博士写作:学习写作和跨文化反馈

IF 1.8 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
S. Carter, Qiyu Sun, Farrah Jabeen
{"title":"博士写作:学习写作和跨文化反馈","authors":"S. Carter, Qiyu Sun, Farrah Jabeen","doi":"10.1108/sgpe-07-2020-0054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis study aims to broaches several endemic challenges for academics who support doctoral writing: writers are emotionally protective of their own writing; writing a thesis in English as a second language is a challenging, complex task; and advising across cultures is delicate. Giving constructive feedback kindly, but with the rigour needed to raise writing quality can seem daunting. Addressing those issues, the authors offer a novel way of working with writing feedback across cultures.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe case study research team of two candidates and one supervisor stumbled onto an effective way of working across cultural and institutional difference. What began as advisory feedback on doctoral writing became an effective collaborative analysis of prose meaning-making. The authors reflected separately and collectively on how this happened, analysed reflections and this narrative inquiry approach led to theories of use to writing feedback practice.\n\n\nFindings\nThe authors cross between theory and praxis, showing that advisors and supervisors can create Bhabha’s post-colonial third space (a promising social space that sits between cultures, beyond hierarchies, where new ways of thinking can be collaboratively generated) as a working environment for international doctoral writing feedback. Within this zone, Brechtian alienation, a theory from theatre practice, is applied to prompt emotional detachment that enables focus on writing clearly in academic English.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nArguably the writing feedback session the authors described remains bound by the generic expectations of a western education system. The study is exegetical, humanities reading of practice, rather than a social science gathering of empirical data. Yet the humanities approach suits the point that a change of language, attitude and theory can give positive leverage with doctoral writing feedback.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe authors provide a novel practical method of supporting international doctoral candidates’ writing with feedback across cultures. It entails attracting the writers’ interest in theory and persuading them, via theory, to look objectively and freshly at their own writing. Also backed by theory, a theoretical cross-cultural space allows for discussion about differences and similarities. Detachment from proprietorial emotions and cross-cultural openness enables productive work amongst the mechanics of clear academic English text.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nUnderpinned by sociocultural and metacognitive approaches to learning, reflection from student and supervisor perspectives (the data), and oriented by theory, the authors propose another strategy for supporting doctoral writing across cultures. The authors demonstrate a third space approach for writing feedback across cultures, showing how to operationalise theory.\n","PeriodicalId":42038,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Doctoral writing: learning to write and give feedback across cultures\",\"authors\":\"S. Carter, Qiyu Sun, Farrah Jabeen\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/sgpe-07-2020-0054\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThis study aims to broaches several endemic challenges for academics who support doctoral writing: writers are emotionally protective of their own writing; writing a thesis in English as a second language is a challenging, complex task; and advising across cultures is delicate. Giving constructive feedback kindly, but with the rigour needed to raise writing quality can seem daunting. Addressing those issues, the authors offer a novel way of working with writing feedback across cultures.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThe case study research team of two candidates and one supervisor stumbled onto an effective way of working across cultural and institutional difference. What began as advisory feedback on doctoral writing became an effective collaborative analysis of prose meaning-making. The authors reflected separately and collectively on how this happened, analysed reflections and this narrative inquiry approach led to theories of use to writing feedback practice.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe authors cross between theory and praxis, showing that advisors and supervisors can create Bhabha’s post-colonial third space (a promising social space that sits between cultures, beyond hierarchies, where new ways of thinking can be collaboratively generated) as a working environment for international doctoral writing feedback. Within this zone, Brechtian alienation, a theory from theatre practice, is applied to prompt emotional detachment that enables focus on writing clearly in academic English.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nArguably the writing feedback session the authors described remains bound by the generic expectations of a western education system. The study is exegetical, humanities reading of practice, rather than a social science gathering of empirical data. Yet the humanities approach suits the point that a change of language, attitude and theory can give positive leverage with doctoral writing feedback.