Hedges and Boosters in Undergraduate Research Recommendation Letters

Academic recommendation letters are an essential component of institutional gatekeeping practices, yet few scholars have explored their use in the context of nationally competitive scholarships and fellowships. Using a mixed-methods framework, this study uses Hyland’s (2005a) taxonomy to analyze the frequency, form, and function of hedges and boosters across fifty-one recommendation letters submitted for a nationally competitive undergraduate STEM scholarship. Of the eighty-nine terms that occurred in the letters, there were thirty-seven boosting terms and fifty-one hedging terms (41% boosters and 59% hedges). Despite the higher rate of hedges, the majority of these terms were not used to express doubt. Results show that letter writers for prestigious programs use a combination of hedges and boosters alongside their status and expertise within the academy to sponsor promising undergraduate researchers. This study expands our understanding of recommendation letters outside of graduate-level selection processes and answers Hyland’s (2005b) call for more mixed method approaches and use of discourse analysis across academic genres.