Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Crafting Writing: Clarity, Style and Voice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Doctoral Writing

Abstract

Skilled researchers develop their craft as writers beyond compliance with grammar. Their tools of trade include precision in word choice, logic in structure, clarity of style, and manipulation of syntax for accurately placed emphasis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition, culture, power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowden, D. (1999). The mythology of voice. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., Rozenberg, P., et al. (2018). Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university students. Studies in Higher Education, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buxton, J., Carter, S., & Sturm, S. (2011). Punc rocks: Foundation stones for precise punctuation (2nd ed.). Auckland, New Zealand: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, S. (2008). Examining the doctoral thesis: A discussion. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290802377208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, S., & Laurs, D. (Eds.). (2014). Developing generic support for doctoral students: Practice and pedagogy. London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1873). The origin of the species. Retrieved from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species_(1872).

  • Ede, L. (1992). Work in progress: A guide to writing and revising (2nd ed.). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eira, C. (2005, December). Obligatory intertextuality and proscribed plagiarism. Paper presented at the 2nd Asia-Pacific Educational Integrity Conference, Newcastle, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D., & Gruba, P. (2002). How to write a better thesis (2nd ed.). Carlton, VIC: Melbourne University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feak, C. B., & Swales, J. M. (2009). Telling a research story: Writing the literature review (Vol. 2 of the revised and expanded edition of English in today’s research world). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopen, G. G., & Swan, J. A. (1990). The science of scientific writing. American Scientist, 78(6), 550–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2014). ‘They say / I say’: The moves that matter in academic writing. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerin, C., & Green, I. (2012). Voice as a threshold concept in doctoral writing. In M. Kiley (Ed.), Narratives of transition: Perspectives of research leaders, educators & postgraduates (pp. 197–198). Retrieved from http://www.qpr.edu.au/Proceedings/QPR_Proceedings_2012.pdf.

  • Guerin, C., & Picard, M. (2012). Try it on: Voice, concordancing and text-matching in doctoral writing. International Journal of Educational Integrity, 8(2), 34–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helms-Park, R., & Stapleton, P. (2003). Questioning the importance of individualized voice in undergraduate L2 argumentative writing: An empirical study with pedagogical implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 245–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2001). Coming back to voice: The multiple voices and identities of mature multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1), 83–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivaniĉ, R., & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1), 3–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. (2013). Completing a PhD by publication: A review of Australian policy and implications for practice. Higher Education Research and Development, 32(3), 355–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jump, P. (2013, May 16). A plague of plagiarism at the heart of politics: Germany and Eastern Europe rocked by string of high-profile cases within their governments. Times Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2014). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision (2nd ed.). Oxon, UK: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, M., & Kumar, V. (2009). Recursion and noticing in written feedback. European Journal of Social Sciences, 12(1), 94–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockhart, J. C. (1997). Towards a theory of the configuration and management of export-dependent land-based value systems: The case of New Zealand. Doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/2229.

  • Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (2002). ‘It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize’: How experienced examiners assess research theses. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507022000011507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. London, UK: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Picard, M., & Guerin, C. (2011). ‘Be original, but not too original’: Developing academic voice through innovative use of text-matching and concordancing software. In C. Nygaard, N. Courtney, & C. Holtham (Eds.), Beyond transmission: Innovations in university teaching (pp. 221–234). Farringdon, UK: Libri.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (2014, September 26). Why academics stink at writing. The Chronicle of Higher Education: The Chronicle Review. Retrieved from http://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/why_academics_stink_at_writing.pdf.

  • Sharmini, S., Spronken-Smith, R., Golding, C., & Harland, T. (2015). Assessing the doctoral thesis when it includes publication. Assessment and Evaluation, in Higher Education, 40(1), 89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. New York, NY: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sword, H. (2007). The writer’s diet. Auckland, NZ: Pearson Education NZ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sword, H. (2009). Writing higher education differently: A manifesto on style. Studies in Higher Education, 34(3), 319–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sword, H. (2012). Stylish academic writing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sword, H. (2017). Air and light and time and space: How successful academics write. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, P. (2015). Bad academic writing—An easy target. Retrieved from https://patthomson.net/2015/12/14/bad-ademic-writing-an-easy-target/.

  • Thomson, P., & Kamler, B. (2013). Writing for peer reviewed journals: Strategies for getting published. London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trafford, V., & Leshem, S. (2002). Starting at the end to undertake doctoral research: Predictable questions as stepping stones. Higher Education Review, 34(4), 43–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Truss, L. (2003). Eats, shoots & leaves: The zero tolerance approach to punctuation. London, UK: Profile Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, C. G., & Llosa, L. (2008). Voice in high-stakes L1 academic writing assessment: Implications for L2 writing instruction. Assessing Writing, 13(3), 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Susan Carter

  2. University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Cally Guerin

  3. University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Claire Aitchison

Authors
  1. Susan Carter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cally Guerin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claire Aitchison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan Carter .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Carter, S., Guerin, C., Aitchison, C. (2020). Crafting Writing: Clarity, Style and Voice. In: Doctoral Writing. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1808-9_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1808-9_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-1807-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-1808-9

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation