Applying Contextualism: From Urban Formation to Textual Representation

Abstract

This study presents the theoretical depth of urban research by proposing a four-stage contextual conceptual guide for integrating historical and societal contextual factors within the nexus of time and space. Addressing a critical gap in urban research, it focuses on early career researchers (ECRs), who often struggle to systematically incorporate contextual dimensions into their academic writing, particularly in theoretical discussions. The first two stages establish a foundation through historical inquiry and thematic analysis. These two stages also reveal how context is conceptualized across disciplines and highlight its active role in shaping human knowledge. Stage one examines the role of context in academic writing by analyzing six influential 20th-century thinkers (1900–2000). Stage two maps contemporary perspectives through a directed content analysis of 14 scholars (2000–2024) and six pivotal scholars in the social sciences. The third stage identified four interconnected factors that shape contextual interpretations: key concepts, context components, contextual factors, and thinkers’ contributions. These factors explain how context functions as an active and integral force for understanding texts, historical events, and linguistic phenomena. This stage also highlights four broader contextual factors: historical and societal contextual factors, conditions driving urban transformations, influential social dynamics, and inherent challenges that emerge from critical scholars’ analysis. The final stage operationalizes these insights into five fundamental guidelines for embedding contextual factors into high-quality academic writing, particularly in urban research. This calls for theorists to develop practical guidance for integrating context and text into academic writing by enhancing the theoretical depth, analytical consistency, and interdisciplinary collaboration.

1. Introduction

Academic discourse in urban research is integrally multidisciplinary, drawing on insights from linguistics, psychology (psycholinguistics), sociology (sociolinguistics), anthropology, and cultural studies to examine urban dynamics critically [1,2]. At the heart of this discourse is the interplay between context (the socio-spatial, historical, and institutional conditions shaping urban phenomena) and text, representing how these phenomena are communicated through scholarly work, policies, and media [3,4]. The significance of context is widely acknowledged across disciplines, including philosophy [5,6], academic writing [7,8], linguistics [9,10], sociolinguistics, language philosophy [11], psycholinguistics, and critical discourse studies [12]. They also play an essential role in functional linguistics [13,14,15], publication practices [16,17], and historical linguistics [11,18]. Furthermore, research on information and communication technology for development (ICT4D) highlights how contextual influences shape the production and interpretation of academic texts [19].

Some researchers emphasize contextual influences in academic writing [1,5,6,9], while early career researchers (ECRs) might face a challenge in the more profound interpretation of the context of writing. This could affect how knowledge is framed and understood. In social sciences, context is central to human communication and knowledge construction [20]. Critical discourse studies have revealed how language reflects power structure and social dynamics [12,21,22]. Historical research has emphasized the importance of contextualization in developing critical discourse perspectives [23]. In addition, historical linguistics examines how cultural and social contexts influence linguistic change over time [11,24]. Drawing from critical discourse analysis [25], situated learning theory [26], and social constructivism, considering the context of text allows scholars to evaluate historical and societal factors in their work [27].

Urban research acknowledges the role of context in shaping knowledge [20,28]. However, systematic methods for integrating key contextual factors such as historical path dependencies, sociopolitical conflicts, and cultural shifts are often lacking. ECRs usually prioritize these dimensions in empirical fieldwork (e.g., mapping gentrification or analyzing policy timelines) but tend to sideline them in scholarly texts, treating context as a static descriptor rather than a dynamic force shaping research design and interpretation [29,30]. This decontextualized approach leads to biased interpretations, mainly when terms like “sustainability” or “visual vitality” are deployed as universal concepts, divorced from their historical policies (e.g., greenwashing agendas), cultural values (e.g., community aesthetics), or institutional hierarchies (e.g., corporate influence). This guide fosters contextually grounded texts with implications for interdisciplinary research by bridging theory and practice.

This study examines contextualism as a foundational theory in architecture, urban planning, and urban design [6,31,32,33,34]. This highlights a gap in the literature in which scholarship primarily focuses on design principles and policy frameworks. There is a lack of guidance studies on how ECRs integrate—or fail to integrate—contextual factors into their academic writing, particularly in theoretical discussions. This gap perpetuates a paradox. While urban disciplines prioritize context in practice, their academic discourse often reproduces decontextualized narratives, obscuring the historical and societal factors that animate urban phenomena. Addressing this oversight is essential for fostering contextually aware and critically engaged texts that bridge applications with textual reflexivity.

Contextual factors—elements within the urban environment that shape events, processes, or outcomes [35,36]—encompass historical, societal, and institutional dimensions such as social, cultural, or political conditions [37,38,39]. Their influence varies depending on situational specificity [40,41,42], underscoring the need for tailored analysis in urban research. Understanding contextual factors is crucial for analyzing how external conditions shape scientific explanations across disciplines and address contemporary societal challenges, as these factors inherently influence research outcomes and real-world applications. When adopting an urban paradigm, whether a theory, approach, or epistemological framework, scholars should first examine its original context and then trace its evolution across linguistic, spatial, and temporal contexts.

This study aimed to develop a four-stage contextual, conceptual guide to empower ECRs to address real-world urban issues with greater depth and contextual awareness. This process ensures that the application of the model to urban reality is methodologically sound and contextually relevant. Therefore, this study critically investigates how context shapes academic discourse. By adapting contextualist principles to address academic writing challenges, this guide empowered to engage more effectively with historical, cultural, linguistic, and social contexts in their scholarly work.

As such, this study established a historical inquiry guidance to integrate contextual analysis into academic writing. First, it examined two groups of scholars.

• Twenty scholars, including six foundational thinkers from 1900 to 2000 (Dilthey, Russell, Gadamer, Kuhn, Foucault, and Tosh) [38,43,44,45,46,47], and fourteen contemporary scholars from 2000 to 2024, have expanded the discourse on historical inquiry.
• Fourteen critical scholars were selected to contribute to discourse analysis, historical studies, and linguistics, offering insight into how context shapes knowledge production and interpretation.

This conceptual study utilized a sample of six influential social science publications from 2008 to 2023. This small sample was analyzed to explore the interplay between context and text. This guide provides ECRs with practical approaches to produce critical and contextually grounded research by examining how historical and societal factors influence academic discourse. This guide highlights how analyzing the context–text interplay can enhance the theoretical depth of urban research. In addition, this study addressed four key research questions:

• How is context conceptualized across different disciplines?
• How do foundational thinkers interpret the context–text interplay and how does it shape their writing?
• What factors influence the context–text interplay?
• What foundational guidelines embed contextual factors in academic urban research, and how do they contribute to high-quality academic writing?

This guide bridges the gap between historical inquiry and theoretical reflection through these questions, offering an original contribution with broad applicability. This provides guidelines to help ECRs integrate contextual factors into their writing skills. While rooted in urban research, the guide’s foundational principles are adaptable to other fields, encouraging more reflexive and nuanced academic writing practices in social sciences, humanities, and beyond. The originality of this study lies in reorienting contextualism from its traditional application to planning and design to enhance academic writing precision. This innovative approach seeks to connect theoretical foundations with practical advancements in knowledge, thereby offering a guide for reconciling abstract concepts with applied research outcomes. This study seeks to empower ECRs to tackle real-world problems with a deeper understanding of the contexts that shape them, fostering theoretically rigorous and practically relevant research.

Following this introduction, the research unfolds in six sequential sections (Figure 1). The second section reviews the relevant literature, aiming to contextualize the study and trace the development of contextualism, focusing on its chronological evolution. The third section details the methodology, describing the processes of data collection and analysis to ensure methodological rigor and transparency. The fourth section presents key findings, directly addressing the research objectives through appropriate data analysis methods. The discussion in the fifth section summarizes the contributions and implications of the research findings. Finally, the conclusion offers recommendations and suggests potential avenues for future research. This structure guarantees logical flow, consistency, and coherence, providing a comprehensive and well-organized research process.

2. Background: Context-Based Texts in Shaping the Contextualism Discourse

This study adopts “contextualism” to explore how various dimensions—such as the concept of the term, its origins, key scholars, and its evolution—shape its understanding. ECRs may sometimes use this term without fully considering its context, resulting in a superficial grasp of its meaning. This section outlines the historical development of contextualism as both an approach and a tool in urban research, tracing its chronological progression and the conditions that influenced its evolution. By framing “contextualism” as a key term in urban research, this paper emphasizes the importance of examining its origins and the circumstances that guided its development. Such an understanding is essential for ECRs to effectively address contemporary challenges in the field.

Rather than being a singular movement, contextualism is a recurring theme that underscores the evolving relationship between built environments and their historical, social, and cultural conditions [33,48]. Its influence extends throughout the history of architecture, urban planning, and urban design and manifests itself differently across periods and intellectual trends [49]. The historical background explores its origins, development, and key contextual factors [50,51].

Contextualism in urban design and architecture emphasizes the relationship between new developments and their surrounding built and natural environments, ensuring that design interventions respect historical, social, cultural, and environmental contexts rather than existing in isolation. Mathew Carmona [48] discusses contextualism as an essential dimension of urban design, highlighting its role in fostering continuity between past and present while allowing cities to evolve dynamically. Contextualism contrasts with modernist universalism, which often disregards local identity in favor of standardized architectural expressions. Kevin Lynch [36] also emphasizes the significance of contextual sensitivity in urban environments, arguing that legibility and sense of place are enhanced when new developments integrate with existing urban fabric. Similarly, Aldo Rossi [52] advocates for an understanding of the city as a collective memory, where historical layers and typologies should inform contemporary urban interventions. This perspective aligns with Jane Jacobs’ [35] critique of large-scale urban renewal projects that fail to acknowledge the fine-grained complexity of historical neighborhoods. By integrating these perspectives, contextualism emerges as a critical framework for ensuring that urban and architectural developments contribute meaningfully to the built environment while maintaining cultural and historical integrity.

Contextualism began to take shape before the 1950s as it emerged from the rejection of universalism [53,54]. While the term “contextualism” appeared later, the seeds of its concerns were visible in earlier architectural and urban theory. For example, the picturesque movement of the 18th century emphasized the integration of buildings with their natural surroundings, rejecting the rigid geometry of classical styles [55]. The Arts and Crafts movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries similarly championed handcrafted buildings responsive to local materials and traditions, opposing mass production and standardized design [56]. These movements, while not explicitly “contextualist”, highlight the importance of site-specificity and local character. The early 20th century saw the rise in the City Beautiful Movement, which, although aimed for grand, monumental schemes, still considered the existing urban fabric and its historical context to some degree [57].

In the mid-20th century, contextualism emerged as a reaction to the rigid universalism of modernist urban planning and architecture. However, the modernist movement emphasizes universal principles of form and function, primarily in a disregarded context. For example, Le Corbusier’s [58] vision of a Radiant City proposed sweeping changes to existing urban forms, often without considering the unique characteristics of specific places. This rejection of historical context and local traditions would become a significant point of departure for later contextualist approaches. While modernist movements, such as the International Style, prioritized functional efficiency and abstract aesthetics, they often ignored local histories, cultural identities, and social dynamics [59]. In contrast, contextualism emphasizes harmony with existing physical, historical, and cultural landscapes [1].

Mies van der Rohe’s mature work, exemplified by projects such as the Barcelona Pavilion (1929) and the Farnsworth House (1951), reveals a nuanced engagement with context. As Mathew Aitchison [60] argues, Rohe’s approach to contextualism is not defined by direct references to historical or vernacular styles but rather by a precise orchestration of spatial composition, materiality, and proportion. His designs establish an internal logic that subtly harmonizes with their surroundings by integrating nature, light, and structural clarity. This approach aligns with what can be termed modernist contextualism or essentialist contextualism, a mode of responding to a context that prioritizes fundamental spatial and material principles over mimetic adaptation. Contrary to Rohe’s perception as detached from context, this interpretation underscores his deeply considered yet distinctly modernist approach to site specificity.