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nThe authors provide a novel practical method of supporting international doctoral candidates’ writing with feedback across cultures. It entails attracting the writers’ interest in theory and persuading them, via theory, to look objectively and freshly at their own writing. Also backed by theory, a theoretical cross-cultural space allows for discussion about differences and similarities. Detachment from proprietorial emotions and cross-cultural openness enables productive work amongst the mechanics of clear academic English text.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nUnderpinned by sociocultural and metacognitive approaches to learning, reflection from student and supervisor perspectives (the data), and oriented by theory, the authors propose another strategy for supporting doctoral writing across cultures. The authors demonstrate a third space approach for writing feedback across cultures, showing how to operationalise theory.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":42038,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-07-2020-0054\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"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 Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-07-2020-0054","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的本研究旨在为支持博士写作的学者提出几个普遍存在的挑战:作家在情感上保护自己的写作;用英语作为第二语言写论文是一项具有挑战性的复杂任务;跨文化的建议是微妙的。善意地提供建设性的反馈,但要严格提高写作质量,这似乎令人望而生畏。针对这些问题,作者提供了一种新颖的方式来处理跨文化的写作反馈。设计/方法论/方法由两名候选人和一名主管组成的案例研究团队偶然发现了一种有效的跨文化和制度差异的工作方式。最初是对博士写作的咨询反馈,现在变成了对散文意义形成的有效合作分析。作者分别和集体反思了这是如何发生的,分析了反思,这种叙事探究方法导致了写作反馈实践的使用理论。发现作者在理论和实践之间进行了交叉,表明顾问和导师可以创建Bhabha的后殖民主义第三空间(一个很有前途的社会空间,位于文化之间,超越等级制度,在这里可以合作产生新的思维方式),作为国际博士写作反馈的工作环境。在这一区域内,布莱希特异化理论,一种来自戏剧实践的理论,被应用于促进情感分离,使人们能够专注于用学术英语清晰地写作。研究局限性/含义可以说,作者描述的写作反馈会议仍然受到西方教育体系的普遍期望的约束。这项研究是对实践的训诫、人文解读,而不是对实证数据的社会科学收集。然而,人文学科的方法适合这样一个观点,即语言、态度和理论的改变可以对博士写作的反馈产生积极的影响。实践意义作者提供了一种新颖实用的方法,通过跨文化的反馈来支持国际博士生的写作。它需要吸引作家对理论的兴趣,并通过理论说服他们客观、新鲜地看待自己的写作。理论上的跨文化空间也有理论支持,可以讨论差异和相似之处。与所有权情感的分离和跨文化的开放使得在清晰的学术英语文本机制中进行富有成效的工作。原创性/价值在社会文化和元认知学习方法的支持下,从学生和导师的角度(数据)进行反思,并以理论为导向,作者提出了另一种支持跨文化博士写作的策略。作者展示了跨文化写作反馈的第三空间方法,展示了如何将理论付诸实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Doctoral writing: learning to write and give feedback across cultures
Purpose This study aims to broaches several endemic challenges for academics who support doctoral writing: writers are emotionally protective of their own writing; writing a thesis in English as a second language is a challenging, complex task; and advising across cultures is delicate. Giving constructive feedback kindly, but with the rigour needed to raise writing quality can seem daunting. Addressing those issues, the authors offer a novel way of working with writing feedback across cultures. Design/methodology/approach The case study research team of two candidates and one supervisor stumbled onto an effective way of working across cultural and institutional difference. What began as advisory feedback on doctoral writing became an effective collaborative analysis of prose meaning-making. The authors reflected separately and collectively on how this happened, analysed reflections and this narrative inquiry approach led to theories of use to writing feedback practice. Findings The authors cross between theory and praxis, showing that advisors and supervisors can create Bhabha’s post-colonial third space (a promising social space that sits between cultures, beyond hierarchies, where new ways of thinking can be collaboratively generated) as a working environment for international doctoral writing feedback. Within this zone, Brechtian alienation, a theory from theatre practice, is applied to prompt emotional detachment that enables focus on writing clearly in academic English. Research limitations/implications Arguably the writing feedback session the authors described remains bound by the generic expectations of a western education system. The study is exegetical, humanities reading of practice, rather than a social science gathering of empirical data. Yet the humanities approach suits the point that a change of language, attitude and theory can give positive leverage with doctoral writing feedback. Practical implications The authors provide a novel practical method of supporting international doctoral candidates’ writing with feedback across cultures. It entails attracting the writers’ interest in theory and persuading them, via theory, to look objectively and freshly at their own writing. Also backed by theory, a theoretical cross-cultural space allows for discussion about differences and similarities. Detachment from proprietorial emotions and cross-cultural openness enables productive work amongst the mechanics of clear academic English text. Originality/value Underpinned by sociocultural and metacognitive approaches to learning, reflection from student and supervisor perspectives (the data), and oriented by theory, the authors propose another strategy for supporting doctoral writing across cultures. The authors demonstrate a third space approach for writing feedback across cultures, showing how to operationalise theory.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
17
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信