Search results

The study aims to construct an understanding of professional academic writing network structures to inform organisational strategic investment in academic staff development.

Longitudinal social network analysis is used to examine the personal-networks evident in the publication portfolios of a purposive sample of four international academics across each quartile of the SCOPUS defined area of General Nursing's top 100 authors.

Trends in the publication portfolios of elite academics across gender, sector and geographic location are presented. In the first years of successful writing for publication, authors collaborate within a single highly connected co-author network. This network will typically expand to include new co-authors, before additional separate co-author collaborations emerge (three- to four- years). Authors experience steady growth in co-author numbers four- to seven- years from first co-authored publication. After a period of rapid expansion, these collaborations coalesce into a smaller number of highly connected groups (eight- to ten- years). Most collaborations occur within the higher education sector and across multiple disciplines including medicine, social sciences and psychology. Male co-authors are disproportionately represented in what is a predominantly female profession.

The development of extended co-author networks, locally, internationally and across the higher education sector, enable authors to attain the marker of achievement required by universities and government funding bodies, namely sustained output of academic publications. Identified trends support the inclusion of investment in academic time and resources in higher education institutions strategic and operational plans to enable academic staff to develop interdisciplinary professional networks. In focussing this investment on gender equality, female academics will experience parity of opportunity in achieving their organisational and personal goals relating to professional academic writing. Medium-term investment may be required before the impact of that investment becomes apparent.

This is the first example of social network analysis used to determine characteristics of professional academic writing portfolios over time. Findings inform the type and range of investment required to facilitate academic staff writing activities, specifically those publishing in the area of General Nursing.

Many postdoctoral scholars are seeking professional learning and development (PLD) opportunities to prepare for diverse careers, roles and responsibilities. This paper aims to develop an evidence-informed framework for PLD of postdoctoral scholars that speaks to these changing career paths.

This paper used an integrated knowledge translation approach to synthesize and extend previous work on postdoctoral scholars’ PLD. The authors engaged in consultations with key stakeholders and synthesized findings from literature reviews, surveys and semi-structured interviews to create a framework for PLD.

The PLD framework consists of four major domains, namely, professional socialization; professional skills; academic development; and personal effectiveness. The 4 major domains are subdivided into 16 subdomains that represent the various skills and competencies that postdoctoral scholars can build throughout their postdoctoral fellowships.

The framework can be used to support postdoctoral scholars, postdoctoral supervisors and higher education institutions in developing high quality, evidence-informed PLD plans to meet the diverse career needs of postdoctoral scholars.

The purpose of this paper is to call into question the most longstanding pedagogical practices in academia while analyzing their potential to foster student creativity and innovation in the classroom. While some suggestions advanced in this paper may not have the same importance in other fields and disciplines, they are highly relevant in the applied, interdisciplinary, and very fast moving field of Library and Information Science (LIS).

Positioning creativity as a teachable skill and relying on the learner-centered pedagogy of Carl Rogers, the paper presents a model that can serve as a litmus test for the creative potential of graduate-level assignments in LIS programs. The model is called “Walls,” “Doors,” and “Fences” (WalDorF); these terms refer to specific statements in graduate assignment descriptions that are necessary (“Walls”); conducive to creative expression (“Doors”); or unjustifiably restrictive (“Fences”). The paper uses a sample assignment from a “Foundations of LIS” course to illustrate the model; it also provides several examples of the WalDorF model application in other LIS courses.

Using the WalDorF model, the paper revisits and challenges some of the most common pedagogical practices in graduate LIS teaching, including the prevalence of written papers as course assignments; the implications of equating “research” with an overview of secondary literature; the need for professors’ approvals of research topics; the meaning of the “quality of writing;” the imperative of “academic” writing as opposed to other types of writing; the word/page limit; the use of standardized reference styles; the class participation requirement; and the late assignment policies, among others.

The real change in education is foundational and goes beyond cosmetic improvements. If we want to develop learning experiences that tap into students’ creative potential, the very core of our approaches needs to be scrutinized and questioned, even the centuries-old staples of academic teaching. At the end of the day, we may decide that changing things is not in the best interests of learning. However, a complete critical analytical work must be done to convince and reassure ourselves that tried-and-true methods are the best way to go. The proposed WalDorF model presents one possible frame for critical revision.

The chapter argues that implementing a professional writing program in universities can help students build expertise, confidence, and a strong professional portfolio that can advance their future careers to greater heights. This is achieved through a curriculum directly connected to the industry of the students' disciplines, expert instructors providing extensive feedback, and tips to transform ideas and knowledge into professional writing pieces. Additionally, the chapter highlights the importance of students gaining a comprehensive understanding of communication, being aware of the benefits of professional writing, and having hands-on experience through active engagement in the learning process to improve their craft. The chapter emphasizes that transformative learning implemented through strong writing and communication skills are highly valued by all industries seeking job candidates.

Finally, the chapter provides a strategy for improving students' employability by implementing a professional writing program in universities, which is based on the understanding of the changing career demands and the importance of communication and writing skills in all industries seeking job candidates.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the benefits of a writing support programme in developing the skills and motivation of librarians to write for academic publication.

A brief review of the literature is presented. The model developed and implemented by this author is outlined. Findings from a survey of participants are discussed.

The formal programme commenced in 2007. The publication process takes time, particularly in the case of peer‐reviewed journals. This is exploratory work. It will take time to build up a body of information and a community of librarians writing for publication. Initial evidence indicates there is significant value to the programme.

The model is transferable and could help in building skills and confidence in academic writing. In addition academic writing could serve as a bridge between lecturing and library staff, addressing issues of common concern across the Academy.

