The Paradox of Writing in Doctoral Education: Student Experiences

Chapter

Abstract

Drawing on interviews with doctoral students from different disciplines in different years of their doctoral studies, this chapter examines student experiences with writing during their studies. As the chapter shows, what surfaces in these experiences is a paradox of writing: On the one hand, the discursive knowledge-making practices research cultures develop over generations to accomplish their knowledge work become normalized, invisible, and appear universal to long-term members of research cultures. On the other hand, for newcomers, these very practices constitute new territory and a vital site of inquiry into how knowledge and researcher identities are produced and negotiated in these research cultures. Left unaddressed, the paradox proves highly consequential for doctoral student learning as students encounter supervisor perceptions of writing as “common sense”, a universal skill, and therefore as a non-question. Accordingly, for doctoral students, writing as a vital site of learning to participate in disciplinary knowledge-making practices is lost, with students disoriented, afraid to ask questions about the very knowledge-making practices in which they are to participate, and left without opportunities to actively negotiate complex identity struggles involved in that participation. The chapter concludes by proposing a systemic approach to writing development in doctoral education that places rigorous research-based inquiry into the ways in which writing enables and constrains the production of knowledge, researcher identity, and disciplinarity at the heart of doctoral education.

Keywords

Knowledge Production Doctoral Student Transformative Nature Roulette Wheel Research Culture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aitchison, C., & Lee, A. (2006). Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aitchison, C., Kamler, B., & Lee, A. (Eds.). (2010). Publishing pedagogies for the doctorate and beyond. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Artemeva, N. (2008). Toward a unified social theory of genre learning. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(2), 160–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Artemeva, N., & Freedman, A. (Eds.). (2005). Rhetorical genre studies and beyond. Winnipeg: Inkshed.Google Scholar
  5. Bawarshi, A. S. (2003). Genre and the invention of the writer: Reconsidering the place of invention in composition (p. 207). Logan: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy. West Lafayette: Parlor Press and Fort Collins: The WAC Clearinghouse. (http://wac.colostate.edu/).Google Scholar
  7. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bazerman, C., & Prior, P. (2005). Genre, disciplinarity, interdisciplinarity. In J. Green, R. Beach, M. Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research (2nd ed., pp. 133–178). Cresskill: Hampton.Google Scholar
  9. Bazerman, C., Bonini, A., & Figueiredo, D. (Eds.). (2009). Genre in a changing world. West Lafayette: Parlor Press and Fort Collins: The WAC Clearinghouse. (http://wac.colostate.edu/).Google Scholar
  10. Biagoli, M. (2002). From book censorship to academic peer review. Emergences, 12, 11–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blakeslee, A. (2001). Interacting with audiences: Social influences on the production of scientific writing. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Casanave, C. P., & Li, X. (Eds.). (2008). Learning the literacy practices of graduate school: Insiders’ reflections on academic enculturation. Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  13. Coe, R., Lingard, L., & Teslenko, T. (Eds.). (2002). The rhetoric and ideology of genre. Cresskill: Hampton.Google Scholar
  14. Devitt, A. J. (2004). Writing genres. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dias, P., & Paré, A. (Eds.). (2000). Transitions: Writing in academic and workplace settings. Cresskill: Hampton.Google Scholar
  16. Dias, P., Freedman, A., Medway, P., & Paré, A. (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in academic and workplace contexts. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2007). Language re-use among Chinese apprentice scientists writing for publication. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 440–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Green, B. (2005). Unfinished business: Subjectivity and supervision. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(2), 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hasrati, M., & Street, B. (2009). PhD topic arrangement in ‘D’iscourse communities of engineers and social sciences/humanities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(1), 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  22. Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2008). The failure of dissertation advice books: Towards alternative pedagogies for doctoral writing. Educational Researcher, 37, 507–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Larcombe, W., McCosker, A., & O’Loughlin, K. (2007). Supporting education PhD and EdD students to become confident academic writers: An evaluation of thesis writers’ circles. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 4(1), 54–63.Google Scholar
  25. Lee, A., & Aitchison, C. (2009). Writing for the doctorate and beyond. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.), Changing practices of doctoral education (pp. 87–99). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Lee, A., & Boud, D. (2003). Writing groups, change, and academic identity: Research development as local practices. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, A., & Kamler, B. (2008). Bringing pedagogy to doctoral publishing. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(5), 511–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maher, D., Seaton, L., McMullen, C., Fitzgerald, T., Otsuji, E., & Lee, A. (2008). Becoming and being writers: The experiences of doctoral students in writing groups. Studies in Continuing Education, 30(3), 263–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller, C. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Paré, A. (2002). Genre and identity: Individuals, institutions, and ideology. In R. Coe, L. Lingard, & T. Teslenko (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre (pp. 57–71). Cresskill: Hampton.Google Scholar
  32. Paré, A., Starke-Meyerring, D., & McAlpine, L. (2009). The dissertation as a multi-genre: Many readers, many readings. In C. Bazerman, D. Figueiredo, & A. Bonini, (Eds.), Genre in a changing world (pp. 179–193). West Lafayette: Parlor and Fort Collins: The WAC Clearinghouse. (http://wac.colostate.edu/).Google Scholar
  33. Paré, A., Starke-Meyerring, D., & McAlpine, L. (2011). Knowledge and identity work in the supervision of doctoral student writing: Shaping rhetorical subjects. In D. Starke-Meyerring, et al. (Eds.), Writing (in) knowledge societies. West Lafayette: Parlor Press and Fort Collins: The WAC Clearinghouse. (http://wac.colostate.edu/).
  34. Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Rose, M. (1985). The language of exclusion: Writing instruction at the university. College English, 47(4), 341–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rose, M., & McClafferty, K. A. (2001). A call for the teaching of writing in graduate education. Educational Researcher, 30(2), 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schryer, C. F. (1993). Records as genre. Written Communication, 10, 200–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simpson, S., & Matsuda, P. K. (2008). Mentoring as a long-term relationship: Situated learning in a doctoral program. In C. P. Casanave & X. Li (Eds.), Learning the literacy practices of graduate school: Insiders’ reflections on academic enculturation (pp. 90–104). Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  39. Starke-Meyerring, D., Paré, A., Artemeva, N., Horne, M., & Yousoubova, L. (Eds.). (2011). Writing (in) knowledge societies. West Lafayette: Parlor and Fort Collins: The WAC Clearinghouse. (http://wac.colostate.edu/).
  40. Tardy, C. (2009). Building genre knowledge. West Lafayette: Parlor.Google Scholar
  41. Turner, J. (2003). Academic literacies in post-colonial times: Hegemonic norms and transcultural possibilities. Language and Intercultural Communication, 3(3), 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Integrated Studies in EducationMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations