{"title":"博士写作的障碍、促进因素和需求:系统回顾","authors":"Lina Calle-Arango, Natalia Ávila Reyes","doi":"10.1080/0158037X.2022.2026315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Writing is one of the main challenges doctoral students face in their process of becoming researchers. Nonetheless, institutional initiatives to support writing processes are relatively recent and not necessarily research-grounded. This systematic literature review aims to address this gap by answering the questions: What obstacles and facilitators in the writing process do doctoral students encounter in the areas of SS&H? And what clues do these offer about students’ needs for institutional support? To do so, we focus on empirical student-centred research. Systematizing the evidence may strengthen pedagogical decisions and programmatic orientations focused on the students’ experiences and writing processes. We analysed a total of 38 studies on these topics collected from mainstream databases and identified patterns of recurring results that illustrate obstacles and facilitators from which the needs arise. Negative self-perceptions and low self-regulation are among the main obstacles of the writing process, while shared writing experiences foster affective dimensions self-regulation, and improve familiarisation with the discursive community. Lastly, institutional spaces specifically dedicated to writing as well as sustained positive and constructive feedback emerged as needs.","PeriodicalId":46790,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Continuing Education","volume":"45 1","pages":"133 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Obstacles, facilitators, and needs in doctoral writing: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Lina Calle-Arango, Natalia Ávila Reyes\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0158037X.2022.2026315\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Writing is one of the main challenges doctoral students face in their process of becoming researchers. Nonetheless, institutional initiatives to support writing processes are relatively recent and not necessarily research-grounded. This systematic literature review aims to address this gap by answering the questions: What obstacles and facilitators in the writing process do doctoral students encounter in the areas of SS&H? And what clues do these offer about students’ needs for institutional support? To do so, we focus on empirical student-centred research. Systematizing the evidence may strengthen pedagogical decisions and programmatic orientations focused on the students’ experiences and writing processes. We analysed a total of 38 studies on these topics collected from mainstream databases and identified patterns of recurring results that illustrate obstacles and facilitators from which the needs arise. Negative self-perceptions and low self-regulation are among the main obstacles of the writing process, while shared writing experiences foster affective dimensions self-regulation, and improve familiarisation with the discursive community. Lastly, institutional spaces specifically dedicated to writing as well as sustained positive and constructive feedback emerged as needs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46790,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Continuing Education\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"133 - 151\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Continuing Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2022.2026315\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Continuing Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2022.2026315","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Obstacles, facilitators, and needs in doctoral writing: A systematic review
ABSTRACT Writing is one of the main challenges doctoral students face in their process of becoming researchers. Nonetheless, institutional initiatives to support writing processes are relatively recent and not necessarily research-grounded. This systematic literature review aims to address this gap by answering the questions: What obstacles and facilitators in the writing process do doctoral students encounter in the areas of SS&H? And what clues do these offer about students’ needs for institutional support? To do so, we focus on empirical student-centred research. Systematizing the evidence may strengthen pedagogical decisions and programmatic orientations focused on the students’ experiences and writing processes. We analysed a total of 38 studies on these topics collected from mainstream databases and identified patterns of recurring results that illustrate obstacles and facilitators from which the needs arise. Negative self-perceptions and low self-regulation are among the main obstacles of the writing process, while shared writing experiences foster affective dimensions self-regulation, and improve familiarisation with the discursive community. Lastly, institutional spaces specifically dedicated to writing as well as sustained positive and constructive feedback emerged as needs.
期刊介绍:
Studies in Continuing Education is a scholarly journal concerned with all aspects of continuing, professional and lifelong learning. It aims to be of special interest to those involved in: •continuing professional education •adults learning •staff development •training and development •human resource development