Supporting doctoral writing at an Australian university

  • Sue Starfield University of New South Wales
Keywords: doctoral writing, writing centres, academic writing, doctoral assessed writing

Abstract

In Australian universities, doctoral research results in the production of a thesis of between 80,000–100,000 words produced by the student under the guidance of a supervisor. There is no compulsory coursework component. Recent years have seen an increase in the range of activities provided at research-intensive universities to support doctoral writing. These activities are often aimed at both native and non-native speakers of English and range from compulsory or optional courses to workshops, writing groups and boot-camps. This article discusses the approach taken to supporting doctoral writing via an analysis of the support provided through the Learning Centre at UNSW Australia. The article discusses the rationale for the approach taken, describes the programmes on offer and considers the challenges facing a small centrally-located unit that provides writing support at a large Australian university.

Author Biography

Sue Starfield, University of New South Wales

Sue Starfield is Professor in the School of Education, and the Director of the Learning Centre at the University of New South Wales, Australia.

References

Aitchison, C. and Guerin, C. (Eds.) (2014). Writing groups for doctoral education and beyond: Innovations in practice and theory. London: Routledge.

Aitchison, C. and Lee, A. (2006). Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11 (3): 265-278. Annual Report UNSW Australia (2013). http://annualreport.unsw.edu.au/sites/all/files/file_link_year_content_file/AR_Final_120514_med_spreads.pdf Retrieved 2 June 2015.

Berkenkotter, C. and Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition, culture, power. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Cafarella, R. S. and Barnett, M. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25: 39-52.

Carter, S. and Laurs, D. (Eds.) (2014). Developing generic support for doctoral candidates: Practice and pedagogy. Oxford: Routledge.

Johns, A. M. and Swales, J. M. (2002). Literacy and disciplinary practices: opening and closing perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1: 13–28.

Mewburn, I., Osborne, L. and Caldwell, G. (2014). Shut up and write: Some surprising uses of cafés and crowds in doctoral writing. In C. Aitchison and C. Guerin (Eds.), Writing groups for doctoral education and beyond: Innovations in practice and theory (pp. 399-425). Oxford: Routledge.

McAlpine, L. and Amundsen, C. (2011). To be or not to be?: The challenges of learning academic work. In L. McAlpine and C. Amundsen (Eds.), Doctoral education: Research-based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors and administrators (pp.1-13). Dordrecht: Springer.

Murray, R. (2015). Writing in Social Spaces: A social processes approach to academic writing. London: Routledge.

Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A Method of Inquiry. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd Edition) (pp. 923-949). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In E. Ventola and A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 45-58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Published
2016-05-23
How to Cite
Starfield, S. (2016). Supporting doctoral writing at an Australian university. Writing & Pedagogy, 8(1), 177-198. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v8i1.27632
Section
Reflections on Practice