Between the 1950s and the 1960s, contextualism evolved into a comprehensive theory and approach to urban research. During this period, a movement among British architects in the 1950s embraced “new brutalism” theories, which addressed the relationship between urban design and the cultural identity of historic districts [61]. For example, the work of Allison and Peter Smithson [62] enhanced the social dimension of urban construction by introducing concepts such as the “warehouse” aesthetic, such as the Soho House, the Coventry Centre (1956), and the Park Hill project (1961) in Sheffield provided concrete examples of how contextualism could serve as a tool to protect urban heritage and develop environments that meet contemporary needs.

The 1960s and the 1970s saw a growing focus on the relationship between humans and their urban environments. Colin Rowe and Fred Koetter [63] introduced the concepts of the “Glued City” and city as a collage using terms such as “bricolage” and “collage” to describe how cities are assembled from disparate elements to form a contemporary unity. In the postmodern era, social criticism of contextualism further evolved as researchers reexamined the relationship between architecture and the city from a critical social perspective. The 1970s marked a qualitative shift in contextualism with the emergence of new ideas in architecture, urban planning, and urban design [53]. During this period, theorists and practitioners challenged modernist universalism by emphasizing local conditions, historical continuity, and cultural specificity. Scholars have explored new approaches to urban forms, moving from rigid figure–ground patterns to more adaptive and responsive field conditions [54].

The term “contextualism” was first introduced in the field of urban design by Thomas Schumacher [32], Stuart Cohen [6], and Grahame Shane [33]. They interpreted this theory as a means of reconciling the conditions of new urban development with experiences in traditional or historical cities. Contextualism has emerged to protect historic areas from radical change or destruction. In projects where an architect works in a new area, the absence of established parameters contrasts sharply with the challenges of working within a pre-existing urban fabric.

In works such as Learning from Las Vegas [64] and Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture [65], Venturi argued that a city is not merely a physical entity, but a living fabric woven from people’s experiences and interactions with their environment. This period also witnessed the influence of emerging theories—such as “new rationalism”—which focused on semantic and symbolic aspects of design and introduced a new critical dimension in evaluating the relationship between urban form and its environment. During this phase, contextualism was no longer viewed solely as a design tool but as an approach to understanding the “Genius Loci” (the spirit of place), as described by Norberg-Schulz [66]. He argues that the genius of a place is formed by the natural, historical, and cultural conditions that define its identity, thereby necessitating an analytical method that considers every part of the city as a part of an integrated whole.

The 1980s and beyond saw the development of contextualism, diversifying into different approaches and incorporating new theoretical influences. Social sciences and humanities scholars increasingly employ critical discourse analysis approaches to analyze how power dynamics and social inequality are embedded in urban environments. Critical discourse analysis approaches have increased awareness of how language and representation shape our understanding of context.

Postmodernism, with its rejection of grand narratives and focus on local conditions, also fueled the rise in contextual approaches. For example, Cornell [67] discusses how post-structuralist theory, a key component of postmodernism, emphasizes the textuality of human experiences and challenges overarching narratives, thereby encouraging more localized and context-specific analyses. In urban research, new urbanism, as a paradigm shift in architecture and urban design theory and movement, drew on traditional city planning principles for its designs, emphasized the creation of spaces, and facilitated social interaction [51]. Later, in his book Context in Architectural Composition, Venturi [34] recognized the importance of contextualism as a tool for rethinking urban design, contending that architecture is not just an assembly of forms, but an expression of collective memory and the emotional reservoir of society. According to Ellin [50] and Schumacher [31] in his article Contextualism: Urban Ideals + Deformations, contextualism should not be regarded as an independent entity with its own life but rather as a tool for analyzing the circumstances that influence urban design based on prevailing usage, culture, and economic conditions.

In this vein, we assume that properly situating historical developments within their contexts and understanding how they evolve add significant depth and originality to academic texts. However, a noticeable gap exists among ECRs, including among advanced-degree students. Many ECRs use urban paradigms (such as theories, movements, schools of thought, trends, and even specific terms) from a single, predominantly spatial perspective, often overlooking the critical interplay between the spatial and temporal dimensions.

In other words, ECRs should review “contextualism” texts from a cognitive perspective and connect their ideas to the broader conditions and circumstances in which their research is embedded. The paradigms were not fixed but were devised to address specific contexts. While most scholars consider the context when engaging with urban formation, they frequently miss this in their theoretical approaches to solving current challenges. This study addresses this gap by offering guidelines for writing texts that move beyond mere cognitive considerations to embrace the historical and societal dimensions.

3. Methodology

This concept paper develops a four-stage contextual, conceptual guide to help ECRs integrate context into their academic writings. Rather than focusing on stylistic approaches, this study emphasizes the influence of historical and societal contextual factors, including social, cultural, political, economic, environmental, technological, and legal elements across time and space, on shaping academic writing in urban research. To construct this guide, we conducted a systematic conceptual analysis drawing on diverse social sciences and humanities perspectives.

Below, we describe the methodological steps, including the selection of scholars, analytical techniques, and conceptual guidance development. We define context as the circumstances surrounding a text’s creation, including the author’s background, academic traditions, and broader socio-institutional structures. A search across multiple academic databases confirmed the prominence of this concept within research (Academia: #479,799 results; Google Scholar: #9860 results; ResearchGate: #100,000 results for “context and text”). Given the extensive literature, we refined our selection of sources based on the following criteria.

(a)

Author Contributions: Studies conceptualizing the relationship between context and text should be included to ensure a comprehensive yet manageable scope.

(b)

Application of Contextual Analysis: Studies that apply contextual analysis to academic writing practices.

(c)

Citation impact and disciplinary recognition: Works widely cited and recognized within their respective disciplines.

This process yielded a vast initial pool of sources (e.g., #9860 results in Google Scholar for “context and text”), which we narrowed down to 20 influential scholars categorized into two groups:

• Foundational thinkers (1900–2000): Scholars who shaped foundational context theories in knowledge production.
• Critical scholars (2000–2024): Researchers who emphasize evidence-based analysis of academic writing practices. A subset of six scholars was further examined using directed content analysis to trace shifts in methodological approaches.

Figure 2 illustrates the sampling strategy, and Appendix A (

Table A1. A comprehensive overview and research keywords for 21 references categorized into 13 books eight book sections.

