Search results

This paper aims to investigate doctoral students’ perceptions of and satisfaction with their doctor of education program, specifically related to dissertation writing preparation. The results offer a complex picture that has implications for the design of doctoral education programs that aim to help students prepare for culminating academic writing products such as dissertations.

Qualitative data, by means of an anonymous online survey with open-ended questions, were used to ascertain 115 doctoral students’ writing experiences in a doctoral program at one university in the USA.

The findings of this study suggest the importance of intrapersonal factors, specifically the ability to engage in self-directed learning; interpersonal factors, such as peer and faculty support; and institutional factors, namely, faculty’s writing-based pedagogical practices, in supporting doctoral students’ academic writing.

This study suggests in addition to selecting and nurturing students’ ability to engage in self-directed learning, there are a number of specific strategies and practices doctoral faculty can engage in and use to prepare students for successful dissertation writing.

This study provides the perspective of former and existing doctoral students to illuminate the needs they perceive as they engage in dissertation writing. The study provides practical strategies based on common themes in student responses.

This study aims to broaches several endemic challenges for academics who support doctoral writing: writers are emotionally protective of their own writing; writing a thesis in English as a second language is a challenging, complex task; and advising across cultures is delicate. Giving constructive feedback kindly, but with the rigour needed to raise writing quality can seem daunting. Addressing those issues, the authors offer a novel way of working with writing feedback across cultures.

The case study research team of two candidates and one supervisor stumbled onto an effective way of working across cultural and institutional difference. What began as advisory feedback on doctoral writing became an effective collaborative analysis of prose meaning-making. The authors reflected separately and collectively on how this happened, analysed reflections and this narrative inquiry approach led to theories of use to writing feedback practice.

The authors cross between theory and praxis, showing that advisors and supervisors can create Bhabha’s post-colonial third space (a promising social space that sits between cultures, beyond hierarchies, where new ways of thinking can be collaboratively generated) as a working environment for international doctoral writing feedback. Within this zone, Brechtian alienation, a theory from theatre practice, is applied to prompt emotional detachment that enables focus on writing clearly in academic English.

Arguably the writing feedback session the authors described remains bound by the generic expectations of a western education system. The study is exegetical, humanities reading of practice, rather than a social science gathering of empirical data. Yet the humanities approach suits the point that a change of language, attitude and theory can give positive leverage with doctoral writing feedback.

The authors provide a novel practical method of supporting international doctoral candidates’ writing with feedback across cultures. It entails attracting the writers’ interest in theory and persuading them, via theory, to look objectively and freshly at their own writing. Also backed by theory, a theoretical cross-cultural space allows for discussion about differences and similarities. Detachment from proprietorial emotions and cross-cultural openness enables productive work amongst the mechanics of clear academic English text.

Underpinned by sociocultural and metacognitive approaches to learning, reflection from student and supervisor perspectives (the data), and oriented by theory, the authors propose another strategy for supporting doctoral writing across cultures. The authors demonstrate a third space approach for writing feedback across cultures, showing how to operationalise theory.

The purpose of this paper is to present considerations for developing a writing community for doctoral students.

The paper reflects on data from a self-study of a writing seminar in which the authors were involved. The authors examined students’ writing samples and peer-review comments, email correspondence, online discussion board postings, meeting minutes and participants’ reflections on their participation in the seminar.

While doctoral students described benefits from their participation in the writing seminar, the paper provides a cautionary tale concerning the challenges that can arise in the development and delivery of interventions that focus on developing writing communities involving doctoral students.

This article draws on findings from an examination of a writing intervention to consider potential challenges that faculty and students face in developing writing communities. Findings may not apply to other kinds of settings, and they are limited by the small number of participants involved.

The paper discusses strategies that might be used to inform faculty in the development of writing communities for doctoral students.

The authors’ experiences in developing and delivering a writing seminar highlight the importance of the process of trust-building for students to perceive the value of feedback from others so that they can respond to the technical demands of doctoral writing.

There is a growing body of work on the value of writing interventions for doctoral students such as retreats and writing groups. These are frequently facilitated by faculty whose area of expertise is in teaching writing. This paper contributes understanding to what is needed for faculty who are not writing instructors to facilitate groups of this sort. Participants must demonstrate a sufficient level of competence as writers to review others’ work; develop trusting, collegial relationships with one another; and be willing to contribute to others’ development and make a commitment to accomplishing the required tasks.

Many doctoral students apply theoretical frameworks to writing assignments as part of their academic coursework and, later, in the practice of analyzing and reporting research. However, students often struggle to effectively apply theoretical frameworks to their writing processes. Thus, as one way of contributing to the writing pedagogies of doctoral-level instructors, the purpose of this study is to explore doctoral students’ learning experiences with analyzing and reporting organizational data using theoretical frameworks.

This study examines the perspectives of 29 doctoral students through analytical papers and reflections, letters and interviews.

Five themes within the context of current literature on writing were identified. These included students experiencing discomfort, even fear, about writing; students needing to write and receive honest feedback to learn how to write; the need for an instructional process that moves from conceptual to detailed instructions; understanding that writing has conceptual and skills implications that cannot be achieved in a single class; and the analytical writing process contributes to an understanding of the complexity of holding a doctoral degree.

The findings demonstrate the importance of helping doctoral students gain confidence and improve writing with theoretical frameworks, which can be accomplished with structured formats, through repetition and from instructor feedback.

