Power effects, normalising advice and evolving knowledge of doctoral writing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31468/dwr.989Keywords:
duoethnography, advice, power, knowledge, normalisation, academic literaciesAbstract
Prescriptive advice about doctoral writing often fails to recognise the complexities of the doctoral journey. Linguistic and cultural backgrounds are negated where advice about writing converges around a norm. In this paper, we explore the role of ‘advice’ in our growth as thesis writers by examining our literacy history and tensions we faced while writing our theses. We pursue a duoethnographic process (Sawyer & Norris, 2013), a process that facilitates the construction and reconstruction of perspectives. From our differing backgrounds, we experienced discourses of ‘advice’ in alternative ways. We identify opposing 'advice' trends which, in turn, provided a space for our agency. Inspired by Foucault’s (1977) ‘power/knowledge’ we think of past experiences and encounters along our doctoral journey as power effects which shaped our views on advice. We conclude by outlining how insights for our teacher-selves inform how we speak about impacts and advice with doctoral students.
References
Aitchison, C., & Guerin, C. (Eds.). (2014). Writing groups for doctoral education and beyond: Innovations in practice and theory. Routledge.
Blommaert, J., & Horner, B. (2017). Mobility and academic literacies: An epistolary conversation. London Review of Education, 15(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.15.1.02
Cheng, A. (2018). Genre and graduate-level research writing. The University of Michigan.
Cotterall, S. (2011). Doctoral students writing: Where's the pedagogy? Teaching in Higher Education, 16(4), 413-425. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.560381
Cotterall, S. (2013). More than just a brain: Emotions and the doctoral experience. Higher Education Research and Development, 32(2), 174-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.680017
Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2022). Multilingualism in academic writing for publication: Putting English in its place. Language Teaching, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444822000040
Flowerdew, J. (2011). Reconciling contrasting approaches to genre analysis: The whole can equal more than the sum of the parts. In D., Belcher, A. M., John, & B. Paltridge (Eds). New directions in English for specific purposes research. University of Michigan Press. pp.119-144.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. In L. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. Hutton, (Eds.), Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. University of Massachusetts Press.
Foucault, M. (1994). Des Traveaux. In Dits et ecrits. Gallimard.
Foucault, M. (2004). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hemmings, C. (2012) Affective solidarity: Feminist reflexivity and political transformation. Feminist Theory 13(2): 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700112442643
Holland, D., Lachiocotte, W., Skinner, D. and Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Harvard University Press.
Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385-387. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl030
Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. John Benjamins.
Jenkin, J. (2014). English as a lingua franca in the international university: The politics of academic English language policy. Routledge.
Kachru, B. B. (1990). World Englishes and applied linguistics. World Englishes, 9(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1990.tb00683.x
Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2008). The failure of dissertation advice books: Toward alternative pedagogies for doctoral writing. Educational Researcher, 37(8), 507-514. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X08327390
Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2014). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. Routledge.
Kendall, G., & Wickham, G. (1999). Using Foucault’s methods. Sage Publications
Kim, M., & Belcher, D. D. (2018). Building genre knowledge in second language writers during study abroad in higher education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 56-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.06.006
Krammer, D., & Mangiardi, R. (2012). The hidden curriculum of schooling: A duoethnographic exploration of what schools teach us about schooling. In J. Norris, R.D. Sawyer & D. Lund (Eds.), Duoethnography: Dialogic methods for social, health, and educational research, pp. 41-70. Routledge
Kubota, R., & Takeda, Y. (2021). Language‐in‐education policies in Japan versus transnational workers’ Voices: Two faces of neoliberal communication competence. TESOL Quarterly, 55(2), 458-485. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.613
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Leach, E. (2021). The Fractured “I”: An Autoethnographic account of a part-time doctoral student’s experience with scholarly identity formation. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(3–4), 381–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800420918895
Lillis, T., & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 5-32. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v4i1.5
Lynch, K. (2012). On the market: Neoliberalism and new managerialism in Irish education. Social Justice Series, 2(5), 88-102.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370802439870
Morrissey, J. (2015). Regimes of performance practices of the normalised self in the neoliberal university. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36(4), 614-634. https://doi:10.1080/01425692.2013.838515
Norris, J., & Sawyer, R. D. (2012). Toward a dialogic methodology. In J. Norris, R.D. Sawyer & D. Lund (Eds.), Duoethnography: Dialogic methods for social, health, and educational research, pp. 9-39. Routledge.
Oswald, A. G., Bussey, S., Thompson, M., & Ortega-Williams, A. (2022). Disrupting hegemony in social work doctoral education and research: Using autoethnography to uncover possibilities for radical transformation. Qualitative Social Work, 21(1), 112-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325020973342
Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2007). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. Routledge.
Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. Routledge.
Sawyer, R. D., & Norris, J. (2013). Duoethnography: Understanding qualitative research. Oxford University Press.
Snipes, J. T., & LePeau, L. A. (2017). Becoming a scholar: A duoethnography of transformative learning spaces. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(6), 576-595. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1269972
Starke-Meyerring, D. (2011). The paradox of writing in doctoral education: Student experiences. In L. McAlpine, & C. Amundsen (Eds.), Doctoral education: Research-based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors and administrators (pp. 75-95). Springer.
Starke-Meyerring, D., Paré, A., Sun, K. Y., & El-Bezre, N. (2014). Probing normalized institutional discourses about writing: The case of the doctoral thesis. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 8(2), A13–A27.
Tapia, C., & Stewart, N. (2022). Doctoral students’ collaborative practices in developing writer identities. Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, 32, 237-261. https://doi.org/10.31468/dwr.929
Tardy, C. M. (2009). Building genre knowledge. Parlor Press.
Tardy, C. M. (2016). Beyond convention: Genre innovation in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
Tardy, C. M., Sommer-Farias, B., & Gevers, J. (2020). Teaching and researching genre knowledge: Toward an enhanced theoretical framework. Written Communication, 37(3), 287-321.https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741088320916554
Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment. In R. Van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 338-354). Blackwell.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Kevin Gormley, Naoko Mochizuki
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
If this article is selected for publication in Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, the work shall be published electronically under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA 4.0). This license allows users to adapt and build upon the published work, but requires them to attribute the original publication and license their derivative works under the same terms. There is no fee required for submission or publication. Authors retain unrestricted copyright and all publishing rights, and are permitted to deposit all versions of their paper in an institutional or subject repository.