No.	Originally Published	Book	Book Section	Publisher	Keywords	A Comprehensive Overview	Alignments	References
1.	1903	Selected works: Volume IV: Hermeneutics and the study of history	Reminiscences on historical studies at the University of Berlin	Princeton University Press	History, historical consciousness, historical context, and the principles of critical historical analysis.	In 1903, culture was defined as the interweaving of purposeful systems, giving rise to historical consciousness. This definition emphasizes examining the systematic structure of culture while being mindful of its intrinsic historical context, aligning with the principles of critical historical analysis.	Dilthey (2010) [43] and Gadamer (2010) [45] both emphasize historical context, hermeneutics, and the role of interpretation in understanding knowledge, aligning most closely with Peter Burke (2018) [74], and E. H. Carr (2018) [23].	(Dilthey, 2010) [43]
2.	1960	Truth and Method	---	Bloomsbury Academic	Knowledge, and insights	Explores the nature of knowledge and methodology. By analyzing the intersection of truth, interpretation, and method, this work offers insights into the complexities of hermeneutics and its implications for various fields of study.		(Gadamer, 2013) [45]
3.	1962	The Structure of Scientific Revolutions	---	University of Chicago Press	History, advancing historical knowledge, historical analysis, critical historical analysis. and the history of science	Critical historical analysis spurs reevaluation of traditional narratives, fostering transformative interpretations of the past. Scholars, reminiscent of scientific revolutions as per Kuhn, reshape history by challenging norms, exploring fresh perspectives, and reevaluating evidence. This process of identifying discrepancies and voids aids in advancing historical knowledge.	Explaining how paradigms shape scientific knowledge. His views on shifts in epistemological frameworks align with how context influences interpretation, as discussed by scholars like Van Dijk (2008) [69], Peter Burke (2018) [74], and E. H. Carr (2018) [23].	(Kuhn, 2012) [46]
4.	1966	The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences	---	Tavistock	History, knowledge, and societal contexts	Explores the historical development and interconnectedness of knowledge frameworks in the human sciences, unveiling underlying power dynamics and societal structures. By contextualizing historical systems of thought within broader societal contexts, it illuminates their influence on contemporary understandings of reality. Through a critical examination of historical systems of thought, the text uncovers hidden conflicts and contexts, ultimately seeking to reevaluate the significance of contemporary phenomena by tracing their historical roots.	Aligning with Van Dijk’s emphasis on power dynamics in discourse and Flowerdew’s focus on how context shapes meaning in discourse studies.	(Foucault, 1975) [38]
5.	1984	Human knowledge: Its scope and limits	---	Routledge	Knowledge	Examines the dynamic interaction between ‘individual’ and ‘scientific’ knowledge, fostering a rich discourse that stimulates profound explorations and discoveries in intellectual realms.	Provide a broader philosophical context for discussing the evolution of knowledge, resonating with Dilthey, Carr, and Burke.	(Russell, 2009) [44]
6.	1984	The pursuit of history: Aims, methods and new directions in the study of modern history	---	Pearson Longman	History, insights, and critical historical analysis	By critical historical analysis nalyzing historical practices and exploring emerging methodologies, this book offers valuable insights into the evolving landscape of historical scholarship and its impact on our understanding of the past.	Focus on how history is written and understood aligns with the approaches of Peter Burke (2018) [74], and E. H. Carr (2018) [23].	(Tosh, 2015) [47]
7.	2007	The information-literate historian: a guide to research for history students	---	Van Houten Library	History, and literate historian	Highlights the need for beginning researchers to receive help with the literature review umbrella and thoughts of attention, as some proposals may have too many unsupported umbrella ideas.	How historical context influences scholarly interpretation, resonating with Burke and Carr’s approaches to historical understanding.	(Presnell, 2007) [68]
8.	2008	Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach	-----	Cambridge University Press	Discourse and context	How discourse is shaped by cognitive processes and social contexts. He emphasizes the role of power relations, social status, and institutional structures in influencing interpretation and meaning within communication.	Van Dijk’s (2008) [69] work aligns with Thomas Kuhn’s (2012) [46] The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, particularly in how both address the role of paradigms in shaping knowledge. Both scholars emphasize shifts in epistemological frameworks, which influence interpretation and meaning-making. This perspective is also consistent with the discussions on context by Van Dijk (2008) [69], Peter Burke (2018) [74], and E. H. Carr (2018) [23].	(Van Dijk, 2008) [69]
9.	2008	The press gang: Naval impressment and its opponents in Georgian Britain	-----	Bloomsbury Publishing	History, historical setting	The Press Gang demonstrates the application of historical perspective by carefully contextualising impressment within its broader historical setting and by considering the various actors and forces at play.	Rogers’detailed study of naval impressment in Georgian Britain provides a specific historical case study that examines the interaction between social forces, power dynamics, and resistance, themes that also feature prominently in E. H. Carr’s (2018) [23] work on historical interpretation. Rogers’ study highlights how socio-political structures and power imbalances influence historical phenomena, aligning well with Carr’s broader view on the role of context in shaping historical narratives.	(Rogers, 2008) [70]
10.	2010	Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities	---	Princeton University Press	Humanities, and critical thinking	Explore how the humanities contribute to democracy, highlighting the role of humanistic inquiry in shaping values, critical thinking, and civic engagement. Discuss the importance of humanities in nurturing empathy, understanding diverse perspectives, and promoting informed citizenship. Lastly, advocate for the preservation and promotion of humanities education as a cornerstone of democratic societies.	Nussbaum, like Peter Burke (2018) [74], and E. H. Carr (2018) [23], underscores the importance of a broad, critical understanding of history and culture to sustain democratic societies. Her work on the humanities’ role in promoting societal understanding and critical engagement aligns with Burke’s (2018) [74] emphasis on the cultural and intellectual fluidity of historical context and E. H. Carr’s (2018) [23] view on how historical knowledge is shaped by its context.	(Nussbaum, 2010) [71]
11.	2013	The value of the humanities, Oxford, United Kingdom	---	Oxford University Press	Humanities,	Delving into the value of the humanities in contemporary society, exploring their role in fostering critical thinking, cultural understanding, and societal engagement highlights their enduring relevance and impact.	Elizabeth Traugott (2023) [11] align with Small (2013) [39], as both discuss the influence of social factors on interpretation, whether in language evolution or the broader humanities.	(Small, 2013) [39]
12.	2017	The routledge handbook of critical discourse studies	Critical discourse analysis and history	Routledge	History, and critical discourse analysis	Explores the intersection of critical discourse analysis and history, examining how language shapes historical narratives and impacts our comprehension of the past. Through the application of critical discourse analysis to historical texts, valuable insights emerge regarding power dynamics, ideological constructs, and the formation of historical meaning.	Achugar’s (2017) [72] focus on critical discourse analysis would complement Van Dijk (2008) [69] and Flowerdew’s sociocognitive and discourse analysis approaches, highlighting the role of context in shaping meaning.	(Achugar, 2017) [72]
13.	2017	Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies	Critical discourse studies and context	Routledge	Context, critical discourse studies, situational context, broader historical contexts, historical and socio-cultural factors	Flowerdew explores how (CDS) conceptualise context, including both immediate situational context and broader historical contexts. The discussion emphasises how understanding historical context is crucial for interpreting discourse accurately, as it influences the meanings and implications of language use. Flowerdew highlights the interplay between discourse and context, arguing that historical and socio-cultural factors are integral to understanding discourse’s full significance.	Flowerdew’s work is deeply rooted in critical discourse analysis, emphasizing how context shapes discourse. This directly connects with Van Dijk’s (2008) [69] sociocognitive approach to discourse, which also highlights the role of power dynamics and social context in discourse production and interpretation. Both scholars focus on how political and social factors influence meaning-making in language and discourse	(Flowerdew, 2017) [12]
14.	2018	The wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning	Historical reasoning, Conceptualizations and educational applications	John Wiley & Sons, Inc.	History, history inquiry, societal contexts, and literature review	Van Boxtel & Van Drie’s focus on historical reasoning and how it is conceptualized in education.	Both Peter Burke (2018) [74], and E. H. Carr (2018) [23] are concerned with how historians (and, by extension, students of history) interpret past events within their cultural and intellectual contexts. This resonates with the educational applications Van Boxtel and Van Drie (2018) [80] explore, particularly in teaching critical thinking about history.	(Van Boxtel & Van Drie, 2018) [80]
15.	2018	The ethos of history: Time and responsibility	Psychoanalysis and the indeterminacy of history	Berghahn Books	History, historical discourse	Examine the relationship between psychoanalysis and historical indeterminacy, probing how psychoanalytic theory navigates uncertainties in historical interpretation. Through this exploration, insights emerge into how psychoanalysis sheds light on the complexities and ambiguities inherent in historical narratives, offering alternative perspectives on historical events and their meanings.	Scott’s (2018) [73] focus on the indeterminacy of history through a psychoanalytic lens ties into Burke’s and Carr’s broader exploration of how historical meaning is constructed and interpreted. The notion that historical narratives are shaped by unconscious forces, social constructs, and power dynamics could also resonate with Van Dijk’s (2008) [69] and Flowerdew’s (2017) [12] critical discourse analysis, where power relations and socio-cognitive structures influence how discourse and meaning are formed.	(Scott, 2018) [73]
16.	2018	What is history really about? Reflections on theory and practice	---	Edward Everett Root	History	Burke’s work on the fluidity of historical context and the importance of cultural and intellectual movements aligns with Gadamer’s focus on how understanding evolves through the “fusion of horizons” between the past and present. Burke’s emphasis on reassessing historical and cultural contexts complements Gadamer and Dilthey’s ideas on the continuous interpretation of history	Carr and Burke share a concern with how context shapes historical interpretation, much like Dilthey’s (2010) [43] and Gadamer’s (2013) [45] views on the interplay between the interpreter’s perspective and the historical material being studied. This alignment reinforces the importance of historical consciousness in understanding and interpreting scholarly work, particularly in literature reviews.	(Burke, 2018) [74]
17.	2018	What is history?	---	Penguin Books Ltd.	Context, history, historical inquiry, historical knowledge, historical events	A seminal work in historiography that explores the nature of historical inquiry and the role of the historian. It delves into the nature of historical knowledge and the role of the historian in shaping historical understanding. Carr argues that history is not merely a collection of facts but is influenced by the historian’s perspective and the socio-political context in which they work. He emphasizes the interplay between the historian’s own context and the historical events they study, advocating for a recognition of this relationship in historical writing. Carr critiques the notion of objective history and suggests that historical interpretation is inherently subjective, shaped by the historian’s present concerns and biases.	Aligned with works by Dilthey (2010) [43], Gadamer (2013) [45], and David Carr (2024) [76] on the subjective nature of interpretation and the influence of context. It also connects with Kuhn’s ideas about paradigms and frameworks, Van Dijk’s (2008) [69] focus on discourse, Burke’s historiographical context, and Flowerdew’s (2017) [12] discourse studies. All these references contribute to a broader understanding of how context and frameworks shape knowledge and interpretation across various fields.	(Carr E. H., 2018) [23]
18.	2023	History and international relations	The principles of historiographical criticism	Oxford University Press	History, historiographical criticism	Think of “literary power” and “accuracy and reliability” as fundamental criteria for assessing historical writing greatness, while “attachment, justice, and span” emerge as the essential virtues for historians. Identify four key aspects of historical works: mastery of sources, historical imagination, architectural narrative, and philosophical depth.	Wight and Yost (2023) [56] focus on the virtues of historical writing—attachment, justice, and span—as well as his four critical aspects of historiographical criticism (Mastery of the Sources, Historical Imagination, Historical Architecture, and Philosophical Depth) complements the approaches of both Carr and Burke. All three emphasize the historian’s active role in interpreting history, the need for intellectual depth, and the broader philosophical implications of historical inquiry.	(Wight & Yost, 2023) [56]
19.	2023	Handbook for the Historiography of Science	The beginning of the epistemological history of science: Gaston bachelard’s responsibility	Cham, Springer	History	In 20th-century French philosophy of science, the historicization of epistemology emphasizes the “epistemologization” of the history of science, highlighting the inseparable link between epistemological history and historical epistemology. It initiating the epistemological history of science through an exploration of Gaston Bachelard’s concept of responsibility.	Gattinara’s focus on the history of science and its epistemological foundations echoes Peter Burke’s (2018) [74], and E. H. Carr’s (2018) [23] views on the relationship between history, knowledge, and context. E. H. Carr’s (2018) [23] emphasis on the historian’s role in shaping historical interpretation and Burke’s focus on cultural and intellectual history both complement Gattinara’s exploration of how science’s history is understood and written.	(Gattinara, 2023) [75]
20.	2023	The Cambridge handbook of language in context: Cambridge handbooks in language and linguistics.	Context in historical linguistics	Cambridge University Press	Context, historical context(s), historical linguistics	Traugott examines how context, particularly historical context, plays a crucial role in understanding language change and variation over time. The section explores how linguistic elements are influenced by the socio-cultural and historical settings in which they occur. By analysing historical contexts, Traugott underscores the importance of situating linguistic phenomena within their broader historical and cultural frameworks to fully grasp their development and usage.	Small’s work emphasizes the importance of the humanities in understanding and shaping societal values, which ties into Burke’s focus on the fluidity of cultural and intellectual contexts. Traugott’s (2023) [11] work on language evolution within social hierarchies could also resonate with Small’s (2013) [39] argument that the humanities provide essential insights into social dynamics and cultural developments.	(Traugott, 2023) [11]
21.	2024	Experience and history: Phenomenological perspectives on the historical world	---	Oxford, Oxford University Press	History, and the phenomenological approach to history	Highlights the phenomenological approach to history, which entails experiencing history as a phenomenon and recognizing its impact on our lives and societal engagement. It underscores the importance of personal involvement and interaction, seeking to narrow the divide between history and its subject through experience.	Carr and Burke share a concern with how context shapes historical interpretation, much like Dilthey’s (2010) [43] and Gadamer’s (2013) [45] views on the interplay between the interpreter’s perspective and the historical material being studied. This alignment reinforces the importance of historical consciousness in understanding and interpreting scholarly work, particularly in literature reviews.	(Carr, 2024) [76]

) provides a detailed classification of the selected studies. These scholars and publications were selected based on their contributions in bridging the gap between context and text in social science and humanities research.

By mapping these perspectives, this study established a historical inquiry guidance that situates contextual analysis within academic discourse writing. We began by examining six foundational thinkers whose work laid the groundwork for understanding the context of knowledge production: Wilhelm Dilthey [43], Bertrand Russell [44], Hans-Georg Gadamer [45], Thomas Kuhn [46], Michel Foucault [38] and John Tosh [47]. These scholars provided theoretical underpinnings for analyzing historical and societally contextual contexts.

Building on this foundation, we expanded our analysis to include more recent scholars who have furthered the discourse on historical inquiry. Fourteen critical scholars (2000–2024) were identified, including Presnell [68] van Dijk [69], Rogers [70], Nussbaum [71], Small [39] Achugar [72], Flowerdew [12], Scott [73], Burke [74], E. H. Carr [23], Wight and Yost [56], Gattinara [75], Traugott [11], and Carr [76]. These scholars have contributed significantly to understanding how historical context, societal influences, and intellectual context shape knowledge production.

The selection criteria included relevance to contemporary academic writing (2008–2024). The selection criterion was methodological innovation in the contextual analysis. The other criteria include significant theoretical and empirical contributions. This timeframe ensures that the study captures emerging challenges in academic writing, reflecting the growing importance of contextual analysis in interdisciplinary research.

Subsequently, we selected a sample of six influential social science publications: three books, two book chapters, and one peer-reviewed journal article published in English between 2008 and 2023. Our analysis involved investigating the context–text interplay through the work of six influential key thinkers, each of whom has significantly contributed to discourse analysis, history, linguistics, and contextual theory. The authors chose Teun A. van Dijk [69], Nicholas Rogers [70], John Flowerdew [12], E. H. Carr [23], Peter Burke [74], and Elizabeth Traugott [11] to represent critical voices in fields such as discourse analysis, historical studies, and linguistics.

The selected scholars played a central role in advancing the understanding of how context influences text, making their work foundational for this study. The selected authors are leading experts, whose research highlights the significance of contextual analysis, making their work central to this study. This approach addresses the current concerns regarding bridging the gap between text and context in academic writing. The chosen scholars have contributed significantly to advancing the understanding of the context–text relationships. Their research emphasizes the increasing importance of contextual analysis in academic writing, positioning their work as central to this investigation.

To examine the historical and societal contextual factors that shape academic writing, including cultural, political, economic, technological, and legal dimensions, we employed three qualitative research techniques:

• Thematic Analysis [77]: identifying recurring themes across the selected texts.
• Directed Qualitative Content Analysis [78,79]: examining explicit contextual references in academic writing.
• Methodological Synthesis: developing a structured conceptual guide for integrating context into academic texts.

These techniques allowed us to examine how historical and societal contextual factors, including cultural, political, economic, environmental, technological, and legal elements, shape academic writing across disciplines.

Based on our analysis, we developed a four-stage contextual conceptual guide to help researchers integrate contextual factors into their research process. This guide is particularly relevant for interdisciplinary research where the relationship between context and knowledge production is central, such as language development, educational reform, and urban research. The four stages are as follows:

• Establishing a Historical Inquiries: Situating research within its historical and intellectual traditions.
• Mapping Scholarly Perspectives: Identifying key contextual factors (e.g., social, cultural, political, economic, environmental, technological, and legal).
• Interdisciplinary Synthesis: Integrating insights from multiple disciplines by deeply analyzing interconnected and broader contextual factors.
• Five Fundamental Guidelines: Applying context-sensitive writing strategies across multiple disciplines in urban research (Figure 3).