This is the first formal writing support programme for librarians in Irish universities. Models exist in the USA. A similar model is used in the UK and Ireland to support lecturing staff writing for publication.

Academic library literature is noted for studying and analyzing the role of librarians’ informational services to users. Librarians typically recommend sources that are appropriate for locating topical or scholarly information, help develop contextual and conceptually appropriate search terms, and analyze user behavior and needs in order to customize services and collections, particularly in an online environment. Librarians increasingly assist users in making qualitative decisions about their topics and research strategies, and provide guidance on what kind of information and what avenues of research are appropriate, how to evaluate sources, and how to use them. A scan through library literature also reveals an ongoing concern that librarians sometimes suffer from an impostor syndrome, with articles devoted to the qualification needs of academic librarians (Clark, Vardeman, & Barba, 2014; Marcum, 2012). This chapter explores how librarians at a comprehensive academic institution feel about their disciplinary and functional knowledge and professional competence and authority in providing qualitative and contextual research advice. The underlying basis for this inquiry is the assumption that we are informed by the notion that research is a process of inquiry and scholarship is a conversation in which librarians play an important role. The study is based on a small number of hour-long interviews conducted in 2014–2015 with librarians working in several academic disciplinary areas, particularly professional education, social sciences, the arts, and the sciences. Although the population used was small and confined to one large academic institution, the interviews revealed librarians’ own understanding of the place of their expertise and authority within the disciplinary research process that may resonate on a broad professional level.

Studies in teacher research have seldom discussed the effects of writing publications and teachers’ views on it. This paper aims to examine how teachers in China regard the purpose of writing up research papers and its impact on their professional practice. It also investigates facilitating factors in preparing and writing publications.

This is a qualitative study which mainly analyses interview data gathered from 14 teachers, who have experience in writing publications, from three schools in Shanghai, China. Documentary analysis includes selected published journal papers and book chapters of the interviewees.

Findings show that teachers perceive producing publications as serving both an instrumental purpose of career advancement and a developmental purpose of enhancing their individual professional competency which in turn improves the quality of the teaching profession through knowledge transfer and knowledge transportation.

Contributing factors to help teachers to write include the provision of systematic training courses for teachers and the development of network and research partners.

Findings of this study help school leaders and teacher educators better their understanding of improving the quality of practice of teachers through equipping them with a “stance of inquiry”. Findings suggest ways to provide relevant support to enhance the writing capacity of teachers. More importantly, a revision of the existing teacher promotion system may make the practice of writing publications of more direct value to teachers’ daily practice.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the English for publication purpose practices of doctoral students in Iran. The overall objective was to explore their motives, hurdles and strategies in academic writing.

This case study draws on a narrative inquiry to explore nine science and engineering doctoral students’ perceptions of academic publication. The data were analyzed through a hybrid process of inductive and deductive thematic analysis.

The qualitative results showed three dominant themes, namely: motives for publication, hurdles to publication and strategies for dealing with these challenges were extracted. The main sources of motives were students’ desire to publish their works for their graduation, improve their resume, satiate the universities’ evaluation system, and finally share their knowledge worldwide. Their hurdles included: political reasons, language-related problems, center-periphery priorities and the lack of academic writing instruction. In order to overcome these hurdles, the participants employed some strategies in academic writing.

Due to qualitative nature of this study, only nine PhD students were recruited and therefore the research results are not intended to render generalizability. Besides, only narratives were employed to collect the required data. Future researchers can use surveys to collect more data.

The findings are discussed within English for academic purposes discourse and some recommendations are provided to alleviate the plights of non-native-English-speaking academic writers.

The methodology and the higher education context in which this paper was conducted are new to the literature.

The purpose of this paper is to describe how dominant social practices embedded in situated report‐writing activities in an automotive discourse community in South Africa causally shape component engineers' perceptions of literacy. The study explores how the dominant practices of supervisor feedback and report acceptance causally impact on effective report‐writing perceptions during report text production.

Critical ethnography is the preferred methodology as it explores cultural orientations of local practice contexts and incorporates multiple understandings to provide a holistic understanding of the complexity of writing practices. This study focuses on data collected during two interviews and a focus group discussion with four L2 component engineers as well as the questionnaires their two L1 supervisors completed.

The engineers tended to measure or associate literacy and effective writing standards with supervisor feedback practices. These feedback practices interacted causally with the meanings or associations, the participants gave to or associated with literacy and their report‐writing competency. As a consequence, literacy was often described in terms of correct wording or terminology, grammatical correctness, spelling, sentence structures or styles in reports as determined by their supervisors during feedback practices, rather than report content, structure or technical details.

The participants constructed literacy in terms of correct language, word and spelling use and focused on linguistic errors in their report writing. They tended to perceive rhetoric and engineering discourse as separate entities rather than rhetorically constructed contextual knowledge. Language problems were usually attributed to human being inefficiencies and L1 standards rather than the individual creation of knowledge.

This paper not only impacts causally on engineering workplace writing practices but on higher education and future report‐writing practices. Digital technologies and systems will increasingly impact on report‐writing practices, what constitutes contextual knowledge and acceptable literacies as varied and different audiences define acceptable writing practices.

The paper shows that on‐the‐job writing research is limited and research that has been done often focuses on criteria for good writing as defined by experts in the field. If all workplace writing‐practice research adopts this expert view, it offers no insight and understanding into what implicitly and explicitly guides writers. Writing‐practice research also needs to focus on the voices of writers so that the influence of human social behaviour on these practices can be understood.