Publishing Pedagogies for the Doctorate and Beyond

Aitchison, Claire; Kamler, Barbara; Lee, Alison

doi:10.4324/9780203860960

Cited by 108 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Australia, the site of the research reported in this paper, the overseer and regulator of quality is currently The Australian Quality Agency (AUQA), soon to be replaced by The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) -anecdotally and threateningly described as "AUQA with teeth". Similar regulatory bodies exist in the wider Asia Pacific region (AUQA, 2006), the UK, and in Europe (Aitchison et al, 2010).…”

Section: Becoming a Subject Who Writesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Becoming an ‘authorised’ postgraduate research writer

James

2012

Innovations in Education and Teaching International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the context of postgraduate research education and training in the higher education sector, drafting might be understood as "not quite the final product" produced by the student who is "not yet the final product" of the university. In this paper, I turn this assumption "off centre" to argue instead that writing and subjectivity are mutually constitutive. The execution of competent writing is, I will suggest, the effect of the repeated performance of a particular academic subjectivity, instantiated in text, over time. . The interconnected concepts of the social subject and the relational subject are central to the work of this paper and I draw on Judith Butler"s work on peformativity to rethink the relationship between writing and academic subjectivity. Butler"s subject is an unstable subject rather than a fixed identity category, formed in and through discourse and language.Extrapolating from her work to the context of higher education research writing pedagogy, my task in this paper is to exemplify some of what I will call the intersecting vectors; i.e., the limitations, exclusions, foreclosures and improvisations that work together in complex often unpredictable ways in the production of what and who is recognisable as an intelligible text and a competent research writer.

show abstract

Section: Becoming a Subject Who Writesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Becoming an ‘authorised’ postgraduate research writer

James

2012

Innovations in Education and Teaching International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such a comparison would be valuable in the current context of growing pressure on doctoral students to publish during candidature [2,21], and to complete their PhD in a shorter time frame [22].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The university recommends PhD students make their thesis visible if they do not intend to publish, in part or full, with a commercial publisher or do not intend to commercialize any aspect of the thesis. However, the University has the right to restrict access to the thesis that was initially made visible [22]. This repository was chosen as a representative repository of biomedical theses for several reasons: (1) contained traditional (TT) and publication-based (PBT) theses [23]; (2) it presented clear labels on PhD type or thesis format; (3) it offered a sufficiently homogenous collection of free full-text theses; (4) it provided complete metadata records; (5) theses followed the requirements issued from a single institution, the requirements being very similar for the PhD with traditional format, PhD with alternative format, and PhD by Published Work.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge Production in Two Types of Medical PhD Routes—What’s to Gain?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Purpose: To assess the assumption that differences exist between the traditional and publication-based PhD routes in terms of the thesis' length and the scientific publications originating from it. Method: A retrospective comparative study on medical PhD theses offered by an online repository was performed. All free full-text medical PhD theses defended at United Kingdom institutions between 2003 and 2015 were analyzed and assigned to the traditional (TT) or publication based thesis (PBT) group. Several characteristics of theses and thesis-related articles were collected and analyzed. The thesis-related articles were investigated regarding quantity and visibility (citations, impact factor, and journal rank). Results: The theses length proved similar in PBT and TT group. PBT group included significantly more studies than TT group (mean 4.44 vs. 2.67) also reflected in significantly more thesis-related articles. The percentage of articles listed in Web of Science and published in a journal with impact factor proved significantly lower in TT compared with PBT group. On the contrary, article citations were significantly higher for TT. Both groups published similarly in high-ranked journals (Q1 or Q2). Conclusion: The research productivity originating from the PBT group was, as expected, significantly larger but not significantly more visible than those from TT group.

show abstract

“…The growth in popularity of the thesis-by-publication is further testament to these pressures [1]. Yet most doctoral programmes provide little in the way of pedagogical support for students to meet these demands for greater output [2,3]. Having research published, which is often portrayed as "commonsensical by experienced scholars" [4], is obscure and perplexing for many graduate students.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic Publishing: Making the Implicit Explicit

Badenhorst

2016

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For doctoral students, publishing in peer-reviewed journals is a task many face with anxiety and trepidation. The world of publishing, from choosing a journal, negotiating with editors and navigating reviewers' responses is a bewildering place. Looking in from the outside, it seems that successful and productive academic writers have knowledge that is inaccessible to novice scholars. While there is a growing literature on writing for scholarly publication, many of these publications promote writing and publishing as a straightforward activity that anyone can achieve if they follow the rules. We argue that the specific and situated contexts in which academic writers negotiate publishing practices is more complicated and messy. In this paper, we attempt to make explicit our publishing processes to highlight the complex nature of publishing. We use autoethnographic narratives to provide discussion points and insights into the challenges of publishing peer reviewed articles. One narrative is by a doctoral student at the beginning of her publishing career, who expresses her desires, concerns and anxieties about writing for publication. The other narrative focuses on the publishing practices of a more experienced academic writer. Both are international scholars working in the Canadian context. The purpose of this paper is to explore academic publishing through the juxtaposition of these two narratives to make explicit some of the more implicit processes. Four themes emerge from these narratives. To publish successfully, academic writers need: (1) to be discourse analysts; (2) to have a critical competence; (3) to have writing fluency; and (4) to be emotionally intelligent.

show abstract

Publishing Pedagogies for the Doctorate and Beyond

Cited by 108 publications

References 0 publications

Becoming an ‘authorised’ postgraduate research writer

Becoming an ‘authorised’ postgraduate research writer

Knowledge Production in Two Types of Medical PhD Routes—What’s to Gain?

Academic Publishing: Making the Implicit Explicit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About