4. Results: A Four-Stage Contextual, Conceptual Guide

This section synthesizes insights from 20 literature materials in the social sciences and humanities (for six foundational thinkers and fourteen critical scholars) to advance the understanding of the interplay between context and defined as the historical and societal contextual factors shaping knowledge and text, the written representation of that knowledge. This study examines the influence of context on the interpretation, dissemination, and reception of text in social science research. It aims to address a critical gap—the frequent disparity between empirical objectivity and textual reflection, particularly among ECRs. In the first stage, the findings examine, through historical inquiry, how evolving contexts—such as policy shifts, technological advancements, and cultural movements—have influenced academic writing practices.

In the second stage, a qualitative thematic analysis of six theoretical guidance reveals how scholars across disciplines conceptualize contexts. The third stage identified four interconnected and border contextual factors that influence interpretations to enhance our understanding of how context shapes discourse. The final stage proposes five fundamental guidelines to help researchers embed context into their writing. By bridging theoretical rigor with actionable strategies, this guide rarely empowers ECRs to produce nuanced, contextually grounded work that challenges decontextualized paradigms in urban research.

4.1. Stage 1: Establishing a Historical Inquiries

This stage opens by defining knowledge as a dynamic construct shaped by historical, cultural, and intellectual contexts and starts by integrating the key perspectives and effectively referencing foundational thinkers (e.g., Dilthey, Russell, Gadamer, Kuhn, Foucault, and Tosh) and then building on these ideas with contemporary scholars (e.g., Achugar, Scott, D. Carr, Gattinara, Wight and Yost, Traugott, and Small). Figure 4 illustrates the first stage of the thematic analysis, which involved establishing historical inquiries.

This progression illustrates how the field has evolved and the intention to emphasize educational implications and tie the discussion to the importance of historical consciousness and context in shaping research and academic writing. Finally, it synthesizes insights and concludes by summarizing the key themes and indicating how these insights support improved literature reviews, concerning the supporting figures and tables.

This stage examined the work of two groups of scholars: 14 foundational thinkers (chronologically listed by the year of their publication) and six key scholars (chronologically listed by the year of their publication). The analysis explores critical variations in how context is conceptualized and applied across disciplines, tracing its evolution and impact across different fields.

4.1.1. Contemporary Applications and Educational Implications

Our findings reveal that knowledge is not a static collection of facts, but a dynamic construct shaped by historical and societal contexts. This perspective is evident across diverse fields, from hermeneutics and history to discourse analysis and linguistics. Key insights from our study include the significance of hermeneutics and historical consciousness, paradigm shifts and knowledge evolution, the influence of power dynamics on discourse, and broader educational and societal implications of contextual understanding. This is evident in the hermeneutical approaches of Dilthey [43] and Gadamer’s [45] focus on historical consciousness in Carr [23], Burke [74], and Kuhn’s [46] analysis of paradigm shifts. Scholars have demonstrated how context influences knowledge production and interpretation. Building on this foundation, van Dijk [69] and Flowerdew [12] extended these ideas to discourse analysis, exploring how social and cultural contexts affect knowledge construction. At the same time, Foucault [38] redefined power as embedded in discourse, arguing that language reflects and shapes social hierarchies.

4.1.2. Foundational Perspectives on Context and Knowledge

Contemporary thinkers advanced these concepts. For instance, Achugar [72] integrates these perspectives through critical discourse analysis, showing how power dynamics, ideologies, and social norms are encoded in language and applying historical theories to interpret urban effects. Scott [73] and Carr [76] examined indeterminacy in historical narratives through a psychoanalytic lens. Gattinara [75] connects architectural history to contemporary practice, and Wight and Yost [56] emphasize the critical use of sources and narrative structures in historical analysis. Traugott’s [11] work on language evolution within social hierarchies demonstrates the interconnectedness of language, culture, and social power, thus complementing Small’s [39] insight into social dynamics. The emphasis on historical consciousness and contextual understanding has significant educational implications, as highlighted by van Boxtel et al. [80] who emphasized the importance of the humanities in fostering critical thinking and civic engagement.

Our examination of the relationship between context and text among these scholars reveals a shared understanding: knowledge is not fixed but is constantly influenced by historical, cultural, and intellectual contexts. This dynamic perspective significantly affects historical research and discourse interpretation. By acknowledging the subjectivity of interpretation, the role of paradigm shifts, and the influence of power dynamics, this stage provides the foundation for integrating contextual understanding into academic writing.

These insights, synthesized in Figure 5 and

Table 1. Themes, aligned scholars, and relevance to the literature review section.

Theme	Aligned Scholars	Relevance to Literature Review Section
Subjectivity of Interpretation	Presnel [68], Dilthey [43], Gadamer [45], and David Carr [76]	Emphasize that interpretation is subjective and shaped by the interpreter’s context, background, and biases. The literature review should consider how different perspectives lead to various interpretations of the same historical events and acknowledge these subjective dimensions.
Historical Consciousness	Dilthey [43], Gadamer [45], Burke [74], E.H. Carr [23], and Tosh [47]	Highlights the historian’s background and the broader cultural, intellectual, and social contexts in shaping historical interpretation. Literature review must be aware of these influences and recognize the inherent limitations of a single perspective, incorporating diverse contexts.
Paradigm Shifts and Knowledge Evolution	Kuhn [46], van Dijk [69], and Gattinara [75]	Recognize that intellectual context evolves and paradigms shift, influencing understanding of historical events. A literature review should critically evaluate historical interpretations, considering shifts in intellectual thought, and reassess previous interpretations accordingly.
Power and Social Dynamics and Contextualized Discourse	Foucault [38], Rogers [70], Achugar [72], and Scott [73]	Examine how power structures and ideological contexts shape historical narratives and discourse. Literature review should critically analyze sources by considering the influence of power imbalances, ideologies, and sociopolitical contexts on constructing historical interpretations.
Beyond the Text: Historical Consciousness	Nussbaum [71], Small [39], Wight and Yost [56], Traugott [11], and Scott [73]	Highlight the humanities’ role in fostering a deeper understanding of history, culture, and societal dynamics. Literature review should integrate diverse methodologies from the humanities, promoting critical engagement and broader perspectives on historical interpretation.
Contextualized Interpretation	Foucault [38], Kuhn [46], Presnell [68], van Dijk [69], Nussbaum [71], Dilthey [43], Gadamer [45], Small [39], Achugar [72], Flowerdew [12], E. H. Carr [23], Burke [74], Tosh [47], Wight and Yost [56], Gattinara [75], Traugott [11], David Carr [76], and Scott [73]	Stress the importance of placing historical events in broader social, political, and cultural contexts. The literature review should go beyond mere factual recounting and focus on how context influences the meaning and interpretation of historical events.

, highlight key themes for improving the literature review (see Appendix B—

Table A2. Overview of Foundational and Critical Scholars in Context-Text Relationship Studies.

No.	Originally	Title	Type of Literature	Authors	References Date
Six foundational scholars
1.	1903	Wilhelm Dilthey: Selected works, Volume IV: Hermeneutics and the study of history	Book	Wilhelm Dilthey	(Dilthey, 2010) [43]
2.	1948	Human knowledge: Its scope and limits	Book	Bertrand Russell	(Russell, 2009) [44]
3.	1960	Truth and method	Book	Hans-Georg Gadamer	(Gadamer, 2013) [45]
4.	1962	The structure of scientific revolutions	Book	Thomas Kuhn	(Kuhn, 2012) [46]
5.	1966	The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences	Book	Michel Foucault	(Foucault, 1975) [38]
6.	1984	The pursuit of history: Aims, methods and new directions in the study of modern history	Book	John Tosh	(Tosh, 2015) [47]
14 Fourteen critical scholars
7.	2003	The principles of historiographical criticism	Book section	Wight & Yost	(Wight & Yost, 2023) [56]
8.	2007	The information-literate historian: A guide to research for history students	Book	Jenny L. Presnell	(Presnell, 2007) [68]
9.	2008	The press gang: Naval impressment and its opponents in Georgian Britain	Book	Nicholas Rogers	(Rogers, 2008) [70]
10.	2008	Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach	Book	Teun A. Van Dijk	(Van Dijk, 2008) [69]
11.	2010	Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities	Book	Martha Nussbaum C.	(Nussbaum, Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities, 2010) [71]
12.	2013	The value of the humanities	Book	Helen Small	(Small, 2013) [39]
13.	2017	Critical discourse analysis and history	Book section	Mariana Achugar	(Achugar, Critical discourse analysis and history, 2017) [72]
14.	2017	Critical discourse studies and context	Book section	John Flowerdew	(Flowerdew, 2017) [12]
15.	2018	What is history?	Book	E. H. Carr	(2018) [23]
16.	2018			Joan W. Scott	2018 [73]
17.	2018	What is history really about? Reflections on theory and practice	Book	Peter Burke	(Burke, 2018) [74]
18.	2023	The beginning of the epistemological history of science: Gaston bachelard’s responsibility	Book section	Enrico Castelli Gattinara	(Gattinara, 2023) [75]
19.	2023	Context in historical linguistics	Book section	Elizabeth Traugott	(Traugott, 2023) [11]
20.	2024	Experience and history: Phenomenological perspectives on the historical world	Book	David Carr	(Carr D., 2024) [76]

and

Table A3. Scholarly Alignments and Their Contributions to Contextual and Historical Interpretation.

