Examining "Coaches Can Read, Too"

Brannick utilizes Swales' 'CARS model' to effectively introduce his paper. He spends four pages establishing the territory, or content, that is relevant to his paper. He examines the role and actions of a coach while referencing other academic material on the subject of coaching. It's important for him to spend time on the first aspect of the 'CARS model', because it outlines the 'conversation' surrounding this topic, and allows him to move to the next step of the model: establishing a niche.

After examining present material on the subject of coaching, Brannick finds that there is a clear gap or lack of research with regards to the player-coach relationship, and how it affects both party's performance, and how it affects the game. He notes that "there have been many articles written on the X's and the O's (specific strategies)" of football, but he also finds that "scholars have yet to study a coach's ability to read his players and the game as a form of literacy". In about a page, Brannick makes the transition from outlining the 'conversation' in question, and identifies a niche for potential enlightening/worthwhile examination.

Brannick makes his move to occupy the niche he finds in a unique way. Instead of outlining his purpose, or announcing principle findings, or indicating the structure of his research article, he performs a meta-move by posing a question, and referencing, while offering, his article as an answer to the question.

I don't like this way of 'occupying a niche', or otherwise communicating the central purpose of an article, because it seems too self-reflexive. However, many authors in different fields regularly do this. One can't use a word in the definition of the same word, and I believe the same principle applies to articles in the context of 'academic conversations'.