Writing at a postgraduate level is not only meant to obtain a degree in a specific field but also, and more importantly, to secure that one’s research is published nationally as well as internationally. In other words, conducting research is first and foremost about making one’s distinctive voice heard. Using Martin and White’s (2005) appraisal framework, the present study examines the way Tunisian MA and PhD EFL researchers in applied linguistics establish a dialogue with the reader as a persuasive tool in their texts. The comparison is meant to unveil cross-generic differences in authorial voice manifestation that distinguish postgraduate writers at different degrees. A corpus of 20 Literature Review and 20 Discussion sections taken from 10 MA and 10 PhD dissertations written in English by Tunisian EFL writers is qualitatively and quantitatively explored. Linguistic markers denoting the writer’s stance are identified in the corpus and are qualitatively studied using the engagement subsystem to qualify the utterance as dialogically contractive or expansive. A quantitative analysis then compares how dialogicality is manifested across the degrees and sections using SPSS. The results show that the negotiation of voice seems to be more problematic for MA researchers in both sections in comparison to PhD writers. Dialogic contraction in the MA subcorpus conveys a limited authorial positioning in the Literature Review section and a failure to stress personal contribution in the Discussion section. PhD researchers’ frequent reliance on expansion in both sections displays their academic maturity. The critical evaluation of previous works in the Literature Review and the claim for authorial ownership in the Discussion section distinguish them from MA writers. The comparison not only stresses the strengths that distinguish PhD writers but also points out problematic instances in establishing a dialogue with the audience in postgraduate writings. The study findings can be used to consider EFL researchers’ production in pedagogical contexts in terms of identity manifestation and stance-taking strategies across the different sections of the dissertation.