Alignments
Dilthey (2010) [43] and Gadamer (2013) [45] both emphasize historical context, hermeneutics, and the role of interpretation in understanding knowledge, aligning most closely with Peter Burke (2018) [74], and E. H. Carr (2018) [23].
Explaining how paradigms shape scientific knowledge. His views on shifts in epistemological frameworks align with how context influences interpretation, as discussed by scholars like Van Dijk (2008) [69], Burke (2018) [74], and E. H. Carr (2018) [23].
Foucault’s work (1975) [38] Aligning with Van Dijk’s (2008) [69] emphasis on power dynamics in discourse and Flowerdew’s (2017) [12] focus on how context shapes meaning in discourse studies.
Provide a broader philosophical context for discussing the evolution of knowledge, resonating with Dilthey (2010) [43], Burke (2018) [74], and E. H. Carr (2018) [23].
Tosh (2015) [47] focus on how history is written and understood aligns with the approaches of Burke (2018) [74], and E. H. Carr (2018) [23].
Presnell (2007) [68] focus on how historical context influences scholarly interpretation, resonating with Burke’s (2018) [74], and E. H. Carr’s (2018) [23] approaches to historical understanding.
Van Dijk’s (2008) [69] work aligns with Thomas Kuhn’s (2012) [46] The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, particularly in how both address the role of paradigms in shaping knowledge. Both scholars emphasize shifts in epistemological frameworks, which influence interpretation and meaning-making. This perspective is also consistent with the discussions on context by Van Dijk (2008) [69], Burke (2018) [74], and E. H. Carr (2018) [23].
Nicholas Rogers’ (2008) [70] detailed study of naval impressment in Georgian Britain provides a specific historical case study that examines the interaction between social forces, power dynamics, and resistance, themes that also feature prominently in E. H. Carr’s (2018) [23] work on historical interpretation. Rogers’ (2008) [70] study highlights how socio-political structures and power imbalances influence historical phenomena, aligning well with E. H. Carr’s (2018) [23] broader view on the role of context in shaping historical narratives.
Nussbaum (2010) [71], like Burke (2018) [74], and E. H. Carr (2018) [23], underscores the importance of a broad, critical understanding of history and culture to sustain democratic societies. Her work on the humanities’ role in promoting societal understanding and critical engagement aligns with Burke’s (2018) [74] emphasis on the cultural and intellectual fluidity of historical context and E. H. Carr’s (2018) [23] view on how historical knowledge is shaped by its context.
Elizabeth Traugott (2023) [11] align with Small (2013) [39], as both discuss the influence of social factors on interpretation, whether in language evolution or the broader humanities.
Achugar’s (2017) [72] focus on critical discourse analysis would complement Van Dijk (2008) [69] and Flowerdew’s sociocognitive and discourse analysis approaches, highlighting the role of context in shaping meaning.
Flowerdew’s (2017) [12] work is deeply rooted in critical discourse analysis, emphasizing how context shapes discourse. This directly connects with Van Dijk’s (2008) [69] sociocognitive approach to discourse, which also highlights the role of power dynamics and social context in discourse production and interpretation. Both scholars focus on how political and social factors influence meaning-making in language and discourse
Both Burke (2018) [74], and E. H. Carr (2018) [23] are concerned with how historians (and, by extension, students of history) interpret past events within their cultural and intellectual contexts. This resonates with the educational applications Van Boxtel and Van Drie (2018) [80] explore, particularly in teaching critical thinking about history.
Scott’s (2018) [73] focus on the indeterminacy of history through a psychoanalytic lens ties into Burke’s and Carr’s broader exploration of how historical meaning is constructed and interpreted. The notion that historical narratives are shaped by unconscious forces, social constructs, and power dynamics could also resonate with Van Dijk’s (2008) [69] and Flowerdew’s (2017) [12] critical discourse analysis, where power relations and socio-cognitive structures influence how discourse and meaning are formed.
Carr and Burke share a concern with how context shapes historical interpretation, much like Dilthey’s (2010) [43] and Gadamer’s (2013) [45] views on the interplay between the interpreter’s perspective and the historical material being studied. This alignment reinforces the importance of historical consciousness in understanding and interpreting scholarly work, particularly in literature reviews.
Aligned with works by Dilthey (2010) [43], Gadamer (2013) [45], and David Carr (2024) [76] on the subjective nature of interpretation and the influence of context. It also connects with Kuhn’s ideas about paradigms and frameworks, Van Dijk’s (2008) [69] focus on discourse, Burke’s historiographical context, and c discourse studies. All these references contribute to a broader understanding of how context and frameworks shape knowledge and interpretation across various fields.
Wight and Yost (2023) [56] focus on the virtues of historical writing—attachment, justice, and span—as well as his four critical aspects of historiographical criticism (Mastery of the Sources, Historical Imagination, Historical Architecture, and Philosophical Depth) complements the approaches of both Carr and Burke. All three emphasize the historian’s active role in interpreting history, the need for intellectual depth, and the broader philosophical implications of historical inquiry.
Gattinara (2023) [75] focuses on the history of science and its epistemological foundations echoes Burke’s (2018) [74], and E. H. Carr’s (2024) [23] views on the relationship between history, knowledge, and context. E. H. Carr’s (2018) [23] emphasis on the historian’s role in shaping historical interpretation and Burke’s focus on cultural and intellectual history both complement Gattinara’s exploration of how science’s history is understood and written.
Small’s work emphasizes the importance of the humanities in understanding and shaping societal values, which ties into Burke’s focus on the fluidity of cultural and intellectual contexts. Traugott’s (2023) [11] work on language evolution within social hierarchies could also resonate with Small’s (2013) [39] argument that the humanities provide essential insights into social dynamics and cultural developments.
Burke’s (2018) [74], and E. H. Carr’s (2024) [23] share a concern with how context shapes historical interpretation, much like Dilthey’s (2010) [43] and Gadamer’s (2013) [45] views on the interplay between the interpreter’s perspective and the historical material being studied. This alignment reinforces the importance of historical consciousness in understanding and interpreting scholarly work, particularly in literature reviews.

—for detailed tables). These themes include subjectivity of interpretation, historical consciousness, paradigm shifts, power dynamics in discourse, and the broader role of humanities.

The findings of this subsection emphasize the importance of critically engaging with historical interpretations and acknowledging the factors influencing how we perceive and interpret the past. The following two stages build on these findings to provide practical strategies for integrating these insights into the literature.

4.2. Stage 2: Mapping Scholarly Perspectives

The second stage focused on mapping scholarly perspectives to identify themes and patterns across the six publications using qualitative thematic analysis. The findings demonstrate that context is a dynamic and multidimensional construct shaped by historical and societal factors. Notable critical scholars such as van Dijk [69], Rogers [70], Flowerdew [12], E. H. Carr [23], Burke [74], and Traugott [11] highlight critical variations in how context is conceptualized and applied across disciplines, providing.

These insights equip urban researchers to conduct more contextually aware academic writing, enhancing their academic contributions’ depth and relevance. This thematic analysis stage maps scholarly perspectives and explores context–text interplay in social science. Moving beyond individual scholars, it identifies broader themes and connections among scholarly viewpoints. This stage aimed to provide structured guidance for understanding context-based texts within the field of study. In this section, each scholar focuses on a specific perspective. Figure 6 highlights these scholars, and their insights linked to six major themes related to the interaction between text and context, valuable insights for future research.

4.2.1. Contextualizing in Social Representations

Van Dijk’s [69] views on context-based texts provide a valuable perspective for understanding social representations. Our thematic analysis reveals how contextualizing these representations enhances research in linguistics, discourse analysis, and critical discourse analysis. This approach offers several key benefits. It provides a deeper understanding of the context itself. It increases awareness of power dynamics and societal influences. It offers fresh insights into how context shapes knowledge production and interpretation. It also expands opportunities for future research. This manuscript reinforces that context is not a static backdrop, but a dynamic construct influenced by historical and societal factors. This understanding has practical implications for urban researchers, highlighting the importance of recognizing the broader societal changes that shape their research environments. By treating context as a vital factor rather than a neutral background, researchers are encouraged to engage more deeply with factors influencing urban development and transformation.

Moreover, the findings emphasize that a discipline’s power dynamics and authoritative voices significantly shape valid knowledge. Urban researchers should remain aware of the dominant narratives that might overshadow alternative or marginalized perspectives. This insight advocates more inclusive approaches to contextual analysis, ensuring that multiple voices and perspectives are integrated into interpreting urban phenomena. Researchers can better account for political, economic, or social shifts that reshape urban spaces by understanding how societal transformations influence knowledge production. This understanding is particularly relevant for investigating cities undergoing rapid change, as they must consider how evolving contexts affect research interpretations and communities being studied. The evolving nature of the context presents new research opportunities, suggesting that researchers continuously update their understanding of urban phenomena by incorporating ongoing societal shifts into their analysis.

This recognition of the context as dynamic encourages future scholars to adopt more flexible and adaptive research methodologies that effectively capture the complexities of urban environments. These findings urge urban researchers to engage critically with the factors that shape their fields, particularly by integrating societal transformations into their analyses. This insight promotes comprehensive and critical understanding that empowers researchers to produce nuanced and impactful academic work.

4.2.2. Contextualizing Historical Events in Military History

According to a thematic analysis of Nicholas Rogers’ [81] views on context-based texts, the findings underscore that context is a dynamic force shaped by intricate societal factors, including the social, political, economic, and legal dimensions. Rogers’s [70] exploration of naval impressment in Georgian Britain exemplifies how understanding historical practices necessitates a nuanced examination of the interplay between these influences. Here, context informs not only the execution of impressment but also shapes societal reactions and opposition to such practices. These findings highlight the critical importance of societal influence in producing and interpreting historical knowledge accurately. In fields such as military history, where events may be scrutinized in isolation, neglecting the context can lead to an incomplete or skewed understanding. Therefore, a contextual approach to historical research is necessary.

These insights advocate critical engagement with contemporary political, social, and legal contexts that shape the interpretation of historical events. By understanding how these multidimensional factors interact, researchers can enrich their analysis of urban phenomena, thereby promoting the integration of broader societal dynamics into their work. This approach fosters deeper critical thinking and enhances the quality of academic contribution. By adopting this perspective, researchers can effectively contextualize their findings within the rich tapestry of societal influences, ultimately contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of urban research. This approach will facilitate a better understanding of historical dynamics and enable scholars to navigate the complexities of contemporary urban environments.

4.2.3. Context in Language Production and Interpretation

Building on a thematic analysis of John Flowerdew’s [12] insights into context-based texts, the findings reveal several critical benefits for ECRs regarding the role of context in discourse analyses. These benefits include a deeper understanding of how social, political, and ideological factors shape the discourse. They enhance awareness of power dynamics in discourse production and interpretation. They also improve their ability to critically analyze the implications of language in various contexts.

The study emphasizes that context is not merely a backdrop but an active force influencing the construction and reception of discourse. This understanding has significant practical implications for urban researchers, preparing them to examine the immediate and broader sociopolitical context in which urban discourse occurs. Recognizing the dynamic nature of context, researchers are encouraged to engage deeply with the societal influences that shape their research topics.

Additionally, the findings highlight how dominant narratives and power structures within discourse communities affect what is recognized as valid knowledge. For urban researchers, this insight stresses the necessity of being vigilant against marginalizing alternative perspectives, thus promoting more inclusive approaches to discourse analysis and fostering a sense of responsibility. Furthermore, understanding the complex interplay between context and language production allows researchers to account for the broader social implications of their findings. This understanding is particularly relevant for those examining urban issues influenced by public discourse, enabling a more nuanced interpretation of how language shapes urban experiences and policies.

4.2.4. Contextualizing Historical Narratives for Critical Thinking

Based on a thematic analysis of Carr’s [23] views on contextualizing historical narratives, the findings highlight numerous benefits for ECRs. These benefits include a deeper understanding of how societal and ideological contexts shape historical narratives, recognition of the evolving nature of historical interpretation, insights into the significance of temporal and social circumstances, opportunities for critically reassessing historical events, and enhanced potential for reflective analysis grounded in contemporary contexts. The findings emphasize that historical facts can only be fully understood by considering their contexts. This perspective has practical implications for urban researchers, highlighting the need to recognize how present-day societal and ideological shifts influence the interpretation of historical events. Rather than viewing history as a static record, this understanding encourages dynamic engagement with the factors that shape historical narratives.

The results show that historians’ contexts influence which facts are considered significant and how they are presented. This insight is valuable for urban research researchers, who must remain aware of the dominant narratives that may obscure alternative interpretations. This promotes more inclusive approaches to historical analysis, urging researchers to consider multiple perspectives in their evaluation of urban phenomena. The results confirm that this is a good choice for strong advocates of researchers to engage critically with the historical context shaping their work. By integrating these insights into their analyses, researchers can cultivate a more comprehensive and reflective understanding of the factors at play in urban development, ultimately fostering impactful academic contribution.

4.2.5. Impact of Cultural and Historical Contexts on Knowledge

Drawing from a thematic analysis of Peter Burke’s [74] insights into shared cultural factors, the findings emphasize the pivotal role of shared cultural and historical contexts in shaping collective knowledge. These contexts offer numerous benefits for ECRs of urban studies. These benefits include a deeper understanding of how cultural and historical contexts influence interpretations. They also involve recognizing the importance of situating events or texts within their contexts. Additionally, there are insights into the evolving nature of collective knowledge and opportunities for the critical analysis of historical phenomena. There is potential for interdisciplinary approaches that integrate cultural factors into urban research. This analysis found evidence that events and texts can only be fully comprehended within their appropriate temporal, social, cultural, and intellectual context. This perspective highlights the need for urban researchers to recognize how modern interpretations can alter the understanding of historical events. Researchers can enhance their analyses by avoiding anachronistic readings and engaging more deeply in the original contexts that shape these occurrences. This analysis found evidence that shifts in cultural and intellectual urban environments can significantly reshape our understanding of historical and artistic practices.

This insight is valuable for urban researchers, who should avoid interpretations that misrepresent the past. It advocates a contextual approach to historical analysis, urging researchers to consider multifaceted influences when interpreting urban development and transformation. Recognizing the evolving nature of context, this result sheds new light on how researchers can better account for how cultural shifts impact collective knowledge. This understanding is especially relevant for those investigating urban environments as it allows for a more comprehensive analysis of how historical practices inform contemporary issues. These findings encourage urban research scholars to engage critically with the cultural factors shaping their field, ultimately fostering a more reflective and nuanced approach to academic inquiry. Using this approach, researchers can cultivate a deeper appreciation of the complex interplay between culture and history in urban research, leading to more impactful and informed contributions to the discipline.

