Evaluating corpus & discourse work

This chapter considers how we evaluate the quality of corpus-assisted discourse analyses. I will seek to convey the perspective you may anticipate from a supervisor, an examiner, or a reviewer: the standard of expectations may change with context, but the overall criteria will remain somewhat consistent at different stages of your academic career. Section 1 refers to the overall soundness of research and is concerned with the analysis itself, while section 2 discusses the reporting on the analysis. Section 3 touches upon the concept of impact, by addressing originality and relevance. Section 4 praises constructive criticism and, in part, attempts to redeem Reviewer 2. Finally, section 5 is a call for greater awareness and a constant practice of self-reflexivity. Throughout the chapter you will find questions, which you may use as a sort of checklist, and examples of potential pitfalls. A disclaimer: all examples are fictitious and no identification with actual research (published or unpublished) is intended or should be inferred.