{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013866231647634585, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004078303425774877, 'mean_word_length': 5.424083769633508, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Discipline and methodological paradigm


 In contemporary academia, multilingual scholars using English as an additional language (EAL) are actively engaged
 in knowledge construction producing more research texts in English than native speakers (Hyland, 2016). Having a more general purpose to gain insights into the factors that influence multilingual scholars’
 research writing practices in English, this case study seeks to explore how EAL users perceive disciplinary norms of epistemic
 stance expression in political science. It is based on interviews with 5 Russian political scientists and on the analysis of their
 research texts. The findings suggest that the participants do not seem to have a shared understanding of disciplinary norms
 regarding epistemic stance expression; however, their narratives highlight the importance of the methodological paradigm the texts
 belong to for their writing practices. The study is a contribution to the discussion of the role of the discipline in EAL
 scholars’ research writing practices and linguistic and rhetorical variability of research texts within one discipline. The
 results of this study have pedagogical implications for ERPP course designers and practitioners.