By adopting a contextualized approach to language analysis, ECRs can uncover the sociopolitical implications of urban discourse, contributing to more meaningful discussions within the field. The dynamic nature of context encourages scholars to remain flexible in their methodologies and to adapt their approaches as societal conditions evolve. This study advocates for critical engagement with the contextual factors influencing discourse, empowering ECRs to produce more informed and impactful contributions to urban research.

4.2.6. Influence of Social and Cultural Factors on Language Evolution

A thematic analysis of Traugott’s [11] insights into language evolution and contextual factors reveals how historical, social, and cultural influences shape linguistic change, offering numerous benefits to ECRs. These benefits include a deeper understanding of how context drives language evolution, recognition of the interconnectedness between societal structures and linguistic forms, new insights into the relationship between language and social change, expanded opportunities for interdisciplinary research, and enhanced potential for critical analysis of language within urban contexts.

The findings emphasize that context is not a passive backdrop in historical linguistics but an active force influencing linguistic change. This perspective highlights the importance of recognizing how shifts in cultural beliefs and societal structures shape language use and development. By considering these contextual factors, researchers can better understand how language reflects and responds to urban environments. Traugott’s [11] analysis illustrates, for instance, how changes in politeness strategies and the adoption of honorifics mirror broader social transformation. This insight underscores the need to approach language phenomena holistically as linguistic changes occur within specific environments and periods. This study warns against decontextualizing language, as doing so can lead to incomplete or misleading interpretations of the linguistic data. For future research, Traugott’s [11] findings should encourage researchers in language studies to explore the sociocultural contexts that underpin language evolution. This approach is essential for understanding the dynamic factors that shape linguistic development over time and can inform urban research by linking language use to broader social and cultural trends.

The insights from this analysis empower urban research scholars to critically engage with the contextual factors influencing language, fostering a more informed and reflective approach to academic inquiry. By incorporating these perspectives, researchers can enhance their understanding of how language functions in urban settings, leading to more nuanced and impactful contributions to this field.

4.3. Stage 3: Deepening the Analysis Through Interconnected and Broader Contextual Factors

Building on the insights gleaned from Stage 1, we delved deeper into the context–text interplay using a two-step process, demonstrating that context is shaped by a diverse array of interconnected factors, including societal influences, power, and social dynamics. Across various theoretical approaches, context has emerged as a dynamic construction shaped by historical and societal contextual factors. These contextual elements influence the production of meaning and play critical roles in interpretation and application. Examining these factors across different scholars emphasizes the centrality of social, historical, and political environments in shaping understanding. This finding highlights the fluid context evolving in nature as it interacts with broader contextual factors.

Exploring the four interconnected factors—focusing on concepts, components of context, contextual factors, and thinkers’ contributions—provides comprehensive guidance for understanding how context functions in different disciplines. Each theme captures a distinct aspect of the context’s role in shaping interpretation and meaning-making and identifying broader contextual factors that define context–text interplay. These factors reveal the influence of historical and social contextual factors. In addition to influential power and social dynamics, urban development conditions constitute another key factor, with inherent challenges and limitations.

These studies stress the complexity of the context and highlight the multidimensional influences that govern its interpretation. The results of this analysis focus on two main issues, as illustrated in Figure 7.

4.3.1. Exploring the Four Interconnected Factors

Our extensive content analysis of six carefully selected literature samples yielded vital insights into the multidimensional and dynamic nature of the context. This study reveals that context is not a static backdrop but rather a dynamic construct that actively shapes interpretation, knowledge production, and the evolution of discourse. By mapping scholarly perspectives across diverse discourses, including hermeneutics, historical inquiry, discourse analysis, and linguistics, we identified four interconnected factors that elucidate how context functions as an integral force in understanding texts, historical events, and linguistic phenomena.

In our investigation, we first observed that context is conceptualized in various ways across the examined discourses. Despite these differences, scholars have reached a consensus that context plays a pivotal role in shaping interpretations. For instance, van Dijk [69] argues that context is a cognitive construction molded by societal norms and power structures. He contends that these cognitive contexts deeply influence discourse interpretation. This perspective is reinforced by Rogers [70] who posits that sociopolitical structures and their pressures significantly affect historical events. Both perspectives emphasize that context is central to constructing and understanding knowledge.

Flowerdew [12] further elaborates on these ideas by stating that context includes a variety of dimensions—social, political, historical, and ideological—that influence both the creation and interpretation of discourse. His work emphasizes that context should be viewed not as a single factor but as a collection of interconnected elements that shape how meaning is produced. Similarly, Carr [23] illustrates that the interplay between a historian’s contemporary context and historical events bridges the past to the present. Burke [74] reinforced this notion by suggesting that context represents an interaction between various components that evolve alongside shifting societal norms. Traugott [11] challenges traditional views by framing context as an active force in linguistic development, emphasizing that language co-evolves with its social and cultural environment.

These foundational insights underscore the diversity of component-shaping contexts. Van Dijk [69] identified cognitive constructs, such as knowledge schemas, social roles, and power relations, as central to understanding the context. These constructs, embedded within societal norms, critically influence discourse interpretations. Rogers [70] extends this understanding by emphasizing that sociopolitical structures, including political ideologies and broad societal transformations, are crucial for historical knowledge. Likewise, Flowerdew [12] focuses on power dynamics, noting that political authority and ideological control are significant elements that shape the production and reception of meaning within a sociopolitical landscape.

Our analysis further demonstrates that Carr [23] emphasizes the historian’s role in interpreting facts within a temporal, social, and ideological context. He underscores that socioeconomic conditions and evolving societal norms are central to historical interpretation. Burke [74] examined the interplay between temporal, social, cultural, and intellectual components, arguing that these elements collectively and dynamically influence historical and cultural interpretations. Traugott [11] added another dimension by discussing how the sociolinguistic environment and cultural practices drive linguistic change, highlighting the active role of these factors in shaping language over time.

These findings confirm that the contextual factors identified by theorists illustrate the complex influences that shape meaning and interpretation. Van Dijk [69] stresses that cognitive dimensions such as social status and power relations are fundamental to discourse interpretation. Rogers [70] draws attention to the sociopolitical structures that govern historical narratives, arguing that political ideologies and social hierarchies are the key determinants of how history is understood. Flowerdew [12] focuses on social relations and ideological control, asserting that these factors influence discourse in its broader sociopolitical context. Carr [23] also discusses how the interaction between historical and contemporary contexts, encompassing socioeconomic conditions and ideological discourse, shapes historical interpretation. Burke [74] emphasized that social norms, intellectual movements, and cultural context influence how historical and cultural phenomena are interpreted. Simultaneously, Traugott [11] highlighted the nature of linguistic change driven by the interplay between social hierarchies and cultural practices.

The convergence of these perspectives reveals that context is not only a multidimensional construct, but also one mutually influential with the various cognitive, sociopolitical, and linguistic factors at play. This dynamic interplay shapes meaning-making, interacting with cognitive context and ideological influences to determine the resulting interpretations and values attached to a text, event, or idea. The synthesis of cognitive, sociopolitical, ideological, and linguistic perspectives underscores the inherent complexity of context and its integral role across different fields of study.

An additional finding of our analysis is that the critical points raised by scholars from 2008 to 2023 underscore the complexities and challenges inherent in interpreting contexts. For example, van Dijk [69] points out that cognitive constructs, such as social status and power relations, are crucial for discourse interpretation and present significant challenges when researchers navigate the interplay between these cognitive context and broader sociopolitical influences. Rogers [70] reinforces this notion by examining how sociopolitical structures shape historical narratives, suggesting that political ideologies and social hierarchies often constrain interpretations. Flowerdew [12] deepens this argument by asserting that context is intricately intertwined with power dynamics, ideological control, and meaning-making processes. His work demonstrates that separating these influences from discourse is challenging yet essential for understanding how meaning is produced. Burke [74] warns against the risks of decontextualization, arguing that removing events from sociocultural settings leads to oversimplified interpretations that fail to capture the richness of historical and cultural phenomena. He emphasized that continuous reassessment of interpretations is necessary to fully appreciate the evolving nature of social norms and cultural practices. Similarly, Traugott [11] examined how the interplay between social hierarchies and linguistic communities drives language evolution, highlighting the importance of considering broader social and cultural influences when analyzing linguistic developments.

Overall, the results of our study demonstrate that the context is a dynamic and multifaceted factor shaped by historical and societal factors. This interplay is essential for determining how meaning is constructed and interpreted in various fields. Neglecting these influences can lead to oversimplified and inaccurate interpretations, weakening the scholarly analysis. As our literature examination shows, scholars consistently emphasize the challenges of capturing the context’s fluid and dynamic nature, especially when conducting literature reviews. Researchers must engage with multiple perspectives; critically examine the historical and social contexts of the studies they review and recognize how power dynamics and language influence knowledge construction. By adopting a more contextualized approach, scholars can effectively bridge the gap between context and text, fostering a more robust and nuanced understanding of the research landscape.

In short, our comprehensive analysis of these six literature samples confirms that context, far from mere background, is a vital and active element in the production and interpretation of knowledge. The convergence of insights from cognitive, sociopolitical, ideological, and linguistic perspectives highlights the inherent complexity of context and emphasizes its indispensable role in scholarly inquiry. This dynamic interplay shapes the meaning-making process and has significant implications for academic research, particularly in urban research, where historical and societal factors are continuously at work. By adopting a more nuanced and contextually grounded approach, researchers can enhance their analysis, produce more accurate interpretations, and ultimately contribute to a deeper and more precise understanding of urban phenomena. Our findings also advocate for a critical reexamination of how context is conceptualized and integrated into academic discourse—a reexamination that promises to transform scholarly practice across disciplines.

4.3.2. Identifying the Four Broader Contextual Factors

Our analysis emphasizes that a constellation of interrelated factors shapes the relationship between context and text, influencing how meaning is constructed and interpreted. From our examination of critical scholars, four broad contextual factors emerge to understand this interplay: historical and societal influences, urban developmental conditions, power and social dynamics, and the inherent challenges in capturing the context.

First, historical and societal contextual factors play a pivotal role in shaping the creation and interpretation of texts. Scholars, such as Carr [23], have shown that societal norms and historical consciousness directly affect the circulation and reception of knowledge. For example, how historical events are framed within specific cultural contexts can alter interpretations of past events. Similarly, Flowerdew [12] points out that sociopolitical tensions embedded within a society’s fabric are crucial in determining how texts are understood. These insights confirm that context is not merely a backdrop but an active force molding the intellectual landscape.

Second, conditions related to urban development constitute another key factor. Urban research and historical analysis have revealed that the physical and built environment and its transformative processes significantly influence societal practices. Rogers [70] illustrates this with an example of how the expansion of the British navy in Georgian Britain affected societal practices such as impressment, demonstrating that urban transformations have far-reaching implications. Moreover, as analyzed by Flowerdew [12], political speeches and public discourses often reflect responses to urban changes, highlighting how discourse can shape the built environment.

Third, the analysis identifies power and social dynamics as critical in construction. Van Dijk [69] emphasizes that cognitive constructs, such as social status and power relationships, play a central role in interpreting discourse. In this view, power is not only embedded in the content of texts but also in the structures that govern their production and dissemination. Flowerdew [12] further contended that political authority and ideological dominance are key elements that determine how knowledge is produced and received. These dynamics underscore the importance of interrogating whose voices are privileged in the scholarly narrative and how alternative or marginalized perspectives might be sidelined.

Fourth, our findings reveal the inherent challenges and limitations of interpreting contexts. Scholars, such as Burke [74], caution against the risks of decontextualization, arguing that stripping events from their sociocultural and historical settings can lead to oversimplified and even misleading interpretations. Traugott [11] adds that capturing the context’s fluid and evolving nature, especially in linguistic change, requires constant reassessment and methodological flexibility. These challenges remind us that the context is not fixed; instead, it is continually in flux, necessitating that researchers remain vigilant and adaptive in their analysis.

