日本の大学における英語アカデミックライティング教育の可能性と課題

Today, whether English's dominance as a global lingua franca benefits higher education, more and more universities around the world have made efforts to integrate English academic writing education into their institutional policies and strategies. This trend has been observed particularly against the background where, with the increased internationalization of higher education, the imperative for universities globally to focus on maintaining or improving their international reputation and rankings has grown significantly. Indeed, such prestige tends to be assessed largely in terms of publications in English. With this in mind, we are concerned with how higher education institutions address these efforts toward promoting English academic writing in a specific non-English L1 context, namely Japan. English academic writing in university contexts where English is an additional language exists where the fields of language education, higher education administration, research methodology, and cultural socialization converge. Therefore, this volume brings together scholarship that aims to examine the different ways in which academic writing education shapes and is shaped by students, faculty and other stakeholders in Japanese universities. This volume’s eight chapters, by authors with diverse backgrounds, ranging from administrators to researchers, and from humanities and social sciences to medical studies, explore the opportunities and challenges of English academic writing education in Japanese universities by looking at related topics, including writing centers, faculty members, genre-specific education, and technology development. Together, the discussions in the individual chapters can contribute profoundly to theory, policy, and practice in the domains of curriculum, research, and administration in university contexts.Introduction… Norifumi Miyokawa 1 Part I: A writing center in Japan: Hiroshima University Chapter One: Development of the Hiroshima University Writing Center －From an administrative perspective－… Hiroko Araki & Norifumi Miyokawa 3 Chapter Two: Perceptions of academic writing support －A needs analysis of the Hiroshima University Writing Center－… Roehl Sybing & Norifumi Miyokawa 17 Part II: Faculty development for academic writing Chapter Three: Potential roles of writing centers for writing related Faculty Development… Machi Sato & Shinichi Cho 31 Chapter Four: Academic writing support for faculty members －Writing Groups and Writing Retreats－… Adina Staicov 45 Part III: Genre-specific education: Cases in the medical field Chapter Five: How to write the Introduction of biomedical research articles －Move analysis of the first and last sentences－… Takeshi Kawamoto & Tatsuya Ishii 57 Chapter Six: Error analysis of overt lexicogrammatical errors in the prepublication English-language manuscripts of Japanese biomedical researchers －With implications for the teaching of writing for biomedical research –… Flaminia Miyamasu 67 Part IV: Theoretical and practical approaches to academic writing Chapter Seven: Language socialization and writing centers… Akiko Katayama 81 Chapter Eight: Socialization into integrity －Using plagiarism software to teach L2 writing－… Gavin Furukawa 95 Acknowledgements… Norifumi Miyokawa 10

階級づけられる学問 : 腐敗と堕落の危機に瀕する学術コミュニケーション <翻訳>

英語の“Rank”には二つの意味がある。Shakespeare が『ハムレット』を著して以来，この単語はその第1幕にある，順番を付けられ階級化された序列体系を意味するとともに，第3幕で使われる，「腐敗した」「穢れた」という意味を持つ1）。今日，世界中の大学のテニュア（終身在職権）審査委員会や図書収集担当司書にとって，第1幕での序列体系を示す“Rank”はお馴染みである。だが，第3幕で使われる“Rank”の概念も理解しうるだろう。“Rank”の持つ二つの意味が関連性を保持しているのは，「インパクトファクター（論文の影響力を示す指標）」を学問評価の最適な手法と考え，その普及を促進するトムソン・ロイターのような商業ビジネスのおかげだともいえる。　　 本稿では，学術出版，大学，研究者の評価にインパクトファクターやランキングが利用されるのは，次の4つの動向に関連していることを論ずる。①官僚主義的権威の特徴である専門知識の（不可逆的な？）正統化，②高等教育の規制と管理を巡る駆引き（新管理主義と研究評価制度に如実に顕れる）③この2つの動向に便乗して商業的学術出版界が行う価格設定や資金調達。この動向は大学図書館の予算を侵食する高額課金に顕れる。④学術誌や編集者に期待されるドラマ的演出の拡大。これは，学術誌や編集者が履歴書製造工場の生産ラインの従業員ではなく，思想を賑やかに楽しく語り合う場のホスト役を自認する場合にもあてはまる動向だ。本稿はこれら4つの動向に言及した後， その動向の中に筆者が編集者の立場で携わる『比較教育学研究（Comparative EducationReview）』（以下『CER』）を位置づける。そして，学術誌が選択し得るオプションを考察する。著作者の履歴書に加えられることを目的とする論文ばかりの学術誌もあるが，それとは異なる，より活気に溢れ関わり合いを深く持つように教育学研究のコミュニティを発展させる方法を提案したい。その上で，インパクトファクターという指標の代替手段，或いはその補完に活用しうる，学術誌のクオリティ（以下「質」）を判断する手段を提案する。学術論文は学術コミュニケーションの副次的成果に過ぎないのだ。我々の主張は，最も根本的な成果としての学術コミュニケーションそのものに，学術誌とその読者が固有の価値を見出し，このコミュニケーションに関与すべきである，ということだ。In English the word “Rank” has a double meaning: a “hierarchical series” and also “rotten” or “filthy.” This essay considers the pressure felt by scholars publish in journals that are highly “ranked.” We first document evidence for this pressure, then discuss the consequences of impact factors and ranking in higher education. We connect ranking four movements: 1) the rationalization of expertise as a feature of Weberian bureaucratic authority; 2) the politics of higher education regulation and control, as manifest in the new managerialism and associated research assessment exercises; 3) the pricing and finance of commercial scholarly publishing, which takes advantage of the preceding developments by charging high prices to maximize profits; 4) decisions by editors and their journals to play by the new rules even when they are personally opposed to them and when they value journals for a different purpose. After touching on these four movements, we discuss the journal that we edit (Comparative Education Review). We consider the alternatives to ranking, and we suggest ways to promote a more vital and engaged educational research. Specifically, we suggest a means to judge the quality of scholarly journals that could be used as an alternative, or supplement, to the metric of the impact factor alone, by considering articles as the by-products of scholarly communication. We advocate that journals and readers attend to the intrinsic value of that communication as the most fundamental product