Reporting Results in Banking and Finance Research Articles

Abstract

This study investigates the rhetorical structure of the Results section in English banking and finance research articles (BFRAs). Utilizing a corpus of 30 full-length articles published between 2023 and April 2025 from top-ranked open-access finance journals, the study employs a modified version of Yang and Allison’s (2003) move-step framework. The analysis reveals a seven-move structure, highlighted by the identification of a new discipline-specific move: Disproving alternative explanations. The findings demonstrate that Reporting results (Move 2) is the only obligatory move, while Preparatory information (Move 1) and Commenting on results (Move 3) serve as conventional moves. Meanwhile, Disproving alternative explanations, Summarizing results, Evaluating the study, and Deductions from the research function as optional elements. Ultimately, this study highlights the hybrid nature of banking and finance academic writing, which necessitates both straightforward numerical reporting and rigorous robustness checks. These findings offer valuable pedagogical implications for English for Specific Purposes (ESP) instructors and scholars aiming to publish in international finance journals.