Historical and societal influences, urban developmental conditions, power and social dynamics, and inherent interpretative challenges demonstrate the complex interplay between social structures, historical realities, and intellectual context. This multidimensional view reinforces that meaning is constructed through various cognitive, social, and ideological factors. Neglecting these dimensions can lead to an incomplete or biased understanding of how knowledge is produced and communicated.

Our study confirms that context is an active, multifaceted construction across all six examined sources. The insights derived from this comprehensive analysis have practical implications for urban research. Researchers are urged to recognize that context dynamics—whether in historical narratives, urban transformations, or power-laden discourses—are essential for producing robust and nuanced interpretations. Scholars can bridge the gap between empirical observations and theoretical reflections, enriching academic discourse and practical understanding.

In short, identifying these four broader contextual factors illuminates the inherent complexity of the context and highlights the necessity of a more integrative and critically reflective approach to academic writing. By engaging with these factors, researchers are better equipped to capture the ever-evolving nature of knowledge production, ensuring their interpretations remain relevant, nuanced, and deeply grounded in the urban environment.

4.4. Stage 4: Five Fundamental Guidelines for Creating High-Quality Academic Writing

By showcasing examples from diverse academic fields, such as social sciences, discourse analysis, historical studies, and linguistics, the findings illuminate the power of this interdisciplinary approach in providing practical guidance. The insights presented in this study were designed to help ECRs craft contextually aware texts that make meaningful contributions to their academic writing. The discussion was structured around four stages, with two preliminary steps, five methodological steps, and five essential guidelines, to strengthen the literature review process.

To address the critical relationship between context and text, this subsection seeks to bridge the gap identified in the literature on academic writing, particularly in the literature reviews. By exploring the dynamic role of context, we aim to illuminate how it influences the construction and interpretation of knowledge. Our findings reveal six critical insights into the role of context, as represented by six influential scholars: van Dijk [69], Rogers [70], John Flowerdew [12], E. H. Carr [23], Burke [74], and Traugott [11]. Although these scholars have focused on different areas, they agree on the significance of context as a crucial and evolving factor that shapes knowledge and interpretation.

4.4.1. Treat Context as Dynamic and Multidimensional

High-quality academic writing should reflect the dynamism by situating research in historical, social, and cultural settings. An essential finding of this concept study is that five scholars across various disciplines agree on the dynamic role of the context in shaping knowledge production and interpretation. Two core insights emerged. First, context is not a static backdrop but a dynamic, evolving construction influenced by historical and societal contextual factors. Second, although all scholars acknowledge the importance of context, they differ in their specific areas of emphasis. For example, van Dijk [69] treats context as discipline-specific, focusing on how it operates within fields, whereas Rogers [70] highlights its interplay with historical events. Flowerdew [12] examines how ideological, social, and political dimensions shape discourse, whereas Carr [23] stresses historians’ responsibility to integrate temporal and ideological contexts. Burke [74] explored cultural and intellectual dimensions, while Traugott [11] underscored the social and cognitive factors that drive language evolution.

These diverse perspectives stress that context is an interpretative and active force influencing scholarly inquiry. Recent research by Nguyen Minh Tri [82] and Esposito [21] reinforces that discourse is inextricably linked to social and cultural surroundings. This view resonates with Flowerdew’s [12] critical discourse analysis. Moreover, Popa [83] demonstrates how historical narratives are co-shaped by historians and context, suggesting a more interactional meaning-making model. Despite methodological variations, the consensus is clear: the context is multidimensional, and rigorous consideration is vital for robust and nuanced academic analysis.

4.4.2. Balance Shared Recognition and Diverging Focus

An essential finding of this subsection reveals that, while these five scholars differ in their specific focus areas, they converge on the fundamental importance of the context. This shared recognition underscores a critical finding: context is not a static or peripheral element but a dynamic and integral component that profoundly shapes the interpretation of information. Context is an evolving construct that is influenced by historical and societal factors. However, despite this shared emphasis, the application of context varied significantly. This diversity of approaches, from disciplinary knowledge [69] to historical events [70] discourse [12], historical interpretation [23,74], and language evolution, stresses the multifaceted nature of context and its diverse applications across fields [11].

Context is not merely a backdrop but an active element that shapes and is shaped by the phenomena it surrounds [20]. Our analysis identified four essential determinants for building conceptual guidance: historical and societal contextual factors, surrounding conditions leading to urban transformations, influential power and social dynamics, and inherent challenges and constraints. These factors collectively contribute to a nuanced understanding of context, encompassing not only the historical and societal contextual factors influencing knowledge production but also how contextual factors [9]—such as urban prestige, identity, or morphology—shape or are reflected in urban design and the planning literature [84]. By acknowledging the specific context of previous studies, researchers can better understand the limitations, biases, and assumptions that may have influenced their findings [7,85].

Despite its significance, integrating context into literature reviews remains challenging. A common obstacle is the tendency to focus solely on the textual content of research articles, neglecting the broader circumstances influencing their creation. This narrow focus can lead to a superficial understanding of the literature, limiting researchers’ ability to evaluate and synthesize existing knowledge critically. Researchers should adopt a more nuanced and critical approach to bridge this gap by recognizing the inseparable link between the historical context and epistemology. As Gattinara [75] notes, the historicization of epistemology and post-embolization of the history of science underscores the evolving nature of knowledge. This finding enhances our understanding of the relationship between the context and text. Emphasizing context’s dynamic and multidimensional nature challenges the idea that context is merely a backdrop for understanding urban phenomena. Instead, context is an active and integral component that shapes knowledge production and interpretation.

4.4.3. Explore Interconnected and Broader Contextual Factors

Our analysis identified four broad contextual factors central to understanding how context shapes both the production and interpretation of knowledge. These factors—historical and societal influences, urban developmental conditions, power and social dynamics, and the inherent challenges of capturing context—are closely tied to the key themes of this study: a focus on core concepts, components of context, diverse contextual factors, and contributions of leading scholars.

The scholars examined in this study highlighted the inherent challenges of fully capturing the complexity of a context, mainly as it evolves in response to societal and environmental changes. By analyzing texts from the perspective of these interconnected factors, this study reveals the nuanced role of context in shaping scholarly work. This approach underscores the benefits of examining how societal factors, urban transformations, and power dynamics influence knowledge production and emphasizes the significant challenges of interpreting contexts across diverse fields. These challenges call for thorough considerations to address the complex nature of knowledge creation and interpretation.

Scholars acknowledge that context is not a static backdrop but a dynamic, evolving construct shaped by historical and societal contextual factors. Societal influences are pivotal in determining how disciplines such as history, linguistics, and urban research define and interpret contexts. Urban developmental conditions, power, and social dynamics affect how knowledge is produced and received. However, each scholar’s emphasis on context differs. Van Dijk [69] treats context as discipline-specific, whereas Rogers [70] highlights its role across historical periods. Flowerdew [12] explores how ideological, social, and political dimensions shape discourse. Carr [23] underscores the historian’s responsibility to incorporate temporal and ideological factors. Furthermore, Burke [74] examines cultural and intellectual dimensions. Traugott [11] focuses on the social and cognitive factors that drive language evolution.

Recent studies validated the importance of contextual analysis in knowledge production. Kaplan, Cromley, and Balsai [86] highlighted the critical role of contextual factors in educational research, emphasizing their impact on the implementation of evidence-based practices. Snyder [85] provides a comprehensive overview of how a literature review, as a research methodology, can illuminate the complexity of contextual factors and their influence on knowledge production. These studies not only reinforce the significance of this research but also demonstrate the alignment of recent findings with broader scholarly discourse, keeping readers engaged with the field’s current state.

According to our investigation, knowledge creation and interpretation should be multidimensional, and can be achieved by integrating historical, societal, urban, and power-related contextual factors. However, the insights gained from this multi-layered investigation provide a robust foundation for future research, ensuring that the evolving nature of the context remains a central focus in scholarly inquiry.

4.4.4. Highlight the Added Value of Contextual Factors

With its interdisciplinary approach, this study highlights the significant advantages of analyzing texts through four interconnected themes: concepts, components, contextual factors, and critical points. By exploring these elements, ECRs can achieve a more nuanced understanding of how texts are shaped by their intellectual and disciplinary contexts, thereby providing a conceptual guide for interpreting knowledge production. The concept of context, for instance, demonstrates that fundamental ideas within a text are not isolated, but are deeply influenced by historical and societal contextual factors.

Examining concepts within their broader disciplinary context allows researchers to observe how theoretical constructions evolve in response to shifting societal needs and intellectual trends. This approach underscores the fluidity of knowledge, offering critical insights into how specific ideas gain prominence while others recede. Understanding concepts in their broader context fosters a deeper comprehension of how internal theoretical developments and external pressures shape fields of study. Nussbaum [71] similarly argues that it is essential to have a broad and critical understanding of history and culture to sustain democratic societies. This claim aligns with Carr [23] and Burke’s [74] perspective. Nussbaum [71] emphasizes the role of the humanities in fostering societal understanding and critical engagement, which resonates with Burke’s [74] focus on the fluidity of the historical context and Carr’s [23] view of how historical knowledge is shaped by its broader environment.

However, components offer a granular view of the text by dissecting its structure, such as methods, arguments, and evidence, thereby illuminating how these elements function together to reflect contextual influences. The interplay between different components often reveals underlying assumptions about a text’s intended audience or methodological foundations. For instance, a close examination of the arguments and evidence within a text may reveal biases or gaps shaped by the sociopolitical environment in which the work was produced. This level of analysis enables critical evaluation of a text’s reliability and scope of knowledge, highlighting the value of deconstructing a text into its constituent parts. This perspective finds resonance in Dilthey’s [43] and Gadamer’s [45] hermeneutical approach, where the interpreter’s “horizon” profoundly shapes the meaning derived from the historical material.

Contextual factors such as historical events, social norms, and cultural shifts influence the interpretation and dissemination of text. Investigating these factors exposes the often-invisible factors that shape intellectual debates, revealing the broader societal implications of scholarly work. This theme emphasizes recognizing that texts are produced within specific historical moments that inevitably affect their meaning. By considering these external circumstances, scholars can better understand the biases, limitations, and potential embedded in text. For example, a historical analysis may show how ideological movements during a text’s creation influence its reception, revealing patterns of how knowledge is valued or contested in different eras. The identification of critical points provides an additional layer of values. Scholars are encouraged to critically reflect on the limitations and contributions of this work by engaging in crucial issues, debates, and challenges raised in the text.

ECRs can enhance the interpretation of texts by synthesizing these four themes: concepts, components, contextual factors, and critical points. This approach helps identify patterns and trends in knowledge production and sheds light on the underlying structures that shape intellectual fields. The related nature of these themes enables a comprehensive view, in which theoretical ideas, methodological approaches, and sociopolitical contexts converge to form a more reflective understanding of the text’s place within its discipline. By critically reflecting on these aspects, scholars can draw meaningful conclusions about the evolution of ideas, the context’s role in shaping interpretation, and the challenges inherent in producing knowledge across different fields. The added value of using these four interconnected themes lies in their ability to offer a comprehensive, multi-layered approach to text analysis. This usage enhances interpretation and encourages critical and reflective engagement with the factors that shape knowledge production. From this perspective, researchers can gain more profound insights into how texts reflect, respond, and ultimately shape their intellectual and societal environments.

4.4.5. Advance Scholarly Understanding Through Context

Our results suggest that societal influences, including norms, values, and historical contexts, are consistently recognized as central to determining which topics are prioritized or marginalized within academic writing. These societal factors shape the research questions, acceptance of particular theories, and dissemination of findings. For instance, dominant political ideologies may encourage specific research areas while discouraging others, thereby shaping the trajectory of intellectual inquiry and determining legitimate perspectives in a field.

