeals: successful pitches position themselves within expert communities, not just general audiences (Ishizaki 2016).
Best Practices:
- Define categories when first mentioned
- Provide concrete examples from your corpus
- Explain the rhetorical function, not just the definition
- Connect to larger patterns in your data
Be honest about what your data can and cannot tell you.
When to Mention Statistics:
- If differences are statistically significant, say so
- If your sample is small, acknowledge limitations
- If patterns are suggestive but not definitive, frame them appropriately
Example Language:
“While this pattern suggests…, a larger corpus would be needed to confirm…” “The 15% difference in Hedged Confidence, though not statistically significant, points toward…”
Here’s how to structure your paper using the IMRD model, with scholarly models:
| Section | Purpose | Example from Scholarship |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction | State your research question and its rhetorical or communicative significance. Include brief lit review. | “How do student writers construct academic authority across disciplines?” (Aull 2023) |
| Methods | Describe the corpus, how DocuScope was used, and which categories were analyzed. Be specific about your analytical choices. | “We applied DocuScope tagging to a 200-document corpus of nonprofit and academic proposals, focusing on epistemic and interpersonal categories.” (DeJeu 2024) |
| Results | Present quantitative or qualitative findings, supported by figures or tables. Interpret patterns immediately: What rhetorical work do they perform? | “Successful pitches showed significantly higher use of Strategic and Facilitate categories (p < 0.05). This pattern suggests that effective crowdfunding appeals position themselves within expert communities rather than addressing general audiences.” (Ishizaki 2016) |
| Discussion | Summarize main findings and their implications. Acknowledge limitations of your study. Speculate thoughtfully about broader significance and future research directions. | “Our findings suggest that successful crowdfunding depends on strategic positioning within discourse communities. While our sample was limited to technology projects, this pattern may extend to other domains where expertise signals credibility.” (Ishizaki 2016) |
Before submitting, ask yourself:
About Your Claim:
- Is my research question specific and answerable with DocuScope data?
- Does my claim go beyond “X uses more Y than Z”?
- Have I explained the rhetorical significance of my findings?
About Your Evidence:
- Do my visualizations directly support my claims?
- Have I provided concrete examples from my corpus?
- Are my interpretations grounded in the data?
About Your Writing:
- Would someone unfamiliar with DocuScope understand my categories?
- Have I avoided truisms and circular reasoning?
- Does my conclusion explain why this matters for understanding communication?
As a novice researcher, your goal isn’t to offer definitive answers—it’s to use linguistic evidence to make a focused, well-reasoned rhetorical claim.
DocuScope gives you patterns. Your task is to explain: - What do they tell us about writing? - How do they reflect audience, genre, or context? - What insights do they offer for writers, teachers, or communicators?
Remember: You’re not just analyzing language—you’re uncovering the strategic thinking behind communication choices. Every linguistic pattern represents human decision-making in action.