Centrality claims are signaled by such lexical items and their variants as "important", "central", "interesting" and "indispensable".
The incidence of centrality claims in Forestry is significantly higher than those in some established disciplines.
Further, Samraj (2002) found that centrality claims (in Move 1) and gap indications (in Move 2) can be couched in terms of both the phenomenal (real) world or the epistemic (research) world.
Centrality claims were found in P2 and P3, as shown by examples (1) and (2) below (emphases in all examples are mine): (1) … As such, it is important to denaturalize these ideologies which … The newspapers of societies play a powerful role in … (P3).
What about the so-called "illusion of centrality," the claim that humans are somehow unique and special, perhaps even godlike ("chips off the old divine block")?
Unfortunately, despite the alleged centrality of this claim, it is difficult to give it a clear and plausible interpretation.
Swales' examples of Move 1 ('Establishing a Territory') (1990, 2004) include these kind of abstract real world concepts, especially as a means of claiming centrality (Step 1).
As seen in Table 1, Move 1 Establishing a territory is realized by three strategies: Claiming centrality, Making topic generalizations and Reviewing items of previous research.
This is different from the Claiming centrality strategy which points to the research community as being collectively interested in the proposed subject.
It sets up the larger intellectual or real world background for the proposed topic via the use of four mutually inclusive strategies: Claiming centrality, Making topic generalizations, Reviewing items of previous research, and Stating personal interest.