This study offers unique insights into the challenges that doctoral students face when writing through theoretical frameworks and how instructors can interact with and potentially improve students’ writing skills and abilities.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze how global and local changes in higher education impact upon writing practices through which doctoral students become academics. The study explores how norms and values of academic writing practice are learned, negotiated and resisted and elucidates how competences related to writing come to determine the academic selves.

The study uses memory work, which is a group method that puts attention to written individual memories and their collective analysis and theorizing. The authors offer a comparison of experiences in becoming academics by two generational cohorts (1990s and 2010s) in the same management studies department in a business school.

The study indicates that the contextual and temporal enactment of academic writing practice in the department created a situation where implicit and ambiguous criteria for writing competence gradually changed into explicit and narrow ones. The change was relatively slow for two reasons. First, new performance management indicators were introduced over a period of two decades. Second, when the new indicators were gradually introduced, they were locally resisted. The study highlights how the focus, forms and main actors of resistance changed over time.

The paper offers a detailed account of how exogenous changes in higher education impact upon, over time and cultural space, academic writing practices through which doctoral students become academics.

This chapter discusses textography as a strategy for researching academic writing in higher education. Textography is an approach to the analysis of written texts which combines text analysis with ethnographic techniques, such as surveys, interviews and other data sources, in order to examine what texts are like, and why. It aims to provide a more contextualized basis for understanding students’ writing in the social, cultural and institutional settings in which it takes place than might be obtained by looking solely at students’ texts. Through discussion of the outcomes of a textography, which examined the written texts submitted by visual and performing arts doctoral students at a number of Australian universities, we reflect on what we learnt from the study that we could not have known by looking at the texts alone. If we had looked at the texts without the ethnographic data not only are there many things we would not have known, but many of the things we might have said would likely have been right off the mark. Equally, had we just had the ethnographic data without the text analysis, we would have missed the insights provided by the explicit text analysis. The textography enabled us to see the diversity of practices across fields of study and institutions as well as gain an understanding of why this might be the case, all of which is of benefit to student writers and their supervisors.

This study aims to examine entry-level PhD students’ experiences with participating in Critical Friends, a peer review protocol, used to support learning the threshold concept of literature review. It also sought to determine if, and how, students used the peer review protocol electively during their first year of doctoral study.

The authors used a sequential, QUAL-qual mixed-method design to guide the study. Reflective learning journals, surveys and interviews were collected from three cohorts of PhD students (N = 18).

Thematic analysis revealed that giving and receiving writing critique was uncomfortable for these novice peer reviewers and many described emotional disciplining associated with vulnerability. Critical Friends offered a safe space to begin mastery of the literature review and begin transforming new researcher and writer identities. While Critical Friends was a positive experience for students, they struggled implementing the protocol on their own following the course.

These findings support the need for faculty to embed peer review opportunities in courses during the first year to facilitate role modeling and mentoring. The findings also demonstrate the need to engage students with peer review early in the program to increase comfort, cultivate student resiliency for accepting critical feedback and build capacity for students to learn with and from others.

This paper advocates for the use of peer review practices early in the doctoral study to promote the development of researcher identity and positioning within the research community.

This paper aims to explore doctoral candidates’ ethical work in writing the acknowledgements section of their theses. With interest in the formation of academic identities/subjectivities, the authors explore acknowledgements writing as always potentially a form of parrhesia or risky truth-telling, through which the candidate places themselves in their relations to others rather than in their claims to knowledge (Luxon, 2008).

Doctoral candidates from all faculties in one Japanese and one Aotearoa New Zealand university participated in focus groups where they discussed the genre of thesis acknowledgements, drafted their own version and wrote a reflective commentary/backstory.

Viewing the backstories through the lens of parrhesia (with its entangled matters of frankness, truth, risk, criticism and duty) showed candidates engaged in complex ethical decision-making processes with, at best, “ambiguous ethical resources” (Luxon, 2008, p. 381) arising from their academic and personal lives. Candidates used these resources to try and position themselves as both properly academic and more than academic – as knowing selves and relational selves.

This study bares the ethical riskiness of writing doctoral acknowledgements, as doctoral candidates navigate the tensions between situating themselves “truthfully” in their relations with others while striking the necessary pose of intellectual independence (originality). In a context where there is evidence that examiners not only read acknowledgements to ascertain independence, student and/or supervisor quality and the “human being behind the thesis” (Kumar and Sanderson, 2020, p. 285) but also show bias in those readings, this study advises reader caution about drawing inferences from acknowledgements texts. They are not simply transparent. As examiners and other readers make sense, judgments even, of these tiny, often fascinating, glimpses into a candidate’s doctoral experience, they need to understand that a host of unpredictable tensions with myriad ambiguous effects are present on the page.

This paper explores variation in the events or activities Education doctoral students describe as contributing to their feeling of being an academic or belonging to an academic community as well as difficulties they experience. The results (drawing principally on students in a Canadian research‐intensive university though with some in a UK university) demonstrate a rich variation in multiple formative activities that are experienced as contributing to a developing identity as an academic, with many lying outside formal and semi‐formal aspects of the doctorate. Yet, at the same time students report tensions in the very sorts of activities they often find significant and positive in the development of their identity. We see this analysis as offering much‐needed insights into the formative role of cumulative day‐to‐day activities in the development of academic identity.