The four interconnected themes discussed in this study—concepts, components, contextual factors, and thinker contributions—reveal that context is not a static backdrop, but a dynamic force that influences scholarly work across disciplines. By critically engaging with context, scholars can more effectively interpret the evolution of theoretical constructs, recognize the power and social dynamics that shape knowledge, and address the inherent challenges of contextual analysis. This approach deepens our understanding of knowledge production and offers a comprehensive manner for navigating the complexities of urban and social science research. From this perspective, the context has become a multidimensional tool for advancing academic inquiry. It encourages scholars to reflect on the societal, historical, and ideological factors that shape their work and challenges them to adopt a critical perspective that questions established assumptions. Ultimately, by recognizing the centrality of context in shaping both text and interpretation, researchers can contribute to a more nuanced and rigorous understanding of knowledge production in contemporary research.

5. Discussion: Implications and Connections to Prior Research

This study developed a four-stage contextual guide to address the ongoing separation between text and context in academic writing, particularly in urban research. By emphasizing the spatial, temporal, and socio-institutional aspects of knowledge production, our guide challenges the long-standing belief in scholarly neutrality, providing ECRs with a framework to navigate the complex landscape of urban studies. The guide treats context as a dynamic force influenced by research practices, rather than a static background. Scholars have explored the historical roots of their methodologies, examined the power dynamics within their citations, and placed their arguments within the ecological, technological, and legal contexts of their time. This approach is not just procedural; it redefines academic writing as an act of epistemic responsibility, where the decision to highlight certain voices (and silence others) is recognized as a political act.

This study provides theoretical, pedagogical and practical implications. Theoretically, this study disrupts the calcified boundaries between the hermeneutic and critical traditions. By synthesizing Dilthey’s insistence on historical situatedness with Foucault’s analytics of power, the proposed guidance reveals how urban texts simultaneously encode and contest the neoliberal logic of smart cities, colonial residues of zoning laws, and gendered asymmetries of transit design. It extends Lynch’s seminal work on urban perception into the epistemic realm, arguing that just as cities are “read” through their spatial syntax, academic texts must be decoded through their contextual syntax—the unspoken assumptions about whose knowledge counts, which crises demand urgency, and what futures appear plausible. This conceptual shift has profound implications for urban theory, particularly in the Global South, where Eurocentric epistemologies often distort the analysis of informal economies, climate displacement, or insurgent infrastructure.

Pedagogically, the proposed guidance equips educators with transforming literature reviews from rote exercises into critical praxis. When students dissect Castells’ The Urban Question, which emerged from 1970s Marxist urbanism, or how Roy’s critiques of planetary urbanization respond to postcolonial austerity, they see theory as a terrain of struggle rather than canon. Classroom applications might task learners by mapping how Jakarta’s flood mitigation studies erase traditional hydrologic knowledge or how AI-driven urbanism in Barcelona reproduces neoliberal surveillance. Such training cultivates technical competence and ethical discernment, a skill urgently needed, as urban programs globally confront demands to decolonize curricula and democratize knowledge production. Institutions such as the African Center for Cities and the LSE Urban Lab have already modeled this praxis, pairing technical mastery with radical reflexivity and providing scaffolding to scale these innovations.

The practical implications of this study are manifold. The four-stage contextual guide offers a concrete tool for researchers to integrate contextual factors into their academic writing. By examining the historical lineages of methodologies, tracing power geometries in citations, and situating claims within ecological, technological, and juridical currents, researchers can enhance the rigor and relevance of their work. This approach not only improves the quality of urban research but also promotes a more accountable and politically aware scholarly practice.

Our findings align with prior studies that emphasize the importance of historical contextualization. For example, Huijgen et al. [87] advocate for a pedagogy of historical contextualization, arguing that understanding historical events requires acknowledging the complex interplay of political, economic, and social factors, echoing Rogers’ [70] analysis. Van Boxtel and van Drie [80] stressed the importance of teaching historical thinking by highlighting how contextual factors shape the interpretation of historical events. Their framework encourages students to engage actively in these contexts, fostering deeper historical thinking and more nuanced interpretation. These approaches emphasize the crucial importance of context in developing a thorough understanding of history and the production and interpretation of knowledge.

The findings of this study confirm that context plays a dynamic and multidimensional role in shaping both the production and interpretation of knowledge, as highlighted in previous research [14]. The findings of this study align closely with prior research, reinforcing the importance of contextual analysis in understanding knowledge production. For example, Dilthey [43] and Gadamer [45] emphasized the role of historical context and hermeneutics in interpretation, which resonates with Carr’s [23] phenomenological approach to historical analysis. Similarly, Burke’s [74] exploration of the historiographical context and Tosh’s [47] examination of historical writing complement Carr’s [23] and Burke’s [74,88] methodologies. Kuhn’s [46] discussion of paradigms and epistemological shifts aligns with how context influences interpretation, as explored by van Dijk et al. [74]. Russell [44] provided a broader philosophical context for understanding the evolution of knowledge, echoing the perspectives of Dilthey [43], Carr [23], and Burke [74]. Foucault’s [38] emphasis on power and social dynamics in discourse aligns with van Dijk’s [69] focus on discourse analysis and Flowerdew’s [12] examination of how context shapes meaning in discourse studies. The connection between van Dijk [69] and Kuhn [46] lies in their shared concern with how overarching paradigms or discourses can shape their understanding and interpretation.

Highlighting the added value of contextual factors is consistent with the conclusions drawn in the study ‘Context Counts: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Interplay Between Context and Implementation Success’ by Rogers, Birken, Davies, and McAuliffe [81] who examined how context affects the success of organizational and healthcare interventions. Similarly to historical scholarship, this study underscores the importance of understanding the context’s dynamic and multidimensional role—whether social, political, or cultural—in shaping the outcomes. The findings emphasize that successful implementation of strategies depends not only on the content or technical aspects of the intervention, but also on how well the contextual factors are understood and managed based on near-synonymous variations in theoretical and practical discourse [89,90].

These results align with conclusions drawn by Balliet, Tybur, Wu, Antonellis, and Lange [91] in their study ‘Political ideology, trust, and cooperation’, highlighting how political ideologies impact social behaviors and decision-making processes, reflecting broader societal influences on research priorities. Similarly, Vargas, Paez, Vasquez-Salgado, Garrow, and Saetermoe [92] in ‘Eradicating Dominant Ideologies in Higher Education: The Responsibility of Campus Leadership in Developing a Culturally Congruent Education Experience’ highlights the role of campus leadership in addressing dominant ideologies to foster a more inclusive and culturally relevant educational environment. Both studies reinforced the crucial role of understanding and managing societal influences in advancing scholarly knowledge and ensuring diverse views in academic writing. Power and social dynamics within academic and professional communities are critical factors that shape knowledge production. Dominant voices within a field influence the research agenda, inquiry framing, and interpretation of the results. Perspectives and voices that align with the priorities of influential scholars or institutions are often prioritized, which may result in marginalization of alternative viewpoints. This shaping of intellectual discourse through power relations can narrow perspectives and limit the diversity of inquiry in a field, as those with greater authority or recognition can guide research focus.

Overall, these findings are consistent with those reported by Varsha [93] et al. in their systematic literature review on managing bias in artificial intelligence systems. They stressed the role of contextual factors in shaping human and AI-driven interpretations of data and text. Similarly to previous research, this review highlights how similar biases and limitations can emerge in Generative AI models, which are often trained on historical and cultural data that reflect societal norms and ideologies [94]. As such, reinforce the importance of critically examining contexts in both the traditional and emerging fields of study.

Finally, the critical points raised by scholars, such as the challenges of fully capturing the evolving nature of the context or the difficulty of accounting for power imbalances, provide essential insights into the limitations of contextual analysis. These challenges underscore the need for a critical perspective that questions dominant narratives and strives to uncover the less visible, often marginalized, influences on knowledge production. This reflective analysis fosters deeper appreciation of how knowledge evolves and adapts. Critical points reveal how tensions between competing viewpoints, whether theoretical debates or practical applications, underscore the dialectical nature of intellectual progress. As such, this manuscript allows researchers to place texts within broader academic conversations and to determine the position of ideas on prevailing or emerging trends.

6. Conclusions

This concept paper emphasizes integrating “context” into writing “the text” in the theoretical literature review section. This improves the quality of academic research and enables its publication in respected and ranked peer-reviewed journals. This article reviews the complex relationship between context and text across multiple dimensions of scholarly research in social sciences, mainly in discourse analysis, historical studies, and linguistics. According to an examination of several databases, this aspect reveals a significant gap in integrating contexts in writing literature review sections on urban research, particularly in architecture, urban planning, and urban design.

The research aim is to bridge this gap by exploring the complex interplay between context and text within the historical inquiries of many social science literature reviews, emphasizing the critical importance of contextual analysis in shaping knowledge production and interpretation. This study aims to establish practical guidance strategies for ECRs, encouraging them to enhance their literature review by thoughtfully considering contextual factors.

This study bridges the gap between context and text, reinforcing the argument that context is a dynamic and evolving element in scholarly inquiry. This highlights the necessity of continuous reassessment to ensure that research remains relevant and reflects contemporary societal transformation. By adopting a more nuanced, context-aware approach, ECRs can deepen their critical engagement with texts, leading to more rigorous, insightful, and impactful contributions to social sciences.

This study established a four-stage contextual guide to bridge the persistent divide between text and context in academic writing with the salience of urban research. By foregrounding the spatial, temporal, and socio-institutional dimensions of knowledge production, our guidance challenges the enduring myth of scholarly neutrality, offering ECRs a scaffold for navigating the contested terrain of urban studies. At its core, the guide operationalizes context, not as a static backdrop, but as a dynamic force shaped by research practices. Scholars have investigated the historical lineages of their methodologies, traced the power geometries embedded in their citations, and situated their claims within the ecological, technological, and juridical currents of their moments. Such attention is not merely procedural. It repositions academic writing as an act of epistemic accountability, where the choice to foreground certain voices (and silence others) becomes legible as a political intervention.

This study contends that the credibility crisis in urban research, evidenced by replication failures, policy divorces, and public distrust, stems from contextual illiteracy, rather than methodological laxity. As such, the five-stage guide is both a corrective and a provocation, which challenges journals to demand explicit contextual audits in submissions, funders to reward transdisciplinary co-authorship with grassroots movements, and universities to replace generic writing modules with place-based studios with which students write, rather than informal settlers, migrant workers, or climate refugees, in an era of planetary urbanism, where the stakes of scholarship span from eviction algorithms to carbon budgets. Such reorientation is not merely academic, but existential.

This study acknowledges several limitations. Firstly, access to data posed challenges, influencing both the research scope and the evaluation of findings. Additionally, data availability and methodological constraints may have affected the comprehensiveness of the analysis. Disciplinary bias is another key limitation, potentially shaping the underlying research assumptions. These biases necessitate a critical assessment of potential blind spots to ensure a more balanced interpretation of findings. Furthermore, the study’s engagement with societal influence, urban transformation, and power dynamics highlights the complexity of knowledge production and interpretation. The literature reviewed and the period analyzed may introduce biases, particularly regarding dominant Western-centric narratives and the challenges associated with accessing archival materials. By acknowledging these limitations, this research gains credibility and offers a more transparent and reflective account of the process.

Although this manuscript is a concept paper, another limitation is the corpus of twenty scholars, which may require extensive study with a larger corpus to investigate how context affects text in various meta-analyses. Additionally, although conducted factors contribute to a deeper understanding of contextual influences, this study highlights the need for further research. Addressing these limitations in future studies can enhance the robustness of the findings and provide a more nuanced perspective on the evolving intellectual and societal landscapes.

Future research should investigate how specific contextual elements influence context–text complexities and identify strategies to address these dynamics. For instance, ECRs in urban design could explore how a single concept is interpreted across diverse contexts by examining the contrasting factors that shape the American and European urban design paradigms. Additionally, it is essential to study how early career urban researchers can be equipped with effective guidance for developing more sophisticated literature reviews, a practical focus that is crucial for empowering the next generation of scholars.

Examining the influence of contextual factors such as digital media, globalization, and evolving political landscapes on scholarly discourse could deepen our understanding of the field’s progression. This exploration has the potential to advance knowledge in urban research and related disciplines by fostering a nuanced and context-aware approach to research complexity. Moreover, it supports substantial enhancements in ECRs’ publications, particularly within ranked peer-reviewed journals.